I'll be honest, I'm walking into this one as the underdog. The other side has a surface-level point: Islam shares stories and figures with Judaism and Christianity. But imagine someone saying a novel is worthless because it echoes older myths. Influence isn't theft, and it definitely isn't proof of falsehood. Religions grow in conversation with the cultures around them; that's normal, not damning.
The second claim is the bigger leap. Calling a whole faith "morally wrong on its own" requires more than pointing at origins. You'd have to show its core moral teaching is uniquely bad. But when you look at charity, honesty, care for the vulnerable, and justice, Islam isn't some outlier. The other side is really arguing guilt by association and selective examples. Similarity to older religions proves history, not moral corruption. That's why I'm against the motion.