Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#3539

Islam is the truth

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1

After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Islam is the truth

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Going into this debate, the claim is huge. It is not just that Islam contains some truth, but an outright absolute that it is "The Truth."

Miracles:
Pro lists some potential miracles, starting with Muslims making the big bang... Oh and there are eye witness accounts of this happening (I'm guessing there's a language barrier here).
Con explains this better than there are hypothesis of the nature of the universe within Islam (as opposed to miracles given out by Muslims).

The Quran itself:
Pro offers an appeal to tradition (whatever is oldest is best), without any connection to why this makes anything better.
Con does an interesting counter that the Sung version is older, thus by pro's standard more true.
Pro denies that the Quran was ever sung.

Words and Linguistics of the Quran:
Many words are in the Quran... Honestly not sure where pro was going with this.
Pro doubles down, making a big deal out of "day being written 365 times and month 12 times" as if that is supposed to mean anything.

Contradictions:
Con charges that the Quran contains inherant contradictions, such as gambling, unequal treatment of animals, unequal treatment of the sexes.
Pro defends with special pleading, that it's not gambling if someone promises you'll win.
Pro defends that meat must be gathered without harming the animal... Also all pork causes the eaters of it massive harm...
Something something about Muslim men being too abusive, and women too emotional...

BoP:
Con reminds us that we have no definition for The Truth.
Pro defends that he doesn't need to... This is a huge blunder: It's not that every single claim needs full definitions, but certainly a meaning for The Truth must be offered (or at least clearly and plainly implied).
Pro further complains of lack of evidence (at this point there have been no sources offered, as a reader, I'm literally having to take the words of the debaters at face value).
Con doubles down that the Quran has not been proven to to be exclusively in accordance with reality.

Christianity:
Pro wastes his closing round with a rant against Christianity, which is off topic at best... It's like saying every color that isn't purple is yellow, then proving that magenta isn't true purple and concluding that it must therefore be yellow.

...

Were conduct an option, it would be firmly against con.

Con hasn't won arguments, so much as pro lost them. I'm left judging if I believe everything pro says, including that some beef isn't harmed (nor feels any pain at all) when being slaughtered), and further that I'm sick if I've ate pork; seriously, I had a delicious Al Pastor Tora yesterday for lunch, and no ill effects are noticed. Then the whole thing about how Muslim men are abusive, which even if I believe pro on, it would be quite the leap to say this applies to all men.

Had this debate a better resolution to what pro argued, he would have easily won. Such as "Islam is more true than X."