Total votes: 116
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.
Full Forfeit. Con did give a string of words that may be deemed an argument, so it barley met the criteria.
Concession. Con failed to define prison properly. Pro did give alternatives that would work. Fair or not... they would work.
A tough read. Con did not help themselves in any way as there was no precision, and there were contradictions. Pro did well highlighting where Con was incorrect. I did not see Con really attack Pro's arguments.
Full waiver
All Pro had to do was make one line of one argument to get the win.
Nothing say, nothing to vote.
RND 1: Unimpressive by both, just because Pro wrote more, does not make it more cutting. Very hard to read. - Tie
RND 2:: Pro has a few quips that are funny. Nothing unique, however, I did chuckle. Con falls hard with one retort. - Pro
RND 3: Pro not impressive, yet Con fails to show.. - See Round 4.
RND 4: Pro extends, so I have to look at RND 3 and 4 together. Cons' comeback to Pro's round 3 was not impressive. On the balance, Pro takes the rounds.
RND 5: Cons response to Pro was not vicious enough.
Pro takes it.
Full honourable concession.
Not the most robust debate.
Pro failed to meet their BoP. They define murder as: "Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Pro never addresses laws that permit abortion and draws a complete conclusion that because death occurs, that means it is murder. This goes against Pro's own definitions. Pro had a huge hurdle to jump over, and never came close to it.
Forfeit of more than 40% of the debate.
An interesting take on the debate. The BoP is admitted to be on Con. Con failed to meet their burden for the following reasons:
The definition of Murder as accepted has two parts to it. “To kill (a person) unlawfully and with malice.” Con only addresses the malice part. At no time does either side talk about the lawfulness. Therefore the killing of a person without malice is not murder. The killing of a person with malice, that is lawful (death penalty) is not murder. This distinction\ is not addressed by either party.
Pro won this debate by Con failing to meet their BoP. An absolute mountain of a BoP if I must say. Pro should have been able to put this to bed very quickly but failed to do so. That being said, the BoP is clear, and therefore Pro wins.
The focus on when life begins, and the concept of intent to cause harm was interesting. I do not buy Pro's argument that a justified abortion means it does not have malice, based on the definition provided. I do not buy Pro's argument about abortions being on animals as well. I accept Con's argument (though I do not agree with it) abortion has an element of malice in it, based on the definitions provided.
For me, Con set the definition of murder, and did not complete the analysis. Sources spelling and conduct tied.
It is very disappointing when there is a no-show.
Conduct. vallinging someone dishonest is a very serious claim requiring a proof of intent. Evidence therewith was not provided. Conduct accordingly.
Round 1: (Winner Con)
Pro says "Animals are barbaric and too primitive by nature to comprehend something as complex as morality." with no evidence. I find that statement very questionable, as many social animals have a construct of right and wrong, and discipline accordingly. The order in which who can eat, who can sleep where who can mate who..
Pro's opening argument is reductionist on a fallacy of only humans can have a sense of morality., as defined that being right and wrong. Because only humans have moral understanding, there must be a god. Not a good start.
Con's opening argument with respect to chess is interesting. It is not persuasive. However because the BOP is on Pro, Con wins round one.
Round 2: (Winner Con)
Pro says "It is based only on your own personal feelings validating what you believe to be right or wrong, and whether this conforms with society’s expectations. " Pro is asserting that the concept of morality is based on individual personal feelings. Pro then asserts that, as they did in round 1, it must be because of a God. Pro asks Con a couple of questions, yet the BOP is on Pro. Pro has an impressive disassembly of the chess argument.
Con, rebuts Pro's round one, as anticipated, and hits all the valid points. In addition, Con does a great job showing that there are two issues here, morality being a human invention, caused by a deity. Con nails this round by stating "The absence of structuredoes (sic)not equal the absence of objectivity and vice versa". I am not sure I would have gone down the Christianity route, however, it is an interesting point. Con does well to push back on the BOP.
Round 3: (Winner Con, plus conduct)
Pro starts off with a confirmation bias claim, and then uses a story example, without proof. There are countless examples of animals helping humans. Intentional or not. Pro rightfully states that morality is everchanging, and not fixed. Pro seems to imply that if it was left to a human mind, it should be fixed. Pro states this with no proof, and observationally we know peoples minds change all the time with experience. Pro then says "For morality to have any objective value and meaning, it requires a divine power with sentience assigning it such". The problem is that pro has to demonstrate WHY it requires divine power, and yas yet to do so. Pro makes this statement "morality without an intuition or empathy," Is Pro stating that empathy and intuition are actually divinely driven? The BOP is on Pro. Con doesn't have to answer any questions.
Con highlights the hypocrisy of Pro's statements brilliantly. Con says "this doesn’t point to the guiding influence of a divine", and I agree. Pro has yet to clearly show this connection. Con slaps back at Pro for a number of valid reasons. I accept Con's statement about honesty, and award conduct accordingly.
Round 4. (Winner Con)
Pro uses laws an example of the lack of unified morality, The definitions show that objective morality is individually based. Pro even argues against social morality claims in earlier rounds. So why use laws as an example of objective morality? I am genuinely confused. I am still looking for that objective morality is driven from the divine. Morality is from obedience, which is from.... where? There is nothing Pro has stated to show that obedience or morality is from the divine, other than repeating the statement. Pro is incorrect in asserting they have met their burden of proof. If they feel they have, they certainly have not made it clear.
Con hits all the right points here, and is correct in claiming Pro is tryiing to shift the burden.
Round 5: (Winner Con)
Pro's argument is reductionist, without any supporting examples. Repeating the same conclusion over and over again does not prove a point.
I accept Con's points except for the last point about a concession. It was only in the last round that I started to get a sense of what Pro was trying to argue. There were a lot of distractions here, and Con did a fine job trying to tie them up.
Pro came nowhere close to meeting the BOP they stated they had. Any vote for Pro misses this. While Pro had more sources, I do not think they had an impact.
I accept Con's argument that the abolish of slavery is impossible, based on the way that Pro had tried to define slavery and enslavement. I accept crime can be a type of enslavement.
While the debate was not structured well, I will give extra props to Con for a very clever and compelling argument.
Concession. Side note... There are many concessions on this site. Con's comment relating thereto is not reasonable. I wonder if Con has every conceded.
Nothing to read, nothing to vote.
I have been in this topic debate, and read a number of others on the same subject. I am impressed with Con's commitment to conveying their understanding of the scriptures. However the form, and conduct of Con, in this debate, (as in others), is borderline insulting. Pro did a great job defining and setting up the context, which was not refuted. Pro provided examples and explained why they are perceived as contradictions, and bonafide as well. Con did not effectively refute them, nor can they based on the resolution, without proving that the interpretation of a contradiction is not genuine. if I could, I would award conduct points as well again Con.
I accept Con's contradictions. A contradiction claim is subjective. The contradiction claim about Adam, on its face, is "res ipsa loquitor". Pro did not do enough to demonstrate that the apparent contradiction, is not in fact one. Pro would have needed to demonstrate where this language was intentionally multi-faceted, rather than trying to justify. In part, the argument about sperm is nonsensical, as there is no evidence that when the Quran was written, there was knowledge of sperm as a single cell. Our current understanding is that sperm was identified in 1677. Conduct against Pro for the assumption of timewasting, and the LMAO. Not a very polite thing. "and speak to people good words". Surah Al-Baqarah (2:83),
FF, In addition, i have to call out the humourous attempt by Con to be a contender just by saying, Vote for me!! No arguments were given by Con.
Forfeited without grace
Someone showed up.
nothing to judge nothing to move
Clear win.
Nothing to judge, however, Lance did show up for each round.
Both sides forfeited 40% or more of the debate. It is my understanding that is a draw.
Full Forefeit. Con did not cite any of the laws in question, so it is hard to accept the interpretation at face value.
Not the strongest debate I have read. Pro brought up the construction safety argument. It was a tangible one, and directly improves human life by reducing occupational death. The burden was met. No sources, conduct fine. Con had so many places to go and did not.
Con tried to engage. It was Pro who set the resolution, and failed to show up.
I have a bias. And that being said I spent extra time really analysing what Con said. I wanted Con to give me a reason to say my bias may have cracks in it. Unfortunately, Con did not accomplish this. The BOP is on Pro. I think Con did a reasonable job on their intro, to source based, quantifying the legal rights, and supporting the concept of legality. Con started interesting, referencing the 5th Amendment. Unfortunately, they did not reconcile why one provision (the 14th as brought up by Pro) is inferior to the 5th. Con made a very interesting tie between the DOI and the bible. Essentially arguing that the DOI incorporates the bible as a form of the law of the state. There is some real legitimacy to this argument. Many people, much smarter than I have written about it. Even if we take that as a fact, I do not see Con doing a good job showing why such a position supersedes developing society or legality. Con says
"a fetus cannot be given advanced notice prove that that there is no due process of law" (sic)
That was the point where I think Con lost. That claim is an allusion to absurdity.
Pro did a better job with cited sources, yet both had recoverable references. Con tried to tie in Christain morality as a legal obligation based on the DOI, and did not do it well. A great idea... one that is a very interesting thought experiment. Pro did just enough to support the legality claim with the economics, and the fact that rape occurs. I especially was drawn to Con's argument, which went against them, talking about the rape of a man. I have had 3 different intercourse episodes in university that I felt coerced into. Certainly not a physically violent act, yet each incident haunts me to this day.
"When men are raped, they are forced to impregnate women who will then, under the pretense of "equal rights", have the final say as to the outcome of the pregnancy of his offspring. Is this really fair? Once again, in both genders, the right to the decision of sex is what protects against an unwanted pregnancy." (sic)
Much potential hear, and I appreciate the conduct of both participants. The format was relatively easy to read, although Pro got caught up in a sentence-by-sentence rebuttal, which I do not think this debate called for. In my opinion, Pro should have developed their arguments more rather than fixate on Con's position line by line. Vote goes to Pro.
40% forfeit. "by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Thinging to say, nothing to judge.
Pro really started off on a bad foot with their opening argument. The colour-blind analogy is about subjectivity and not objectivity, which they later concede. The BOP was on Pro, and Con did a reasonable job pointing out the contradictions in Pro's statements. Neither used sources. Strategically I accept the way Con handled this. Regardless this is a default win, as Pro forfeited 50% of the rounds.
This was a very difficult and frustrating read. Neither side used effective formatting. In the end, I saw 3 concepts that got Con the win.
1. I accept Con's contention that the BOP is on Pro, and Con did a reasonable job in the first argument to lay a foundation for why Pro may not be correct.
2. Pro deflected and tried to create a BOP based on questions, rather than create an argument. Con was correct in pushing back on this repeated approach.
3. Con's argument about non-procreation intentioned ejaculation was a dagger to Pro's argument.
There were a lot of places this could have gone, however, Pro did them no service by creating such a difficult resolution, and by failing to actually explain their argument, other than complain about context, which I must admit is a theme of Pro in other debates. I would encourage both to use the formatting tools more effectively. Vote to Con.
Very poor presentation by both sides. Pro did not outline their argument well, however, they did state a question about the zygote creation mechanism, which Con did not refute with any substance or logic. I would love Con to explain in the comments what a cabbage has to do with anything.
The vote goes to Pro.
Pro did not make very cohesive arguments, however, did make them. Pro did not source their statements. Con conceded "Nuclear bombs are bad" and did not argue their point. Con never defended why the use of them was appropriate.
Con forfeited 66% of the rounds.
Vote for Pro...
Nothing to say, nothing to judge.
Pro makes assumptions that the technical advances that are correlated to European conquest, actually is a good thing, yet never defends that. Con, while the majority cut and paste, does show clear conduct examples that show the conquest was not justifiable retrospectively. Con forfeits too many rounds.
I found this quote interesting. "Taiwan is a sovereign state." 14 countries in the world recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as a sovereign state. Does that make it sovereign? Also interesting was when Pro said the "PRC seizure of Hong Kong " All being said CON conceded, and I agree with Pro that CON's argument was very soft, and did not address the topic at hand.. I accept Pros conduct contention and award accordingly.
Nothing to see, nothing to say.
Whilst I think Con had made some valid points, specifically around God creating evil, Con concedes. "At this point, I concede, as I did not find any contradiction in the scriptures."
Nothing to see, nothing to consider.
Res Ipsa Loquitor