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Rule No 10: We must assume Islamic historical references are correct, and can use any mean to prove our resolution, including scientific facts as well.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.

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

ARUGMENTS: Con.

RFD comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=228
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=229
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533-islam-vs-anything2?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=230

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

Basically a bunch of special pleading, including that pedophilia is or was normal if the pedo is sexy... 🤢

Full vote at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54806

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

This one is a hard one considering that I do not agree with Pro and that I completely agree with Con's stance and what he is trying to say. A 9 year old girl is not old enough to marry in any circumstance I have ever seen and there was no proof that it was not traumatic to the girl. To cite that the prophet would fondle her during menstruation makes it even more creepy and doesn't alleviate my feelings that this poor girl was not used as a political pawn to a dirty old man. I do not think that Pro's views of trying to grab the extreme scenario of puberty in this case would make it ever okay for a nine year old to marry and have sex with an much older adult man.

Never the less, I believe Pro did bring a solid argument for his view and Con did not properly refute them all. However, Pro's conduct was terrible in his last round by insulting con and the website that gave him the platform to spout his view. Then goes on to say Islam is the best.

Though I do appreciate Con and his abilities, but I think he fell short on this one, however Pro's extreme stance and his conduct would make this a tie.

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

Both sides play very defensively here, which prevents either of them from meeting their BoP. Con's definition of normal goes uncontested. Con gives a lot of compelling evidence that child abuse is wrong and that child grooming is a problem. Pro gives much more specific evidence relating to Mohammed and Aisha, though none of this is sufficient to prove that no abuse was going on. So I'm left with very credible circumstantial evidence that this relationship definitely could have been abusive, and less credible but more focused evidence specific to this case, which raises enough doubt that neither BoP is met.

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

Pro opened the door for Con to set the framework. Con setup a framework. I have a serious issue to contend with. It is clear that english is no Pro's first language, and I believe that he deserves extra consideration for that. There are countless grammatical and literary errors by Pro, that if taken literally would paint their argument is moot. However it appears that Pro took an exceptional amount of time to preapre their arguments.

Con states "Pro must defend that Muhammad’s marriage to a nine year old is not strange or unusual and that it was healthy for both participants."
Specifically "marriage to a nine year old IS not strange". The problem I have with this statement is that Pro may not have picked up on the "is" vs "was" nuance because of his ESL. That is a cornerstone of this debate. So I have to look at this now to see, all thing being equal, did Pro demonstrate the burden, that I think was the understanding, "marriage to a nine year old was normal"

Pro uses an abundance of quotations and references to Islamic writtings to support his position. I lean towards Pro, because there are many non Quran sources. There are many Hadith references which are not written by Muhammad, much like the Book of Luke, albiet with a much more profound scholaraly depiction, rather than an individual perspective. Pro did a great job referencing from multiple sources.

Can those sources be refuted? Certainly, however Con has refuted them with a current mindset of what is normal. Con brings up a valid point about the accuracy and reliability of those de[ictions, and I agree with Con, the story has been twisted over time to present the best foot. However that assumption both Con and I share is not proof. Unfortunatly Con does not properly impeach the evidence presented by Pro.

The references to various ages of consent around the world today, clearly demonstrsates a lack of global unity in the maturiy argument. I think this was a very interesting argument to deligitimize the moral grandstanding some would want to make on the issue. Con is not grandstanding, however this argument does cause one to scratch their head in thought.

Con brings up some great points about the mental, and physical health, which I find I agree with, I have to distance myself from those thoughts. The Romans shared sponges to wipe their asses in comunal toilets. Normal yes, healthy no. Do we judge on our current standards? I have to revert to the BOP.

Aisha was a child, under todays definitions. The argument about puberty by Pro is pointless and nonsense. A special diet? However it all has no merit on the underling burden of proof. The core burden I see, was the marriage "normal". I think Pro established a long multi-cultural history of marriages occuring very young. In addition Pro outlines the definition of a woman being over 9 AND menstrsating in Islam.

I am not a fan of Pro's conduct in the later rounds. I think the accusations of trolling are unwarranted, and the personal attacks on Sir Lancelot terrible. I have brought this up to him many times. Unfrortunatly that conduct was not egrigious enough.

And whilst I agree with most of what Con wrote, the BOP is clear. I therefore award to Pro, because Pro showed a historical pattern to the young marriages, and I accept that the intent of this debate was the Aisha marriage was normal at the time, not based on todays standards. I urge Pro to take a real hard look at their conduct on this site and in debates.

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

Con's case:

P1) Children cant consent
P2) Aisha was a child
C) Aisha could not have consented

P1) Marriage without consent isnt normal
P2) Aisha's marriage was without consent
C) Aisha's marriage was not normal

This entire case falls apart, since Con didnt explain how is consent determined, therefore destroying the premise that Aisha was a child who is unable to give consent. Con says consent is determined by brain development, then he says brain fully develops at age 25. Clearly, the age of consent cannot be 25, otherwise every second person would be in prison.

Pro, on the other hand, gives clear case about how consent is determined. High intelligence, menstruation and ability to give birth means the person is no longer a child and is able to consent to marriage. Thats how it works in nature. Pro gives proper way to to determine ability of a person to give consent. Further, Pro points out that Aisha was considered very smart, consented to marriage and was happy about it for her whole life. She never changed her mind. Pro points out that some children are smarter than adults.

This pretty much negates the argument of marriage being forced, unconsensual or physically harmful. It also negates the argument of grooming, which I find a bit irrelevant to the topic anyway. If we know that Aisha was highly intelligent, able to give birth, able to consent, and consented to marriage, then grooming doesnt apply.

Regarding trauma, Pro gives plenty of evidence that there was no trauma for Aisha, that she loved being in that marriage. We cant just assume that there was trauma, when all historical records point to opposite. Con presents evidence from other cases, but such evidence simply doesnt apply to this topic since this case has clear evidence of Aisha being 1) happy, 2) being different, since she matured much faster.

So I think Pro wins this. The last two rounds got a bit dirty. Pro probably shouldnt have used so many insults in conclusion, but I dont think it harms their case. A conduct point would be lost if it was 4 point system.