Mall has a good point here regarding logicalman's attack on the Bible's foundation. Pro's attack on biblical origins doesn't mean that Jesus could not have existed. Jesus has been mentioned in other historical documents besides the scriptures.
I do find it fun to hear the other side of people. That's why I wanted you and Sir Lancelot to duke it out about religion. There should be no reason to get angry over someone who makes fun of your prophet or God. Are they not big enough to take care of themselves or do they need you to do it for them?
I suppose the conduct point was not warranted if there were no conduct points to give. Either way, if you can best your opponent here on arguments then you can be the victor on the debate.
Good luck. I really think your last debate with SL was won due to him not being on his game on that one, but your position is hard to defend and Bella seems a mighty opponent.
As far as I know, the Phantom is only a musical. Les Mes is a book turned musical. I haven't actually read the book, but listened to audio drama that was 5 CD's long. Really good.
I did enjoy Phantom better than the Les Mes musical though. I like Andrew Llyod Webber's music like Phantom (favorite), Joseph(next favorite), Cats (not as much), Evita (good).
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.
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.
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".
Point made. I will dig through what I have. I haven't looked at my books for a while, but I know that Jack Chick and Milton Carroll are not in the set.
That's just not true, unfortunately. All your leaders separated from the catholic church out of rebellion to it (which is understandable considering it's blatant misuse of the bible), but took with them all the catholic dogma of God and baptism. You, being a Baptist, are still considered a child of the "holy Roman empire" because of this.
I'm not Jewish and I didn't think I needed historical references for something so blatantly obvious. All the Catholic rites can be traced to pagan origins in the known world at the time from the reign of Constantine. He established the Catholic church as the dominant religion and made all paganism illegal. That's when the catholic church became filled with the pagan rites of candles, kissing statues, prayers to a mother God, the cross as a Christian symbol, long haired effeminate Jesus, etc, because the catholic church wanted to fill their coffers with the money of the pagan people. "Sure, you can come to church here. You kiss statues of dead relatives? No problem, we got one here for you, just pay your tithes and offerings. You pray to the virgin mother Isis? No problem! You can just call her Mary. Pay up! We'll keep your rites and save your life from that goofy emperor Constantine."
Ah. The blind leading the blind here. Catholics add so much to their doctrine. It came from so much pagan sources. Almost everything in the Catholic church came from a pagan source, from their garb, to their rites, to their prayers, genuflects etc.
However, Baptists are just daughters from that same Catholic church. Do you know how that is? Because they endorse the baptism of Father, Son, & Holy Ghost. Looks like a family squabble in this debate, the mother telling the daughters how to behave.
Jamgiller, I do think, and know myself, that a child does regurgitate what their parents tell them. Usually the faith is not repeated when the child is rebelling against the parent(s) and their way of life. This is stemmed from a environment that is not loving and full of power or control, which is usually the case with most religious homes. The reason for this is that I believe most religious people don't really care about God as much as how the religion soothes their own conscience and guilt OR the idea of being a super-spiritual giant and being able to hear from God directly.
So if a child becomes baptized at an early age on their own will, it's usually because their parents taught them to do so, which is good, but there will become a time that the child will decide themselves if they will stay in that way of life. Since being a Christian is supposed to make people walk righteously (obviously nobody is perfect, but they should strive for it), then it should not harm others around them, including their children, but again, most people don't really care about the things of God, but rather what they can extract from God and His church.
So, Azeal, the reason I asked about your parent's treatment to you is because I have a brother who talks just like you and when we talk about religion years later, he doesn't come from rational thinking, it comes from anger and bitterness. Therefore, he will use any statement he can to justify his way of thought, regardless of how it sounds or where it comes from.
Good call out on this one. I look forward to seeing this guy squirm about the "pedophile prophet." Disgusting that he is defending the actual age of consummation. There is not one girl that is ready for sexual intercourse at 9 years old. Only recently (a few decades) have girls started their periods really early due to hormones in meats and such. It is not normal at all for this to happen, much more sex at 9 by a GROWN MAN.
There are degenerates in every race, creed, religion, etc but the thing I hate about Islam is that they still cherish the leadership even though they are the most revolting people!
I'd like to jump in the comments here and say that if your belief in God stopped at high school, then you never thought about God at all. You only regurgitated what your parents told you. Around the age of 16 or so, a person will start to become independent and start to think for themselves. So really, if you stopped believing in God that early, then you never really thought about God and your description proves this.
I'd like to ask, how did your parents treat you? Because this is a classic example of teen rebellion to the parents and not a rational thinker.
I'm not sure if I should vote on this one because I'm not aware of these rappers' styles. But I would say that this one was pretty savage on both sides.
I noticed a lot of the voters giving the win to Pro, which is understandable, but what they fail to recognize is the argument that Con gives at the end of R2 was the nail in the coffin. While Pro repeated his stance and added a little more, even emphasizing on his point with bold font, Con busted out the Trump card with "chicken nuggies". Con really takes it home letting us know, "sfdhijahdfiu". Both sides didn't provide any references but, come on, does one have to cite references when we all know "sfdhijahdfiu"? Clearly here, Iamham, is the winner above all criteria, especially when hammmmm is the subject and csjkhfrhjuwydusdtgsyegdeyut is to described here. Con knew his subject well while Pro just rambled about how much he liked ham. All Pro's arguments were moot since it was only a prerogative and not a scientific fact. Con threw some science, and some banger science I might add, into the mix, clearly showing that Con is the real master debater in the field of hammmmm.
LOL! Good one!
Mall has a good point here regarding logicalman's attack on the Bible's foundation. Pro's attack on biblical origins doesn't mean that Jesus could not have existed. Jesus has been mentioned in other historical documents besides the scriptures.
I accepted as a judge. Thanks!
I do find it fun to hear the other side of people. That's why I wanted you and Sir Lancelot to duke it out about religion. There should be no reason to get angry over someone who makes fun of your prophet or God. Are they not big enough to take care of themselves or do they need you to do it for them?
I told you. I tried to base it on the overall, but like you said, there should not have been points for conduct since there was no conduct field.
EVERYBODY has bias. It is up to you to sway the bias.
Anyways, are you going to debate this one too?
I'll take Slainte's place.
I suppose the conduct point was not warranted if there were no conduct points to give. Either way, if you can best your opponent here on arguments then you can be the victor on the debate.
Good luck. I really think your last debate with SL was won due to him not being on his game on that one, but your position is hard to defend and Bella seems a mighty opponent.
I'm not sure you are up to debating this one.
I'd like to judge in this one if Tigerlord doesn't chicken out.
As far as I know, the Phantom is only a musical. Les Mes is a book turned musical. I haven't actually read the book, but listened to audio drama that was 5 CD's long. Really good.
I did enjoy Phantom better than the Les Mes musical though. I like Andrew Llyod Webber's music like Phantom (favorite), Joseph(next favorite), Cats (not as much), Evita (good).
Yeah! Duke it out guys! This looks fun.
Ooh. This would be a hard one.
Are you only talking about musicals?
Can't promise but I'll give it a shot in the next week. I always enjoy reading your debates.
Woah! Good catch guys. I will vote Con for this reason only.
Good round 4
Appreciate the feedback!
I only have 17 hours left. Anybody have time to put their two cents in with a vote?
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.
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.
This looks like a debate for you to defend. What do you say?
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".
BTW, what do you Catholics think of Jack Chick or his biography of Alberto Riveria.
Point made. I will dig through what I have. I haven't looked at my books for a while, but I know that Jack Chick and Milton Carroll are not in the set.
So you are saying that if they are not sources approved from you, I can't claim them as sources?
Who or what would be a "reliable" source I can cite?
I would rather run this in a forum or a debate, not in the comments section, but for sources I would have to dig through my books.
Give me some time for direct sources.
That's just not true, unfortunately. All your leaders separated from the catholic church out of rebellion to it (which is understandable considering it's blatant misuse of the bible), but took with them all the catholic dogma of God and baptism. You, being a Baptist, are still considered a child of the "holy Roman empire" because of this.
I'm not Jewish and I didn't think I needed historical references for something so blatantly obvious. All the Catholic rites can be traced to pagan origins in the known world at the time from the reign of Constantine. He established the Catholic church as the dominant religion and made all paganism illegal. That's when the catholic church became filled with the pagan rites of candles, kissing statues, prayers to a mother God, the cross as a Christian symbol, long haired effeminate Jesus, etc, because the catholic church wanted to fill their coffers with the money of the pagan people. "Sure, you can come to church here. You kiss statues of dead relatives? No problem, we got one here for you, just pay your tithes and offerings. You pray to the virgin mother Isis? No problem! You can just call her Mary. Pay up! We'll keep your rites and save your life from that goofy emperor Constantine."
Ah. The blind leading the blind here. Catholics add so much to their doctrine. It came from so much pagan sources. Almost everything in the Catholic church came from a pagan source, from their garb, to their rites, to their prayers, genuflects etc.
However, Baptists are just daughters from that same Catholic church. Do you know how that is? Because they endorse the baptism of Father, Son, & Holy Ghost. Looks like a family squabble in this debate, the mother telling the daughters how to behave.
Can you look this over and vote? It's my second real debate and need feedback.
Jamgiller, I do think, and know myself, that a child does regurgitate what their parents tell them. Usually the faith is not repeated when the child is rebelling against the parent(s) and their way of life. This is stemmed from a environment that is not loving and full of power or control, which is usually the case with most religious homes. The reason for this is that I believe most religious people don't really care about God as much as how the religion soothes their own conscience and guilt OR the idea of being a super-spiritual giant and being able to hear from God directly.
So if a child becomes baptized at an early age on their own will, it's usually because their parents taught them to do so, which is good, but there will become a time that the child will decide themselves if they will stay in that way of life. Since being a Christian is supposed to make people walk righteously (obviously nobody is perfect, but they should strive for it), then it should not harm others around them, including their children, but again, most people don't really care about the things of God, but rather what they can extract from God and His church.
So, Azeal, the reason I asked about your parent's treatment to you is because I have a brother who talks just like you and when we talk about religion years later, he doesn't come from rational thinking, it comes from anger and bitterness. Therefore, he will use any statement he can to justify his way of thought, regardless of how it sounds or where it comes from.
Anyways, good luck on the debate.
Good call out on this one. I look forward to seeing this guy squirm about the "pedophile prophet." Disgusting that he is defending the actual age of consummation. There is not one girl that is ready for sexual intercourse at 9 years old. Only recently (a few decades) have girls started their periods really early due to hormones in meats and such. It is not normal at all for this to happen, much more sex at 9 by a GROWN MAN.
There are degenerates in every race, creed, religion, etc but the thing I hate about Islam is that they still cherish the leadership even though they are the most revolting people!
I'd like to jump in the comments here and say that if your belief in God stopped at high school, then you never thought about God at all. You only regurgitated what your parents told you. Around the age of 16 or so, a person will start to become independent and start to think for themselves. So really, if you stopped believing in God that early, then you never really thought about God and your description proves this.
I'd like to ask, how did your parents treat you? Because this is a classic example of teen rebellion to the parents and not a rational thinker.
I suppose then that intention of the debate then would be for the Con to find a contradiction that Pro could not explain or "un-contradict"?
Hmmmm . . . This is a hard one to vote for. Is the question "Can you find a contradiction" or "Can you prove a contradiction"?
I've already read the debate.
Please help me out you two.
Sorry! I've been super busy lately and didn't find time to respond last round. I will work on this now.
Lol! I will vote according to what I see. I only wanted to give a disclaimer that I don't know these rappers.
I'm not sure if I should vote on this one because I'm not aware of these rappers' styles. But I would say that this one was pretty savage on both sides.
I'll vote. I just read it all and then give my vote on it soon.
You got Savant! Thanks for inviting me!
I figured how it flowed with rhymes.
For the record, I like cats. . .
They taste like chicken.
You are going down!
Bring it on for round 2!
You're on!
Sorry Lxam. This was just a quick debate so I could start getting credentials.
ARGH!!! I tried to publish my last response and it timed me out!!!! It was a banger of a response too!!
I got shut down by Melcharaz!!
Good job!
Wonderful track of words, but no. I will not be using semantics on this. Simply put: The doctrine of the Trinity is not supported by the Bible.
I don't have the credentials for voting yet, but I'll leave my vote in the comments.
I noticed a lot of the voters giving the win to Pro, which is understandable, but what they fail to recognize is the argument that Con gives at the end of R2 was the nail in the coffin. While Pro repeated his stance and added a little more, even emphasizing on his point with bold font, Con busted out the Trump card with "chicken nuggies". Con really takes it home letting us know, "sfdhijahdfiu". Both sides didn't provide any references but, come on, does one have to cite references when we all know "sfdhijahdfiu"? Clearly here, Iamham, is the winner above all criteria, especially when hammmmm is the subject and csjkhfrhjuwydusdtgsyegdeyut is to described here. Con knew his subject well while Pro just rambled about how much he liked ham. All Pro's arguments were moot since it was only a prerogative and not a scientific fact. Con threw some science, and some banger science I might add, into the mix, clearly showing that Con is the real master debater in the field of hammmmm.
I had an errand to run and didn't make it back in time.
I screwed myself on this one.