Instigator / Pro
9
1500
rating
2
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#4394

Islam Vs Anything1

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...

Slainte
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1511
rating
25
debates
68.0%
won
Description

Islam Vs Anything
Anyone can be my opponent who is from any religion or atheist nothing else, like some random person who just oppose Islam.
Rules:
1 Evidence from anywhere but must be credible.
2 Use philosophy, science or meta physics as far it's logical and make sense.
3 No insult to Islam, and our beliefs.
4 No forfeit (if then automatic defeat)
5 Spelling and grammar should not affect result or voting and I should have relaxation for that as English is not my first language.
6 First round for deciding about what we are going to debate about as follows:
Your belief,
Topic
Resolution
Your stance
Etc
7 Burden of proof is shared.
8 Anyone can accept defeat in the middle of debate.
9 No trolling
10 No vote Bomb
Thanks, and looking forward for good debates (in sha Allah)

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro conceded by his own rules.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro does a good opening explaining that Islam means submission and peace, and is therefore superior to any other philosophy one might embrace. He goes into great detail about such things as how Muslims wake up, bath, eat, etc. It needs to be said that there can be too much detail.
Con counters with Buddhism, which is based on improvement from within instead of surrendering to external forces. They also have a focus on non-violence, and have some cool stuff that someone need not fully commit to Buddhism to receive benefit from.

Hell vs. Reincarnation:
This argument initiated by con stood out as high quality. One religion uses fear to coerce actions or be forever punished, the other believes in a cycle of rebirth we can eventually grow past.

Medicine:
Pro claims Buddhists are against use of medicine, opting to instead rely solely on thoughts and prayers (err, meditation and mindfulness).

Meditation:
Pro is able to edge out here on the comparisons, given that meditation is good, and Muslims meditate at least five times per day.

Non-violence:
Con uses Buddhism being non-violent, and pro counters with a wiki source for them being just as violent as any other religion. Pro weirdly goes on to cite how Buddhists don't kill animals, which is clearly in favor of them being far less violent (I get the point here was to make fun of Buddhist rhetoric about animal ancestors in the cycle of rebirth).

This line by line rebuttal to everything (even con stating how he would try to argue), is just too painful for me. Voting just conduct for the forfeiture, per the automatic loss rule.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The dispute over Pro's rule-break became largely irrelevant, since I felt that Con won arguments anyway.

Pro gives a lengthy description of Islam, perhaps more than was necessary. Pro wants me to assume that a philosophy with more rules is better, but he does little to argue for why that is true. Con gives a few benefits of Buddhism and argues that no philosophy is "the best," but there's not much in the way of a direct comparison to Islam. Pro mitigates this somewhat, arguing that Islam is better for meditation and managing one's life. But then Con comes back strong, arguing, "I find it very difficult to believe that a philosophical system that micromanages ones life is :the best". At the core, certain religions and philosophical positions are designed to be a type of indentured servitude, where the work in your is for the benefit of a deity or prophet, be-it God, Allah, Mohammad, Jesus, Mary, Shiva, Vishnu etc." This seems like the best example of something that directly addresses the resolution, it flips most of what Pro said, and I don't see a response from Pro. In the end, Pro's criticisms of Buddhism largely fall short after Con makes the point about indentured servitude since Con is arguing that people ought to take aspects from both Islam and Buddhism—it might not be the debate Pro was looking for, but it falls within the scope of the resolution.