Please familiarize yourself with at least the basics of the debate in question before accusing those who have of being druggies.
Had you read as far as the short description, you'd know that the era in question was a key point for why the otherwise evil action could be considered normal.
> Islam Vs Anything2
> Marriage between Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Aisha (RA) Marriage was normal (especially for that era) Marriage was Successful. There were no grievances from any side. It was acceptable until recently.
While I cannot speak for Bella, I can assure you all that I am in no way a proxy or slave account for RM (as much as I'm sure I've made jokes to that effect at one time or another).
Further, the only sources for help I received in writing my RFD came from the voting policy and the debate.
Adding to this, last I checked RM is a big believer in full tabula rasa voting. While I take measures to minimize bias, I go in with basic knowledge, such as I don't need to be walked through how evil Nazi Germany was for the argument that they were abnormal to have impact.
FYI, if you right click the post # for any post and copy the link address, you'll have a static link for it.
Such as: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54831
Instead of: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=231
For most topics the difference is moot, since the shorter one will turn into the longer when followed. However, an intentionally controversial topic like this attracts a lot of comments, and the one in question will soon be pushed onto page 2, and in time maybe page 3. The longer link will not be able to find the comment, due to only looking for it on page 1. Whereas the shorter one will ask the comment which page it's currently at and return that information.
I will add that con while nailing the issues of how unhealthy it most likely was, did miss the focus on strangeness to the confines of the era. This leaves it not an absolute victory on all fronts; even while still having a strong lead.
---RFD---
In simple terms this debate boils down to a series of fallacious special pleadings.
Pro is a pedophila apologist, arguing the relationship between Saw and Ra was neither strange nor unhealthy for various exceptions to the status que. While the very need to go to such lengths to defend it implies strangeness, what elevates this beyond a foregone conclusion is the "especially for that era" qualifier; meaning that at the time of occurrence such marriages were not strange, and the particular marriage was healthy.
As the BoP rests with pro, no amount of special pleading that maybe this case might have been an exception makes it seem like it was most likely the case, causing him to miss victory by a mile.
...
Common vs Normal:
Con opens by addressing that frequency of occurrence is a mere red herring to normality (normality being defined as not strange and healthy), and the definitions are not synonymous. He leverages a powerful Nazi Germany example of how the very worst of crimes may be common in a broken society but such does not somehow make pure evil somehow not strange and outright healthy.
Without challenge to them being district words for different purposes, pro wholly misses this and without challenging it makes various contentions around such things having happened so therefore it must be normal.
Grooming and Slavery:
Con asserts that child marriage is slavery, and raises the problem of grooming prepubescent girls to deny that agency, and even brings up Stockholm Syndrome.
Not a Pedo:
Pro defends that Saw waited until she was 6 before expressing interest in her, and she may have started puberty by then... This is whole thing is incredibly strange, even more so being raised by pro, and without first addressing the common phycological damage raised by pro, leaves it most likely quite harmful.
Age of Consent Laws:
Con uses the age and power gap here, to cast strong doubt on free and positive consent.
I'm having a hard time understanding the basis for pro's counter logic. Pro at some length argues that in other countries sexual deviants (one of con's counters solidifies this, as it's frowned upon even if legal) target children much older than 9; which /somehow/ means it's good for men in their 50's to not wait so long? š¤®
Con of course counters by not defending the legal status quo, and stating it doesn't go far enough due to development not finishing until around age 25, which implies an abnormality for any large age gaps until the younger has reached that age.
Pro counters that if you can get the kiddies pregnant, then it's not strange and healthy... WTF?!
Con wisely refutes: "Being able to physically bear children at such a young age doesn't mean it's ideal or preferable. To confuse the two to be synonymous is laughably absurd. Teenagers give birth to children all the time and it doesn't mean they are old enough to shoulder the burden of responsibility."
Diet:
Pro, what the heck are you even going on about here? It's somehow normal if a child eats eats cucumbers?
Saw was sexy:
Pro argues it's not pedophilia if the aggressor is is hot... WTF did I just read?
Various off topic rants:
Please stick to the damned topic. There's a comment section for side rants.
Conduct (con):
The comment section is usually off limits but pro truly stepped over the line just before his final argument in what feels like an attempt to poison the well for early voters.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54727
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
Conversely, con was impatient at the very start of the debate, and otherwise mostly stayed out of the comment section.
Additionally, pro committed no less than 11 ad hominem attacks in the final round... And damning his own arguments while he's at it, he implies that Islam is good with marrying "adult" girls at the tender age of 8 months...
"Lina Medina started having mensuration at the age of 8 months the extremest case of precocious puberty. But my opponent is dumbest of all, can not see it at all what I have wrote just wasting time with his nonsense."
Wow... While not named in the debate, I have seeing the spirit of Todd Akin living on.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/todd-akins-sexual-assault-gaffe
While the religion has declared itās okay to mutilate girls in that manner, and some sects insist upon it, most Muslims donāt hate women enough to commit that act of pure evil.
The resolution contradicts itself.
Murder is unlawful killing.
Killed on sight implies a universal duty, which in it means of itself implies it would be legally ok.
Ergo, no murders.
Plus, self defense laws apply to protecting others.
Blasphemy is Karen code for hurt feelings of weaklings. Worse, itās a quite demeaning form of white knighting. If your god is real, he would certainly be capable of defending himself should his feelings be hurt; if his feelings are not hurt, cries of blasphemy are inherently an insult to claim heās so pathetic.
You are welcome to find a safe space debate site, where no disagreements are allowed. This however is not such a place. Here by presenting an idea in the form of a debate, you are outright asking people to disagree with it.
As for Brother getting a bunch of likes: seriously?! š¤Ø
As a reminder to voters, the comment section is not the debate. A user could even admit defeat within the comment section, and that would not count as a concession when voting.
Please be advised that I stepped down from being the lead moderator quite some time ago. As a moderator I mostly just ban spambots, and do early interventions to try to calm things down so that bans and such donāt need to be considered.
Based on your respective behaviors in this comment section, if Muhammad married you both, heād be unable to consummate either marriage for years to come due to your maturity levels.
Please do not make baseless accusations regarding the sexual preferences of other members.
You may freely accuse any public figure of raping camels and worse; but unless a site member has said something to imply a /fondness/ for camels, they should not be accused of such.
Those types of insults are something weāve banned people for before, so please cease them.
The threat I spotted was of thoughts and prayers being levied against you. Living in the USA, and seeing the effect those have on school safety I get why those may be a scary notion; but without a clear casual link, it becomes like threatening to unleash a butterfly.
Again, Iāve only skimmed. Another moderator will likely follow up reading in depth.
As a reminder, if you want someone to leave you alone it goes both ways.
ā¦
Contextually you seem to think calling someone sister is an insult, would you mind expanding why this would be the case?
By your own admission, itās perfectly normal for men to take 53 years to reach comparable intelligence and maturity as 9 year old girls. So since even the very best men are so inferior, wouldn't calling them women be the very highest form of praise?
While theyāre certainly different from other women, so is every other category of woman. All women are real women.
To win a debate like this, you need to first consider the social consciousness. Women are women is the default, so BoP rests strongly with you in the eyes of most potential judges. So your R1 tactic of giving the other side the floor, wastes your opportunity to lay the groundwork.
if doing this again, I suggest starting with a smaller piece of the puzzle; sports for example, or even that theyāre not the same as biological mothers.
I advise focusing your efforts on your real opponent, rather than getting bogged down in the comment section.
If anyone votes for arguments in the comment section (but not inside the debate proper), the vote is highly eligible for deletion if reported. If such a thing happens, please report the vote and also make a comment tagging moderators concisely explaining why you believe you falls short.
My apologies for misinterpreting your view on Muslims debating to be be favor of such, rather than a religious aversion to speaking up for their religion.
ā¦
Youāre welcome to start a debate on if mainstream Islam endorses those forms of child abuse, and use those historical pieces of evidence to support it. You can even argue something to the effect of any Muslim who does not support said abuses, is rejecting Muhammad and therefore not a true Muslim.
That said, an inferred accusation is still an accusation. If someone said āI hope I didnāt catch an STD while fucking so and sos mom last nightā may argue they said they hoped they didnāt, but the context of implying they fucked said mother is still quite clear.
Again, this is not saying religions may not be insulted, it is however a reminder about the targeted harassment of singular site members and non-hypothetical family members.
While you seem quite knowledgeable on Islam (particularly the apparent sacred need for them to argue), in future please do not accuse someone of being a danger to their children based solely upon membership in a large and varied organization. This crosses so damned far beyond the line, that it's unacceptable.
As an example, if someone says they believe in Odin I do not assume they're committed to animal sacrifice and committing murder/suicide or else going to Hel... I know at least one branch of that religion features such utter stupidity, but I should take it for granted that any one random person online is not in such an extra insane sub-sect.
The first K which pops into my mind is they were exceptional, therefore their marriage was not merely normal.
Normal may be hard to properly define, as rich men marrying many women (and sometimes children), means most men never married. Thus for men in that culture at the time, marriage was not normal.
Iām pretty sure it at least was legal by the standards of the time; but hopefully it was incredibly infrequent.
ā¦
āRule No 1: No insult to my religion which is Islam and no insult to any person discussed in Debate, especially Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and mother Aisha (RA).ā
This rule is unenforceable given the topic. Weāre talking about what is by all modern standards a pedo. Sure an opponent should not bring up off topic other misdeeds, the direct topic cannot be discussed without character attacks against men who have sex with prepubescent girls for doing exactly that.
Oh regarding vote #1, I have passed your concerns to the other moderators. However, due to it both covering a decent amount of debate content and mentioning the auto loss rule, it is unlikely to be taken down. Were it taken down, the voter could recast minus everything other than the rule violation; so removing it seems frivolous to me.
In online discourse, you should expect trolls. The best policy is to not feed the trolls. If you choose to feed the trolls, then the conversation with one becomes consensual; if you do not engage with one, then any stalkerish behavior becomes something moderators may intercede against.
To be fair, weāve repeatedly had āMuslimā trolls. While I donāt think that is a fair representation of all Muslims, it does lower quality expectations here.
A refinement I suggest for future debates about Muslims is using concise comparative facts. That Muslims sleep and eat does not help them, because it is taken for granted that so does everyone else. However their education levels, life expectancy, etc.; those are great for comparing.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-main-factors/
It will still be very subjective, such as if their abilities at war are a positive or a negative.
Hate to say it, but I've let myself get overwhelmed with stuff, and haven't properly reviewed the remaining rounds.
One problem I'm having is when I find a point particularly interesting, I do word searches to try to follow it; which is leading me to finding a lot of stuff from both sides just dropped. While I'm leaning towards con, it's not by a lot, so might just be my bias on the topic (as opposed to a slam dunk victory).
All that said, this deserves to be a HoF contender.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified.
Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
Con accuses pro of moving the goalposts, insisting justified means ethics and morals... Probably going to be more back and forth on this, personally I'd have argued it was done for bad illegitimate reasons making them not justified.
Pro says con dropped that it should be action vs no action (I think con's R1 intuitively argues for no action against Poland).
l. Germany and Polandās Truce
ll. Poland wasnāt a threat
Nuff said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade. Plus Bloody Sunday (which my reading indicates happened after Germany invaded, but no assurance on will catch that).
lll. Hitlerās justification was blatant slander
False flag etc.
Pro defends that the source is biased by being victims of the Nazis, so should be dismissed...
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitlerās downfall.
Nuff Said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
Con calls this off topic.
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
Con defends that there were other means to attain food.
Pro says we can't really know what's in their hearts, and that he pre-refuted most means other than warfare.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
Con makes an appeal to the genocide against native Germans, and that valuing freedom is impossible if not valuing freedom for other countries.
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
Con lands a great and simple retort "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason"
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
Pro is able to leverage this again with the 500 billion dollar debt, limiting their options.
Read R1. I get the feeling con will win arguments but pro will win sources. Still, haven't gotten to the rebuttals so it's up in the air.
Here's my prelim (really, posting it since I have to go do other things).
Also in case I don't say this later: Pro, thank you for making this one fun to read.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified. Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
l. Germany and Polandās Truce
ll. Poland wasnāt a threat
lll. Hitlerās justification was blatant slander
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitlerās downfall.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
My mind goes to the immediate kritik that my level of vileness is not a joke. š
http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Best of luck finding your desired safe space, free from any disagreements.
There's some strong contentions available to both sides, so could be a good debate.
It's all good.
FYI, your vote looks fine to me. Yes, it had typos. Typos happen.
Regarding: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54875
The CoC forbids the public sharing PM content without permission of the author.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/rules#safety-and-privacy
Please familiarize yourself with at least the basics of the debate in question before accusing those who have of being druggies.
Had you read as far as the short description, you'd know that the era in question was a key point for why the otherwise evil action could be considered normal.
> Islam Vs Anything2
> Marriage between Prophet Muhammad (saw) and Aisha (RA) Marriage was normal (especially for that era) Marriage was Successful. There were no grievances from any side. It was acceptable until recently.
Regarding: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54868
Where is this notion originate?
While I cannot speak for Bella, I can assure you all that I am in no way a proxy or slave account for RM (as much as I'm sure I've made jokes to that effect at one time or another).
Further, the only sources for help I received in writing my RFD came from the voting policy and the debate.
Adding to this, last I checked RM is a big believer in full tabula rasa voting. While I take measures to minimize bias, I go in with basic knowledge, such as I don't need to be walked through how evil Nazi Germany was for the argument that they were abnormal to have impact.
FYI, if you right click the post # for any post and copy the link address, you'll have a static link for it.
Such as: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54831
Instead of: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=231
For most topics the difference is moot, since the shorter one will turn into the longer when followed. However, an intentionally controversial topic like this attracts a lot of comments, and the one in question will soon be pushed onto page 2, and in time maybe page 3. The longer link will not be able to find the comment, due to only looking for it on page 1. Whereas the shorter one will ask the comment which page it's currently at and return that information.
Youāre welcome to report my vote, and/or disagree with any part of it.
As for my choice to use a couple emojis to communicate reactions to your (hopefully) devils advocate arguments; that does not invalidate the analysis.
I will add that con while nailing the issues of how unhealthy it most likely was, did miss the focus on strangeness to the confines of the era. This leaves it not an absolute victory on all fronts; even while still having a strong lead.
---RFD---
In simple terms this debate boils down to a series of fallacious special pleadings.
Pro is a pedophila apologist, arguing the relationship between Saw and Ra was neither strange nor unhealthy for various exceptions to the status que. While the very need to go to such lengths to defend it implies strangeness, what elevates this beyond a foregone conclusion is the "especially for that era" qualifier; meaning that at the time of occurrence such marriages were not strange, and the particular marriage was healthy.
As the BoP rests with pro, no amount of special pleading that maybe this case might have been an exception makes it seem like it was most likely the case, causing him to miss victory by a mile.
...
Common vs Normal:
Con opens by addressing that frequency of occurrence is a mere red herring to normality (normality being defined as not strange and healthy), and the definitions are not synonymous. He leverages a powerful Nazi Germany example of how the very worst of crimes may be common in a broken society but such does not somehow make pure evil somehow not strange and outright healthy.
Without challenge to them being district words for different purposes, pro wholly misses this and without challenging it makes various contentions around such things having happened so therefore it must be normal.
Grooming and Slavery:
Con asserts that child marriage is slavery, and raises the problem of grooming prepubescent girls to deny that agency, and even brings up Stockholm Syndrome.
Not a Pedo:
Pro defends that Saw waited until she was 6 before expressing interest in her, and she may have started puberty by then... This is whole thing is incredibly strange, even more so being raised by pro, and without first addressing the common phycological damage raised by pro, leaves it most likely quite harmful.
Age of Consent Laws:
Con uses the age and power gap here, to cast strong doubt on free and positive consent.
I'm having a hard time understanding the basis for pro's counter logic. Pro at some length argues that in other countries sexual deviants (one of con's counters solidifies this, as it's frowned upon even if legal) target children much older than 9; which /somehow/ means it's good for men in their 50's to not wait so long? š¤®
Con of course counters by not defending the legal status quo, and stating it doesn't go far enough due to development not finishing until around age 25, which implies an abnormality for any large age gaps until the younger has reached that age.
Pro counters that if you can get the kiddies pregnant, then it's not strange and healthy... WTF?!
Con wisely refutes: "Being able to physically bear children at such a young age doesn't mean it's ideal or preferable. To confuse the two to be synonymous is laughably absurd. Teenagers give birth to children all the time and it doesn't mean they are old enough to shoulder the burden of responsibility."
Diet:
Pro, what the heck are you even going on about here? It's somehow normal if a child eats eats cucumbers?
Saw was sexy:
Pro argues it's not pedophilia if the aggressor is is hot... WTF did I just read?
Various off topic rants:
Please stick to the damned topic. There's a comment section for side rants.
Conduct (con):
The comment section is usually off limits but pro truly stepped over the line just before his final argument in what feels like an attempt to poison the well for early voters.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54727
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
Conversely, con was impatient at the very start of the debate, and otherwise mostly stayed out of the comment section.
Additionally, pro committed no less than 11 ad hominem attacks in the final round... And damning his own arguments while he's at it, he implies that Islam is good with marrying "adult" girls at the tender age of 8 months...
"Lina Medina started having mensuration at the age of 8 months the extremest case of precocious puberty. But my opponent is dumbest of all, can not see it at all what I have wrote just wasting time with his nonsense."
Wow... While not named in the debate, I have seeing the spirit of Todd Akin living on.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/todd-akins-sexual-assault-gaffe
As a reminder, the voting policy may be found at:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
If bias for either side is too overwhelming to consider that the other has merits, then no points should be assigned.
Damn, Con only took 38 minutes for his penultimate reply!
While the religion has declared itās okay to mutilate girls in that manner, and some sects insist upon it, most Muslims donāt hate women enough to commit that act of pure evil.
https://arabstates.unfpa.org/en/node/22514#:~:text=communities%20they%20serve.-,FGM%20in%20the%20Arab%20states%20region,Djibouti%20and%2098%25%20in%20Somalia.
The resolution contradicts itself.
Murder is unlawful killing.
Killed on sight implies a universal duty, which in it means of itself implies it would be legally ok.
Ergo, no murders.
Plus, self defense laws apply to protecting others.
Blasphemy is Karen code for hurt feelings of weaklings. Worse, itās a quite demeaning form of white knighting. If your god is real, he would certainly be capable of defending himself should his feelings be hurt; if his feelings are not hurt, cries of blasphemy are inherently an insult to claim heās so pathetic.
You are welcome to find a safe space debate site, where no disagreements are allowed. This however is not such a place. Here by presenting an idea in the form of a debate, you are outright asking people to disagree with it.
As for Brother getting a bunch of likes: seriously?! š¤Ø
I strongly advise challenging tiger to a debate. And/or creating open debate challenges for your opinions.
Iāll outright say that I find certain behaviors less troublesome when the context of a debate.
As a reminder to voters, the comment section is not the debate. A user could even admit defeat within the comment section, and that would not count as a concession when voting.
Please be advised that I stepped down from being the lead moderator quite some time ago. As a moderator I mostly just ban spambots, and do early interventions to try to calm things down so that bans and such donāt need to be considered.
Based on your respective behaviors in this comment section, if Muhammad married you both, heād be unable to consummate either marriage for years to come due to your maturity levels.
Admittedly Iāve only skimmedā¦
Please do not make baseless accusations regarding the sexual preferences of other members.
You may freely accuse any public figure of raping camels and worse; but unless a site member has said something to imply a /fondness/ for camels, they should not be accused of such.
Those types of insults are something weāve banned people for before, so please cease them.
The threat I spotted was of thoughts and prayers being levied against you. Living in the USA, and seeing the effect those have on school safety I get why those may be a scary notion; but without a clear casual link, it becomes like threatening to unleash a butterfly.
Again, Iāve only skimmed. Another moderator will likely follow up reading in depth.
As a reminder, if you want someone to leave you alone it goes both ways.
ā¦
Contextually you seem to think calling someone sister is an insult, would you mind expanding why this would be the case?
By your own admission, itās perfectly normal for men to take 53 years to reach comparable intelligence and maturity as 9 year old girls. So since even the very best men are so inferior, wouldn't calling them women be the very highest form of praise?
While theyāre certainly different from other women, so is every other category of woman. All women are real women.
To win a debate like this, you need to first consider the social consciousness. Women are women is the default, so BoP rests strongly with you in the eyes of most potential judges. So your R1 tactic of giving the other side the floor, wastes your opportunity to lay the groundwork.
if doing this again, I suggest starting with a smaller piece of the puzzle; sports for example, or even that theyāre not the same as biological mothers.
I advise focusing your efforts on your real opponent, rather than getting bogged down in the comment section.
If anyone votes for arguments in the comment section (but not inside the debate proper), the vote is highly eligible for deletion if reported. If such a thing happens, please report the vote and also make a comment tagging moderators concisely explaining why you believe you falls short.
It was a bit of satire aimed at the resolution itself. We're talking about something so safe, that it's safer to do than to not.
The only harm experienced by the vast majority of abortions, are the feelings of religious people without any connection to the woman involved.
Should basic health care be legal in varying circumstances?
Cool topic!
What do we know about the intellectual development level of Muhammad?
Bull, theyāre obviously people squared!
I was thinking if the military, which is ironic when you consider the common beliefs in eugenics.
Skimmed this: I donāt foresee any way around the definitions which makes the resolution inherently true.
They used to mandate some abortions.
ā I feel as though Con was the better debator hereā
This explains nothing about the debate. Nor does it imply you having so much as skimmed it.
Please familiarize yourself with the voting policy before voting again.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
ā mentally and physically healthy.ā is a great definition choice, as we can measure it without so much guesswork about society so very long ago.
My apologies for misinterpreting your view on Muslims debating to be be favor of such, rather than a religious aversion to speaking up for their religion.
ā¦
Youāre welcome to start a debate on if mainstream Islam endorses those forms of child abuse, and use those historical pieces of evidence to support it. You can even argue something to the effect of any Muslim who does not support said abuses, is rejecting Muhammad and therefore not a true Muslim.
That said, an inferred accusation is still an accusation. If someone said āI hope I didnāt catch an STD while fucking so and sos mom last nightā may argue they said they hoped they didnāt, but the context of implying they fucked said mother is still quite clear.
Again, this is not saying religions may not be insulted, it is however a reminder about the targeted harassment of singular site members and non-hypothetical family members.
While you seem quite knowledgeable on Islam (particularly the apparent sacred need for them to argue), in future please do not accuse someone of being a danger to their children based solely upon membership in a large and varied organization. This crosses so damned far beyond the line, that it's unacceptable.
As an example, if someone says they believe in Odin I do not assume they're committed to animal sacrifice and committing murder/suicide or else going to Hel... I know at least one branch of that religion features such utter stupidity, but I should take it for granted that any one random person online is not in such an extra insane sub-sect.
The first K which pops into my mind is they were exceptional, therefore their marriage was not merely normal.
Normal may be hard to properly define, as rich men marrying many women (and sometimes children), means most men never married. Thus for men in that culture at the time, marriage was not normal.
Iām pretty sure it at least was legal by the standards of the time; but hopefully it was incredibly infrequent.
ā¦
āRule No 1: No insult to my religion which is Islam and no insult to any person discussed in Debate, especially Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and mother Aisha (RA).ā
This rule is unenforceable given the topic. Weāre talking about what is by all modern standards a pedo. Sure an opponent should not bring up off topic other misdeeds, the direct topic cannot be discussed without character attacks against men who have sex with prepubescent girls for doing exactly that.
Oh regarding vote #1, I have passed your concerns to the other moderators. However, due to it both covering a decent amount of debate content and mentioning the auto loss rule, it is unlikely to be taken down. Were it taken down, the voter could recast minus everything other than the rule violation; so removing it seems frivolous to me.
In online discourse, you should expect trolls. The best policy is to not feed the trolls. If you choose to feed the trolls, then the conversation with one becomes consensual; if you do not engage with one, then any stalkerish behavior becomes something moderators may intercede against.
To be fair, weāve repeatedly had āMuslimā trolls. While I donāt think that is a fair representation of all Muslims, it does lower quality expectations here.
A refinement I suggest for future debates about Muslims is using concise comparative facts. That Muslims sleep and eat does not help them, because it is taken for granted that so does everyone else. However their education levels, life expectancy, etc.; those are great for comparing.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-main-factors/
It will still be very subjective, such as if their abilities at war are a positive or a negative.
There is no direct way to reset a debate once it has started. Were there such a way, it would require explicit permission from both sides.
A better way to handle things at this point is to concede this one, but use existing arguments from before the forfeiture in a rematch.
There is an argument to be made for 1984. š
Hate to say it, but I've let myself get overwhelmed with stuff, and haven't properly reviewed the remaining rounds.
One problem I'm having is when I find a point particularly interesting, I do word searches to try to follow it; which is leading me to finding a lot of stuff from both sides just dropped. While I'm leaning towards con, it's not by a lot, so might just be my bias on the topic (as opposed to a slam dunk victory).
All that said, this deserves to be a HoF contender.
Ok, got through R2.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified.
Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
Con accuses pro of moving the goalposts, insisting justified means ethics and morals... Probably going to be more back and forth on this, personally I'd have argued it was done for bad illegitimate reasons making them not justified.
Pro says con dropped that it should be action vs no action (I think con's R1 intuitively argues for no action against Poland).
l. Germany and Polandās Truce
ll. Poland wasnāt a threat
Nuff said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade. Plus Bloody Sunday (which my reading indicates happened after Germany invaded, but no assurance on will catch that).
lll. Hitlerās justification was blatant slander
False flag etc.
Pro defends that the source is biased by being victims of the Nazis, so should be dismissed...
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitlerās downfall.
Nuff Said.
Pro counters that Poland was goating Germany into it so that England could invade.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
Con calls this off topic.
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
Con defends that there were other means to attain food.
Pro says we can't really know what's in their hearts, and that he pre-refuted most means other than warfare.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
Con makes an appeal to the genocide against native Germans, and that valuing freedom is impossible if not valuing freedom for other countries.
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
Con lands a great and simple retort "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason"
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).
Pro is able to leverage this again with the 500 billion dollar debt, limiting their options.
Iām in the middle of being stood up for plans today, so I should be able to get to it shortly.
https://youtu.be/1zY1orxW8Aw
Regarding that website error, please clear your catche, and if that fails try in a different browser.
Read R1. I get the feeling con will win arguments but pro will win sources. Still, haven't gotten to the rebuttals so it's up in the air.
Here's my prelim (really, posting it since I have to go do other things).
Also in case I don't say this later: Pro, thank you for making this one fun to read.
nulla. necessary
Con asserts if an action is unnecessary it is unjustified. Pro defends the pre-agreed definition, defusing a minor attempt at moving the goal posts. That said, pro was shooting himself in the foot as he immediately moves on to an argument that it indeed was necessary due to resource scarcity.
l. Germany and Polandās Truce
ll. Poland wasnāt a threat
lll. Hitlerās justification was blatant slander
lV. Poland is the catalyst for Hitlerās downfall.
V. Thanos
OMFG, well played!
VI. Lebensraum
Germans desired more living space.
VII. Freedom
More land equals more freedom...
VIII. Do What's Right
This was really mislabeled, but good appeal to whataboutism while bolstering earlier points.
IX. Black death
Mostly more of the above, before at last asserting at the very end the damage of the Versailles treaty (which should have been a cornerstone of the arguments, as one way or another they had to get out from under that; just look at how well off they are today... Which wouldn't actually make the reasons at the time good but con might not have caught that distinction).