The Instigator
Sieben
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points

Construction of Islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes+12
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,608 times Debate No: 14647
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (126)
Votes (15)

 

Sieben

Con

Mirza was previously going to accept my "Convert Me" debate, but someone else bogarted it. Mirza had indicated that he wanted 2 full rounds to introduce the Koran. So here's how the debate will work.

Mirza will make arguments in round 1 and 2. My rebuttals in round 2 and 3 will consist only of 4000 words. This is to give Mirza's first rebuttal in round 3 a chance of actually addressing all my counter arguments. Afterwards, there is no char limit.

Now I'm just going to run prestandards. You can argue against them or you can leave them. They aren't directly offensive.

=== Prestandards ===

Its all about abuse. In debate, an “abusive” argument is one where one side cannot win no matter what.

1) Bringing up new arguments in the last round is “abusive” because the other debater cannot respond to them. So no new arguments in the last round.

2) Dropping arguments and bringing them up later allows an unfair advantage. For example, if I argue A B and C in R1, then change to D E and F in R2, I can just pick whatever combination of arguments my opponent did not have space to address in R3. Particularly, I could just wait untill the last round to pick up ABC again, and then my opponent wouldn't be able to have any defense. So to avoid abuse, dropped arguments count as concessions.

*note this does not apply to Mirza in R1/2, because I've given him permission to run arguments A B C and D E F. Starting in R3, Mirza is responsible for everything.

3) Evidence! Consider that if linking evidence were sufficient condition for advocacy, rounds could be technically won by spamming evidence. Debaters could link entire books, and so long as the opponent did not address every argument made in hundreds of pages, the spammer would win. Therefore, evidence should be tagged explicitly to have an impact. Quoted if possible/necessary. Debaters ought not to be responsible for unexplained sources.

Anyway, cheers!

Mirza

Pro

Thank you. Bismillah ir-Rahm ir-Rahim: in the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

To begin with, I wish to say that my point is not simply to introduce the Koran, but Islamic viewpoints in general terms. It means that I might use the Sunnah, i.e., example of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). These are within the collections of the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim hadiths.

Rules of conduct

I want to make it clear that when I debate, I do not want to spend my time improperly, such as by defending myself from insults rather than defending my argument. Therefore, I urge my opponent to be respectful, and I will do well to be respectful, too.

Definitions
Islam: A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.[1]

Hadith: A report of the sayings or actions of Muhammad or his companions, together with the tradition of its chain of transmission.[2]

Arguments

1. The case for the Koran

The Koran is a masterpiece among all texts that humakind has touched, read, and experienced. It is, first and foremost, the only book which has not been changed by even a word for 14 centuries, i.e., since it was revealed unto mankind. While other books have been present for long times, such as the Bible, all these books have been changed, and all these books are found in various shapes and forms anywhere in the world, whether they are read in Latin, Hebrew, Sanskrit, or any other of their languages.

[Koran 15:9] We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).


This confirms the promise that God gave in the Koran. This is one among numerous other predictions that the Islamic message has lived up to. None of its predictions have gone wasted, and many of them are confirmed gradually.

Moving on, the Koran is the only book among all ancient texts that contains no contradictions. Its text is fluent and consistent word by word. This confirms the Koranic message that had the Koran been from a human being, it would have been as corrupted as other holy books. Yet, it is not the case, implying that someone more powerful than humans has originated this book. Any claims of contradictions can be countered.

[Koran 25:33] And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof).


Furthermore, the Koran is miraculous in the sense that its challenge to humakind to produce a book similar to it is dynamic. The Koran challenged the best of the Arab poets in 6th century AD to produce a book like the Koran. However, its amazing language, rhytmic verses, and structure made the poets blindly wondering what kind of a book they are being challenged by, not knowing how to produce anything that challenges it. Then the Koran moved on to say that they should produce a few chapters, and lastly, it said that even if all of humakind came together to produce even one chapter like the Koran, outmatching its language etc., they would not pass the challenge. That has been the case.

So, where is the miracle? Besides the fact that no book matches the Koran, since it is the greatest piece of literature in its language, the challenge of the Koran evolves. At first the challenge was to produce something like the Koran. It didn't work. Then the challenge became to produce any book that could last as long as the Koran does, and that has not been passed either. Now various scholars have discov
ered mathematical structures in the Koran, alongside miraculous scientific facts that were not known to any people in the 6th century, or even a few centuries afterwards.

The mathematical structure
proves that had a single change happened to the Koran, all the numbers we get from different words, verses, etc., would have been different. If we look at a graph showing the correlation between the amount of verses in the Koran and the amount of chapters, we get the following graph: http://www.islamiczone.netfirms.com... - And it also resembles another sign of Allah's existence, written on our hand: http://4.bp.blogspot.com...

It resembles the word "Allah" (i.e., God in Arabic) perfectly. Moreover, the core chapter of the Koran is called "Iron." This metal is also the core of our planet, and it is the most useful metal that we know of (I can elborate on this a lot, but it is not needed). Throughout the Koran, a lot of words (e.g., antonyms) are repeated the same amounts of time, or the good is repeated one time more. There is too much to say about this, so here is further reading on the matter:

http://www.quranwonders.com...
http://www.quranwonders.com...

All these miraculous facts point toward the fact that it is impossible for the Koran to have been changed. On top of that, human beings being able to produce such a complex book in two decades during the 6th-7th century would have been impossible.

Besides that, the Koran makes a lot of scientific statements. For an ancient book to get every single of them right (among those we can test), the chances are extremely low. In fact, they are so low that neither the Greeks, Romans, or other ancient civilizations ever got all of their scientific points correct. Perhaps the number was 20%, or 10%, but we can clearly disprove a lot of their scientific points. That, however, is not the case with the Koran.

It goes into the field of oceanology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other scientific areas. The theory of probability places the chances of getting every scientific point either confirmed or yet-to-be-confirmed (i.e., not disproved) below 0.000%. In other words, the chances are 0%. Even today, a lot of scientific books have a few errors, because humans easily make mistakes in their research. However, the Koran is not even a book of science, and yet it is the only ancient book that speaks heavily of scientific points without getting any wrong. That being said, the Koran also mentions miraculous facts, and they were not known before the Koran.

[Koran 21:31] And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.

The Koran mentions that the mountains prevent the earth (i.e., crust) from shaking (not earthquakes). This has been proven right. See: http://www.quranandscience.com... The Koran also mentions that mountains have been made as pegs, which has also been confirmed by science.

More to come in the next round.

Further References

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sieben

Con

***Reminder***

Mirza does not have to address any of what I write here in his next round. He has 8000 characters to continue his case for Islam. It is in round 3 that Mirza has to address both my R2 and R3 (4000 characters each).

***Below this line there are 3967 characters***

Pro Arguments

1.


A) Koran unchanged since written

i) Many texts go unchanged. Indeed, the lecherous writings of the Divine Marquis remain exactly as they day they were written [1]. This is no supernatural feat.

ii) There are corruptions of the Koran [2]. But if the Koran were corrupted, he'd just say it wasn't the real thing. So it's impossible for him to be wrong.

B) No contradictions in the Koran.

i) But a lot of books have no contradictions...

ii) It's easy to write a book without contradictions if you limit yourself to narrow propositions like "Don't eat pork", "Worship god", etc.

C) The Koran is irreproducible because of its style

i) Judgment of art is subjective, so even if there were a work produced just like the Koran, Pro could just refuse to recognize it on aesthetic grounds.

ii) There are a lot of works no one can replicate. Particularly the Devil's Bible, which you cannot even make a copy of [3].

iii) 11.5: "Now surely they fold up their breasts that they may conceal (their enmity) from Him; now surely, when they use their garments as a covering, He knows what they conceal and what they make public; surely He knows what is in the breasts."

That is a giant run on sentence. There are a lot of other awkward things wrong with the sentence. That's not poetic. I can barely read it.

And half the passages in the Koran start with "And...". And no serious writer would write that way. And so we see why the Koran is unique.

D) No one has ever produced a book that lasted as long as the Koran

There's an older book [4].

E) Mathematics of the Koran mirror the symbol for god, and this math could not have been known back then.

This math is crazy simple. It's just a scatter plot. If I get the data I'll show a better fit.

F) The middle of the Koran is "iron", and so is the middle of the earth

i) Iron was the "center" of early societies, used in early industrial production, machine cams, and warfare [5]. Indeed, one could easily imagine inference of an iron core by observing the existence of iron mines.

ii) The other chapters of the Koran do not conform to the earth metaphor. There's no "crust" chapter.

G) Other prophecies

i) He doesn't actually spell them out, so I don't have to address them according to the prestandards in R1.

ii) There's been 1,400 years for the prophecies to come true. That's a really long time. A lot of stuff happens, particularly with billions of people. So the fact that there's a really old book that makes predictions over an unconstrained period is unimpressive.

iii) Here's a false prophecy - 23.12: "And certainly We created man of an extract of clay" But clay is aluminum silicate [6], a chemical nowhere to be found in the human body and is harmful to health [7].

iv) A lot of other religions [8] and people [9] have made correct prophecies. So prophecy can't be a sufficient condition.

H) The chances of getting all these prophecies correct is below 0%

i) Poker face.

ii) The chances of getting half your prophecies correct are significantly higher than zero.

I) Mountains stabilize the earth from shaking and they are like pegs

i) Everything provides stability against external forces [11]. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a really big heavy thing might make whatever its under harder to move. See paperweights.

ii) Fold and fault-block mountains are not peg-like by any stretch of the imagination [12].

Con Arguments - Fallacy of Composition

Pro is attempting to say the whole Koran is true because some parts of it are true. Even if he is right about his prophecies, it does not follow that the moral teachings of the Koran are true.


[1] http://tinyurl.com...

[2] http://tinyurl.com...

[3] http://tinyurl.com...

[4] http://tinyurl.com...

[5] http://tinyurl.com...

[6] http://tinyurl.com...

[7] http://tinyurl.com...

[8] http://tinyurl.com...

[9] http://tinyurl.com...

[11] http://tinyurl.com...

[12] http://tinyurl.com...

Mirza

Pro

Thank you. Bear with me, I have about half an hour left, so I will not use too many external references.

Arguments


1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Various Scriptures

[Koran 7:157] Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel


The Koran states that the beloved Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was foretold/mentioned in the scriptures preceding the Koran, which is the final scripture revealed by God / Allah (the meaning of the two words is the same). Islam says that about 124,000 Prophets were sent throughout different times and to different peoples prior to the birth of the last Prophet, i.e., Prophet Muhammad. These Prophets had scriptures revealed unto them. Jesus (peace be upon him) received the Injeel, today referred to as New Testament. Moses received the Torah, also known as the Old Testament. It is not disputed that various other scriptures prior to the Koran were revealed by God, although they became distorted.

If the beloved Prophet is truly a Prophet, then a miracle must be reflected in order to demonstrate that he was, indeed, a Prophet who was sent by God. If a man claims to be a prophet, then he needs to achieve something miraculous in one way or another, otherwise we have no sufficient reasons to believe that he is, in fact, a true prophet. Now, since the Koran claims that the beloved Prophet is mentioned in various scriptures, its message can either be confirmed or disconfirmed. If disconfirmed, then we have no reason to believe in it. If, however, it is confirmed, then it would be nonsensical to ignore it, because for its very advanced claim to be true, the chances are low - except if the source of the message stems from an All-Knowing being.

2. The Bible

[Deuteronomy 18:18] I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.

God was speaking to Moses (peace be upon him). God told him that there will be a new prophet "like unto him" (i.e., Moses). It is a fact that there was no prophet that we know of who was more similar to Prophet Muhammad besides Moses himself. Both were statesmen, were forced to migrate, received new laws (Mosaic Law, Shari'a), rejected by their people to begin with and later accepted, had parents (Jesus only had a mother), died natural deaths, had families and offspring, and so forth. No Prophets were as similar as those two.

[John 14:16] And I will pray to the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever.

Jesus said that another "Comforter" will come, and he will "abide forever." This refers to none but Prophet Muhammad, because the Greek word used here is "Periclytos," which means "the Praised One." The meanng of "Muhammad" is nearly the exact same. This passage does not refer to the Holy Spirit because it was present during the lifetime of Jesus, but Prophet Muhammad came a few centuries afterwards.

There are many references from the Bible, but I will move on.

3. Hindu, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian scriptures

Besides being mentioned in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the beloved Prophet is also mentioned in various other scriptures. If given enough character space, I will elaborate on this matter and demonstrate the miracle that we witness about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Further references

My debate: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Sieben

Con

Part 2

Pro Arguments

K) Mohammed was predicted in many religious texts, and that is a miracle

i) Self fulfilling Prophecy

The prediction is pretty vague. It just says that a “prophet” or “comforter” will be along shortly. The door is wide open for any power monger, crazed zealot, narcissist, etc to claim the roll.

ii) Miracles are not miraculous

Pro says that prophets have to perform miracles so that we know they're prophets. But the majority of miracles in religious texts are, at best, reliant upon the word of eyewitnesses.

Unfortunately for Pro, there are people who have claimed to have seen just about anything you can imagine. There are countless UFO appearances [1], ghostly manifestations [2], and bigfoot sightings [3].

Now maybe SOME eyewitness accounts are credible. But the point is that a very large proportion of eyewitness accounts are probably false. I see no reason why the eyewitnesses of prophetic miracles would be any more trustworthy than flying dutchman sightings [4], particularly in a relative vacuum of scientific understanding and recording devices.

iii) All prophecies get fulfilled eventually

Pro's prophecy is really unspecific. But let's say that it were super specific! Lets say it prophesied that the next savior will have a birthmark shaped like like a double hammer. The chances of any individual having it are very low. But over a large enough population, and particularly over hundreds of years, the probability that someone will be born with the sign of the prophet is very high.

Like here! http://www.metacafe.com... (sorry for the advertisement. Its the only clip of this I could find)

iv) Confirmation bias

Pro cites that many religions appear to have predicted the coming of Mohd. But he isn't telling you about all the religions that didn't predict a vague savior figure. There are literally thousands of religions [5*], so its unsurprising if a few of them jive with one prophecy of Islam.


*This is a list of current religions. Of course a historical list of religions would have been better but I couldn't find one off hand. A cursory glance shows that most of those listed are pretty old anyway.

L) Conclusion on the Koran, aka book #89758

Its a book guys. There are thousands of books. If a pristine book is produced during human history, I'm unsurprised.

If we asked everyone to predict the outcome of superbowls for the next thousand years, one of them would probably get it right. This person would not be supernatural. They would be statistically inevitable. A thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters bla bla shakespeare.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Mirza

Pro

1. Rebuttals

a) Koran unchanged since written

i) I did not say that the Koran is the only unchanged book. I said that it is the only book which has not been changed for a very long period (i.e., 14 centuries). In point of fact, it is also the only religious book on earth that has remained original for such a long period of time (i.e., since it was entirely completed). No book has remained original longer than that.

ii) Con cites a link which proves absolutely nothing about corruption of the Qur'an. It skips history, the hadith, the seven different ahruf (i.e., readings), etc. It is short and unprofessionally written that I will not spend time refuting it entirely. http://www.islamic-awareness.org...

b) No contradictions in the Koran

'But a lot of books have no contradictions...' Which religious book has no contradictions, besides the Koran? You need to look at the theory of probability. The chances that an ancient book among many others, which speaks of science, theology, morals, warfare, history, etc., gets its points proven correct, and beats all other religious books in terms of percentage of errors (the Qur'an has zero), and so forth, are extremely low. The fact that only this book, which claims to be the last revelation from God, is passing the challenge of being error-free among all the writings that we can analyse from various religions is splendiferous.

c) The Koran is irreproducible because of its style

i) It is not about judgement of art. It is also about the style of language, the way a book uses various expressions in highly complex ways is not mere art. Is it subjective when a professor in English judges your and my grammar, and compares it to one who writes "yes but u kno..."? I think not. We clearly have standards of language. Nobody has passed the Koranic challenge to outmatch its language. http://www.islamic-awareness.org...

ii) 'There are a lot of works no one can replicate.' Did I imply that the Koran challenged someone to replicate it, or to outmatch it? 'Particularly the Devil's Bible, which you cannot even make a copy of' Con's source does not say that. Moreover, did you know that this book Codex Gigas (i.e., Devil's Bible) contains parts of the traditional Bible, which, of course, has discrepancies? Con is comparing art to a masterpiece of literature (i.e., the Koran). It is like comparing tetris figure formations to the Law of Gravity. Furthermore, the language of the Bible is filled with slangs and so-called street language. It cannot be compared to the Koran by high standards whatsoever.

iii) Con picked a verse from the Koran (in English) and criticized the way the Koran expresses its message. The English translation of the Koran is a partial reflection of the Koran. It cannot be compared to the original Arabic whatsoever. Translating the Koran in a fluent way is impossible. Con simply criticizes the English translation, which is a nonsensical thing to do. If you put ice in a heated room, will it remain solid? No, its form will change. The Koran is more complex than by mere form, hence a translation cannot and does not reflect its perfectly brilliant, original language. As for the language not being poetic, listen to the original (notice the fifth verse): http://tinyurl.com...

Also notice this, readers: In the comments section, I recommended that Con uses the Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur'an (by saying it is the most prominent). If you click on the link below, and you find [11:5], then you will realize that out of three comparable translations, Con did not use the one of Yusuf Ali, but Shakir. Notice the great difference even in the English translation. Con simply used a poor English translation and used it to attack the Qur'an (and he turned away from my recommendation, too). I am not attacking Con, but simply pointing out the error in his criticism. http://www.usc.edu...

d) and e)

Once more I say that I never claimed that the Qur'an is the oldest book. On top of that, to claim that the math in the Qur'an is simple is nonsensical. Of course, if we just single out one of the mathematical 'points,' then yes. But, if we take into account the fact that there are numerous upon numerous mathematical phenomena that are very complex points us toward the fact that: (a) the Koran is as it always used to be (calculations prove that), and (b) that it is a work of a higher being. http://www.quranwonders.com... http://www.quranwonders.com...

f) The middle of the Koran is "iron", and so is the middle of the earth

i) The "iron being center" in societies is irrelevant. Food was also the center. So was other material.

ii) Irrelevant.

g) Other prophecies

Numerous Islamic prophecies have come true. One came true many centuries ago, and it is described in Qur'an 30:2-4. http://www.answering-christianity.com... Moreover, sure, other people and religions have made prophecies. Take the Bible or the Vedas. They have numerous errors in their prophecies. Take the prophecies of Nostradamus. Do you see a few wrong ones? Yes.

As for the creation of clay, this is not a prophecy, but a scientific point. Now, my opponent says that clay is not found anywhere in the body and that it is, in fact, dangerous to the health. Regarding the last point, if you drink too much water, it can turn to body toxic. Clay can be healthy if used properly. http://www.ehow.com... Nevertheless, are we actually created from clay? Is it scientifically possible? If you analyse, the components of clay are earthly materials. Minerals like magnesium and calcium, and many others, are found in the body, and withal clay. The human body needs these in order to function, hence it is perfectly compatible with modern science when the Koran states that we were created from clay. Furthermore, you use flour to create bread. You also use water. If you finish the bread, what happens when you simply pour more water and flour over it? It gets ruined. However, it does not mean that bread is not made of flour and water.

Due to shortage of time, I will conclude by saying that I have made very valid rebuttals, and my opponent has not made any strong cases against Islam and its structure. Moreover, Con's last comment that "just because something is true doesnt mean that all of it is" is kind of illogical. We know that evolution is not 100% observed as true, but we regard it as such. If a lot of it is very complex, but scientifically valid, then it can be regarded as true.
Debate Round No. 3
Sieben

Con

Pro Arguments:

A) Koran unchanged since written

I) Pro says that the Koran is the only religious book that has gone unchanged. Its now clear how this automatically makes the Koran true since there are a lot of other books that are unchanged.

ii) Pro doesn't understand the significance of this argument. The Koran can never be “changed” because if it ever were, Pro would just say “its not the Koran”. If necessary, I will upload a document of the Koran and change every “Mohammed” to read “Brohammed”. What will that mean? That Pro is wrong? Or that his argument is always true by definition, and therefore unremarkable.

B) No contradictions in the Koran.

I explained that it was easy to write a book with no contradictions if you only say a bunch of mutually exclusive things like “Don't eat pork” or “Don't commit adultery”. The rest of this debate should show that the Koran's prophecies are either unremarkable or false.

C) The Koran is irreproducible because of its style

i) Pro says that no one can match the language of the Koran. He offers no reasoning. This is mere assertionism on all his part. Indeed, that's all he can do because this is an AESTHETIC and SUBJECTIVE claim.

ii) Pro says that the Koran never “challenged someone to replicate it, or to outmatch it”, but in his R1 he himself challenged someone to produce another book comparable to it. My argument that other books can't be replicated goes ignored.

iii) Pro says that because I am reading an english translation, my argument that the Koron's style is crap is invalid. This is totally abusive because it means I can NEVER challenge this argument. See the prestandards in my R1. I'm even using Pro's own suggested version of the Koran and its still not good enough. Give me a break.


Also observe that Pro can't prove his case either – he can offer no analytical support for his argument about the Koran's style. His support amounts to linking us a super long reading of the Koran on youtube, which makes me want to barf. Obviously not the intended effect.

D) No one has ever produced a book that lasted as long as the Koran

Pro says he never said that the Koran is the oldest book. Quoting him from R1: “Then the challenge became to produce any book that could last as long as the Koran does, and that has not been passed either.” But Pro concedes that there is an older book than the Koran, so I win this point.

E) Mathematics of the Koran mirror the symbol for god, and this math could not have been known back then.

Pro says that the mathematics is so insanely complex in the Koran that a supernatural being must have written it. He doesn't answer my point in R2 that his example is just a scatter plot. They do scatter plots in the third grade now [1].
His latest claim to more mathematical miracles includes the fact that some numbers are divisible by 19. Oh no not division! Only god knows division! Pro is trolling us.

F) The middle of the Koran is "iron", and so is the middle of the earth

i) I'm merely providing a plausible reason why the middle of a book might be Iron. Sure I guess oxygen is also a staple in societies, but iron is what virtually all tools are made of. Since iron is more scarce than oxygen or food, it makes sense to place it at the conceptual center of society.

ii) Pro doesn't have a counter argument. The fact that iron is found IN THE EARTH is reason enough to believe people could guess at an iron core.


G) Other prophecies

i) Again, he doesn't actually spell them out, so I don't have to address them according to the prestandards in R1. Pro is basically saying “well there are arguments that support my position, but you'll have to go read them on this website”.

ii) There's been 1,400 years for the prophecies of Islam to come true. You predicted the fall of the Roman empire? Good job. I predict the fall of America. Just watch. 500 years from now I'll have my own religion.

Pro also says that there are many false prophecies of other religions. They aren't false. They just haven't come true yet (or their truths were not recorded by historians).

iii) On the clay prophecy, Pro merely argues that you can ingest clay and maybe it has health benefits. First, this isn't an academic paper, and a quick google search indicates that there are no academic papers on the subject [2]. So I stand by my source in R2 which says clay actually harms your health.

Also, the claim of the Koran is that
human beings are MADE from clay. Pro only argues that some minerals found in clay are also found in the human body. That's fine, but the bulk of clay is aluminium silicate, a compound that is not found anywhere in the human body – sources in my R2.

iv) A lot of other religions have made prophecies too. Pro says they haven't all come true, but we can just sit around waiting for another thousand or so years and I bet a few more of them will.

***
At this point, Pro concludes saying that even though he hasn't addressed all the following arguments, his rebuttal is very valid.

Poker Face #2
***


H) The chances of getting all these prophecies correct is below 0%

i) Pro does not know basic probability theory

ii) The chances of getting half your prophecies correct is significantly higher than 0%.

I) Mountains stabilize the earth from shaking and they are like pegs

i) Everything provides stability against external forces

ii) Most mountains aren't peg like... See R2 for details.


J) I had no J argument because apparently I don't know the alphabet.

i) But I do know what Roman numerals are. According to Pro, only god can know very basic mathematics, so this makes me god and I command Pro to concede the debate!

K) Mohammed was predicted in many religious texts, and that is a miracle

Blabla what I wrote in R3. I don't feel like copy-pasting everything when Pro just dropped it cold turkey.

Con Arguments - Fallacy of Composition

Pro says that the Fallacy of Composition is not a valid fallacy. Well, there is a bloody wikipedia article for it, so it must be onto something.

It should be obvious that just because the Koran says SOME true things doesn't make the other parts of it automatically true. Like if Einstein wrote moral philosophy alongside his science, you wouldn't say “the science is true therefore the ethics must be true”. So slam.

Conclusion Thus Far:

Pro has two types of arguments – irrelevant ones and wrong ones.

He spends a lot of time explaining that the Koran is unchanged, and that its style is supposedly unmatchable. But none of these mean the Koran is true. So even if you still agree with Pro on some of these, you should throw them out the window.

Pro is wrong about many of the Koran's prophecies and scientific miracles. Mountains are not peg like, they are created primarily by folds/faults in the earth's crust. Human beings can't be made from clay because we don't have any aluminium silicate in our bodies. I'm not sure what Pro's criterion is, but these are pretty egregious errors.


What did you expect? Its just a book.




[1] http://www.teachervision.fen.com...

[2]http://www.google.com...

Mirza

Pro

A) Koran unchanged since written

i) I said that the Qur'an is the only religious book which has remained unchanged, but among all other books, it is the only one that has remained unchanged for 14 centuries and beyond. There is a good reason to have a special view of it.

ii) Con makes a fallacious claim by implying that just because you can write something and call it the Koran, then it means that the Koran has changed, although I will not accept that. So, if I call a rose a cow, it means that the rose is a cow? No. Sure, you can change the text of the Qur'an by changing words, nobody argues against it. However, you cannot distort the original. The original still remains no matter how much you distort it. However, if you change the Qur'an and most people in the world believe in the distorted version (even among the Muslims), then my point is negated. But, all Muslims around the world follow the same Qur'an, even among the various sects, and this Qur'an was the one that existed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

B) No contradictions in the Koran

Once more my opponent makes a fallacious claim. Of course, it can be easy to write a book without contradictions. The book can be 10 pages long. However, the fact remains that the Qur'an is the only non-contradictory religious book, and it has far more than just "don't commit adultery." The Qur'an has a highly eloquent way of expressing its message, and many a times it mentions the same things, yet no contradiction takes place. Point affirmed.

C) The Koran is irreproducible because of its style

i) Firstly, if this were a subjective claim, then it should really bother us why the poets of highest level were amazed by the style of the Qur'an, and could never manage to produce something that could reflect things better than the Qur'an does, especially by being rhytmic and consistent. Con wants me to offer a lengthy explanation on the style of the Qur'an. It is impossible for me to do that, while at the same time I have to refute all his other points, and elaborate on my own. He is trying to deceive the readers into thinking that I cannot come with evidence. Take a good look at how many sources he cites to support his arguments. Sure, but so will I. Books can be written on this subject and he wants me to explain it with a few thousand characters. It's not possible.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org...
http://corpus.quran.com...
http://corpus.quran.com...
http://corpus.quran.com...

ii) To replicate means to recreate something, i.e., clone it. The Koran cannot be cloned into another book, by definition. However, the challenge is for another book which claims to be from God to be able to outmatch the Koran in most areas or all of them. If it can remain consistent, unchanged, influencing for all ages to come, etcetera, then the Koran has a strong competitor. However, that has never been the case. No text that claims to be from God has been a good competitor to the Qur'an. Each and every is filled with errors, contradictions, ad infinitum.

iii) 'This is totally abusive because it means I can NEVER challenge this argument.'

Con completely ignores the fact that the Qur'an is in Arabic, not English or Chinese. If you cannot understand Arabic, then you cannot criticize the language of the Qur'an. So, what kind of a point is Con trying to make? That he will not be able to criticize the Qur'an because he will never be able to understand Arabic? If not, then his point is invalidated. The English translation of the Qur'an is found in tonnes of forms and shapes. It is just a translation. Muslims pray in Arabic, not English (i.e., the obligatory prayers). Arabic is the original language in the Qur'an.

As for the YouTube video, notice how my opponent is acting ridiculously childishly by saying something like "Oh, Pro links me to a YouTube video and I want to barf!" instead of understanding why I linked to it. The verse he quoted is in that video, and if he understands it (which he does not), he will be able to analyze the verse in Arabic and then tell me how fluent it is. He will also be able to analyse the entire chapter of that verse. Apparently, he only wants to barf - maybe he should rather acknowlegde that he has no strong opinion on the subject.

D) No one has ever produced a book that has lasted as long as the Qur'an

"But Pro concedes that there is an older book than the Koran, so I win this point."

I never said the opposite. You do not win the point. You might win the votes by deceiving people into thinking that I said something which is not true. I said that whatever book you read, it has not lasted as long as the Qur'an in its original form. Read the Bible in Vatican and you will find a few of its books not existing in the Bible that you read in Oslo. Read the Vedas and you will find the same distortion. The Qur'an differs to all these books. Nonetheless, where did I claim that the Qur'an is the oldest book of all?

E) Mathematics in the Qur'an

The mathematics in the Qur'an are far from being scatter plots. Con has ignored my references. Also, even if this were true, then having a book with a very strong meaning, very precise rhytm, style, etc., and having words which are use in so-and-so many ways each, is very complex. You can write the word "day" 365 with ease, sure. But if you go too deep with words, having to deal with the antonyms, singular/plural opposites, etc., you will not have an easy time making a scatter plot.

I can go very deep into this, but for instance, "sea" and "land" are both mentioned together with the value of 100, i.e., 100%. The amount of the word "sea" (out of 45 from sea + land) makes up about 71.11%, while the rest 28.88% is "land." This is compatible with the scientific data about the percentage of sea and land in the world. That is another way the Qur'an uses mathematics to connect itself to valid science.

Due to having three minutes left, I will address one of my opponent's arguments for this round. He stated that we cannot be created from clay. He ignores the fact that clay exists in several forms and components. There are different clays in the world. The fact that many contain all the important minerals, and so on, and they resemble the human body in many ways, makes it very possible that we have been created from clay.


Debate Round No. 4
Sieben

Con


Pro Arguments

A) Koran Unchanged


i) Pro says that we should have a “special view” of unchanged books. Sure, maybe like “wow that's a long time” kind of special, but nothing supernatural.

ii) For some reason, Pro willingly admits that no one can distort the original Koran, because then it wouldn't be the original! Duh. Any book is “uncorruptable” in the sense that the original version will always exist in some abstract sense. Again, nothing supernatural to see here.

B) No contradictions in the Koran

Pro says that the Koran is actually highly intricate. He offers no proof of this. As far as I can see, its pretty easy to write a book with no contradictions. Many of them exist.

C) The Koran is irreproducible because of its style

i) Pro says that the highest poets were amazed by the Koran. Yes, of course, in a theocracy all the poets employed by religious institutions will say that the religious book is super awesome. This is not an argument, it is an appeal to authority.

Pro says that it is impossible for him to defend the style of the Koran because he has no space. Well, by my count, he had 1,500 characters left, and simply ran out of time. This is also very rich coming from Pro, since I gave him 16,000 characters in which to construct the Koran, while leaving myself only 8,000 for rebuttal space. Don't give him a free pass on this.

Pro then wants you to count the sources I give to show you that the Koran has a terrible style. Well, from my perspective, you can't really argue this you just kind of have to see for yourself if the style is pleasing. Consider the following quote:

58:8 “Have you not seen those who are forbidden secret counsels, then they return to what they are forbidden, and they hold secret counsels for sin and revolt and disobedience to the Messenger, and when they come to you they greet you with a greeting with which Allah does not greet you, and they say in themselves: Why does not Allah punish us for what we say? Hell is enough for them; they shall enter it, and evil is the resort.”

Now I know this is supposed to sound beautiful in arabic, but it sounds retarded in english. If I wrote that on an english paper I'd get an F because its a giant run on sentence.

If the Koran were really holy I'd have been inspired by now.

ii) Pro's basic argument is that the Koran is unique. But there are other unique books, so the Koran ain't nothin special.

iii) Pro says I can't critisize the language of the Koran because I can't speak arabic, so let's grant Pro his best case scenario – that he can neither prove nor disprove to english-speaking audiences that the Koran is beautiful. This means that we have to throw out the argument because it can't be shown one way or the other.

D) No one has ever produced a book that lasted as long as the Koran

Pro says I don't win this point, but I'm pretty sure I do.

Pro: “Then the challenge became to produce any book that could last as long as the Koran does, and that has not been passed either.”

Con: “There's an older book [4].”

Pro: “I said that whatever book you read, it has not lasted as long as the Qur'an in its original form.”

But sheesh, the book is actually about 1,000 years older than the Koran. Whats more is that its the ORIGINAL VERSION! So yes, I'd say it HAS lasted as long as the Qur'an.

This point is actually of minimal significance, but it should remove a lot of Pro's credibility.

E) Mathematics of the Koran

Pro writes: “The mathematics in the Qur'an are far from being scatter plots.”

But his source in R1 IS actually a scatter plot. Just go look at it.

Pro's next argument is that its hard to write mathematically and poetically. Maybe it could be, but lets look at the examples Pro gives. His scatter-plot example has to do with the number of verses/chapters. So you just stop writing or write a little more to get the number of verses you want! His sea+land=100 example is similar. Just make an extra sentence that says land. Super easy.

Again, this is just basic addition. I'm not impressed by division either. Sorry.

F) Pro drops this point.

G) Other prophecies


i) Pro drops this point.

ii) Pro drops this point.

iii) Pro says that clay exists in several forms and components. He has no source for this. I am totally confident that the bulk of clay is silicate, because as a petroleum engineer I have to study rocks. Here is the source saying with absolute certainty that clay is “a naturally occurring
aluminium silicate composed primarily of fine-grained minerals.” [1].


Now Pro is right that clay can contain other minerals, like magnesium and stuff, which ARE found in the human body. That's fine. But if we're made from clay, ALL the minerals should be present, and aluminium silicate is not.

Moreover, even though clay CAN contain a myriad of other components, remove them, and you still have clay. That's cus clay is aluminium silicate. Which we are not made of. Wow what a horrible error on the part of the Koran.

iv) Pro drops this point.

H-K) Pro drops all of these.

There are a total of 10 sub points here. I guess they're not important.

But wait actually they are!



*********************************

**** VOTING ISSUES ****

***************
******************



1) Failure to Compose Opposition to the Fallacy of Composition

Pro has paid little attention to the fallacy of composition, probably because he has no answer. Just because some parts of a book are true does not make the entire thing true. So you shouldn't believe in the whole of the Koran even if you believe in its prophecies.

For further information, and proof that the fallacy of composition is actually a valid fallacy, see here [2].


2) False Prophecies, False Prophecies Everywhere...

The Koran thinks mountains are Peg-like, but they aren't. Pro doesn't have a rebuttal for this anywhere.

The Koran thinks we are made from clay, but clay is siliciclastic and we are not. Sure our bodies share magnesium with clay, but that's about it.

So you have one false prophecy brought up by Pro, and one false prophecy I dug up. That should be enough to show that the Koran isn't perfect.


3) Drop It Like Its Not (even there)

And finally, Pro has left all his debate rounds to the last minute. All he can do is say “see why the koran is so great at www.whythekoranisnotwrong.com”. He does not even try to address the bulk of my arguments. If Pro can't take his religion seriously, why should we?

But as per the standards in round 1, Pro is not allowed to bring up any new arguments in the last round. Since Pro has never given a counter-argument to the mountain example, he can't give one now when I can't even respond. So from a technical standpoint, its an auto-win for me.


Be an Atheist

Kill your parents

Dance hard techno



-Sieben

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Mirza

Pro

A) Qur'an unchanged

i) If a hundred scientists present a hundred scientific hypotheses, and we can disconfirm them all except one, and we can even confirm the truth of that hypothesis, then we have a plausible reason to view it as relatively special. I did not say that the Qur'an is special only because it is unchanged. It is special because among all religious books, it is the single one that is unchanged (at least one that is older than say, 50 years), and among all other books, it is the one that has been unchanged for the longest periods of time. Notice how this is perfectly fitting to the resolution: Construction of Islam. If the religion is perfectly contstructed - as I am making evident - the resolution is therefore affirmed.

ii) Con dismisses my real point. The fact is that we have traces of one of the oldest Qur'ans in the world, [1] and we can easily prove that the Qur'an is as it is originally, i.e., not distorted. However, with other religious books, not only is it that you can distort them (it can be done easily), but we do not know of the originals. We do not know what the "original" sayings of Buddha are. There were disputes among the early Buddhists on this. We do not know of the original Vedas. It is not that the original and the distorted versions are standing side by side - but that the original is non-evident, and the distorted is very evident and prevailing. That, however, is the exact opposite when it comes to the Qur'an. We have the original to prove the distorted wrong. And, 100% of Muslims have the same Qur'an. Is this the case with scriptures of other religious groups? Not the least.

B) No contradictions in the Koran

'As far as I can see, its pretty easy to write a book with no contradictions.' Religious books? In these four rounds, I have not seen my opponent name a single other religious book without contradictions. Islam is constructed perfectly, especially in relation to other religions. The resolution is yet again affirmed.

C) The Qur'an is irreproducible because of its style


i) It is not an appeal to authority. The fact that my opponent thinks I am referring to Muslim poets and not the poets belonging to tribes who fought Muslims is an error. His point holds no water. If I came to Charles Darwin when he lived, and claimed that the earth is 6,000 years old, would he believe? No. Why did the non-Muslim poets of highest level get amazed by the Qur'an? Because they could not challenge its style. http://www.adamdeen.com...

"Don't give him a free pass on this."

Actually, when I am being kind to accept a long debate even though the challenge came out of the blue, I think it is fairly acceptable of me not to use all the available characters if I have little time to write the most important arguments. It is not I who made a thread for you to hastily accept a debate challenge - you did that to me.

58:8 is again in English. Islam calls for studying, not skimming. First of all, have you read the history of the verse? No. You cannot just read it in English and say it doesn't make sense, especially when you don't know what the Qur'anis trying to say. Second, there is nothing wrong with the sentence since the idioms, metaphors, and so on, in the Qur'an are extremely hard to translate properly, and many a times it is impossible.

The Qur'an says, "And God does not change the condition of a people until they change it themselves" If you want to be inspired, then be open to inspiration.

ii) It is extraordinarily unique if you compare it to books of its own kind, and remember that its not only its content that is unique.

iii) Why can I not prove that the Qur'an is perfect / beautiful in style? Do you teach people something because they know, or because they do not know?

D) No one has produced a book that lasted as long as the Qur'an

Sure, there are older books that are original, but they are not unchanged. As a matter of fact, even in the link Con presented, it seems to be pretty clear that the old tablets are not even compiled fully. Those parts that are found are original, sure. But the whole books are neither found, and probably neither existing. Something that is half its original size is not original.

E) Mathematics


Indeed, one sources showed a scatter plot. And, why does it matter? I linked numerous sources of extemely complicated mathematical structures in the Qur'an. In fact, Con misunderstands me horribly once more. I didn't say that sea plus land equated 100. I said that they are both mentioned in a sense that combining them, we get 100% (simple logic), and if we make a simply calculation between the amount of "sea" and "land," we get around 71% for sea and 28% for land - which is a scientific reference from mathematics. I am sure that the Muslims didn't calculate that 14 centuries ago.

On "dropping some points," I say that I have 8K character space, not a million. I have to address the most important parts. I move on to clay.

Con says that I have no source for clay consisting of several forms and components. I will gladly present sources if you wish:

http://hubpages.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://kengeorgepottery.tripod.com...

The Qur'an does not state what kind of clay humans were made of. In fact, it mentions it in the context of earthly material that is found within humans, and that is magnesium, iron, calcium, and so forth. This is a hundred percent consistent with science. Moreover, if we think about abiogenesis, science will make absolutely no objection to the fact that mixing certain earthly chemicals with water might contribute to creating life. The Qur'an says that all life on earth is made of water.

Now, Con says that I cannot make counter-arguments due to les in R1. Why not? The rules are not to make new arguments. Rebuttals are welcome in the last round. I move on to a quick rebuttal on mountains being pegs.

Again, my opponent dismisses the fact that a fact does not not constitute a general truth of something, i.e., mountains being pegs =/= every single mountain being peg-like. http://www.quranandscience.com... There is scientific truth in this, and my opponent has presented zero evidence against it. One type of mountain =/= all types of mountains.

As for prophecies, Con has made no references to other prophecies that have come true. If he thinks that all the other religions and so-called astrology figures have gotten half of their prophecies correct, then why does he not bring his evidence? Also, notice how I not only say that the prophecies of other religions have not come true, but I make a specific claim that they cannot come true because they predicted a historical event that did not happen. I can get into many details, but new arguments are not welcome.

Conclusion


The resolution is affirmed. It speaks of the construction of Islam. Con has come with no evidence that makes the construction of Islam seem weak. On the other hand, I have proven that it is perfectly contrsucted. Thanks to Con for a nice debate.

References

[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org...

Debate Round No. 5
126 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
in short con was unable to do his part.
non serious relying on biased peoples.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
And finally, Pro has left all his debate rounds to the last minute. All he can do is say "see why the koran is so great at www.whythekoranisnotwrong.com". He does not even try to address the bulk of my arguments. If Pro can't take his religion seriously, why should we?

above from con was real trolling and disgusting.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
also water comes down slowly and through streams and rivers. those icebergs and glaciers can also be considered as mountain to hold water.
because there is 100% water in glaciers. which is hydrgen and oxygen. and moutians also contains water or we can say these two elements in much amount.
so chemically they are also mountian of matter. but geogically are seperate .
see the definition of moutaiin.
its elevated part of earth its clearly mentioned earth and 70% of earth constituent is water which makes glacier also mountain.
mountains plural of moun"tain (Noun)
Noun

A large natural elevation of the earth's surface rising abruptly from the surrounding level; a large steep hill.
A region where there are many such features, characterized by remoteness and inaccessibility.

other definition also suggest them mountain because of remoteness.coz are on both poles.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
scientific fact of quran like big bang and warms holes. and shape of earth and embryology. mentioned in quran. not obvious history. but are discovered recently. and pro has mentioned that quran has so many scientific fact never been proved wrong.
the most acceptable argument.
and never been refuted by con.
shaking of earth. is solid argument. indeed
http://www.enchantedlearning.com...
see the glacier, they carry so much water and mostly are on mountain or two poles. and those also soak ( or hold) the water so much amount of water.
and dont let to cover the land. on high mountains most of water remain and slowly comes down to sea so that the ratio should be maintain. thats they reason they dont let shake the earth. its like the milk shake. if u dont grind the fruit remain solid but if u grind than mixed and become shake.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
r4v
Argumemts/Sources: I felt that pro used biased sources at times. I checked some of the sources and most of them had nosources of their own.
I don't feel pro affirmed his resolution.
Posted by Abdel 5 years ago
Abdel
I'm sorry, my ignorant fellow Muslim, it is YEH who will be dealt with by the moderators. As I have stated, yeh have begun a war with me. That is why YEH shall be handled by the moderators accordingly. This is a free country, is it not!? We all have equal rights and priviledges. This is a free site, yes? Where we can ALL discuss topics! Yeh cannot think that you are above everybody else, and that an honest Careers teacher like myself be moderated, but you are left untouched? That is why Iraq is failing, because of idealistic people like you, who want a world without people who are different like myself. I have spoken, Allah will have revenge for this.
Posted by Abdel 5 years ago
Abdel
Succulent.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
Whining is not an opinion. Now I will let the moderators take care of you.
Posted by Abdel 5 years ago
Abdel
Mirza, yeh have started a war with meh. Your comment of disregarding all that I have said is taken as a great assault on my person. As a man of religion, yeh obviously value your beliefs quite highly. However, you clearly don't respect the opinions of others just as you would wish for others to respect your own. As the President of Baghdad, I would greatly suggest that yeh plan your next attack on me, the progeny of the Divine Faggot Allah. Yeh are making a powerful enemy by declaring war against me. This is treason against the great nation that is New Allahland, and Allah could smite you for this atrocity. Oi am fully prepared to engage you in any form of debate, and am looking forward to defeating you in them. Contact me @ 647 402 8277 if you wish to pursue this further. If you choose not to call me, I will take that as sign of you admitting your complete ignorance in this matter.
Good day,
Abdel Samiky
Posted by spiritislife 5 years ago
spiritislife
Sieben, I tried voting in your favor, can't do it, doesn't seem to register for some reason. God bless.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 3 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB LoopsEye
Vote Placed by LoopsEye 3 years ago
LoopsEye
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Hi people I read this debate.. Well it was informative from Pro's point of view His arguments were wise and decent Con has been Mocking and indecent kind of .. So conduct goes to Pro Con might be having good grip of language but i felt he was trying to play upon it.. . Pro of course I felt his arguments convincing the reason is I have done a long research on the topic so I understand it ... but Both sides lack Scholarly aspects the quality was lesser then the Quantity of Materiall Used... but it was interesting to read. Thanks. -Peace. Edit: I voted Con for Conduct but I just now saw he did not paid any attention to Pro's request: I urge my opponent to be respectful, and I will do well to be respectful, too. Con was mocking!
Vote Placed by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: the con seem kind of doing mockery. mirza pointed out some fact about quran. actully Quran is the book of guidance and which purpose it fulfills but all those mathematical miracles are plus points to book. like the ratio of land and water. exact which now measure by science. if science has some miraculous facts, but saying other book also do has, do not nullify the glory of Quran. which is kind of acceptance of con that Qur'an is those facts. one of the worst thing con was taking pro's argument out of context like it last much time like until now unchanged. it was what pro was saying. well con said that there is much and in quran. this is really hilarious. he was doing mockery not debates. that the reason i gave conduct to pro obviously the argument also to pro i never found any good rebuttal from con. just saying that this is also in other books and he can also do or write this book. he should accept challenge and produce single verse and should present here. other in comments.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 5 years ago
J.Kenyon
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Posted my RFD in the thread... http://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/10318/9/
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 5 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a little fuzzy on the actual direction of the debate. I could be me but the resolution just wasn't so clear in the actual argument. On conduct, i would hand it to Mirza for remaining pretty moderate in tone, but that doesn't mean that Sieben was bad in this area, but not up to Mirza's level of respect. Mirza just seemed more adept, but not surprising really considering the subject matter. I do give credit to Sieben for taking the debate, i would never take on a debate like this.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
SiebenMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Args: People have seen UFO's too, humans arent made of clay, vague prophecies will happen. These did it for me, great job all around by both though. I will say that I disagree with con on the contradictory argument though. You have to consider the sheer length of the book, which makes contradictions much more likely. Con also did have poor conduct, acting like his opponents arguments were just stupid at times. I dont appreciate that. But imho, he argued better.