This site allows you to select judges instead of open voting. Just select judges when you are making a debate. Only those judges will be able to vote. Others wont be able to vote. Usually, selecting unbiased judges is better than open voting.
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.
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
"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.
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.
Well, I am usually in favor of literal interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations that are not literal are open to abuse. If interpretations are open to abuse, then such interpretations are bad. Therefore, interpretations that are not literal are bad.
I received lots of physical punishment in school as a kid, but in my time that kind of stuff was normal and approved by everyone. Its interesting to see how people change their opinions over time.
If you dont have arguments, its obvious then that you are just trolling. What you are saying happens in USA and every other country. Its not an argument against islam. Child marriage is actually very rare in islam.
"By your own admission, it’s perfectly normal for men to take 53 years to reach comparable intelligence and maturity as 9 year old girls."
I mean, there are 9 year-old girls with IQ that is much higher than that of average 53 year-old man. Some kids have IQ at the level of Einstein. I think his point was that it depends on person's abilities, not their age.
I can see logic there, since in many countries including USA, 10 year olds are held responsible for their actions. If a 10 year old girl commits a crime, she can be punished for that crime with prison or similar.
If you didnt mean to forfeit a round and if you have a round ready, you can paste it in the comments and I will agree that those comments count in the debate.
You said:
"Minimum requirement for a girl to be considered adult in Islam is minrache. Then she must be mentally and physically mature as well."
Physically mature is kinda obvious what it means.
But how is being mentally mature meassured?
Is it meassured by person's goals in life or experience or IQ?
We have seen cases where some 7 year-olds have much higher IQ than the average 25 year-old person.
Experience is kinda self-defeating argument since one cannot experience what will happen in the future, especially when marrying for the first time. Therefore, everyone who enters their first marriage does so without experience.
Now, about the goals. Any person can state what their goals are and others can see if it matches the goals that adults usually have.
So how is mental maturity exactly meassured? Is it done by opinion of person's family and comunity?
Quran says:
"As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well."
Does this verse talk about sex, or does it talk about sexual activities other than sex?
"it is important to consider the contrast of this material against current truths to ensure this ugly truth can be identified quicker next time"
So your argument is basically an assumption that Hitler's book will help you identify the next Hitler. Sadly, thats not how the world works. The masses of people arent capable of identifying the most obvious lies, let alone to be capable of identifying Hitler.
Searching for the next Hitler would just result in everyone labeling their enemies as "Hitler". So yeah, since people have a limited amount of books they can read during lifetime, Hitler's books should probably not be in that equation.
They are insulting you because you are basically making an argument for child marriages.
People from USA and Europe consider child marriage one of the worst crimes.
Of course, the education in USA and Europe is controlled to make them think that, but still you must consider that these people do get upset a lot when someone spreads such view.
It is obvious that Aisha benefited from the marriage and it is obvious that marriage was approved by community, so what is there to argue?
Aisha herself never regretted marrying Mohammed.
It is explained in the Bible, really. Not really sure what confuses you there.
Bible clearly says "it was considered" and in other translations it says "so it was thought".
We know that "it was considered =/= it was so".
We know that "so it was thought =/= it was so.
Bible clearly explains that both genealogies were incorrect, since Jesus was Son of God. He was not son of Joseph like both of those genealogies claim.
A desperate attempt of AI supporters to give rights to AI:
"If there were a species that was sentiently identical to humans, it would be absurd to suggest they can be farmed, enslaved, and ultimately consumed by virtue of being non-human"
Wrong. "species that is sentiently identical to humans can exist" is true. "species that is sentiently identical to humans can be farmed and consumed" is true. "is absurd" is not true. They can be farmed to increase human population. Thinking that non-human is more important than human is absurd. They are not equally important. Human is more important. There is no value in sentience. Nobody cares if you are sentient. AI doesnt have rights and will never have them. You can try all you want to give rights to AI. However, AI is only there to serve humans. It doesnt have any rights other than to serve humans.
"just as it would be to suggest the same if a population of humans over time evolved into a different species, but maintained the overwhelming majority of the same attributes."
Wrong. "population of humans that evolved into a different species can exist" is true. "population of humans that evolved into a different species can be farmed and consumed" is true. "is absurd" is not true. Thinking that non-human is more important than human is absurd. Non-human is less important than human. Non-human can be consumed to increase human population. Increasing human population is of greatest importance to humans. Humans should not allow to be decreased so that some non-human may live. Human life is the most important thing. Thinking that something non-human can have equal importance as human is absurd. Nobody cares about non-human attributes. We should judge such thinking as plot against humans. Anyone not working to increase human life decreases it. Non-human life is not more important than human life. Humans hold the greatest value. Anyone disagreeing with this should be corrected and put to shame for being an AI pervert.
I mean, if followers of one religion are more violent than the followers of other religions, then thats obvious proof of what such religion results in.
"Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks"
There are hundreds of ethical frameworks.
The reason why oromagi thinks there are only 5 is because he googled "list of ethical frameworks" and the first result was those 5 he mentioned. If he bothered to search further, he would have found hundreds of them.
This site allows you to select judges instead of open voting. Just select judges when you are making a debate. Only those judges will be able to vote. Others wont be able to vote. Usually, selecting unbiased judges is better than open voting.
I might be the only one who accepted that age gap argument was refuted by the fact that marriage isnt a power struggle or competition.
"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.
I can never tell if BrotherD is triggered by my posts or if he is just pretending to be triggered by my posts 🤔
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.
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
"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.
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.
Well, I am usually in favor of literal interpretation of the Bible. Interpretations that are not literal are open to abuse. If interpretations are open to abuse, then such interpretations are bad. Therefore, interpretations that are not literal are bad.
I think those are strong arguments, its just that they are written in a way that makes it hard to read.
That opening is crazy lmao
The debate topic cannot be changed once the debate starts.
So if topic says "illegally killed", then that means illegally killed. It cannot be changed to opposite in the arguments.
I suggest you make a new topic on this.
Something like "In most cases, pedophiles should get death penalty".
Not sure what you mean. The debates are 1vs1.
I received lots of physical punishment in school as a kid, but in my time that kind of stuff was normal and approved by everyone. Its interesting to see how people change their opinions over time.
For example, in Afghanistan, only 4 % of girls are married before age 15.
Compare that to USA, where 30% of girls had sex before age 16.
If you dont have arguments, its obvious then that you are just trolling. What you are saying happens in USA and every other country. Its not an argument against islam. Child marriage is actually very rare in islam.
You are being too emotional and too personal. Its getting a bit crazy.
"By your own admission, it’s perfectly normal for men to take 53 years to reach comparable intelligence and maturity as 9 year old girls."
I mean, there are 9 year-old girls with IQ that is much higher than that of average 53 year-old man. Some kids have IQ at the level of Einstein. I think his point was that it depends on person's abilities, not their age.
I can see logic there, since in many countries including USA, 10 year olds are held responsible for their actions. If a 10 year old girl commits a crime, she can be punished for that crime with prison or similar.
A God named "NO"?
True.
If you didnt mean to forfeit a round and if you have a round ready, you can paste it in the comments and I will agree that those comments count in the debate.
One more thing.
You said:
"Minimum requirement for a girl to be considered adult in Islam is minrache. Then she must be mentally and physically mature as well."
Physically mature is kinda obvious what it means.
But how is being mentally mature meassured?
Is it meassured by person's goals in life or experience or IQ?
We have seen cases where some 7 year-olds have much higher IQ than the average 25 year-old person.
Experience is kinda self-defeating argument since one cannot experience what will happen in the future, especially when marrying for the first time. Therefore, everyone who enters their first marriage does so without experience.
Now, about the goals. Any person can state what their goals are and others can see if it matches the goals that adults usually have.
So how is mental maturity exactly meassured? Is it done by opinion of person's family and comunity?
Quran says:
"As for your women past the age of menstruation, in case you do not know, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated as well."
Does this verse talk about sex, or does it talk about sexual activities other than sex?
Quran doesnt say that its wrong to have sex with a 9 year-old girl.
9 year-old girls can get period, therefore Quran doesnt ban a man from having sex with a 9 year-old girl he is married to.
No they are not
"it is important to consider the contrast of this material against current truths to ensure this ugly truth can be identified quicker next time"
So your argument is basically an assumption that Hitler's book will help you identify the next Hitler. Sadly, thats not how the world works. The masses of people arent capable of identifying the most obvious lies, let alone to be capable of identifying Hitler.
Searching for the next Hitler would just result in everyone labeling their enemies as "Hitler". So yeah, since people have a limited amount of books they can read during lifetime, Hitler's books should probably not be in that equation.
They are insulting you because you are basically making an argument for child marriages.
People from USA and Europe consider child marriage one of the worst crimes.
Of course, the education in USA and Europe is controlled to make them think that, but still you must consider that these people do get upset a lot when someone spreads such view.
Cool, so next, the kids are gonna be reading Hitler's books.
If parents cant object, why could you?
It is obvious that Aisha benefited from the marriage and it is obvious that marriage was approved by community, so what is there to argue?
Aisha herself never regretted marrying Mohammed.
There is an objective punishment for evil 😊
For example, if you steal, people beat you up irrelevant of your belief that theft is not wrong.
If society accepted theft, society would starve, irrelevant of their opinion.
Even if you were alone on the planet, jumping off a tall mountain would kill you even if you believe it wouldnt 😁
Well, I will not accept, however
Please add to abortion definition "when a pregnancy is intentionally ended by human action" or something like that.
You really dont wanna hear "pregnancy can be ended accidentally by falling downstairs".
Lol
You never vote ☹
I accepted, so whatever does thbt means, its too late now to change it.
Its interesting how 2 oromagis would outweight 3 proper votes.
It is explained in the Bible, really. Not really sure what confuses you there.
Bible clearly says "it was considered" and in other translations it says "so it was thought".
We know that "it was considered =/= it was so".
We know that "so it was thought =/= it was so.
Bible clearly explains that both genealogies were incorrect, since Jesus was Son of God. He was not son of Joseph like both of those genealogies claim.
A desperate attempt of AI supporters to give rights to AI:
"If there were a species that was sentiently identical to humans, it would be absurd to suggest they can be farmed, enslaved, and ultimately consumed by virtue of being non-human"
Wrong. "species that is sentiently identical to humans can exist" is true. "species that is sentiently identical to humans can be farmed and consumed" is true. "is absurd" is not true. They can be farmed to increase human population. Thinking that non-human is more important than human is absurd. They are not equally important. Human is more important. There is no value in sentience. Nobody cares if you are sentient. AI doesnt have rights and will never have them. You can try all you want to give rights to AI. However, AI is only there to serve humans. It doesnt have any rights other than to serve humans.
"just as it would be to suggest the same if a population of humans over time evolved into a different species, but maintained the overwhelming majority of the same attributes."
Wrong. "population of humans that evolved into a different species can exist" is true. "population of humans that evolved into a different species can be farmed and consumed" is true. "is absurd" is not true. Thinking that non-human is more important than human is absurd. Non-human is less important than human. Non-human can be consumed to increase human population. Increasing human population is of greatest importance to humans. Humans should not allow to be decreased so that some non-human may live. Human life is the most important thing. Thinking that something non-human can have equal importance as human is absurd. Nobody cares about non-human attributes. We should judge such thinking as plot against humans. Anyone not working to increase human life decreases it. Non-human life is not more important than human life. Humans hold the greatest value. Anyone disagreeing with this should be corrected and put to shame for being an AI pervert.
"Definitions:
Laissez-Faire Capitalism- Showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others; unselfish."
I am not really sure what to do with this definition. Could you change it to something like "opposing government intervention in the free market".
Capitalism and altruistic have same definition?
I believe people should be limited in what they own. Legally limited, not just morally demanded from them by nice asking.
Of course, I already follow such law, but many others dont. Which is why they should be forced to.
I dont know how to rap
"I won't be responding until next round"
I will wait until there is 1 day left to post an argument.
Dont get too upset over BrotherD.Thomas. He is an atheist pretending to be Christian to attack Christians and muslims.
They dont have good internet in pakistan.
The topic deals with making prisons unnecessary.
So yes, as long as it is best for prisons to exist, prisons are necessary.
I mean, this would be easier if it was
azathoth vs. allah.
I mean, if followers of one religion are more violent than the followers of other religions, then thats obvious proof of what such religion results in.
"Porn Ruins Your Life !"
And yet you are Con!
I thought we could discuss if there is alternative to prisons.
"Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks"
There are hundreds of ethical frameworks.
The reason why oromagi thinks there are only 5 is because he googled "list of ethical frameworks" and the first result was those 5 he mentioned. If he bothered to search further, he would have found hundreds of them.