- The description needs more detail. & also I need more than 3 days for arguments. I am busy the next couple days, I will take this on asa I have time.
"That you think your arguments did not contain mention of the west, already shows that I’m more familiar with what you posted than you are."
- On the contrary. It shows you haven't actually read any of my arguments, clearly you haven't passed the first paragraph into my intro.
"People can forfeit and still have a more convincing argument; in fact that’s much of why a consuct allotment is available."
- Unless it is specified in the debate rules which Con agreed with by accepting the debate. Shared BOP means Share BOP, no kritik means kritik warrants loss...etc.
" An argument can be concise, and more convincing (especially when it bothers to be on topic)."
- This is not your debate. Your vote on arguments must reflect who had better arguments overall. Con did not refute or address not a single one of my arguments, which is a concession, nor did he defend his. Not like any of this matters here, since Con forfeited the debate anyways.
"And again, the only reason you are winning this debate is that I voted to give it some attention. Without me, this debate would have remained unvoted and forgotten. If you are opposed to people voting on your debates, nominate a judge who has pre-agreed not to vote."
- You voted in favor of Con. Your hatred of Islam is oozing from your explanation: "repulsive pedophile founder" "that piece of shit".
"So you never mentioned how Islam should be compared to the level of authoritarianism of the west rather than just authoritarian or not? You never mentioned rape? You never mentioned anything to the effect of ‘ Allah>Everyone else’?"
- My arguments are laid out in the opening round if you bothered to actually read it, & summarized in my closing round. What is my case anyways?
"What did I accuse you of saying which you did not?"
- Here: "Con explains that Islam is forced to be authoritarian by creed (mainly the loss of personal freedoms for everyone who isn't Muslim, such as voiding marriages if a Muslim wishes to rape someone's wife right in front of them), even going so far as to declare murder isn't murder due to special pleading". << This is what you wish I had said, & has nothing to do with what I argued.
- Again, you can show everyone the alleged weakness of my arguments & the alleged strength of yours in your own debate. This isn't your debate. Just because you hate Islam doesn't mean all haters must automatically win all debates. Each is judged on its own merit, if you're even able to separate your hate from your judgement.
"How old are you? You’re pulling g kindergarten tactics of ‘no they were off topic.’"
- This isn't about your feelings about the subject. It's about who won the debate. You so badly want Con to win, you pretend as if I made no arguments & Con defended his. In reality, Con defended none of his arguments & refuted none of mine. He just forfeited instead, which in itself warrants an automatic loss. You haven't even bothered to mention a single one of my arguments. Instead you attribute things to me which I haven't said.
"And when I’m back on a computer instead of a cell phone, I’ll happily debate Islam with you. It being pretty much the only religion that forces itself as a government seals the outcome with only a minimum of effort. Heck, your own case on this one included at least one accidental concession of the whole topic."
- You can bring your arguments then to establish your case. Not in your vote. This isn't your debate.
"It seriously feels like you’re offended anyone actually took the time to read the debate. This isn’t a safe space free from reading and criticism, this is a site for ideas to be challenged for their weaknesses."
- Which Con spectacularly failed to do in THIS debate. You can show everybody the strength of your arguments & the weakness of mine in your own debate. Your vote here must reflect THIS debate. Not the one you wish it was.
"Con dropped a lot, as did you."
- Con did not drop a lot. He dropped 100%. He had zero rebuttal, which means all my arguments still stand. On the other hand, I mentioned every single one of Con's arguments & addressed them one by one, which Con failed to defend against either, since he simply forfeited the rest of the debate.
"Not to mention how bizarrely off topic most of your case was."
- Again, if you wish to debate this topic with me, you can ask. In this debate, it is Con's onus to establish how I was off topic or otherwise, which he didn't. Rather, Con was mostly off topic, which I have indeed established in the debate.
- If you wish to debate the topic with me, you can just ask, instead of debating it in your vote to further defend Con's non-existent arguments in ways he didn't. Con lost the debate by forfeiture. Regardless of forfeiture, Con failed to address a single argument or point I made. Not one. Which you also seem to ignore. The BOP is shared...
"Muslims always act calm when they are a minority. When they assume power is when they start practicing their real teachings."
- Then prove it in the debate & make your point. Show everybody those real teachings! This is your debate, you're not a spectator.
- I'd be interested in this. But the resolution & parameters need to be adjusted. The title assumes Evolution as an observable fact. The contention is not whether the Evolutionary Theory accurately described the observable fact that is biodiversity by evolution; rather, it's whether said Evolutionary Theory, in fact, accurately explains biodiversity. Also, you need to provide definitions of what *exactly* the Evolutionary Theory is.
"If you dont want to debate this topic, say what topic about islam you want to debate."
- I will send you the challenge shortly. I am fine with debating any topic on Islam, law, history, theology, politics, or the beloved Prophet (pbuh). I am also open to any Islam vs West/East or whatever debate. The more difficult for me the better.
"Quran produces violence"
- The wording is weird, but I can debate it. Maybe something like 'The Quran Promotes Violence'.
"Quran causes muslims to hate atheists"
- Weird way of wording it again. 'The Quran Promotes Hate Against Atheists'?
"God of Quran is evil"
- Might have to define the terms precisely to avoid semantics, but works for me.
"Islam is a religion of hate"
- 'Islam Promotes Hate'. Sure.
"Any of these work for me."
- I can debate all of them at the same time. But you're free to chose.
- You are half way through your first round with all that. You seem to have a lot to say about this. Why don't we have a debate on the subject & you can show us how Islam is authoritarian & how Muslims take over & all that.
"This is basically a truism. We can't be reading the same bible by Prophet Muhammed if the language didn't exist back then."
- Whatever this means, we can have a formal debate on the subject where you can show everyone the truism nature of the statement.
- You're contradicting yourself. If people are not willing to accept your authoritarian system to fight off Islam by virtue of it being authoritarian, they wouldn't accept Islam either for being supposedly authoritarian -according to you- either. If Islam is taking over for whatever reasons, then not being authoritarian is probably one of them.
"I did propose introducing a North Korean system to help fight off islam, but sadly the world prefers islam and that is what the world is going to get."
- Maybe you are not confident enough on the substance of your system?
"That is impossible. The fact that the Quran has been translated into multiple languages automatically prevents the title from being true."
- Perfect! I assume you wanna defend that in a debate?
"It's too bad the opponent forfeited."
- You can always pick up the baton & defend the topic yourself.
"Now someone might think that Quran is right."
- Winning a resolution has no bearing on its Truth. It may have something to do with the skill of the debater & the bias of the audience.
"We already have enough problems with Christians thinking their God exists."
- I don't disagree.
"Theoretically, we could let muslims and christians fight over who is more right."
- No fight needed. Muslims are.
"Naturally, atheists like to make fun of theism. But the fact is that theists keep producing new arguments for existence of God."
- I assume you're ready to prove otherwise in a debate?
"I even heard one muslim say that even if islam is proven false, it is still good because it benefits society."
- Which is what the False Atheism pretends.
"This is why atheism is at a disadvantage. It is not just that its impossible to prove that God doesnt exist. Its very hard to prove that religion is not beneficial for society. Theists play the game "I assume, you must disprove". Such game gives them advantage."
- Wanna give it a shot?
"North Korea managed to surpress religion, which is a great thing for everyone. Still, there are some religious people in North Korea.
I guess religion is a disease that cannot be simply removed."
- This sounds like a good resolution for a debate.
Note:
- Typo in this passage: "Con’s ‘There is a broken chain’ is a negation of ‘all chains are unbroken’, not of ‘there is a chain'. To negate the latter. Con must instead prove that ‘all chains are broken'" => instead of 'there is a chain' , it should be 'there is an unbroken chain'.
- Sure. Though, a couple of changes need to be made. The Quran is not just a book, it's a recitation (it literally means "that which is recited"). If you could change the definition to "the Islamic sacred word" or "canon" or "guide"...etc, to account for the full nature of the scripture. After all, the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) recited it to be then written down by others. He did not write it himself. His authorship is in the recitation, rather than the writing.
- Also, if you can remove "the Islamic dogma that". The debate topic is not about whether the Quran being perfectly preserved is an Islamic doctrine, it indeed very much is. Rather, it's about whether the Quran being perfectly preserved is an actual fact. That addition just creates unnecessary confusion.
- Finally, the expression "exact same Quran, down to the very letter, that the prophet Muhammad sent down." is not very intelligible. The beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did not send down the Quran, he recited it (or dictated it). Instead you can put for a more accurate description: "the Quran we recite today is, verbatim, the Quran recited by Prophet Muhammed". Or you can just make that your resolution.
I am interested, but I am not available at the moment. I will be available in a week. Though, the intro is a little confusing.
1. What do you mean by "Prophet Muhammed sent down"?
2. I'd rather you put "Quran : the Islamic sacred scripture/recitation", as it is not just a book, but also -& primarily- a recitation.
3. "Islamic dogma" goes without saying. It is a known fact that the Quran being a perfectly preserved scripture is an Islamic doctrine not up for debate. The contention here is whether this is actually true. You can say, the Quran Muslims recite today is -verbatim- the Quran spoken by Prophet Muhammed.
4. BOP must at least be shared. You're the instigator.
- I have a question. What exactly is the "Rating mode" in the parameters list? How do I make it impossible for others to accept my debate until I feel ready?
- The description needs more detail. & also I need more than 3 days for arguments. I am busy the next couple days, I will take this on asa I have time.
"That you think your arguments did not contain mention of the west, already shows that I’m more familiar with what you posted than you are."
- On the contrary. It shows you haven't actually read any of my arguments, clearly you haven't passed the first paragraph into my intro.
- Full topic? Definitions? Rules?
"People can forfeit and still have a more convincing argument; in fact that’s much of why a consuct allotment is available."
- Unless it is specified in the debate rules which Con agreed with by accepting the debate. Shared BOP means Share BOP, no kritik means kritik warrants loss...etc.
" An argument can be concise, and more convincing (especially when it bothers to be on topic)."
- This is not your debate. Your vote on arguments must reflect who had better arguments overall. Con did not refute or address not a single one of my arguments, which is a concession, nor did he defend his. Not like any of this matters here, since Con forfeited the debate anyways.
"And again, the only reason you are winning this debate is that I voted to give it some attention. Without me, this debate would have remained unvoted and forgotten. If you are opposed to people voting on your debates, nominate a judge who has pre-agreed not to vote."
- You voted in favor of Con. Your hatred of Islam is oozing from your explanation: "repulsive pedophile founder" "that piece of shit".
"So you never mentioned how Islam should be compared to the level of authoritarianism of the west rather than just authoritarian or not? You never mentioned rape? You never mentioned anything to the effect of ‘ Allah>Everyone else’?"
- My arguments are laid out in the opening round if you bothered to actually read it, & summarized in my closing round. What is my case anyways?
"What did I accuse you of saying which you did not?"
- Here: "Con explains that Islam is forced to be authoritarian by creed (mainly the loss of personal freedoms for everyone who isn't Muslim, such as voiding marriages if a Muslim wishes to rape someone's wife right in front of them), even going so far as to declare murder isn't murder due to special pleading". << This is what you wish I had said, & has nothing to do with what I argued.
- Again, you can show everyone the alleged weakness of my arguments & the alleged strength of yours in your own debate. This isn't your debate. Just because you hate Islam doesn't mean all haters must automatically win all debates. Each is judged on its own merit, if you're even able to separate your hate from your judgement.
"How old are you? You’re pulling g kindergarten tactics of ‘no they were off topic.’"
- This isn't about your feelings about the subject. It's about who won the debate. You so badly want Con to win, you pretend as if I made no arguments & Con defended his. In reality, Con defended none of his arguments & refuted none of mine. He just forfeited instead, which in itself warrants an automatic loss. You haven't even bothered to mention a single one of my arguments. Instead you attribute things to me which I haven't said.
"And when I’m back on a computer instead of a cell phone, I’ll happily debate Islam with you. It being pretty much the only religion that forces itself as a government seals the outcome with only a minimum of effort. Heck, your own case on this one included at least one accidental concession of the whole topic."
- You can bring your arguments then to establish your case. Not in your vote. This isn't your debate.
"It seriously feels like you’re offended anyone actually took the time to read the debate. This isn’t a safe space free from reading and criticism, this is a site for ideas to be challenged for their weaknesses."
- Which Con spectacularly failed to do in THIS debate. You can show everybody the strength of your arguments & the weakness of mine in your own debate. Your vote here must reflect THIS debate. Not the one you wish it was.
"Con dropped a lot, as did you."
- Con did not drop a lot. He dropped 100%. He had zero rebuttal, which means all my arguments still stand. On the other hand, I mentioned every single one of Con's arguments & addressed them one by one, which Con failed to defend against either, since he simply forfeited the rest of the debate.
"Not to mention how bizarrely off topic most of your case was."
- Again, if you wish to debate this topic with me, you can ask. In this debate, it is Con's onus to establish how I was off topic or otherwise, which he didn't. Rather, Con was mostly off topic, which I have indeed established in the debate.
- If you wish to debate the topic with me, you can just ask, instead of debating it in your vote to further defend Con's non-existent arguments in ways he didn't. Con lost the debate by forfeiture. Regardless of forfeiture, Con failed to address a single argument or point I made. Not one. Which you also seem to ignore. The BOP is shared...
- Interesting! I am busy the next couple of weeks, but I'd love to debate your topic afterwards.
- I may have time. What subject exactly do you have in mind?
- Thanks man. Maybe we too can have a debate about Islam related things if you wish?
"Muslims always act calm when they are a minority. When they assume power is when they start practicing their real teachings."
- Then prove it in the debate & make your point. Show everybody those real teachings! This is your debate, you're not a spectator.
- I'd be interested in this. But the resolution & parameters need to be adjusted. The title assumes Evolution as an observable fact. The contention is not whether the Evolutionary Theory accurately described the observable fact that is biodiversity by evolution; rather, it's whether said Evolutionary Theory, in fact, accurately explains biodiversity. Also, you need to provide definitions of what *exactly* the Evolutionary Theory is.
- Best of luck with that.
- Thank you for the vote. I will get to our debate within a couple of days.
- If you're interested in debating other topics about Islam, or Islam vs West, lemme know.
- Challenge sent.
- Wow! You finally came around... Sure thing. Will send you the challenge shortly.
- Challenge sent.
"If you dont want to debate this topic, say what topic about islam you want to debate."
- I will send you the challenge shortly. I am fine with debating any topic on Islam, law, history, theology, politics, or the beloved Prophet (pbuh). I am also open to any Islam vs West/East or whatever debate. The more difficult for me the better.
"Quran produces violence"
- The wording is weird, but I can debate it. Maybe something like 'The Quran Promotes Violence'.
"Quran causes muslims to hate atheists"
- Weird way of wording it again. 'The Quran Promotes Hate Against Atheists'?
"God of Quran is evil"
- Might have to define the terms precisely to avoid semantics, but works for me.
"Islam is a religion of hate"
- 'Islam Promotes Hate'. Sure.
"Any of these work for me."
- I can debate all of them at the same time. But you're free to chose.
- Alright. Do you have a resolution in mind?
- You are half way through your first round with all that. You seem to have a lot to say about this. Why don't we have a debate on the subject & you can show us how Islam is authoritarian & how Muslims take over & all that.
"This is basically a truism. We can't be reading the same bible by Prophet Muhammed if the language didn't exist back then."
- Whatever this means, we can have a formal debate on the subject where you can show everyone the truism nature of the statement.
- You're contradicting yourself. If people are not willing to accept your authoritarian system to fight off Islam by virtue of it being authoritarian, they wouldn't accept Islam either for being supposedly authoritarian -according to you- either. If Islam is taking over for whatever reasons, then not being authoritarian is probably one of them.
"I did propose introducing a North Korean system to help fight off islam, but sadly the world prefers islam and that is what the world is going to get."
- Maybe you are not confident enough on the substance of your system?
"That is impossible. The fact that the Quran has been translated into multiple languages automatically prevents the title from being true."
- Perfect! I assume you wanna defend that in a debate?
"It's too bad the opponent forfeited."
- You can always pick up the baton & defend the topic yourself.
"Now someone might think that Quran is right."
- Winning a resolution has no bearing on its Truth. It may have something to do with the skill of the debater & the bias of the audience.
"We already have enough problems with Christians thinking their God exists."
- I don't disagree.
"Theoretically, we could let muslims and christians fight over who is more right."
- No fight needed. Muslims are.
"Naturally, atheists like to make fun of theism. But the fact is that theists keep producing new arguments for existence of God."
- I assume you're ready to prove otherwise in a debate?
"I even heard one muslim say that even if islam is proven false, it is still good because it benefits society."
- Which is what the False Atheism pretends.
"This is why atheism is at a disadvantage. It is not just that its impossible to prove that God doesnt exist. Its very hard to prove that religion is not beneficial for society. Theists play the game "I assume, you must disprove". Such game gives them advantage."
- Wanna give it a shot?
"North Korea managed to surpress religion, which is a great thing for everyone. Still, there are some religious people in North Korea.
I guess religion is a disease that cannot be simply removed."
- This sounds like a good resolution for a debate.
- Cool video...
"Islam is a lie"
- Do you wish to debate that topic too?
Note:
- Typo in this passage: "Con’s ‘There is a broken chain’ is a negation of ‘all chains are unbroken’, not of ‘there is a chain'. To negate the latter. Con must instead prove that ‘all chains are broken'" => instead of 'there is a chain' , it should be 'there is an unbroken chain'.
- Sure. Though, a couple of changes need to be made. The Quran is not just a book, it's a recitation (it literally means "that which is recited"). If you could change the definition to "the Islamic sacred word" or "canon" or "guide"...etc, to account for the full nature of the scripture. After all, the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) recited it to be then written down by others. He did not write it himself. His authorship is in the recitation, rather than the writing.
- Also, if you can remove "the Islamic dogma that". The debate topic is not about whether the Quran being perfectly preserved is an Islamic doctrine, it indeed very much is. Rather, it's about whether the Quran being perfectly preserved is an actual fact. That addition just creates unnecessary confusion.
- Finally, the expression "exact same Quran, down to the very letter, that the prophet Muhammad sent down." is not very intelligible. The beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did not send down the Quran, he recited it (or dictated it). Instead you can put for a more accurate description: "the Quran we recite today is, verbatim, the Quran recited by Prophet Muhammed". Or you can just make that your resolution.
- I don't mind having a parallel debate on the same topic if you wish. Or initiate one after this one is concluded.
- Absolutely. Though, I will be available after a week. Good luck to both of you.
I am interested, but I am not available at the moment. I will be available in a week. Though, the intro is a little confusing.
1. What do you mean by "Prophet Muhammed sent down"?
2. I'd rather you put "Quran : the Islamic sacred scripture/recitation", as it is not just a book, but also -& primarily- a recitation.
3. "Islamic dogma" goes without saying. It is a known fact that the Quran being a perfectly preserved scripture is an Islamic doctrine not up for debate. The contention here is whether this is actually true. You can say, the Quran Muslims recite today is -verbatim- the Quran spoken by Prophet Muhammed.
4. BOP must at least be shared. You're the instigator.
- I have a question. What exactly is the "Rating mode" in the parameters list? How do I make it impossible for others to accept my debate until I feel ready?
- Yeah, sure. Why not.