"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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
The RFD itself, for most of it, is fine but it contains a very obvious problem. He claims that I asserted that the first cause was intelligent without proving it or providing arguments ... when I clearly did provide arguments.
Here is one: "If the necessary being was an impersonal explanation and given the eternity of the necessary conditions for the existence of contingent beings, then the contingent beings will exist eternally and will not fail to exist.This is true since the specifier in this case is eternally necessary, so the contingent being’s non-existence is impossible since the specifier could not fail to exist by virtue of its necessity. But a contingent could possibly not exist given their nature. So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
I don't care about the actual vote, but the voter seems unaware that the argument even exists. I don't think that his vote, on this matter, is legitimate. It should at least be a tie on "better arguments". If he wants to have Con win on sources, I don't mind, I am not going to protest a vote just because it is against me.
>when I weigh Pro's live science with Con's NASA and Cambridge sources on quantum fluctuations and inflation, I have to take direct, primary and reliable sources over indirect ones
I think this is another problem. Con's sources did not even support his case. The Cambridge declaration did ***not*** say anything to the extent that consciousness is dependent on neuroscience. Con absolutely misquoted that one and I showed so in the final round. The Live Science source that I quoted was written by a PhD physicist. "Both sources were physicists with PhDs in their respective fields and so are reliable sources to discuss quantum mechanics. One being Paul Sutter, a professor at the University of Ohio with a PhD in physics. The other being Matt Strassler, who is a theoretical physicist with a PhD from Stanford. So I hope it is clear to the voters that my case had superior sources than Con’s case." You completely ignored the fact that Con used a psychologist for philosophy. Why did you not factor this into account?
Bifolkal's vote is clearly problematic. Not only does he fail to engage most of the arguments, the arguments he does engage with, he gives an awful treatment.
>This is the entirety of a positive case for an intelligent creator and it is simply assertions, I mean, there is not a hint of actually linking intelligence to the creator without asserting that it must be so
I never asserted anything without proving it. Here is my argument for volition: "If the necessary being was an impersonal explanation and given the eternity of the necessary conditions for the existence of contingent beings, then the contingent beings will exist eternally and will not fail to exist.This is true since the specifier in this case is eternally necessary, so the contingent being’s non-existence is impossible since the specifier could not fail to exist by virtue of its necessity. But a contingent could possibly not exist given their nature. So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
Did you skip over this one?
>Con was able to show not only that intelligence is a property of neuronal things, which Pro seemed to refuse to respond to Con's persistent nagging about it, but also that neurons didn't exist until some millions of years ago quite after the universe.
>I walk away from reading this debate thinking about intelligence and based on the debater's performances, I'm going to recall a memorable and substantial case for intelligence being a result of neurons/brains which had unanswered questions aimed directly at Pro to the effect of "Pro can you show intelligence without neurons?
What substantial case exactly? Con misquoted the Cambridge declaration to say something it does not and I pointed this out in the last round; that was his only argument that intelligence depends on neuroscience. Matter of fact, it is Con who absolutely failed to engage with my points on "correlation does not imply causation" and the fallacy of association.
"Pro argues that we are contingent beings and we rely on an external explanation of our existence."
I do not really need this to be a part of my argument but sure.
" Con argues that the argument says that whatever exists has a cause, but Pro correctly pointed out that this is not what the argument says! "
Thank you for catching this.
" Thus if creation is a temporal event, it cannot have happened prior to the universe, then God is impossible."
That last part "then God is impossible is a non-sequitur. For I argue that God's creation event is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe not before. So even granting this point, it does nothing to help Con's case.
"Pro argues “creation can only be temporal and that precedence is temporal. Both claims are false.”
Yup, because God could be a creator in the sense of a sustaining cause rather than a cause that brings the universe into existence.
"namely because the universe is an unstable quantum fluctuation."
Rather the universe originates in an unstable quantum fluctuations yet as pointed out in my rebuttals, such an event is not uncaused.
"The one thing in this argument that really really hurt Pro was the inability to show an example other than God,"
Why do you think I had to Virt? Con had to prove this premise first, then I would have provided a counter-example. Do I have to provide a counter-example to every unsubstantiated claim made by the opponent? No.
"Sources were about even and so I’m awarding this as a tie."
Not sure, I argued in my conclusion that using a psychologist like Bo Bennett is unreliable as an authority for philosophy. Yet, Magic used him for some of his alleged fallacies.
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.
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".
It definitely makes the debate more controlled and provides organization to the debate. Rational, since you are negating the proposition, you have to provide evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace. While I have to provide evidence that Islam is a religion of peace since I am affirming the resolution.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
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.
Don't worry, Virt is a nice guy. Just be comprehensive in your RFD
Yeah, he said he feels like this debate could use a vote.
You guys should vote on this one. I would appreciate it.
This could use a vote.
Yeah mate, no worries. I seriously doubt you would do anything like that.
I am not sure that Magic participates in such unethical behavior. That's a pretty serious allegation.
The RFD itself, for most of it, is fine but it contains a very obvious problem. He claims that I asserted that the first cause was intelligent without proving it or providing arguments ... when I clearly did provide arguments.
Here is one: "If the necessary being was an impersonal explanation and given the eternity of the necessary conditions for the existence of contingent beings, then the contingent beings will exist eternally and will not fail to exist.This is true since the specifier in this case is eternally necessary, so the contingent being’s non-existence is impossible since the specifier could not fail to exist by virtue of its necessity. But a contingent could possibly not exist given their nature. So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
I don't care about the actual vote, but the voter seems unaware that the argument even exists. I don't think that his vote, on this matter, is legitimate. It should at least be a tie on "better arguments". If he wants to have Con win on sources, I don't mind, I am not going to protest a vote just because it is against me.
Thanks Virt, no worries.
Thanks for your vote but there were clear problems with it.
>when I weigh Pro's live science with Con's NASA and Cambridge sources on quantum fluctuations and inflation, I have to take direct, primary and reliable sources over indirect ones
I think this is another problem. Con's sources did not even support his case. The Cambridge declaration did ***not*** say anything to the extent that consciousness is dependent on neuroscience. Con absolutely misquoted that one and I showed so in the final round. The Live Science source that I quoted was written by a PhD physicist. "Both sources were physicists with PhDs in their respective fields and so are reliable sources to discuss quantum mechanics. One being Paul Sutter, a professor at the University of Ohio with a PhD in physics. The other being Matt Strassler, who is a theoretical physicist with a PhD from Stanford. So I hope it is clear to the voters that my case had superior sources than Con’s case." You completely ignored the fact that Con used a psychologist for philosophy. Why did you not factor this into account?
Bifolkal's vote is clearly problematic. Not only does he fail to engage most of the arguments, the arguments he does engage with, he gives an awful treatment.
>This is the entirety of a positive case for an intelligent creator and it is simply assertions, I mean, there is not a hint of actually linking intelligence to the creator without asserting that it must be so
I never asserted anything without proving it. Here is my argument for volition: "If the necessary being was an impersonal explanation and given the eternity of the necessary conditions for the existence of contingent beings, then the contingent beings will exist eternally and will not fail to exist.This is true since the specifier in this case is eternally necessary, so the contingent being’s non-existence is impossible since the specifier could not fail to exist by virtue of its necessity. But a contingent could possibly not exist given their nature. So the necessary being must be personal and has volition / intelligence."
Did you skip over this one?
>Con was able to show not only that intelligence is a property of neuronal things, which Pro seemed to refuse to respond to Con's persistent nagging about it, but also that neurons didn't exist until some millions of years ago quite after the universe.
>I walk away from reading this debate thinking about intelligence and based on the debater's performances, I'm going to recall a memorable and substantial case for intelligence being a result of neurons/brains which had unanswered questions aimed directly at Pro to the effect of "Pro can you show intelligence without neurons?
What substantial case exactly? Con misquoted the Cambridge declaration to say something it does not and I pointed this out in the last round; that was his only argument that intelligence depends on neuroscience. Matter of fact, it is Con who absolutely failed to engage with my points on "correlation does not imply causation" and the fallacy of association.
This debate needs some love. Please vote.
Hey Virt, thanks for putting in so much effort.
"Pro argues that we are contingent beings and we rely on an external explanation of our existence."
I do not really need this to be a part of my argument but sure.
" Con argues that the argument says that whatever exists has a cause, but Pro correctly pointed out that this is not what the argument says! "
Thank you for catching this.
" Thus if creation is a temporal event, it cannot have happened prior to the universe, then God is impossible."
That last part "then God is impossible is a non-sequitur. For I argue that God's creation event is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe not before. So even granting this point, it does nothing to help Con's case.
"Pro argues “creation can only be temporal and that precedence is temporal. Both claims are false.”
Yup, because God could be a creator in the sense of a sustaining cause rather than a cause that brings the universe into existence.
"namely because the universe is an unstable quantum fluctuation."
Rather the universe originates in an unstable quantum fluctuations yet as pointed out in my rebuttals, such an event is not uncaused.
"The one thing in this argument that really really hurt Pro was the inability to show an example other than God,"
Why do you think I had to Virt? Con had to prove this premise first, then I would have provided a counter-example. Do I have to provide a counter-example to every unsubstantiated claim made by the opponent? No.
"Sources were about even and so I’m awarding this as a tie."
Not sure, I argued in my conclusion that using a psychologist like Bo Bennett is unreliable as an authority for philosophy. Yet, Magic used him for some of his alleged fallacies.
bump
>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.
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".
A good starting point would be to address the arguments I gave for the resolution in R1 because you do not seem to even know that they exist.
No, It's not too late to point out a contradiction to the voters. The claim was false anyway, I clearly defined what Islam is in the second round.
RM from comment #27:
"And Islam isn't the people as Pro defined in R2."
Also RM from round 3:
“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.”
If I did not fully define Islam, how do you know what it does and does not include?
bump
>Before you use that I said 'Islam is peace to achieve war'
Yeah, that's a concession.
>you said fighting to achieve peace is actually peace and not war.
No, I did not. I said that a war that attempts to achieve peace in the long-term is peaceful.
BOP is shared, not solely on pro. If it is not shared and Con does not negate the resolution, then he has not made his case.
No, it is not. Burden of proof is shared equally. If you negate the proposition, then you have to provide evidence for that negation.
This is what happens when we legalize weed, smh.
It definitely makes the debate more controlled and provides organization to the debate. Rational, since you are negating the proposition, you have to provide evidence that Islam is not a religion of peace. While I have to provide evidence that Islam is a religion of peace since I am affirming the resolution.
There is no debate structure.
It's just opening arguments now.