Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Topic
#4533

Islam Vs Anything2

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
4
4

After 6 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
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
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Description

Resolution: Marriage Between Prophet (SAW) and Aisha (RA) was normal.
My stance: Pro
Opponent's stance: Con
BOF: Shared.
Rule 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).
Rule No 2: No trolling
Rule No 3: Anything in comment section is not part of debate unless something to be discussed and both parties accept, example., want to skip a round etc.
Rule No 4: No forfeit (if inevitable because of uncontrollable circumstances, then if both parties agree should not affect debate). Intentional forfeit will cause automatic loss.
Rule No 5: Evidence must be credible, broken links and resources which do not have citation must cause the loss of resources points. Wikipedia have citation in the bottom, so if a Wikipedia link is attached and there is citation within that page, then it should be as credible as any other external resource.
Rule No 6: Anyone can accept defeat in the middle of debate.
Rule No 7: No vote Bomb
Rule No 8: One shall read the full argument and must not ignore it. Both my contender and voters as well.
Rule No 9: No favoritism, Biased voting.
Rule No 10: We must assume Islamic historical references are correct, and can use any mean to prove our resolution, including scientific facts as well.
Rule No 11: No personal attacks, just keep everything related to topic.
Rule NO 12: Everything I am saying and doing, for the sake of debate, must not be called predator.
Rule No 13: Everything Being discuss, is for the sake of debate only, not imposing on any culture or society. Laws and regulation made for any country is for them and has nothing to do with the debate. And I am not opposing them.
Rule No 14: The whole debate is only about this specific debate, not for all and at large. I am not suggesting it for any place and person as well.
Rule No 15: Make the debate relevant to the topic and good and nice one.
Rule No 16: I ask my opponent to present his or her opening argument. I will keep the first round very simple with little information without arguments.
Thanks a lot
looking forward to a good debate in SHA Allah.

-->
@Barney

if i prove your vote is vote bomb would you reverse it?

you are giving whole debate a tie because of only conduct? then what is purpose of debate?
i used single vote system because of some reason and the benefit what someone can have is all gone from that system. such a shame and the barney's vote is something of personal baised. DDO had better system where voter said i disagree before debate and disagree after the debate but one wins who use better argument. but he voted on the basis he do not agree after the debate. shame.

i guess 1 vote system exclude conduct, it should be based on only argument. that is why multiple criteria system has conduct point but 1 vote system do not. if you keep dragging conduct point in 1 vote system then why have it its nonsense to have then, keep only multiple criteria system.

a fcking voter become that much emotional to use vomit smiley in RFD? what i am lookin at.
a vote bomb from a moderator!!!!!

With the last vote, i am leaving this forum, thanks a lot. Bye
have rape battle,
touch my bush
Cucumber should be banned.
so-and-so anime character is overpowered.

-->
@Barney

"Pro argues it's not pedophilia if the aggressor is is hot... WTF did I just read?"

The problem there is, it was Aisha who was saying that he was hot lmao

I believe the point was that Aisha liked him.

-->
@Savant

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.

-->
@Barney

BoP is shared, per the description. Doesn't seem like it would change your vote, though.

---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? 🤮

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

Polytheist was probably the only troll (if she was one) who was perhaps the greatest method actress.
I genuinely could not tell if she was genuinely raging or if it was all a part of the act.

-->
@Best.Korea

It's definitely not genuine anger. It's part of the character he's created.
The Ruse.

If you want to see triggered, just look at TWS's replies to idiots like Roosevelt and badger in the forums.

-->
@Savant

"Careful. Best.Korea is the only person here better at trolling than you."

Best.Korea was only slightly better than BrotherD.Thomas in terms of trolling, but it's still so close of a match that they're very even.

Best.Korea and BrotherD.Thomas are the funniest trolls on the site, thus far. Effective in terms of comedy, but not so much at trolling.
Their Shock Value schtick is too repetitive to the point that it's predictable and nobody really takes the bait, but they are quite literally funnier than anyone else on the site.

IWantRooseveltAgain and badger aren't even good trolls, but they're better than BrotherD and Best.Korea. But badger and Roosevelt are trash at humor, so they're nowhere as good comedians as BrotherD. and Best.Korea.

The current record-holders for the best trolls on the site are Wylted, Sidewalker, and Ramshutu.

-->
@Savant

I can never tell if BrotherD is triggered by my posts or if he is just pretending to be triggered by my posts 🤔

-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

To be fair, I think you and Best.Korea would get along. His first debate was against a Muslim.

-->
@Savant

.
Savant,

YOUR QUOTE OF DESPAIR: "Careful. Best.Korea is the only person here better at trolling than you."

It is called "trolling" when I continue to easily refute these hell bound Muslims relative to their PROMOTING CHILD SEX? Really? What did we expect from you that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in their Biography here at DEBATEART, because you are obviously to embarrassed to tell the membership something about you as shown herewith: https://www.debateart.com/members/Savant

In your silence in your bio, then you are shielded about your real positions relative to religion and such, great runaway HIDING move on your part! LOL!

.

-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

Careful. Best.Korea is the only person here better at trolling than you.

-->
@Best.Korea

.
Best.Korea, that is trying to surpass Miss Tradesecret's record in RUNNING AWAY from posts directed to him,

AS USUAL, in your pathetic post #205, you are ONCE AGAIN PROMOTING CHILD SEX WITH NINE YEAR OLD girls in 2023, irrelative to whether they are giving "consent" to do so or not!

.
Furthermore, you conveniently FORGOT to address the following in my post #204 AGAIN, where you are running away from, just like TIGERLORD has done in the "Comment Section" of his sickening debate relating to CHILD SEX!

READY? BEGIN:

1. Is it acceptable to YOU for the illiterate and false prophet Muhammed to marry Aisha WHEN SHE WAS ONLY SIX YEARS OLD?

2. Is it acceptable to YOU for the false prophet Muhammed to start FUCKING Aisha's tiny vagina, anus and mouth at her age of ONLY NINE YEARS OLD, whereas she can't even have babies yet until she is at least 12-14 years old at best? Huh? Can you hear Aisha SCREAM IN PAIN because of her "little girl genitalia" as the sweaty Camil assed Muhammed FUCKS HER?

3. Is it acceptable to YOU to view in this CURRENT TIME PERIOD, that in the name of Islam, HUGE Muslim men are shown in a "Group CHILD Marriage" of assumed 9 year old prepubescent little girls that don' t even have breasts yet, to be able to FUCK THESE INNOCENT GIRLS by these men subsequent to their marriage ceremony as shown in the revealing image/links below:
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AFX
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AFY
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AX2

4. Is it acceptable to YOU that you are NOT even a pseudo-christian if you promote CHILD SEX in todays age, like you have done in your sickening posts #201 and #205?!

.
BEST.KOREA, DON'T BE RUNNING AWAY AGAIN BECAUSE JESUS AND THE MEMBERSHIP ARE AWAITING YOUR ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE PROPOSITIONS!

.

-->
@DavidAZ

Normal was defined as healthy or common.

"Was common" doesnt mean that its common today.

Therefore, I cannot accept it not being common today as a valid argument for this topic.

The argument of experience does not explain how is experience meassured or what experience is enough for marriage. Obviously, a 50 year old is better experienced than 25 year old. It does not lead us to conclusion that 25 year old cannot consent. Con did try to use brain development as an argument. It just doesnt make sense, since age of consent cannot be 25. Con didnt explain what experience is enough for marriage. So Pro simply had a more established case with clear meassures.

I accepted historical circumstances as valid argument, given that no one at the time said that prophet has done wrong in marrying Aisha. Rather, they asked him to marry her. So basically, everyone approved.

Again, we cannot assume that Aisha was a child or had child's mind.

Everything points that such marriages were approved and common at the time. Nothing points to that marriage being harmful.

Today, the standards have changed, but that should not have an effect on this topic.

If back then it was common that girls marry once they menstruate, it simply means that it was common. I cannot negate that.

-->
@Best.Korea
@tigerlord

Tigerlord, I will say that I do have a biased opinion of your prophet, and I do not know the Islamic faith like you do, but when I see that a 6 year old girl is being groomed for sex for a 50 year old man, then I debate whether the prophet had "good" intentions. Like I said before, the whole purpose for Aisha was either to gain the inheritance of rich in-laws or just straight up little girl raping because she was only a little girl. It doesn't matter how intelligent or mature she was, her worldview and mindset was still childish, at least until she got boned by the prophet. It didn't matter how smart she was or how much pubic hair she had. She had absolutely no life experience to become a wife. She was only a sex toy and it makes sense that if she was married to him from 6 years old, then it wouldn't be hard to program this girl to say that she had a "special love" with the prophet and that it was something wonderful and not distasteful.

So Korea, when Tigerlord says that the Aisha marriage is normal but has to go through great extremes to pick a few particular examples, we cannot call the situation with Aisha, normal. It's not. It's an very extreme case. If Tigerlord's facts were all true, a 9 year old consummation is still considered extreme in any situation. Don't call it normal to marry a 9 year old. I think Tigerlord proved himself that a 9 year getting married is not normal. His description should have been "possible" not "normal". I may be splitting hairs with word definitions, but I want to get my point across that Aisha's marriage and consummation sounds fishy to me.

If my vote is corrupt, then throw it out, but I tried to be objective on this one even though I agreed with Sir.Lancelot 100%. Tigerlord brought a good argument and plenty of sources with a decent science behind it. Sir.Lancelot didn't refute all of it to my liking, but Tigerlord resorted to name calling at the end, so I gave it a tie.

-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

As explained, the ability to consent rests on intelligence. However, menstruation shows the maturity of the body.

So if person is intelligent and has maturity of the body, it would be nonsense to say that such person cannot consent.
Aisha was intelligent and had maturity of the body.
Therefore, it would be nonsense to say that Aisha couldnt consent.

I will not be converting to islam, given that I already converted from islam lmao

-->
@Best.Korea

.
Best.Korea, that is trying to surpass Miss Tradesecret's record in RUNNING AWAY from posts directed to him,

YOUR SICKENING AND REVEALING QUOTE IN TODAYS TIME: "It strongly convinced me that Aisha was mentally ready for marriage, due to her high intelligence and maturity."

So, you are willing to say that when the totally illiterate and false prophet Muhammed married Aisha WHEN SHE WAS SIX YEARS OLD, and used the convenient "perceived thinking" of the stinking Muslim faith that when she is NINE YEARS OLD, then she is an ADULT and now the PEDOPHILE Muhammed can now FUCK her little tiny vagina, anus and mouth, in the name of Islam, whereas Aisha cannot even have babies until she is about 12-14 years old?! You are not only a BIBLE STUPID pseudo-christian, now you support marrying 9 YEAR OLD GIRLS in todays age!

Tell us, do the innocent 9 YEAR OLD GIRLS shown in these image/links below of a "Group Child Marriage" of HUGE Muslim men, to little "TINY" girls that don't even have breasts yet, THAT NOW WILL BE FUCKED AFTER THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY make sense to you in this time period, and that you PROMOTED in your quote above:

1. https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AFX
2. https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AFY
3. https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AX2

.
Since you are so blatantly STUPID relative to your pseudo-christianity, as continually shown in the forums, then why don't you leave Christianity and become a Muslim to be able to be a PEDOPHILE where you can have sex with babies, where Muslim Clerics say that there should be no AGE GROUP of little innocent girls to be able to FUCK THEM, especially starting when said girls are NINE YEARS OLD!

YOU are even more pathetic than the Islam dummy tigerlord and his "new speaker for him," Path2HELL!

.

-->
@DavidAZ

When a person do not have full picture of history, then he can say that and compare a good man with bad guys. Prophet (SAW) was recently migrated and was not in power.
Abu bakr and Aisha ra also migrated with other Muslims, they could take refuge with non Muslims who were in power. they could not even migrate with prophet, if they wanted.
if Con has presented that argument seriously, i would have responded it as well. there was a extremely beautiful woman whom prophet (SAW) married and other wives ploted agains that wife, as she did not know arabic, they told her to say she seek refuge of Allah against the prophet (SAW). then prophet (SAW) said you seeking refuge from the exalted one, now you can live with me, hence she was divorced on the spot.
you sound Like prophet was of bad character. while every single evidence shows, he (SAW) was not.
what argument you are purposing, i could refute it as well with great length.
TBH, i can write 100s of these pages what i wrote about this topic, the best examples and argument wont stop whatever you say. if anyone of you want debate then tell me, i am here for that.

-->
@Path2Paradise

.
Path2HELL,

We see that YOU are taking over for Tigerlord in the "Comment Section" because tigerlord could not refute the many truthful claims made to him, other than to RUN AWAY from them with "child-like name calling!" Good for you! YOU DID JUST WHAT I TOLD YOU TO DO to TRY and save tigerlord from further embarrassment in running away from posts made to him, as I pleaded for you to help poor tigerlord in this link: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54631

.
YOUR QUOTE OF LYING: “Al-kelb Thomas ibn zina tries to insult my brother @tigerlord But ends up indirectly admitting that i destroyed him and refuted his arguments!

Forget about the “Muslim camel stench gibberish” that you have to include in your statements and get to the point, show me what SPECIFIC DESCRIBED ENTITIES IN MY POSTS in the "Comment Section" that you “allegedly” destroyed? Do you understand the question, or do I need to digress to a 2nd grade level for you to TRY and understand it?

.
YOUR QUOTE OF LYING AGAIN: “Because a majority of your posts are irrelevant due to them being refuted“

WRONG, my posts in this “Comment Section” were always relating to Muslim men LIKE YOU in following the truths of your Muslim faith that tells you that you can HAVE SEX with little innocent babies, young girls between 0-9 years old, and can FUCK 9 year old girls after men LIKE YOU can marry them in perceiving them to be ADULTS as your despicable faith so states! Show me where the "majority" of my posts “SPECIFICALLY” that are allegedly "irrelevant" due to them being allegedly "refuted!" ...... BEGIN:

.
YOUR QUOTE REGARDING THAT “BOHRA MUSLIMS” ARE NOT MUSLIMS: “Because they don't follow the Quran”

Your “child-like” quoted response is noted, BUT, give me at least THREE PEERED REVIEWED CITATIONS to support your claim that Bohra Muslims are not Muslims, otherwise it is just “hearsay” on your part at best at your embarrassment AGAIN!!! You truly don't realize in how WEAK your arguments are, do you? LOL!

.
HEADS UP PATH2HELL, I can easily say that YOU and your dumb ass pseudo-muslim tigerlord ARE NOT MUSLIMS because you Islamic fools go directly against Muslim Clerics that tell you NOT TO ARGUE OR DEBATE your abhorred religion as specifically shown below! In simpler terms for you to maybe understand, where do YOU get the authority to say that these following Clerics are WRONG?!

1. أَنَا زَعِيمٌ بِبَيْتٍ فِي رَبَضِ الْجَنَّةِ لِمَنْ تَرَكَ الْمِرَاءَ وَإِنْ كَانَ مُحِقًّا
"I guarantee a house on the outskirts of Paradise for one who abandons arguments even if he is right."
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4800, Grade: Sahih

2. الْمِرَاءُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يُقَسِّي الْقَلْبَ وَيُوَرِّثُ الضَّغائِنَ
"Arguing about sacred knowledge hardens the heart and produces resentment.”
Source: al-Madkhal ilá al-Sunan al-Kubrá 178

3. الْمِرَاءُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يُقَسِّي الْقَلْبَ وَيُؤَثِّرُ الضَّغْنَ
"Arguing about sacred knowledge causes the heart to harden and breeds hatred.”

4. Source: Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam 1/248
الْمِرَاءُ وَالْجِدَالُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَذْهَبُ بِنُورِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ قَلْبِ الرَّجُلِ
Disputation and arguments about sacred knowledge cause the light of knowledge to extinguish in a man’s heart."
Malik ibn Anas, may Allah have mercy on him.

5.  لَا وَلَكِنْ يُخْبِرُ بِالسُّنَّةِ فَإِنْ قُبِلَ مِنْهُ وَإِلَّا سَكَتَ
Haytam ibn Jamil reported: I said to Malik, “O servant of Allah, if a man has knowledge of the prophetic tradition (sunnah), should he argue to defend it?” 
Malik said: NO, rather he should convey the Sunnah if they might accept it from him, otherwise he should remain silent.
(Source: Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam 1/248)

.
NEXT PSEUDO- MUSLIM LIKE “PATH2HELL” THAT GOES AGAINST RESPECTED MUSLIM CLERICS IN DEBATING AND ARGUING THE STINKING MUSLIM FAITH, WHERE SAID CLERICS SAID NOT TO, AND THEN WANTS TO HYPOCRITICALLY CALL HIMSELF A MUSLIM, WILL BE …?

.

-->
@DavidAZ

"While it's all within realms of possibility, it is not probable."

This is an assumption, since probabilities apply to cases in general that exist today. This was not a general case. Pro already explained that this case was different. Therefore, probability doesnt apply.

"by any standard, this is not normal or okay for a 9 year old marriage to happen"

I cannot use this assumption when voting. If I already assume that topic is wrong regardless of arguments, then that would make my vote corrupt.

"He had to pull extreme examples and then call it normal"

Again, this was an extreme example, since Aisha was not a child. Most children are dumber than adults. However, some children are much smarter than almost all adults. Therefore, "some children are much smarter than adults" would not be disproved by presenting the case of average children.

"And to say that she was happy, there are plenty of videos that show POW's telling everybody they are fine and treated well, while the whole time you don't see the gun leveled at him outside the camera. We all know POW's are treated poorly."

This is an argument from conclusion. You take conclusion that marriage was abusive. You say that people can be happy in abusive marriage. Then you say marriage was abusive because she was happy. The conclusion doesnt logically follow, since there are marriages that are not abusive. Therefore, the only way such argument could work is if you already assume as premise that marriage was abusive. Such argument from conclusion does not prove that marriage was abusive.

"We also all know that 50 year old men don't marry 9 year old girls and the girls are not traumatized by this. Of course the Islam writings will not portray their dear prophet in a bad light in any situation. He is their hero. We have to look at this objectively."

Again, we are talking about specific case.

P1) If some 9 year olds can be like adults in mental development, then their case would be different than that of other 9 year olds.
P2) Some 9 year olds can be like adults in mental development
C) Their case would be different than that of other 9 year olds.

If we accept this argument as true, then we cannot apply average case to this case.

Since everything pointed to this argument being true, it had great impact in negating the average case of child marriage as the argument. It strongly convinced me that Aisha was mentally ready for marriage, due to her high intelligence and maturity.

-->
@Best.Korea

While it's all within realms of possibility, it is not probable. I did give a tie since Tigerlord did present a good case, but for sure by any standard, this is not normal or okay for a 9 year old marriage to happen. He had to pull extreme examples and then call it normal.

And to say that she was happy, there are plenty of videos that show POW's telling everybody they are fine and treated well, while the whole time you don't see the gun leveled at him outside the camera. We all know POW's are treated poorly. We also all know that 50 year old men don't marry 9 year old girls and the girls are not traumatized by this. Of course the Islam writings will not portray their dear prophet in a bad light in any situation. He is their hero. We have to look at this objectively.

-->
@DavidAZ

The only way I could have voted for Con or tie is by assuming Aisha's happiness was fake despite all records showing she was happy and approving of marriage. I refuse to base my vote on such an assumption. Voting on that assumption alone seemed wrong. If voting based on such assumptions is wrong, then I refuse to vote based on such an assumption. While case for child marriages is irrelevant for this topic, Pro gave lots of evidence of Aisha simply not being a child, and marriage not being abusive at all.

Now, after voting, I want to be clear that I think Aisha was groomed and taken advantage of. To grab the extremes of when puberty happens is grasping at straws to prove that the consummation at 9 was a good thing. The fact that a 6 year old was already married to a 50 something year old man is, by all religions and cultures, creepy. Everybody would know that the child is not there for the knowledge they bring to the table. What else could it be? If the family is rich, then inheritance. If not, then it's clearly for the sexual enjoyment to an old man. Mohammed had already been married twice(?) and would have a ton of experience with women and how they think and act. He would need a woman who could be responsible and experienced enough with life to help him with his endeavors, not just a sex toy for his enjoyment. I think Lancelot is right that Aisha was experiencing Stockholm Syndrome in later stating that the marriage was enjoyable OR that since she was the wife of the prophet and considering how much power she had, she couldn't just deny the whole thing for fear of being killed.

On top of this, the parents of this poor girl should have been punished too.

This sounds all to familiar of the FLDS leader, Joseph Smith and the current, hopefully dying, leader Warren Jeffs. The exalted prophet gets to rape your daughters for special privileges and positions in heaven.

If Tigerlord has a daughter some day, I hope he can't honestly look at his 9 year old girl and think "yeah, she's old enough to marry a 50 year old man".

-->
@DavidAZ
@Savant

Thanks for the vote, guys!

Thanks for voting, hard work paid off. :)
I will work on my conduct next time. Sorry for that.

-->
@Path2Paradise

yes main stream shia also consider them non muslim, i mean bora. and main stream is who follow 12 imans.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

Yea sure

-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
@tigerlord

Al-kelb Thomas ibn zina tries to insult my brother @tigerlord

But ends up indirectly admitting that i destroyed him and refuted his arguments!

https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=163
https://i.imgur.com/vDerj9V.png

Al-kelb Thomas ibn zina, i suggest you quit debating about Islam, as i have already destroyed you and refuted your arguments

"especially since tigerlord has to remain sheepishly silent to the majority of my posts," - Thomas

Because a majority of your posts are irrelevant due to them being refuted

"Question; how can the dumbfounded Muslim TIGERLORD say a Muslim is not a Muslim because they are of the Bohra Muslim sect in Karachi, and other areas of Pakistan? Where does TIGERLORD get the authority to say that they are not Muslims, where the Bohra Muslims could say that the “Camel Jockey” TIGERLORD is not a Muslim because he is not following their Islamic sect of Ismā'īlī, which is a branch of Shia Islam! GET IT?!"

Because they don't follow the Quran

Im Twelver Shia and most Shias are twelver Shias

-->
@DavidAZ

Would you like to vote on this debate too?

Ill read now and vote later tonight, looks a bit long.

TIGERLORDS RULES AND OUTCOME OF THE DEBATE WILL NOT BE KNOWN FOR SIX MONTHS!: "hahhahahah, who lost? Let's see what voters will do."

Obviously the diaper-headed tigerlord had to extend out the time for ALL VOTING to be able that if he lost, then in turn, who would check back SIX MONTHS LATER to know he lost the debate!

All Jesus and I know as FACT, is that tigerlord lost the debate in the "COMMENT SECTION" of this debate from myself and others, especially since tigerlord has to remain sheepishly silent to the majority of my posts, and when he did respond, tigerlord did not address the topic of my post, but only to call me names instead to RUN AWAY and hide from said posts like all "Camel Jockey" Muslims have to do ad infinitum regarding their abhorred and stinking Islam faith! LOL!

.

-->
@Path2Paradise
@abdelrahman120

You guys want to judge?
If you agree to judge, I will get you both voting privileges.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

I do not like that kind of voting, I prefer votes from non-Muslim in my favor, otherwise I do not need biased votes.
Though, within in Islam vs atheism, on which subject you want to debate?

-->
@tigerlord

Want to do a debate with hand-selected judges that are Muslim?

I’ll be outmatched, as they will all be more likely to vote for you.

Not only debating is so hard on this topic but voting as well.

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.

Until now I was defending, this is time I start attacking, be ready my targets would be atheism. And the resolution of next debate would be Islam vs Atheism.
The one who likes to debate with me must discuss with me here, and I will not start open debate but a challenged one.

Let's see.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

Yep. I will. I have already gone halfway through it.

Cheers

-->
@Barney
@Slainte
@Public-Choice
@Savant

Could you guys vote on this?

-->
@tigerlord

Great last argument!

hahhahahah, who lost?
Let's see what voters will do.

-->
@Barney
@Sir.Lancelot

.
Barney, Sir.Lancelot

Oh my, as we can readily see, tigerlord knows he is an outright LOSER of his debate as shown in his disturbing "cry-baby" post #174, where he is laying the groundwork for losing the debate!
.

TIGERLORDS QUOTE: "RESOLUTION WAS MARRIAGE OF AISHRA RA WAS NORMAL."

But, what Tigerlord is still RUNNING AWAY from is the FACT that hell bound Muslim men are still considered NORMAL in todays age in marrying 9 year old innocent little girls to fuck them as PEDOPHILES until these girls can have babies at around 12-14 years old, as shown in the following images!!!

1. https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AFX
2. https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AFY
3. https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEM0AX2

.
Since tigerlord agrees that 9 YEAR OLD GIRLS can marry in his debate, do you think tigerlord will be at his daughters 9 YEAR OLD wedding, like shown in the above images, where her husband is HUGE like shown in image #1, and where tigerlord will think in his mind as follows;

“OH NO!!! Tonight that big Muslim man, as the husband of my daughter, is 4 times the size of my little beloved "girl," will be FUCKING her "tiny vagina and ass" AS SHE SCREAMS OUT IN PAIN, and wondering where her loving Daddy is to allow this to happen to her in the first place, in the name of my faith of Islam!” DISGUSTING!

.

-->
@Sir.Lancelot

you remain trolling till the last round, i remain waiting there would be a solid argument.
but what can i aspect from a child.
shame

-->
@tigerlord

😱😱😱
Please. Let’s be civilized about this.
Have you checked your blood sugar levels recently?

I assure you there’s no reason to shout.