Help me automate conflict resolution and cost-benefit analysis for this statement: 

Governor Mitt Romney has said that we must not allow Jihadist to replace all modern Islamic states with a worldwide caliphate. What do you think?

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

1. Clarify Positions

1. Jihadist should not view obtaining control of government as a goal. 
2. People should live their religions privately.
3. State sponsored religions are not good.  You can't prove how devout you are when you live in a state sponsored religion. People will know that you are not living your religion because of choice, you are doing it because the government is forcing you.
4. People should stop trying to change borders. In free societies, if you want to go visit a sacred shrine, you just get a travel visa. Your ancestors' bones might be buried in a land, but they weren't always there. They moved there from somewhere else.
5. Religious people should not set up theocracies.
6. Religious people should not try to re-take what they perceive to be their homeland.
7. Religious people should look to their reward in the next life. 
8. We should not allow people to change borders. Mexico should not take Texas back. America should not take Panama back. Russia should no re-create the Soviet Union. Iraq should not break into 3 different countries. China should not take Taiwan back. India and Pakistan should stop fighting over Kashmir. America should not take over any more territory. Russia should stop trying to claim the North pole. For each of these conflicts, thousands of people would have to die, in order for one side to be completely happy. Countries should stop trying to change their borders, and just deal with the problems they already have. Only countries that have a free press, freedom of speech, and other human rights, should be allowed to take over failed states, and expand their territory. Dictatorial and repressive regimes, that would kill those whom they conquer, or have a history of mistreating their own citizens, should not be allowed to expand. Countries that have a significant number of political prisoners, who did not advocate violence, should not be allowed to expand. We must not allow violent people who use suicide tactics, like Osama Bin Laden expand his influence in Afghanistan, Africa, Pakistan, or any other country.
9. Religions should prove their superiority through the lives of their adherents, not through force or control of government.
1. The best way for a religion to prove how superior they are is to live better lives than anyone else.
2. Your willingness to commit suicide for your religion indicates that you view your religion incorrectly.  
3. A life well lived is the best revenge. 
10. Willingness to commit suicide for one's religion indicates an incorrect view of that religion.
11. People should live their religions privately and not seek to impose them on others through the state.
12. State-sponsored religions are problematic because they remove the element of choice in religious observance.
13. People should not attempt to change borders based on religious or ancestral claims.
14. Religious people should focus on their reward in the next life rather than earthly power.
15. Only countries with a free press, freedom of speech, and respect for human rights should be allowed to expand their territory or influence.

Reasons to disagree

Exit question: What should we do to stop the Jihadist?

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

2. Identify Interests

Interests of those who agree:

1. Promoting religious freedom and tolerance
2. Protecting the sovereignty and stability of existing nation-states
3. Preventing the spread of extremist ideologies and violence

Interests of those who disagree:

Shared interests:

1. Achieving peace and stability in the world
2. Protecting human rights and freedom of belief
3. Fostering understanding and dialogue between different religious and cultural groups

3. Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of the Belief

1. Analysis of the compatibility of a caliphate with modern principles of democracy, human rights, and religious freedom
2. Assessment of the potential impact of a caliphate on global peace and stability

4. Analyze Underlying Issues and Root Causes

1. Historical tensions and conflicts between Western powers and the Islamic world
2. The role of religion in politics and the debate over the separation of church and state
3. The impact of globalization and modernization on traditional Islamic societies

5. Identify Unstated Assumptions

1. Assuming that all those who seek a caliphate are extremists or "Jihadists"
2. Assuming that a caliphate would necessarily be oppressive or violent
3. Assuming that opposing a caliphate is the same as opposing Islamic self-determination

6. Propose Top-rated Solutions

1. Foster dialogue and understanding between Western and Islamic leaders to address concerns and find common ground
2. Support democratic reforms and human rights in Islamic countries to reduce the appeal of extremist ideologies
3. Work with moderate Islamic leaders to promote a vision of Islam that is compatible with modern values and institutions

7. Conduct Cost-Benefit Analysis

Potential Costs of Agreeing:

• Diplomatic: Strained relations with Islamic countries that may perceive opposition to a caliphate as an attack on their religion (Moderate likelihood, High impact)
• Social: Reinforcing negative stereotypes about Islam and Muslims (Moderate likelihood, Moderate impact)

Potential Benefits of Agreeing:

• Security: Reducing the threat of extremist violence and instability (Moderate likelihood, High impact)
• Political: Protecting the sovereignty and democratic institutions of existing nation-states (High likelihood, High impact)

Potential Costs of Disagreeing:

• Security: Increased risk of extremist violence and instability if a caliphate is established (Low likelihood, High impact)
• Social: Allowing the spread of an ideology that may be oppressive to women, minorities, and non-Muslims (Moderate likelihood, High impact)

Potential Benefits of Disagreeing:

• Diplomatic: Improved relations with Islamic countries that may appreciate support for their religious and political goals (Low likelihood, Moderate impact)
• Ideological: Demonstrating respect for Islamic self-determination and religious freedom (Moderate likelihood, Low impact)

8. Identify Key Resources

Best Supporting Evidence (Agreeing):

• Examples of extremist groups that use violence and oppression to pursue a caliphate
• Analysis of the incompatibility of a caliphate with democratic values and human rights

Best Weakening Evidence (Disagreeing):

• Examples of moderate Islamic movements that seek political change through peaceful means
• Arguments for the religious and historical legitimacy of a caliphate

Most Credible Supporters (Agreeing):

• Moderate Muslim leaders who oppose extremism and support democratic values
• Scholars of Islamic history and politics who warn of the dangers of a caliphate

Most Credible Opposers (Disagreeing):

• Muslim religious leaders who believe a caliphate is a legitimate Islamic goal
• Scholars who argue for the compatibility of Islam with democracy and human rights

9. Analyze Values and Ethics

Values and Ethics of those who agree:

• Valuing individual freedom and choice in matters of religion
• Promoting peace, stability, and respect for human rights
• Rejecting the use of violence and coercion to impose religious beliefs

Values and Ethics of those who disagree:

• Valuing the unity and self-determination of the global Muslim community
• Promoting the establishment of Islamic political institutions
• Defending the right of Muslims to pursue their religious goals

10. Review Supporting Media

Supporting the Statement:

• Documentaries or news reports on extremist groups seeking to establish a caliphate through violence
• Books or articles analyzing the incompatibility of a caliphate with modern democratic values

Opposing the Statement:

• Interviews with Muslim leaders who argue for the legitimacy and benefits of a caliphate
• Historical accounts of the achievements and stability of past caliphates

11. Explore Alternative Framings

• "We must work with moderate Muslim leaders to promote a vision of Islam that is compatible with democracy, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, while rejecting the extremist ideology of those who seek to impose a caliphate through violence."
• Equivalency score: Moderate
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: High
• % strength: High
• % specificity: High
• "While respecting the right of Muslims to pursue their religious and political goals, we must oppose any attempts to establish a caliphate that would undermine the sovereignty, stability, and democratic institutions of existing nation-states."
• Equivalency score: High
• Topic equivalency score: High
• % positivity: Moderate
• % strength: Moderate
• % specificity: Moderate