Instigator / Con
9
1702
rating
574
debates
67.86%
won
Topic
#471
Islam is a religion of peace. (I am against)
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
0
2
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Moeology
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
11
1511
rating
3
debates
50.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Con
#1
I am free to follow any structure other than 'new points in last round' which is a universally frowned-upon debate structure. I will supply a lot more proof and elaboration, angled against my opponent in R2.
Islam is not a religion of peace.
- The very basis of the religion's hereditary concept is that you can and morally are obligated to convert into it, regardless of bloodline, but that all Arabs and offspring of Muslim parent(s) can and should convert ASAP, regardless of their own belief as well as the beliefs of their other ancestors and family members. This contradictory concept enables the religion, much like Christianity, to have a 'born into it by heritage and yet all who are not born into it can and should join it and force their children and spouses into it' concept that enables it to spread aggressively, not passively.
- The religion began as a warlike-religion. The Christian-run Crusades were justified as revenge against the Ottomans and other things, not actual aggressive justification in spite of what they were. The Muslims have, from start to now, embraced the sword as a logo of their means of spreading and have embraced 'empire' as what any and all Sharia Nations are to be categorised as.
- The religion itself, ignoring culture, still is warlike. There is no single Qur'an verse implying peace is the goal whereas all verses imply hatred to non-Muslims and even MORE HATRED to people who pose as Muslim who aren't 'pure' or 'real'. Which is why ISIS and Al Qaeda were so able to justify their regimes and outlooks from intuitive interpretation about how to go about acting on the Qur'an's teachings.
- It is the only religion to have legal backing out of international fear consistently in both a UN sense and local-nations uniting sense from justifying its violent outbursts and death threats to a Danish cartoonist to their attacks against Charlie Hebdo magazine. They consistently operate legally via the following paradigm:
- When it's mockery and/or violence against Muslims, it's wrong and disgusting abuse verbally.
- When it's the same back, it's okay because being Muslim is something you're born into.
- When you're not born into it and they try and convert you into it and do so by hate-speeching against the very governments who are so liberal and caring towards their culture and heritage, that's all good unless it's Terrorism.
The entire religion is founded on brutal hypocrisy. I will go ahead and prove this in later rounds. I will angle the proof to both prove my points here true and opponent's points wrong at the same time. Burden of Proof is initially on Pro here so I'll sit back and see what and how he proves his case.
Pro
#2
The Resolution
The resolution of this debate is that “Islam is a religion of peace”. Before we can debate the proposition, we have to understand what the terms mean and since Con did not provide any definitions, I will.
Islam - the religious faith of Muslims including belief in Allah as the sole deity and in Muhammad as his prophet (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Islam)
Religion - a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)
Peace - harmony in personal relations (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peace)
The Burden of Proof
The Law of Excluded Middle tells us that either a proposition or its negation are true. The proposition that is being debate here is “Islam is a religion of peace” while its negation would be “Islam is not a religion of peace”. At least one of those claims has to be true. Of course, you could become an agnostic about which of the two positions is true but that is merely an epistemic position about your own beliefs rather than claims about the truth/falsity values of the propositions themselves.
When Con decided to create this debate, he decided to take a position of negation on the proposition “Islam is a religion of peace” while I took the affirmative position. Since Con is claiming that the proposition “Islam is a religion of peace” is false and is even ready to argue against it, then by the Law of Excluded Middle, Con believes the negation “Islam is not a religion of peace” to be true. The only other option for Con would be to believe that both “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Islam is not a religion of peace” are false; but that would violate the Law of Excluded Middle because either a proposition or its negation must be true. Moreover, Con has explicitly stated in the resolution that he is against the claim “Islam is a religion of peace” and even goes on to claim in his opening arguments “Islam is not a religion of peace”.
Since both parties of this debate are making claims, the burden of proof will be shared equally between both sides to substantiate their respective claims. I have to prove that Islam is a religion of peace while Con has to prove that it is not.
Notice the resolution “Islam is a religion of peace”. To prove this claim to be true, I have to show that the religious doctrines of Islam promote peace rather than violence. The proposition is not “Some Muslims are terrorists” nor “Some Muslims are evil” and so an appeal by either of us to individual cases will not suffice. I can grant that there are cases where certain Muslims misinterpret, disobey and go against the doctrines of their religions to commit acts of violence and hate. In this case, the religion and its doctrines would be peaceful despite the violent behaviour of certain individuals who falsely claim to be adhering to those doctrines.
So what do Islamic doctrines teach?
To know this, we must look at the primary holy text of Islam - the Qu’ran - as well as the life of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). To emulate and obey the Prophet of Islam is a doctrine that is derived directly out of the Qu’ran.
You have an excellent model in the Messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much. (Qu’ran 33:21)
You should accept whatever the Messenger gives you and abandon whatever he tells you to abandon. (Qu’ran 59: 7)
"Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah." (Qu’ran 4: 80)
So that the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (SAWS), is an authority and a source of commands and doctrines to all Muslims is not disputed. Matter of fact, the last verse quoted seems to indicate that there is no distinction between the commands of the messenger and the commands of Allah meaning that the two sets of commands are identical - whatever the prophet commands is actually just God’s command.
Islam and War
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. (Qu’ran 2:256)
This verse clearly instructs Muslims that there should be no compulsion in accepting Islam. As a result, forcing others to convert to Islam whether by violence or compulsion is prohibited for a Muslim. This also establishes the freedom of religion for your compatriots. They are not forced to accept Islam and so have the freedom to not become a Muslim if they do not wish to be so. This establishment of the freedom of religion and the prohibition of violence and compulsion when proselytizing breeds harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims.
But as for those who seek refuge with people with whom you have a treaty, or who come over to you because their hearts shrink from fighting against you or against their own people, God could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way against them. (Qu’ran 4:90)
The verse promotes peace and the absence of fighting with those whom the Muslims have a treaty with, those who do not fight the Muslims, those who are coming offering peace. I think my opponent would agree that it is harmonious to make peace with those who offer us peace and do not want to fight us. The other option would be those who do fight us and since Islam is not a pacifist religion, then we are permitted to fight in self-defense.
But if they incline towards peace, you [Prophet] must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowing. (Qu’ran 8:61)
In this verse, God instructs the Prophet to make peace with those who want to make peace. Recall that Muslims are required to emulate and follow the conduct of the Islamic Prophet.
Whoever has three qualities will have completed the faith: fairness from yourself to others, offering peace to the world, and spending in charity even while poor. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 28)
This sahih hadith (a narration that reliably goes back to the Islamic Prophet) tells us that a true Muslim is one who offers peace to the world. So Islam commands its true followers to make peace with the world.
I came along with the people to see him and when I looked at the face of the Messenger of God, I realized that his face was not the face of a liar. The first thing the Prophet said was this: O people, spread peace, feed the hungry, and pray at night when people are sleeping and you will enter Paradise in peace. (Sunan al-Tirmidhī #2485)
In this Hadith, the Prophet commands his followers to spread peace. Clearly, another command which promotes peace and harmony between the Muslim and his community.
Verily, the most tyrannical of people to God the Exalted is he who kills those who did not fight him (Musnad Aḥmad #16376)
The Islamic Prophet commands his followers to avoid killing those who did not fight them. This promotes harmony with peaceful compatriots while also encouraging standing up to the oppressors.
Peace, not pacifism
Of course, while Islam is a religion of peace, it is not a religion of pacifism. Sometimes, it is moral to engage in war against the oppressors in the short-term to uphold peace and justice in the long-term. An example of this would be the Allies fighting the Nazis in order to defeat an evil ideology and to achieve greater peace in the future. The only times a Muslim should engage in fighting is to fight against those who fight you. These exemptions in Surat al-Ḥajj 22:39-40 as well as Surat al-Baqarah 2:190 exclude Islam from being a religion of pacifism but do not exclude it from being a religion of peace.
Islam on Forgiveness and Mercy
Recall the verses provided above that encourage the Muslims to emulate the Prophet and follow his commands.
The Prophet (ﷺ) prayed for the guidance (and not the destruction) of the kuffar of Ta'if who oppressed him (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 42)
This is an example of a supererogatory act. Peace does not demand us to be harmonious with our oppressors since peace and pacifism are not equivalent. Here, Muhammad (SAWS) goes above and beyond in his exemplification of peace to the extent of being peaceful with his own oppressors and promoting harmony rather than the destruction of his enemies. Since Muslims are commanded to emulate the Islamic Prophet, Muslims would likewise be commanded to make peace with their oppressors if they can.
Here are some more examples:
The Prophet (ﷺ) forgave the people of Mecca, despite the years of persecution the Muslims endured under them and despite the wars they unleashed on the Muslims over the years (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 3, Hadith 112)
The Prophet (ﷺ) spared the lives of 80 armed Meccans who wanted to attack him and the Muslims (Saheeh Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 160 & 162)
The Prophet (ﷺ) forgave the murderer of his uncle (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 399)
The Prophet (ﷺ) forgave the Bedouin who tried to kill him (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 458)
Forgiveness and mercy are foundational to the conduct of the Prophet. Since Muslims are required to emulate the Prophet then forgiveness and mercy should also be a bedrock of the conduct of the Muslim. Clearly, forgiveness and mercy promote peace and harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Anticipated objections
In this section, we will take a look at the verses that are often cited to support the negation of the resolution.
“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qu’ran 9:5)
The context to this verse could be found in the same Chapter only a few verses later in the Qu’ran 9:7-13. The context is that this verse is only commanding the Prophet and his companions to fight against a specific group of idolaters that were attempting to kill Muslims and end the new faith. In the same passage that provides context, it is openly acknowledged that there other groups of idolaters that the Muslims have treaties with and so are to be treated with peace and harmony. However, self-defence against a violent group does not preclude Islam from being a religion of peace.
Here is the passage that follows this verse:
“How could there be a treaty with God and His Messenger for such idolaters? But as for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque, so long as they remain true to you, be true to them; God loves those who are mindful of Him. [How,] when, if they were to get the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie with you, of kinship or of treaty? They please you with their tongues, but their hearts are against you and most of them are lawbreakers. They have sold God’s message for a trifling gain, and barred others from His path. How evil their actions are! Where believers are concerned, they respect no tie of kinship or treaty. They are the ones who are committing aggression. If they turn to God, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are your brothers in faith: We make the messages clear for people who are willing to learn. But if they break their oath after having made an agreement with you, if they revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief—oaths mean nothing to them—so that they may stop. How could you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, who tried to drive the Messenger out, who attacked you first? Do you fear them? It is God you should fear if you are true believers.”
Here is another verse that is often used to prove that Islam is not peaceful:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Qu’ran 9:29)
Now, prima facie this verse maybe promoting violence but let’s take another look. The verse is saying that you are to continue fighting in the war until the opponents pay the jizya (the name of the taxes imposed on non-believers either for reparations or for exemption from participating from the military). The other condition they would stop the war is if the opponents convert to Islam. How is it at all violent to cease the war and fighting when your opponent pay reparations? If anything that’s the most moral strategy I can think of. Unlike the Allies who insisted on executing the Nazis at Nuremberg even after the second World War was over, Islam preaches to stop fighting and using violence when your enemies have paid reparations. Moreover, as established before, the only time that Muslims are allowed to fight is only when they were being fought against first. So whatever war where Muslims would demand reparations from their enemies are ones where the enemy was responsible for starting the war. I do not think that it is violent to demand reparations from enemies who decided to use violence first.
Reminder for my opponent
The resolution of this debate is not “Some Muslims are in terrorist organizations” or “Some Muslims are evil”. I already believe that there are some terrorists that misinterpret or disobey the peaceful doctrines of Islam while falsely claiming to be following them. The resolution of this debate is not “Islam is false or wrong” so scientific objections or alleged contradictions will not suffice for my opponent to fulfill his burden of proof. Even granting that Islam is not a religion of peace would not show that Islam is false. Even if God commands his prophets and believers to use violence would do nothing to show that God does not exist or that miracles are not possible or any other Islamic doctrine. Any such argument would be a non-sequitur. So I encourage my opponent to avoid tangential topics like the relation of the United Nations and Muslim countries or the Charlie Hebdo attacks and focus on fulfilling his burden of proof.
This verse clearly instructs Muslims that there should be no compulsion in accepting Islam. As a result, forcing others to convert to Islam whether by violence or compulsion is prohibited for a Muslim. This also establishes the freedom of religion for your compatriots. They are not forced to accept Islam and so have the freedom to not become a Muslim if they do not wish to be so. This establishment of the freedom of religion and the prohibition of violence and compulsion when proselytizing breeds harmony between Muslims and non-Muslims.
The Prophet (ﷺ) prayed for the guidance (and not the destruction) of the kuffar of Ta'if who oppressed him (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 42)
This is an example of a supererogatory act. Peace does not demand us to be harmonious with our oppressors since peace and pacifism are not equivalent. Here, Muhammad (SAWS) goes above and beyond in his exemplification of peace to the extent of being peaceful with his own oppressors and promoting harmony rather than the destruction of his enemies. Since Muslims are commanded to emulate the Islamic Prophet, Muslims would likewise be commanded to make peace with their oppressors if they can.
Here are some more examples:
The Prophet (ﷺ) forgave the people of Mecca, despite the years of persecution the Muslims endured under them and despite the wars they unleashed on the Muslims over the years (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 3, Hadith 112)
The Prophet (ﷺ) spared the lives of 80 armed Meccans who wanted to attack him and the Muslims (Saheeh Muslim, Book 32, Hadith 160 & 162)
The Prophet (ﷺ) forgave the murderer of his uncle (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 399)
The Prophet (ﷺ) forgave the Bedouin who tried to kill him (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book 59, Hadith 458)
Round 2
Con
#3
Pro is misportraying Burden of Proof (BoP). If you remain in limbo, Con has won this debate. The reason is Hitchen's razor:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
- Christopher Hitchens, loather of religion RIP, my man.
If I leave you incapable of concluding that Islam is peaceful, then it's not the same as having had no debate at all. It is that I won in muddying the waters such that it became impossible for you to conclude Islam is peaceful. Since it is indeed digital, the 'maybe peaceful' changes to 'not peaceful' if you focus only on the debate and how every single thing being put forth for it being peaceful being proven wrong. In other words, the only way to be 'agnostic on the resolution' but not conclude it's not peaceful as a result of the debate would be if you never read the debate or if all Rounds were blank. Con has a less burdensome task of proof with that slight edge but that is the price Pro paid to be the one standing for something in the debating arena as opposed to against something in a fundamental sense of proof vs disproof.
If Pro had created the debate after I asked him to on PM, there'd be no dispute who was the one with the edged-against BoP. Simply because this has been done in reverse to speed up the process of me finding an opponent changes nothing other than that my opponent will get the final Round as opposed to me in the reverse physical scenario of sides on the debate if Pro had created it.
Something that's apparent to me is that Pro lives up to my reputation of how Muslims go about defining Islam to achieve constant blamelessness and yet capacity to completely push forth their regime and ideology regardless (this is not inaccurate, Pro is Muslim via his profile information as is). What happens is this. When I say a point about Islam in the Qur'an, he will go to the Hadith to 'prove me wrong', then if I go to the Hadith, he'd switch back to the Qur'an. When both are cornering him, he will switch completely from a state of calling those who fail to follow the text to the letter as 'false Muslims' to conversely calling the text as the optional/extreme part and the followers who cherry-pick it now become the correct followers who define what Islam is. Sounds fair enough so far, even that is as far as Christians go in their scapegoating but oh no, Pro goes a step further... If I then would prove that Sharia law regimes and the followers of Islam are non-peaceful, he either agrees with me and says it's 'good and justified non-peace like fighting Nazis' or will flip it a third way and say 'neither the followers nor the written word are the real Islam, real Islam is something else that you can't touch or attack or call non-peaceful. Pro is not to blame here in a sinister sense, this is actually how Islam is taught to followers of it, it is indoctrination that he is a victim of that is to blame as opposed to himself thinking 'hehehe let me be sneaky' and I do not at all want to imply that Pro is a plotting type of goalpost-mover in what I have to prove or attack to win this debate, I believe it's done accidentally.
The first thing that intrigues me is that Pro justifies the lack of peace of Islam throughout all of history as being equivalent to fighting Nazis. Before I go into how Sharia Law regimes are actually Fascist and extremely Nazi-esque to flip his narrative onto him, I first want to fully explain something here.
Peace is not 'good' or 'evil'. It is neither. This is not a debate where I need to prove that Islam is unjustifiably non-peaceful nor where I need to prove it to be evil, I am solely saying that even if it's good to not be peaceful, that what Islam is, is something different to a religion of peace.
In the context of this debate, I would really like to use the Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition since Pro didn't provide an official one about what 'peace' is.
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: such as
- freedom from civil disturbance
- a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom
So, to begin with, I do agree with Pro that there is such a thing as 'war for the sake of peace' in the same way that police shooting in self-defence, if genuinely done in a self-defence to-the-law manner, is justified in most well-developed countries of today. Aggression in pure (or with the sole motive of) defence is peaceful in a consequentialist's outlook and I can absolutely roll with that. So, tell me then, where does the line get drawn?
I find three issues with Islam fitting into the narrative that Pro sets out just to begin with:
- Islam has always been, and is, aggressive in a brutally 'we attack first but blame you for it to make it pseudo-defence' throughout history from its origin to this very day.
- Sharia Nations and their regimes are among the most oppressive throughout history and to date... Oh look, just like #1 'then and now both' applies here too.
- The goal is not tranquillity or quiet, the goal is tyranny and oppression, from how they treat women to how they justify every single element of their culture and Theistic 'theories'.
In the wake of the Manchester bombing, there was a row which showed clearly a key distinction between the Christian and Muslim faiths. Twitter came under fire for its perceived failure to quickly remove a tweet by an Isis supporter which read: ‘Face the people of kufr [non-believers] wherever you are and show Allah what He loves from you. Kill them wherever you find them’. Yet in the clamour for these words to be censored, what wasn’t mentioned was where these words actually came from: the Quran – or God’s word revealed to the Prophet Mohammed. Islamic scholars protest that this passage – outlining the correct way in which to fight a defensive war – is frequently taken out of context. As indeed it is, both by Islamophobes and Islamists, in that it does not condone the killing of innocents (though, in the modern world, that is sadly a very fluid concept).But even within the context in which it was written, it is a grotesque sentence. Nothing even approaching its nature features anywhere in the Gospels. The most violent act Christ is recorded as having committed was overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. Islam’s founding prophet, by contrast, conquered an empire. It is fair, too, for Islamic scholars to point out that Mohammed’s wars were ones of self-defence. Like Christ and the Apostles, Mohammed and his followers were persecuted by those around them, even when they established their own settlement in Medina. But here, too, the contrast is instructive. Christ and all ten of his remaining Apostles were murdered, inspiring through example a tradition of nonviolent resistance which over the proceeding three centuries would take over the very empire which had attempted to extinguish it. Two millennia later, it would also inspire Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela to affect real change in the world through peaceful means.
The five pillars of Islam, which are not important to the debate so I won't bring them up if my opponent does not, are all about obedience, serving in fear and admiration and essentially not a single one of the five is in any way about finding inner peace and is only outer peace to a non-peaceful leader.
THIS IS THE KEY THING ABOUT ISLAM, IT IS NOT WAR TO ACHIEVE PEACE, IT IS PEACE TO ACHIEVE WAR.
Pro brings interesting verses, to be sure, but some of it is strangely worded in English by Pro to convey something a little less cynical. What the line Pro brought up was actually referring to in 4:90 wasn't that Allah gives you no way to fight them but actually is:
... So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.
This is saying that you have no real cause to stand behind or fight with and is referring to game-theory with political manoeuvring. To support me on this, this is how the following teaching is worded:
You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those - We have made for you against them a clear authorization.
And this is how the teaching/Ayah BEFORE it is worded
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
The 4:90 lesson is part of a political propaganda strategy advice to Sharia leaders, it is hardly useful for civilians or ordinary Muslims and the issue with it, is that 'do not fight you and offer you peace' means all you need to do to justify an organisation like ISIS or justify war with Israel etc. is to say that one or two acts or wordings in the past have implied lack of peaceful intent or lack of 'not fighting' and that now you are completely justified in preaching a Cause behind which to fight. It literally is as simple as blaming someone for breathing the air you breathe and saying 'you are not offering me peace with every damn breath that you take', there is nothing trolling about this interpretation as it is literally what Wahhabi Islam and other violent variants ended up justifying themselves by.
To compare Islam and how it slaughtered and intimidated to end up as the Ottoman Empire among other things in the world today as being equivalent to 'fighting Nazis' is most ironic indeed.
Fascism requires some basic allegiances, such as to the nation, to national grandeur, and to a master race or group. The core principle — what Paxton defined as fascism's only definition of morality — is to make the nation stronger, more powerful, larger and more successful. Since fascists see national strength as the only thing that makes a nation "good," fascists will use any means necessary to achieve that goal.As a result, fascists aim to use the country's assets to increase the country's strength. This leads to a nationalization of assets, Montague said, and in this, fascism resembles Marxism. [What Are the Different Types of Governments?]"If Marxism was meant to become a magnitude of countries sharing assets in an economic idea, fascists tried to do the same thing within a country," he said.
And then, let's skip over the fact that Al Qaeda was formed to help the US end Soviet Russia shall we? ;) Let's ignore that tiny similarity and focus on the bigger picture... Sharia Law is Fascism in every single sense, the only difference is loyalty to Islam as opposed to Christianity being a basis of the morals.
Islamic law grew along with the expanding Muslim Empire. The Umayyad dynasty caliphs, who took control of the empire in 661, extended Islam into India, Northwest Africa, and Spain. The Umayyads appointed Islamic judges, kadis, to decide cases involving Muslims. (Non-Muslims kept their own legal system.) Knowledgeable about the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, kadis decided cases in all areas of the law.Following a period of revolts and civil war, the Umayyads were overthrown in 750 and replaced by the Abbasid dynasty. During the 500-year rule of the Abbasids, the Sharia reached its full development.Under their absolute rule, the Abbasids transferred substantial areas of criminal law from the kadis to the government. The kadis continued to handle cases involving religious, family, property, and commercial law.The Abbasids encouraged legal scholars to debate the Sharia vigorously. One group held that only the divinely inspired Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad should make up the Sharia. A rival group, however, argued that the Sharia should also include the reasoned opinions of qualified legal scholars. Different legal systems began to develop in different provinces.In an attempt to reconcile the rival groups, a brilliant legal scholar named Shafii systematized and developed what were called the "roots of the law." Shafii argued that in solving a legal question, the kadi or government judge should first consult the Koran. If the answer were not clear there, the judge should refer to the authentic sayings and decisions of Muhammad. If the answer continued to elude the judge, he should then look to the consensus of Muslim legal scholars on the matter. Still failing to find a solution, the judge could form his own answer by analogy from "the precedent nearest in resemblance and most appropriate" to the case at hand.Shafii provoked controversy. He constantly criticized what he called "people of reason" and "people of tradition." While speaking in Egypt in 820, he was physically attacked by enraged opponents and died a few days later. Nevertheless, Shafii's approach was later widely adopted throughout the Islamic world.By around the year 900, the classic Sharia had taken shape. Islamic specialists in the law assembled handbooks for judges to use in making their decisions.
As I said, Islam is peace to enable war, it is not war to enable peace. It has always been and is always about submitting to violent powers be it the magnificently dangerous and powerful Allah who can out-deceive and never be deceived among other things...
And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.
And [remember, O Muhammad], when those who disbelieved plotted against you to restrain you or kill you or evict you [from Makkah]. But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.
And those before them had plotted, but to Allah belongs the plan entirely. He knows what every soul earns, and the disbelievers will know for whom is the final home.
- 3:54, 8:30 and 13:42 respectively from the Qur'an.
Allah is the mastermind manipulator of all reality and politics and the thing to aspire to be but never ever be so arrogant to assume you are close to actually having become. This mentality is one of perpetual inferiority, submission and fear. Both theoretically and in application Islam is a sinister religion that encourages violence if it can find any justifiably worded cause to paint itself as the reacting part and not the provoking one. This is actually so true when ti comes to women. Do you know why women call it empowering to wear the veil and such? Do you actually understand why even the women of Islam defend it in this day and age? They wouldn't want to tempt men and give men the justifiable excuse with which to rape them and then stone the raped women to death for having cheated on the husband now, would they? Oh how empowered they are to be wearing what they wear to not tempt the helpless man, oh how delicate the man's brain is... You want me to prove this? Try harder.
I will fully decimate Pro's case in the next Round, for now I want to cut off fallacious angles from which Pro is coming and hopefully he will give me a solid definition of what Islam is (the teachings or the people) which I can either disprove or turn against him to win the debate as both the people that represent Islam politically and officially and the teachings are not peaceful.
Pro
#4
Rebuttal
Burden of Proof
“If I leave you incapable of concluding that Islam is peaceful, then it's not the same as having had no debate at all. It is that I won in muddying the waters such that it became impossible for you to conclude Islam is peaceful.”
In the case that Con does refute my case for the affirmation of the resolution, that would mean that I have not fulfilled my burden to prove that Islam is a religion of peace. But recall the argument I gave in my opening round that the burden of proof is shared so Con also has a burden of proof. Since Con has failed to engage with this argument, I will extend it.
To provide a brief recap of that argument. The law of excluded middle tells us that either a proposition or its negation has to be the case while the law of noncontradiction tells us that they can not both be the case at the same time and in the same sense. Since Con thinks the resolution “Islam is a religion of peace” is false and even argues against it, he necessarily believes that “Islam is not a religion of peace” is true and so must defend that claim. The only other option for Con would be to believe that both “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Islam is not a religion of peace” are false; but that would violate the Law of Excluded Middle because either a proposition or its negation must be true.
Moreover, as quoted in my first round, Con has claimed “Islam is not a religion of peace” and so he would have to prove that claim.
Hitchen’s Razor
Con tries to use Hitchen’s Razor to argue that if I do not support the claim “Islam is a religion of peace” with evidence, then we can dismiss the claim without evidence. First of all, I demonstrated, in my opening arguments, that Con has the burden of proof to justify the claim “Islam is not a religion of peace” and so Hitchen’s razor cuts both ways - if Con does not provide evidence for his claim, then we can dismiss it without evidence.
Although not necessary to my case since I already have provided evidence that Islam is a religion of peace in the first round, I will argue that Hitchen’s razor is false. Firstly, it is self-refuting. There is no evidence for “whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” and so the principle calls that it itself be dismissed without evidence. Secondly, many intuitive beliefs such as “other minds exist” or “the external world is real and not an illusion or an extended dream or hallucination” are beliefs that are rational to hold even in the absence of evidence rendering Hitchen’s razor to be false.
A Concern over “Islam”
“ If I then would prove that Sharia law regimes and the followers of Islam are non-peaceful, he either agrees with me and says it's 'good and justified non-peace like fighting Nazis' or will flip it a third way and say 'neither the followers nor the written word are the real Islam, real Islam is something else that you can't touch or attack or call non-peaceful.”
Con is concerned that the meaning of Islam is too flexible and gives me too much freedom that allows me to keep redefining Islam to preclude it from any violence. To avoid this problem, I will make it clear that I am an Orthodox Muslim and so the two sources on Islam would be the divine scriptures (Qu’ran) and the sahih hadiths, the reliable reports about the Prophet’s sayings and actions. If Con can prove the existence of any non-peaceful (notice I said peaceful not pacifist) Quranic verse or sahih hadith, then he will successfully negate the resolution and fulfill his burden of proof.
Strawman
“The first thing that intrigues me is that Pro justifies the lack of peace of Islam throughout all of history as being equivalent to fighting Nazis.”
I do nothing like this. Rather, I say that it is sometimes permissible to engage in war to ensure long-term peace and the possibility of harmonious relations among muslims and non-muslims. I made no claims about Islamic history.
What is Peace?
“since Pro didn't provide an official one about what 'peace' is.”
Yes, I did Con. Matter of fact, it was the first thing I did after repeating the resolution.
Claims are cheap
Con makes three claims:
Yet none of them would prove the negation of the resolution. As I have argued in my opening round, Islam does call its adherents to peace, mercy and forgiveness. If Con does provide cases where adherents of the faith do not realize these peaceful values then they would simply be disobeying the peace, mercy and forgiveness that Islam commands. They would be be oppressive or engage in tyranny and oppression, as Con stated, despite their belief in Islam.
Once again, the resolution of this debate is that the Islamic religion is a religion of peace. The resolution is not “some Muslims are oppressive” or “some Muslim countries are tyrannical”. It could be the case that Islam and its doctrines call its followers to be peaceful and merciful while its followers are failing to live up to those values in the examples that Con is yet to provide.
Con has failed to show how any of those claims would negate the resolution.
A Concession shoots your case in the foot
Perhaps, he was unaware but Con’s own source that he quoted in his second round says:
“It is fair, too, for Islamic scholars to point out that Mohammed’s wars were ones of self-defence.”
Since Muslims are required to emulate their prophet, then we are only required to conduct wars in cases of self-defence. Since it is clearly peaceful to avoid offensive wars and only fight in cases of self-defence, Con indirectly affirmed the resolution.
Con goes on to say that:
“THIS IS THE KEY THING ABOUT ISLAM, IT IS NOT WAR TO ACHIEVE PEACE, IT IS PEACE TO ACHIEVE WAR.”
Con affirms that Islam is peace. He qualifies that it is to achieve certain types of wars but as argued before, engaging war to secure long-term peace as Islam does does not preclude it from being a religion of peace albeit precluding it from being a pacifist religion. Since Con has affirmed that Islam is peace and since it is religion per the definitions, then Con has affirmed the resolution once again defeating his own position.
A verse in dispute
On 4:90 from the Qu’ran, Con says:
“This is saying that you have no real cause to stand behind or fight with and is referring to game-theory with political manoeuvring.”
This is a case of reading into the verse what it does not say. The verse explicitly says “So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.” (Con’s preferred translation).
Clearly, the verse is not “political manoeuvering [sic]” but rather a prohibition against offensive warfare.
Con’s failure to focus on the resolution
In the course of his defense, Con has appealed to many tangential points that are irrelevant to the truth of the resolution such as the Manchester Bombing and the role of the Umayyads and the Abbasids in the development of exegesis on Islamic Law. These points have nothing to do with the resolution so I ask Con to avoid such distractions and to focus on fulfilling their burden of proof.
Con claims that because Islam requires allegiance and Fascism requires allegiance than Islam is a fascist ideology. This is another fallacy that Con commits namely, the undistributed middle fallacy. Merely sharing a similar property, such as requiring allegiance, does not make two distinct things the same. Canadian citizenship procedures also require a swear of allegiance to the Queen and her successors, yet nobody would call these procedures fascist. The United States of America also has a similar pledge of allegiance to the flag and to the Republic, yet nobody would call America a fascist state.
We are still waiting Con
“I will fully decimate Pro's case in the next Round”
Hopefully, Con will live up to his promise and finally, engage with the resolution and the arguments for and against it rather than making completely irrelevant points like Manchester Bombings, the Umayyad Caliphate and the tyrannical nature of some Muslim regimes.
- Islam has always been, and is, aggressive in a brutally 'we attack first but blame you for it to make it pseudo-defence' throughout history from its origin to this very day.
- Sharia Nations and their regimes are among the most oppressive throughout history and to date... Oh look, just like #1 'then and now both' applies here too.
- The goal is not tranquillity or quiet, the goal is tyranny and oppression, from how they treat women to how they justify every single element of their culture and Theistic 'theories'.
Since Muslims are required to emulate their prophet, then we are only required to conduct wars in cases of self-defence. Since it is clearly peaceful to avoid offensive wars and only fight in cases of self-defence, Con indirectly affirmed the resolution.
Round 3
Con
#5
Okay, in my eyes (and I hope the judges' eyes also) the burden of proof in this debate is going to become the exact point on which I attack Pro and which he attacks me.
Islam has yet to be fully defined but at least now we see that Pro has stated that to him, personally, it's only the scriptures that matter. This would mean that he also supports marrying nine year olds who Muhammad already was grooming at age six but apparently that's not pedophilic because back then that age was A-OK... Oh dear... Well, let's get to the nitty gritty. The fact is that now Pro has lost the debate by his own doing.
Pro states that only the scriptures matter, this means that any and all ways Pro could bring that in practise the so called 'moderate Muslims' (I call them good people but bad Muslims) who ignore scripture in order to make peace, are all immediately defined as false Muslims. Pro is now absolutely stuck to this dilemma as I, Con, hereby state that I agree with that definition of Islam and therefore will drop point 4 of my Round 1 in order to fit this version of Islam. Pro also is stuck admitting that me saying that Islam is 'peace to achieve violence' is now negated in being me conceding the resolution as Pro, even in the Round just prior to this, explicitly separates peace and pacifism. What is happening is this:
Pro is saying that if we are violent or aggressive in order to achieve and overall peaceful outcome that the peace is concluded to be the 'true nature' and violence simply is the means. Pro does this explicitly twice but implicitly many more times in this debate. I will quote the two explicit times that Pro takes this angle:
Of course, while Islam is a religion of peace, it is not a religion of pacifism. Sometimes, it is moral to engage in war against the oppressors in the short-term to uphold peace and justice in the long-term. An example of this would be the Allies fighting the Nazis in order to defeat an evil ideology and to achieve greater peace in the future.
Peace does not demand us to be harmonious with our oppressors since peace and pacifism are not equivalent.
So, if we flip this around, this means that if Islam is entirely about being peaceful to Tyrannical Narcissists both Muhammad himself and, worse, Allah who isn't even human and has powers and intellect so intensely high that no good person can stand in his way neither can an evil one then it follows that along Pro's logic, Islam is a religion of tyranny via pseudo-peace as pacifism to a Tyrant is NOT PEACE according to Pro himself.
All verses brought up have been proven to be about propaganda or appearing peaceful and defensive, irrespective of actually being so. Allah is described as being a mastermind manipulator where even those violently opposing him are all part of his plan (the plans all belong to him, he created them and has though far ahead, this is made clear in many verses including those brought up by me in the previous Round towards the end).
The Qur'an and Hadith include verses that encourage violence in non-defence continually but keep changing it into being defence by saying that they are entitled to hurt those who Allah feels stand in his way. Adulterers who have somehow hurt the one they cheated on so much that even if the one they cheated on says 'don't hurt them' we must stone them to death are one of many examples of the barbaric nature of Islam and its lack of peace not just in practise but in teachings. Circumcision is in no shape or form peaceful and while female circumcision isn't scripture-based, male circumcision is. Even if you argue it's not severe, even if you deny that sensation is lost and that it was purely invented to make masturbation difficult if done dry or even slightly wet (needing artificial lube to not tear your skin into pieces or cause friction burn), it still doesn't add up to peace.
In Islam, like in other monotheistic traditions and in compliance with all universal norms of morality, adultery is condemned.The Qur’an firmly forbids adultery in this verse: "Those who commit adultery, men or women, give each of them a hundred lashes" Qur'an 24: 2.It is noteworthy that the Qur’an does not stipulate stoning as punishment but rather “ a hundred lashes” that remains an exclusively dissuasive sanction.It should be equally noted that both men and women are penalized for adultery, unlike what is generally assumed, namely that only women are blamed and responsible for adultery.Notably, there is no verse that talks about stoning either men or women or for committing adultery.The Qur'anic sanction prescribed for adultery - for both men and women - is the "flogging," a measure introduced as a corporal deterring punishment to replace the practice of stoning. Stoning was actually an inherent custom in the Mosaic law of Jewish communities living in the Medina at that time.This measure of flogging - a hundred lashes - came to replace that most tragic measure of stoning to death, which was very common at that time.It is true that the practice of stoning, which was originally a Jewish tradition, has long survived in the Arabian lands and resisted all attempts of reform, despite its evident absence in the sacred text.The concept of stoning is maintained in the Muslim law, and its practice is justified later by virtue of a controversial interpretation of a hadith related to some cases where the adulterers voluntarily confessed their sin in front of the Prophet during the Medina period.It should be clarified here that the Qur'an has voluntarily repealed the practice of stoning and replaced it with the corporal punishment of one hundred lashes, which reflected the universally recognized judicial system at that time.
When it comes to what 'defence' is it's again extremely nonsensical and not actually defence at all, just the appearance of it. From the following teaching which basically says if your wife is arrogant enough, beat her into submission if refusing to buy her things doesn't tame her enough:
Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
to these Ayahs (168 through 172 of Surah 3), which literally abdicates any and all terrorist acts done in the name of Allah as being non-murderous, but not necessarily non-injurious:
Those who said about their brothers while sitting [at home], "If they had obeyed us, they would not have been killed." Say, "Then prevent death from yourselves, if you should be truthful."And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,Rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.They receive good tidings of favor from Allah and bounty and [of the fact] that Allah does not allow the reward of believers to be lost -Those [believers] who responded to Allah and the Messenger after injury had struck them. For those who did good among them and feared Allah is a great reward -Those to whom hypocrites said, "Indeed, the people have gathered against you, so fear them." But it [merely] increased them in faith, and they said, "Sufficient for us is Allah, and [He is] the best Disposer of affairs."So they returned with favor from Allah and bounty, no harm having touched them. And they pursued the pleasure of Allah, and Allah is the possessor of great bounty.
These teachings, more than the rest of the Qur'an, make it explicit how Allah is more like a Godfather (ironic role-name eh?) or essentially a head-hirer of Hitmen in a conspiracy where no other being or bidder is able to pay higher bounty and this, alone, is the reason to fear and submit to Allah. This theme is there throughout the entire Qur'an and is also how Muhammad represents the religion in the Hadith. It is about submission out of terror, nothing more and nothing less.
Every single time 'peace' is alluded to in the Hadith (the Qur'an, as I say In Round 1, doesn't even allude to peace being a goal) it is about appearing defensive... About seeming to be Just in the barbaric acts. It is never about actually being such.
More interestingly, just as Pro accuses me of refusing to see a middle-ground in Hitchen's Razor, Pro has himself failed to see a middle-ground between what is stated and what is meant. This is fine by me, as what is stated is blatant enough for me to win this debate.
I will not drop the BoP angle of Hitchen's Razor though. That is not necessary for me to win but necessary to learn and for me to stand by in order to be a true debater. If you cannot prove a positive claim with evidence, the supposed 'neutral claim' favours the one speaking against the positive claim and sufficient doubt occurs in a 50/50 type scenario. This is not unfair, this is a fair edge that is the price paid to be a brave debater asserting the positive claim as being true. If Islam is undefinable or if Islam is proven to be something far murkier than 'peaceful' in and of itself, the lack of ability to conclude that is reason to conclude that Con has won the debate. Debating is an art and mental-sport, it isn't just about what's true or false. If you have, as Con, negated a positive-claiming resolution via casting full doubt and inability to conclude the resolution as true, you then have won the debate. Thus, Hitchen's Razor doesn't backfire as the 'not true' is inherently the way to go from the middle-ground claim since you surely can't go the other way and saying 'it equally is and isn't' is to ignore that Con is against the resolution, as opposed to supporting the inverted resolution. Con is able to both say Islam is something other than peaceful and to simply allude to that it is not able to be proven to be peaceful, either way Con wins this debate.
Pro
#6
Rebuttal
Burden of Proof
Con has not responded to this point so I will extend this argument. Burden of proof is shared between both sides.
False Preliminary Claims
“Islam has yet to be fully defined but at least now we see that Pro has stated that to him, personally, it's only the scriptures that matter.”
No, Islam was clearly defined in my opening round. That was one of the first things I did.
“This would mean that he also supports marrying nine year olds who Muhammad already was grooming at age six but apparently that's not pedophilic because back then that age was A-OK... Oh dear... Well, let's get to the nitty gritty.”
Pedophilia is the attraction of adults to children. This moral abomination is punishable with death in Islamic law. However, it should be clarified what “children” or “child” means. When does a child cease being a child and become an adult? The answer that western countries give is that once a child becomes 18 years of age, then they become an adult and so are able to consent to sexual acts. However, this is arbitrary, why should the age of consent be 18? Many western countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Finland do not have the age of consent at 18 but rather younger at 15 or 16 [1]. Do these countries legalize pedophilia? You might say that we determine adulthood and the age of consent at 18 since that is when brain development or physical maturity takes place; but this is false. Children continue to develop physically and mentally well until they are 25 [2]. If we push the age of consent that late, that would mean that two consenting 19-year-olds or that a couple, one who is 24 and the other who is 26, should both be charged for pedophilia. That is clearly absurd. There is no reason to set the age of consent at 18; it is nothing but an arbitrary declaration. What really signifies adulthood is puberty, which is the transition from being an infertile child to adolescence. Since Aisha (RA) was 9-year-olds and pubescent by her own admission in Tirmidhi 1109: “إِذَا بَلَغَتِ الْجَارِيَةُ تِسْعَ سِنِينَ فَهِيَ امْرَأَة.”, then she was an adult [3].
Notice, that this is another tangent brought about by Con. While this is a serious charge that muslim apologists ought engage with, the resolution of this debate is not “Islam promotes pedophilia”. Even granting this point, this would not show that Islam promotes violence, only that Islam has a different standard of adulthood than the west.
Irrelevant points and false dilemma
“Pro states that only the scriptures matter, this means that any and all ways Pro could bring that in practise the so called 'moderate Muslims' (I call them good people but bad Muslims) who ignore scripture in order to make peace, are all immediately defined as false Muslims.”
This debate is not about whether muslims are good or bad. This is debate is about whether Islam is a religion of peace or not.
“Pro also is stuck admitting that me saying that Islam is 'peace to achieve violence' is now negated in being me conceding the resolution as Pro, even in the Round just prior to this, explicitly separates peace and pacifism.”
Nope, I do not take this position. What I said is that Con conceded this point in favour of the resolution. Con conceding a claim does not mean that I have to believe that claim.
“Pro is saying that if we are violent or aggressive in order to achieve and overall peaceful outcome that the peace is concluded to be the 'true nature' and violence simply is the means”
No, That’s not what I said. I said that if Islam preaches that we should engage in temporary war against oppressors and villains to achieve long-term peace then that would not preclude Islam from being a religion of peace.
Harsh Punishments and Circumcisions.
Con tries to argue that Islam is not a religion of peace because it has harsh punishments against adultery and because it supports circumcision. I do not feel the need to engage either of these two points until Con has shown how even if they are true would negate the resolution. I am absolutely in favour of circumcision and harsher rather than rehabilitative punishments. Harsh punishments for serious crimes is justice which is compatible with peace. Why should that preclude Islam from being a religion of peace?
Contradicting your own source
It should be equally noted that both men and women are penalized for adultery, unlike what is generally assumed, namely that only women are blamed and responsible for adultery.
Notably, there is no verse that talks about stoning either men or women or for committing adultery.
- http://www.asma-lamrabet.com/articles/is-stoning-the-punishment-for-adultery-in-islam/
(Con’s source)
Yet Con says
“Adulterers who have somehow hurt the one they cheated on so much that even if the one they cheated on says 'don't hurt them' we must stone them to death are one of many examples of the barbaric nature of Islam and its lack of peace not just in practise but in teachings.”
Which one should we believe?
Finally, an argument
The passage in 4:34, says that men are protectors and guardians of the women. I take no issue with this personally as I am a complementarian rather than an egalitarian. Men and women are equal and play equal yet different roles in society. The same way that a man is a guardian and protector of his wife, so too is the wife his guardian and protector. It is true that striking or fighting your wife is allowed in Islam under major cases of arrogance like a wife assaulting her husband. Is self-defence unjustified violence, Con?
The passage in 3:168-174 says nothing about violence, killing non-believers or any of the claims that Con made. It says that those who die in the cause of Allah, martyrs, will have a great reward. Con should lose point for bad conduct given how he misinterprets what the text he pasted clearly says.
Hitchen’s Razor again
“Pro has himself failed to see a middle-ground between what is stated and what is meant.”
Con I need not find a middle ground or even concede Hitchen’s razor since I provided insuperable rebuttals to it like being self-defeating and falsified by intuitive rational beliefs that lack evidence like “other minds exist”. Since Con has failed to engage these arguments, I will extend them.
Moreover, even granting the razor, it cuts both ways. As demonstrated in my section on the burden of proof, Con has a burden of proof and if he fails to fulfill that burden, then we can dismiss his assertion without evidence since he provided no evidence for his claim that Islam is not a religion of peace. In addition, even conceding this razor (which I do not concede), it does not dent my case since the principle only applies in case there was no evidence provided for a claim but I did provide evidence for the resolution that Islam is a religion of peace. Since the razor does not apply to my claim, it does not threaten my argument.
Failing to live to his promise
Con promised to give a “decimation” of my case last round. He has not given such a treatment of the arguments, verses and hadiths and so I will extend my case until Con gives a comprehensive engagement with these pieces of evidences in favour of the resolution.
Notes
[1] - https://www.ageofconsent.net/continent/europe
[2] - https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051
[3] - “If a girl reaches the age of nine, then she is a pubescent woman”
- http://www.asma-lamrabet.com/articles/is-stoning-the-punishment-for-adultery-in-islam/
(Con’s source)
“Adulterers who have somehow hurt the one they cheated on so much that even if the one they cheated on says 'don't hurt them' we must stone them to death are one of many examples of the barbaric nature of Islam and its lack of peace not just in practise but in teachings.”
Round 4
Con
#7
I was severely merciful to my opponent this entire debate, and to voters. I agreed to my opponent's dictated dynamic, which took two rounds of digging to get, that Islam is only scripture and political regimes based on Sharia at most. That the people aren't included. This then backfired on him, as it left him no way to use peaceful "Muslims" by name to support the resolution. Instead he relied on the idea that violence and aggression in general is purely defensive in the Qur'an. This is a lie and has consistently been shown to be purely about being appearing defensive or able to somehow be narrated as reactive.
From beating wives to beating adulterers even when the partner who they cheated on begs you not to in which case you are to stone/lash the lover as well but I won't bring the 'lover cheated on too' part up as evidence only hinted at as it's an obscure addition to an already horrific passage of the Hadith(s) and this is the last Round.
If you are able to convince others that you are defensive if you are able to justify that it was in the name of your... No, not safety, but honour as a follower of Allah or as a man, then you can beat who you want, hurt them how you want and humiliate them to any degree you please to 'defend against' their oh so heinous original 'hate crime against Islam' which could literally be drawing a cartoon, let alone having homosexual sex in the privacy of their home that all involved consented to and enjoyed.
The religion is founded upon pseudo-defence and pseudo-peace. You are indeed encouraged, at least in the Hadith, to be peaceful towards Islamic authority and leaders. Being peaceful to a tyrant is, by the very rebuttal in which the same argument was pushed forth by Pro, not defined as true peace but instead anti-peaceful pacifism. You are taught to be pacifist towards Allah, Muhammad and any and all authorities in their names that seem genuine enough no matter how brutal or unjust you perceive them to be. This is not peace as even Pro admits that if you invert it, and if you were to be violent for solely the sake of peace and for solely actual defence then that would be peace. So, Pro's logic backfires on itself with regards to the resolution since Islam is peace to a tyrant who literally is defined as the one who plans all plans against him, who outbids anyone to have the best hitmen and ruthless soldiers on his side and who is terrifyingly capable of getting away with being the beast that he is. Allah is the most terrifying of beasts, as opposed to the one to tame and/or oppose such beasts on a moral level like other religions' Gods.
From murder, to the way that the religion even began and became law in an official sense (Law that is based on Islam is still a form of scripture) has ended up proving time and time again that Islam is a religion of oppression, conquest and loathing of opposition being the very justification for things that are offence being defence. Someone offends you? Hmm, can't just hurt them, someone offends you via insulting Muhammad or Allah? AYOOOOOOOOOO BEAT THAT BOY 'til he screams for mercy and then slice his head as you do goats for Lols as their body squirms on an annual basis.
Tyrannical, sadistic and pseudo-defensive... Islam is proven to be non-peaceful in net-aim and overall ethos when the only one you're pacifist or peaceful to in a truly obedient and caring manner is the biggest bidder of all hitmen-hirers and greatest deceiver of all planners and deceivers... Allah.
Pro
#8
Rebuttal
“it left him no way to use peaceful "Muslims" by name to support the resolution. Instead he relied on the idea that violence and aggression in general is purely defensive in the Qur'an.”
I never said the resolution is true because there are peaceful Muslims. I also never argued that Islam is peaceful merely because all of the sanctioned combat is merely defensive. I also included other points like harmonious relationships and upholding mercy and forgiveness as well as spreading peace.
“From beating wives to beating adulterers”
Both of these points were addressed above. Con, why would you just restate the point instead of engaging with my rebuttal?
It is disappointing that Con’s final rant was nothing more than an unsubstantiated rant. Many claims were made; some of them were more controversial than others. None of them were substantiated from the sources of Islam like the Qur'an and the Hadiths and if you can not prove them from these sources, you can not prove them to be Islamic doctrines.
While Con went on many tangents like the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the conduct of the early Muslim empire. All of these would justify that Muslims were involved in some violent acts. However, they could very well be disobeying or misinterpreting the peaceful doctrines of Islam. In other words, even granting these points, they do not help Con’s case. My case went uncontested. Con merely asserted that my case did not work without providing a rebuttal of the peaceful verses and hadiths I provided. The only two verses that Con tried to use to negate the resolution, 4:34 and 3:168-174, were thoroughly refuted in the third round.
I fulfilled my BOP while Con did not.
Vote Pro.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
RFD in comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/471?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=80
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
"War will exist as long as any community desires to impose its will on another community more than it desires peace. Coercive men see only slaves and rivals in the world. If the meek refuse war to defend themselves against coercion, then they deserve to be slaves. Peace-lovers can only have what they love by being better at what they hate than those who love war. There is no road to peace that does not pass through war." -Orson Scott Card, Hidden Empire
---
First off, I would have preferred a better setup (description). For example, who has BoP is something worthy of debates itself, so clarifying in the debate setup would have (hopefully) avoided the debaters needing to spend so long off topic on it. Or both debaters pulling the same dictionary for the same word, somehow in disagreement...
Regarding what counts as the true religion, I will take a side. For anyone to judge this at all, a side must be picked. As of now I am at the start of R2, and since Nazis have been mentioned by both debaters, I'll use them as an example: The person who claims true Nazidom is unrealized, and we should give real Nazidom a try, is clearly up to no good. ... This debate defines Islam as a religion, not as a hypothetical book wholly separate from its followers. Those followers are not solely the result of its teachings, but their lives (and for peace to exist, the lives of those around them) are impacted for better or worse by said teachings.
Rat's example of Christianity's inspirations was a nice double-edged sword. It sets a point of contrast. If inspiring such men of peace is accepted as evidence of a religion of peace, then similar men from Islam would in by the same standard count as evidence of a religion of peace (Moe could have won the debate on this, but chose to drop it).
Similarly Moe's examples of "give zakah" and " pay the prescribed alms" and " until they give the jizya" could have given Rat easy victory (had he picked up the points), as extortion backed with the threat of violence is not peace. With a sword to the throat, the victim certainly won't feel harmony/tranquility, and if the aggressor feels such, they are an inhuman monster.
4:90 (yes, Rat initially used the wrong link). It leading in to a rule against making alliances with non-Muslims was pretty bad (doubly so with frequent use of the word kill). But of course, peace and pacifism are not always the same thing (the crux of Moe's case). What 4:34's opinion of women, was certainly not peaceful (meet mere arrogance with violence...).
Accidental Concessions: I should note that Moe took a huge risk in stating "If Con can prove the existence of any non-peaceful Quranic verse or sahih hadith, then he will successfully negate the resolution" given what had already transpired in the debate. At the same time, Moe caught a pretty damning line in one of Rat's sources (a few more like this would have claimed the source point). Weirdly Moe then went on to outright agree with the crux of Rat's case that Muslims seek fake peace for the sake of oppression... I am befuddled as to why he thought this was victory. Rat wisely countered with Moe's own bit about the Nazis.
"Recall that Muslims are required to emulate and follow the conduct of the Islamic Prophet." While this was used well by showing times Mohammad spared lives, it also opened the door to some really sickening information, but the topic is warfare, not child rape.
"Claims are cheap" under this R2 heading from Moe, he did exactly what was predicted by Rat. It goes back to points such as "like ISIS or justify war with Israel" (which Rat really should have expanded upon more directly. Same with the single mention of the Ottoman Empire). If Sharia law countries (experts at obeying the Koran) are secretly "false Muslims," then true Islam exists no more than true communism, making the resolution false.
Overall this debate strongly implied Islam is more opposed to peace than in favor of it.
---
Conduct is not something I thought would play into this, particularly as debaters getting worked on on a topic like this is to be expected, but the line was crossed too many times. Comparing Islam to female genital mutilations was out of nowhere and trying to make the audience queasy with talk of circumcised males harming themselves; it was a very cheap appeal. Just consider the low moment of the debate "Hmm, can't just hurt them, someone offends you via insulting Muhammad or Allah? AYOOOOOOOOOO BEAT THAT BOY 'til he screams for mercy and then slice his head as you do goats for Lols as their body squirms on an annual basis." It left the final round feeling like something other than a continuation of a logic based debate, but instead something I'd expect to see in one of those rap battles.
Vote report: joeyscarpa101 // Mod Action: Removed
Votes: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
RFD:
While I agree with the negative position "That Islam is not a religion of peace", the affirmative did a better job of structuring their arguments and providing sources.
Sharia Law was the best argument that the negative made (and if he had gotten further into the situation in Europe, he would have had the affirmative hard pressed to respond. Actions do speak louder than words).
The affirmative quoted the Quran which is the official teachings of Islam and provided fairly balanced interpretations without cherrypicking too much.
I would have liked to see a definition of the whole term "religion of peace". If either side had defined it, the debate could have taken a much different turn.
Excellent debate!
Reasons for removal: (1) conduct is not explained. In order to award conduct one side must have forfeited one or more rounds or were excessively rude. The voter must give examples of excessive rudeness, which they do not do; (2) sources are insufficient. To award sources you must compare the quality of sources between the two debaters and evaluate why one side had higher quality sources; (3) finally the argument point is insufficient. The voter does not survey the main arguments, analyze those arguments to determine who won each, or weigh the main arguments to determine a winner. In order to cast a sufficient ballot, the voter should do all three of these things.
I fully admit this was a very close debate. It was while giving the debate an extra read through that I identified the conduct issue as separate from arguments.
@RM
Why do you complain almost every time someone votes against you?
- if -
You need to learn how the fuck to reason. 100 points can be countered by 1 if the logic is correct and displayed well in words.
Thank you for your polite and gracious feedback.
Just to clarify: pros entire first round - probably at least 12,000 characters was dedicated to Koran and Hadith quotes. Aside from a handful of quotes - which I covered - I never at any point in my RFD, in any way, said that he used one verse that’s non violent to win. He used multiple quotes and examples to demonstrate this:
“Pro offers multiple reasonable Koran verses here to support the idea that the Koran teaches peace.”
Brainpower is required to vote. When you say that he can use one verse that's non-violent to win, you're a complete and utter hypocrite to not apply the same to Con under your own flawed BoP outlook.
If I take cons side on this point, then the religious teachings of the Koran are mostly irrelevant. While con attempted to justify this by saying the Koran can be interpreted multiple ways, he didn’t show it (as covered above).
If I take pros side then pros side could use the no true Scotsman fallacy throughout.
My judgement here is that if pros interpretation is not mainstream, or not sufficiently followed, it cannot be considered what “Islam” is, however it is up to con now to justify this. This is difficult to judge as the meaning was partially contested and not fully resolved as far as I can see.
IE: Islam is mostly defined by the teachings, but also it must consider the people who claim to follow it.
So.
2.) Islamic wars.
Con says that Islam started out as a brutal war like religion. Pro points out that wars for the purposes of defence and securing long term peace are okay (con agrees). Pro points out that the initial wars for Islam were defensive - and uses cons own source to show this.
Con asserts that Islam is a religion of war, but other than this initial claim, I see little other justification or detail here. Without specifics of the wars, how am I to judge whether they were violent aggressive wars.
The rest is very similar, outside of the Koran’s teachings, con primarily spent his time telling me how violent Islam is, but doing very little to actually justify it over the initial relatively simple claims.
As a result, arguments to pro.
Conduct was tied up to the last round. There were several references that I felt were close to the line. IMO cons final round crossed a line into being a rant with little in the way of advocacy. It was spiteful and angry for no useful or relevant reason, and outright disrespectful.
434 I agree with con that the Koran advocates wife beating, and that’s horrible - however in the context of this debate I don’t feel that is sufficient to proove that Islam is not a religion of peace - as I am interpreting that to be more concerning wider scale war and violence as has been discussed.
I side with pro on 168-174. The verse doesn’t clearly refer to violence and con doesn’t do enough to convince me of how this should be read how he claims.
There are several other examples of where con states the Koran provides justification for stoning for adultery, circumcision: I do not feel this matches the overarching definition of violence as I understand I from this debate, or a reasonable interpretation of it.
As a result of this, I feel that pro has shown that the Koran is on balance appears to advocate a non-aggressive (but not pacifist) approach. Con didn’t attack the Koran well enough to reject this.
So at this point the best I can say is that the Koran can be read to advocate “peace” of a form - or at least non-aggression.
2.) Who defines Islam.
So, one major contention. Is that con argues that the followers define what Islam is, and use the Koran to validate their position. Pro points out that Islam is based upon the teachings of the Koran.
Pro points out that if the teachings are peaceful then anyone who is not peaceful should not be considered a real Muslim. Pro even throws a challenge to con that even one non-peaceful verse would be enough to refute this.
I am challenged to resolve this dilemma, at this point:
Some background points:
A.) Burden of proof.
This is shared BoP. BoP is required for anyone who is arguing for a side that goes against the default position. The default position here imo is undecided.
I’m open to BoP arguments - but you have to convince me where the default position is, and that your opponents contention away from the default position and yours is not.
As a result, I will treat the BoP as shared here.
B.) definitions. Con didn’t offer any specific definitions of Islam, nor did he appear to object to the definition that pro offered covers the religion itself - rather than individuals that follow it.
C.) con also didn’t define what he means by Islam is a religion of Peace, I feel pros explanation is close to what I had in mind that “To prove this claim to be true, [pro has] to show that the religious doctrines of Islam promote peace rather than violence.”
Arguments:
The arguments presented clearly fall down into to broad categories here:
That the Koran teaches war and violence, and that followers of islam are violent.
1.) Koran verses:
Pro offers multiple reasonable Koran verses here to support the idea that the Koran teaches peace.
490 was contested, pro argued it was about political maneuvering, but when reviewing the wording presented before and after in 489/491 this doesn’t appear to be supported and pro points this out.
"What earlier votes? You are the first vote."
WisdomofAges, stvitus, and Alec. The ones you've received notifications about, we discussed, and you complained about their removal ("moderation and vote reports are poor."). But in case you are serious rather than pretending to be this deluded to make Muslims look bad, challenge me to a debate.
And the moderation and vote reports are poor.
"If you think the religion itself is not peaceful, next time have a debate excluding the religion."
No, I think the religion is peaceful which is why I said that the doctrines of the religion are peaceful. I clearly explained in my debate so and you failed to factor that in your RFD that Con did not respond to the long list of peaceful verses and hadiths like 2:256 and 8:61. I clearly gave an argument why the behaviour of the adherents does not matter. Here it is: " To prove this claim to be true, I have to show that the religious doctrines of Islam promote peace rather than violence. The proposition is not “Some Muslims are terrorists” nor “Some Muslims are evil” and so an appeal by either of us to individual cases will not suffice. I can grant that there are cases where certain Muslims misinterpret, disobey and go against the doctrines of their religions to commit acts of violence and hate. In this case, the religion and its doctrines would be peaceful despite the violent behaviour of certain individuals who falsely claim to be adhering to those doctrines." and I even repeated it elsewhere numerous times. You completely ignored this argument in your RFD. That argument refutes all of Con's case.
" then prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes."
What earlier votes? You are the first vote.
"for proving how many atrocities against humanity Islam caused in addition to being a comic book farce."
You clearly have a bias against Islam, dude.
Yeah, I do not think this site is it. This is descending into DDO with stupid RFDs like "I did not buy your argument", poor votes like Ragnar's and Bifolkal's and implicit bias against theism and Islam in particular.
"I already explained that the debate was about the doctrines of the religion not the behavior..."
If you think the religion itself is not peaceful, next time have a debate excluding the religion.
...
If your problem is the content of the vote as opposed it not not favoring you, then prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes. For starters, you are fine with winning for proving how many atrocities against humanity Islam caused in addition to being a comic book farce. I did not read such into your case, but that person whom you did not accuse of not reading the debate clearly found you won on those grounds.
>That Rat did not respond to things the way you wanted him do, to you means no response was made at all.
I did not say that either. I am saying that he objectively did not respond to the long list of peaceful verses and hadiths I gave.
>Why Islam would be treated to exist was addressed in the third paragraph of my vote.
No clue what this means. I already explained that the debate was about the doctrines of the religion not the behavior of Muslims and you failed to engage with my argument for it. "I did not buy it" is useless to me. It's not an actual objection to my argument; just a rejection.
> Attempts to move the goalpost to a wholly different resolution (one not of the religion of the Muslims), and the back and forth such
I did not move the goalposts, I was the first to provide any formal cited definition of peace or Islam.
>Your problem seems to not the content of the vote, but that it doesn't favor you.
No, I have problems with the content of your vote.
That Rat did not respond to things the way you wanted him do, to you means no response was made at all. I have proven this to be false, but still you insist on complaining.
Why Islam would be treated to exist was addressed in the third paragraph of my vote. Attempts to move the goalpost to a wholly different resolution (one not of the religion of the Muslims), and the back and forth such, are not something I cared to write at length about; and to expect such would be counter to "I did not ask you to repeat every single paragraph in th debate."
...
Your problem seems to not the content of the vote, but that it doesn't favor you. If this is false, you can easily prove so by quoting your disagreements with the earlier votes (hint: you made none). For example, when a vote in your favor read "ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another Glorified Comic Book farce."
You have misunderstood my point.
Let's take an example, 4:90. I used that as a verse in my opening argument and Con failed to respond to my argument that 4:90 is a peaceful verse that supports the resolution. Rather Con made a quick mention of the verse when quoting 4:89, a verse he used to support his own case. In other words, Con did not respond to my argument but used the verse before it to make his own argument.
Another example is that Con used my analogy with the nazis (an analogy I made in the peace not pacifism section) to make his own (false) analogy of how some Muslim regimes behave like Nazis.
>Once more, that you want the debate to be judged with Islam not as a religion, is an argument inside the debate which I simply did not buy.
I made an argument for it that Con did not address. I really dont care what you buy. You are supposed to judge the debate based on the performance of the debaters and the objections that they made to each other's argument. You have to point out why the argument does not work and which of Con's objections that made my argument ineffective. You have completly failed to do so and "I dont buy your argument" is such a poor response. By that logic, I can go to a debate and just repeat "I did not buy their argument" for one side that was clearly the winner.
You have still failed toanswer the fact that Con did not revut any of the large list of hadiths and verses I gave to affirm the resolution in the opening round.
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. For starters, you don't even know what a rebuttal is, as exemplified with "it was Con who used them to make his case after I mentioned them." When you make something part of your case, and the person rebuts it (even if they put greater importance on it), that is the literal definition of a rebuttal. For example, when you pulled a quote from one of Rat's sources which weakened it, that was not you making the original point but you rebutting it.
Once more, that you want the debate to be judged with Islam not as a religion, is an argument inside the debate which I simply did not buy. That you want something and don't always get it, is a normal part of life.
>If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
I did not say that nobody practiced Islam. I said that we will evaluate what the religion itself teaches rather than what some believers may allegedly do in the name of yhe religion. I gave an argument for that distinction.
>That you introduced each of these is easily proven with a simple CTRL+F,
You just contradicted yourself. First you said "the very definition of the word peace, Nazis, 4:90, peace and pacifism" were Con's points in rebuttal to my case of verses and hadiths that support the resolution; now you are saying that these were actually my points. Both claims are false. None of these were part of my case in affirming the resolution. I did bring up the peace / pacifism point but that was not part of my positive case for the resolution. That was in rebuttal to anticipated verses of violence and to clarify rather than argue on some verses. The other points were absolutely not central to my case and it was Con who used them to make his case after I mentioned them. For example, it was Con who first talked or mentioned 4:90 not as a rebuttal but as support for his positive case against the resolution; I mentioned it but Con did not *rebut it* rather he used the verse before it to support his own positive case.. I am talking about my actual case in the opening round like the comprehensive list of verses and hadiths that Con did not bother responding to.
Ragnar, you did not read the full debate before voting.
I got to say, I did not expect your R2 prediction to hold so strongly: "If I then would prove that Sharia law regimes and the followers of Islam are non-peaceful, he either agrees with me and says it's 'good and justified non-peace like fighting Nazis' or will flip it a third way and say 'neither the followers nor the written word are the real Islam, real Islam is something else that you can't touch or attack or call non-peaceful."
"I made a clear distinction between muslims and Islam several times." To repeat myself: Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
"The first 3 were part of Con's positive case" ... That you introduced each of these is easily proven with a simple CTRL+F, disproving your own claim "Con had no rebuttal to any of my points." I really should not know the content of your debate better than you.
Your evidence someone did not read the debate is them making dozens of references to it, to include penalizing conduct for BS in the final round... Compared to votes that you stated no disagreement with, this becomes a very fine example of pure absurdity.
Thanks for the vote and feedback.
>You want the debate on "the religious faith of Muslims" to be judged ignoring the existence of actual Muslims.
I made a clear distinction between muslims and Islam several times. Yes, the existence of bad muslims is not enough to negate the resolution. I thought I made that clear in my case many times.
>the very definition of the word peace, Nazis, 4:90, peace and pacifism
The first 3 were part of Con's positive case; not part of his rebuttal to my case. That last one was not even Con's point at all. That was my point. Did you even read the full debate?
I highly doubt Ragnar read the debate, I think his vote should be removed.
Do you have any idea how nonsensical you are being? You want the debate on "the religious faith of Muslims" to be judged ignoring the existence of actual Muslims. Your opponent's final paragraph one round is discussing BoP, and you begin the next round complaining about how he did not address BoP. You're even going so far as to insult your own case, claiming that you catching a weak piece of his evidence did not happen because a vote made mention of it.
"Con had no rebuttal to any of my points" ... As seen in my vote (unless you think you did not introduce any of these to the debate), the very definition of the word peace, Nazis, 4:90, peace and pacifism, etc.
Given that you are disagreeing with easily verifiable facts of your own debate, I see little point in engaging with you further on this.
I did not ask you to repeat every single paragraph in th debate. I asked you to factor in my case which went uncontested. Con had no rebuttal to any of my points and you did not feel the need to mention that; that's clearly absurd to not evaluate my case when voting on my debate.
>then my vote certainly did not include the words "Moe caught a pretty damning line in one of Rat's sources" or references to you both bringing up the historical evidence of the Nazis, etc.
Neither of those were used (even by Con) as arguments against the resolution. One of them was even an analogy.
>Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument.
I did not even make such an argument. Where did I say that Islam is not a practiced religion?
>. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims."
Sure the entity in question of being peaceful was Islam (the religious faith and its doctrines) not muslims (the people who practice the faith.
I think the above misunderstandings are enough to show that your vote is poor. I hope one of the mods notices this and deletes your vote.
It is not my job to repeat every single paragraph from the debate.
I do congratulate you on the very nice strawperson while complaining about a strawperson. If the only piece of Rat's evidence mentioned was the 4:34, then my vote certainly did not include the words "Moe caught a pretty damning line in one of Rat's sources" or references to you both bringing up the historical evidence of the Nazis, etc.
Your case was dependent upon Islam not existing as a practiced religion. I did not buy this argument. In fact your own definition (unless you think Muslims are fictional) of it implies it does exist: "the religious faith of Muslims." If you wanted the debate to be about a hypothetical non-practiced religion, that limitation should have been agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to the start of the debate.
You have completely failed to take into account that I made a substantial case from the sources of Islam i defence of the resolution that Con did not even engage. The reason you voted for Con namely "It goes back to points such as "like ISIS or justify war with Israel" (which Rat really should have expanded upon more directly. Same with the single mention of the Ottoman Empire). If Sharia law countries (experts at obeying the Koran) are secretly "false Muslims," then true Islam exists no more than true communism, making the resolution false." completely misunderstands the resolution. I have pointed out multiple times that the resolution is talking about the teachings of the religion of Islam, not the adherents.
This is the only acknowledgement of any evidence brought by Con "What 4:34's opinion of women, was certainly not peaceful (meet mere arrogance with violence...)." and I gave a rebuttal to that that Con ignored.
You clearly did not engage my argument and completely strawmanned me on occasion. I thought you would be a competent evaluattor but apprantely not.
So naive you are, and even when a victim of the guy himself. He is telling me somethign with that post. It is why I haven't voted on your debate vs him yet.
Yeah, he said he feels like this debate could use a vote.
Yeah you ask magicaintreal LOL
This could use a vote.
Vote reported: WisdomofAges
Mod: Removed
RFD (full 7 points to pro): ISLAM has a proven record of ATROCITIES against humanity....try doing the same with the Hare Krishna....not going to happen...the Koran is another
Glorified Comic Book farce used as a TOOL for assimilation and VIOLENCE towards all that do not accept its idiocy on how to think and exist...
The instigator points out the flaws within this fabricated "GOD" spun from the JEW Moses playbook.....absurd....that anyone falls for this garbage...
so childish and petty....what one would expect from another wandering tribal lunatic in the Middle East desert meets GOD hoax...
Reason for removal: The voter fails to survey the main arguments, conduct, grammar, and appears to vote for the wrong side.
I'll be voting on this. Right now I will say plainly that I doubt any point other than arguments is warranted.
Vote Report: stvitus
Mod decision: Removed
RFD: Full 7 points to pro (see below)
Reason for mod decision: There is a lot wrong with this vote. Frist and foremost the grammar point is insufficiently explained. To award s/g one the debate arguments must be so bad that the readability is compromised. Second the conduct point is insufficiently explained. Third the arguments are insufficent. The voter fails to survey the main arguments by ignoring some of the key points while adding things that were not said in the debate.
Moeology is the clear winner here, and I look forward to hearing his perspective in future debates. Pro [RationalMadman] confused the debate by stubbornly insisting to refer to Con as Pro (but nonetheless did not succeed in tricking me into voting for him rather than Moeology); ignored the historical context of the verses he cited; cynically and antagonistically anticipated Con’s responses; focused on extremist terrorist groups and political conflict rather than the Qur’an as read by practicing Muslims around the world, including Con; commenced his argument by making unsubstantiated claims about Islam (NO sources); disregarded Con’s final distinctions in Round 1; misconstrued (possibly intentionally) Con’s reference to World War II; entered debate with a blatant prejudice against adherents of any faith, making an “appeal to authority” to pop philosopher Christopher Hitchens without establishing the truth value of “Hitchen’s razor,” among other fallacies pointed out by Con; entered debate with preconceptions not grounded in the religious texts of the faith and a total absence of knowledge about the body of texts which are relevant to Islamic practice and law and the different roles of each text; made several unsubstantiated generalizations, such as “Sharia Law is Fascism in every sense,” despite his obvious equation of Sharia law with outlier cases which are often disputed on the basis of differing Hadith; made broad historical claims without any sources whatsoever; failed to engage with Con’s arguments; held all practicing Muslims responsible for the crimes of a few tyrannical regimes and extremist individuals; etc. I could go on, but RationalMadman's tack here was all overwrought rhetoric with zero substance. Con was more prepared, more articulate, showed greater integrity in both engaging with Pro’s arguments and citing sources, and did not resort to rhetoric, polemics, or controversy in an attempt to “win.” As English is Con’s second language, his command of it i
Please vote mod this votebomber ty
Bump
I feel like this could use a vote.
Vote reported: Alec
Mod decision: Removed
RFD:
This is not a grudge vote.
Con didn't fulfill his BoP that well. Pro stated that Islam was peaceful. He provided some Quran quotes and rebuttaled some common counterexamples that he thought at the time Con would provide. There were many other uncited Quran verses that Con could have used that he did not directly use.
Sources:
For religious debates, I think citing the religious texts (the bible, the Quran, etc) are pretty reliable sources and more reliable then people's interpretation of them. People have biases on the bible and the bible does not have much bias on it's self. Pro cited a religious text and Con did not directly cite a religious text(in this case, the Quran).
Reason: The voter fails to highlight the main arguments of the debate and analyze them. Further he needs to go more in depth with source point
I directly fucking cited the Qur'an at several points.
>The Quran orders the death penalty for speaking out against Allah.
Not sure that I agree.
You cited the Qur'an. But you did not cite the Qur'an as a source that negates the resolution. The only two times you tried to do so, those attempts were refuted.
You didn't directly cite the Quran. You merely posted someone else's opinion. It would be like me just posting a YouTube link as my sole argument. It's not me doing the arguing. It would be someone else. I still think Pro won the debate from better arguments. The thing is, if I voted for you, I don't think Pro would be complaining about it being rigged. I voted to the best of my ability.
In the future check if my opponent is lying before you lie too. I used the Quran so much that it's actually my primary source used for over 50% of citations if you read them.
Slanted votes?
Who would ever start such a thing?
Aren't the lynchers motivated by what the Quran tells them to do? The Quran orders the death penalty for speaking out against Allah.
Correct, Alec. The people who lynched him are not very peaceful. Good thing the resolution of this debate is "Islam is a religion of peace" not "Some Muslims are not peaceful".
Since you all three are enabling abusive gang-votes against me that slant the rules in favour of targetted anti-voting I'd at least ask you three to have a better work ethic as voters than as judges of voting in that you vote on this debate especially if you think I have won it. The reason is that there are three guaranteed votes that will slant absolutely anything I said to justify conduct and any source I used to justify source-vote and then will simply refuse to focus on the remainder of arguments and cherry-pick one by me they feel was somewhat defeated by the other side and do the reverse for Pro. These users are MagicAintReal, bifolkal and debatevoter (Alec seems unrelated but does something similar).
Please vote.
There was this guy who spoke out against Islam on Facebook and he got killed for it by Pakistan(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook). This sounds pretty violent to me. Killing someone over a religious disagreement.
RM and Moe, as of now the best place to hold this argument would be inside the debate.