The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
13 Points

History: Controversial Debate Challenge

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,894 times Debate No: 14708
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)




Greetings to my opponent; good luck and have fun!

The premise of this debate is that my opponent will select the topic to be debated. I do have some stipulations:

First of all, I wish that whatever the topic may be, it is relatively clean.

Secondly, I would appreciate that this debate regard a controversial or debateable topic; it cannot be particularly pitched or one-sided (if it is, I hope the voters will acknowledge that fact).

Thirdly, it must be historical (dating before the 1980s).

We will have 72 hours to debate and 8,000 characters per post. I have chosen four rounds due to the fact that the first round shall only address the rules of debate and introduce the topic. My opponent may assume either the pro or con stance.

Thanks and let us have a stellar debate.


Thank you.

I choose the following resolution: Muslims made major contributions to driving the Dark Ages out of Europe. I am Pro. I will argue that Muslims, during the Islamic Golden Age, contributed heavily to bringing medieval Europe out of its dark ages by achieving scientific prosperity, such as in astrnomy, medicine, etc. Societal topics are also included.

I ask my opponent to conduct himself, and naturally, I look forward to doing the same. Semantics are not allowed, thank you very much.

Golden Age:
Dark Ages:
Debate Round No. 1


Greeting Mirza, have fun and thanks for the debate.

I will be con in this debate, and I must disprove the resolution that "Muslims made major contributions to driving the Dark Ages from Europe."
In fact, I intend to further prove that the 'Moslem scourge' from the 8th to mid-13th century * deteriorated European society and caused insatiable pain and suffering – at least far exempting those insubstantial advances Moslems may have brought to European society.
It was, in fact, the European nations themselves who benefited European society and influenced their emergence from the Dark Ages.
I will outline my three points, now, starting with:

1. Moslems caused War and invaded hapless or incapable European, African and Asian nations. The Moslem Caliphs endorsed the total and religious conquest of as much territory as possible. Throughout the course of attempted Islamic conquest, the Moslems took all of Northern Africa, all of the Arabian Peninsula, the Caucasus, portions of Southern Italy, the Balkans, the Byzantium Empire, Jerusalem, Spain, parts of the Balkans and even Hungary, Rumelia, Bulgaria, Transylvania, Crimea etc.
The victorious Moslem armies enslaved, looted and profited from their victories, causing grief, pain and hunger.
The Moslem conquerors were cruel and ruthless rulers who treated their subjugates as “inferior beings.”
“The people conquered by the Muslims usually faced a choice. They could denounce their religion and convert to Islam, pay a tax to continue practicing their beliefs, become a slave, or be executed. Most chose to convert. But many people paid the tax.”

The glorious Byzantines, successful and the true conveyors of wealth and technology, were conquered by the Moslems.

It was only by the efforts of Charles "The Hammer" Martel and other legendary European leaders that the "Moslem scourge" was halted and in fact repulsed.

The conditions I described and the furious defense finally provided does not indicate in any manner that the Moslems assisted the Europeans.

Secondly the Europeans instigated their own recovery:
The first such example is known as the Carolingian Renaissance. The Carolingian Empire had little contact with the Moslem factions (other than defeating them in battle), and yet the arts, architecture, literature, law reforms etc. were experienced during this time of a flourishing society.

Great Britain was never assaulted by the Moslems, and yet the people resided peacefully and successfully under the united crown of King Alfred and his following leaders. It was said, during this time, that a woman could ride horseback from one end of known England to the other without harm, such was the peace and prosperity. With the Norman Invasion during the reign of King Harold came a stronger and more centralized government than the Witan. Feudalism was established during a successful time of progress and the establishment of cities, culture, music, arts (Shakespeare, for example, and his fellow playwrights were not at all influenced by Moslem arts men) etc. In essence, Great Britain pulled itself out of the Middle Ages with its own natural resources, ruler ship and success. Great Britain led the Industrial Revolution, something with the Ottomans were quite delayed in participating in (in fact, at this time, the Ottomans, who were Moslem, were so feeble that they required assistance from the powerful French and English to defend the Crimean from Russia).

The European 'Renaissance' was initiated in Venice, by people who were not influenced by Moslems.
It was not Moslems who distinguished between “light and dark” or influenced the religious development of Europe. The ‘Philosophers’ (Cicero, Machiavelli, Ambrose, Basi and Palmieri), architects, Christian leaders (Martin Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Thomas More, John Wycliffe, Saint Nicholas, Saint Augustine, St. Bernard etc. and authors (Chaucer, for example) and artists were all distinctly European (Michelangelo, da Vinci, Raphael etc). For example, scientists Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton and Descartes were not Moslem and did not study Moslem advances. It was not Moslems who influenced the success of Europe, since the Moslems did not even penetrate the leaders of Europe.
It was not Moslems who developed the Feudalistic policy of the late Middle Ages. Strong European Kings maintained power and failed to fear the Moslems, instead dealing blows to the Huns and the Mongols.
I might conclude, then, that the Moslems contributed their knowledge, philosophies etc to only themselves, and only they themselves benefited. I might also add that the only advances Moslems may have brought (architectural etc.) were happily discarded by most of the European powers once the Moslem forces were evicted (such as in Spain, where the unconquered provinces of Aragon and Castile were devoutly Catholic. The Inquisition could be said to have been initiated due to the terror of the Moors' reign and the opposition to heresy (Moslem or otherwise).




Thank you.

I wish to point out that my opponent is quite far off-topic. While he does mention certain historical periods that are related to Muslims, he does not stick to the original topic whatsoever. Since I have the burden of proof, how can he expect me to spend all the characters for refutations, and at the same time make my own case? It is illogical. I will therefore come with short rebuttals, and continue making my case thereafter.


1. Carolingian Renaissance

What does a renaissance that occurred in the 8th-9th century got to do with a totally different European renaissance that occurred numerous centuries afterwards? Just because there were other minor renaissances in the world when Muslims were highly prosperous does in no way indicate that they were not the ones who contributed mostly to driving the Dark Ages out of Europe. I challenge Con to find one expert and one book which says that the Carolingian Renaissance contributed to ending the Dark Ages of Europe.

2. Muslim expansion

Con presented some unnecessary and unsupported rant against Muslims and their expansion throughout history. He wants me to avoid making use of my role (having the burden of proof) and spend all the words defending the Muslims instead of presenting my case. Does he know that the early Muslims tried to establish friendship with other cultures, and they spread peacefully in many ways? West Africa is Muslim, and I'd like to know which army conquered it. I would also like to know which Muslim army conquered Indonesia and Malaysia. I can refute all his points, but I need to stick to the original topic.

3. Origin of the Renaissance

Con implied that Muslims had nothing to do with the European Renaissance. So, all the scientific achievements that we have today have nothing to do with the past, perhaps? Did we just learn everything in an instant, or is it due to the fact that knowledge was passed on to us throughout generations? It is the latter. Similarly, just because the European Renaissance was expanded upon when Muslims didn't reign in Europe does not mean that they were not the ones who contributed a lot to it. I will now elaborate.


1. Entering Al-Andalus [1]

In the year 711 AD, a Muslim figure by the name Tariq bin Ziyad lead a Muslim army of seven thousand men to conquer the lands of Al-Andalus. That was due to the fact that the Muslims, who were also the Moors (i.e., from North Africa), were called for help by heirs in the early Spain to remove a tyrant from power, also known as King Roderic. This is a historical fact. "Julian, a Christian, appealed to Musa ibn Nusayr, the Umayyad Governor of N. Africa for assistance in avenging Roderic for his crime, and hence take him out of rule. Musa did not commit to a full-scale invasion, but called upon his lieutenant to take charge." [2]

Once Muslims took control of Al-Andalus, they established one of the most prosperous societies in the pre-modern world. They achieved scientific prosperity, which included medicine, chemistry, astronomy, etc. The politics they lead gave freedom to people that made them shine compared to the people in the rest of Europe, who were forced to live as Christians, who had unequal perspectives in politics, and so forth.

2. Political prosperity

When the world had trouble finding political solutions for conflicts between religious and cultural groups of people, the Muslims in Al-Andalus made it evident that peace was not an impossible goal whatsoever. While the medieval Christians never opened the path for other religious groups to prosper in a society, or even other cultures, the Muslims in Al-Andalus let both Jews and Christians have even the highest societal ranks, i.e., as politicians. They were given freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of political association, and they were given the status as ahl al-Dhimmah, i.e., People Under Contract / Protection.

The Muslims, like no other people in older days, demonstrated all these good societal situations. "In the first three centuries of the Muslim domination the Jews enjoyed great influence and prosperity. Jews frequently served the government in official capacities and played an active role in political and financial affairs." [3] Such fascinating facts point toward another fact: that Muslims made major contributions to driving the Dark Ages out of Europe. While they did not directly put forth the ages of Renaissance, it changes absolutely nothing about the fact that their achievements opened ways toward the Renaissance, and that their examples were used by those who officially instigated the Renaissance.

In his book 'How Islam Created the Modern World,' [4] Mark Graham explains how Islam strongly encouraged Muslims to establish politically prosperous societies, as well as to seek knowledge, because the Koran [39:9] says, "Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know?" Furthermore, Graham explains how Muslims opened the way to the Renaissance, and how their works were used even centuries after Al-Andalus was conquered by Ferdinand and Isabella (and they did not let a single Muslim or Jew stay alive, unless he submitted to Christianity). Other books on the topic are 'The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization,' 'The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain.' And so on.

3. Scientific achievements

The Muslims brought some of the most fascinating inventions, and this was during the Islamic Golden Age in general, i.e., not only in Al-Andalus. The scientific inventions not only go into the field of e.g., physics and chemistry, but also medicine, astronomy, and numerous other fields of science. Their works were used during the European Renaissance, but many are still found in our modern world, without doubt. I will go briefly through a few out of extremely many inventions made by the Muslims.

a. Medicine

Muslim doctors invented the first medical treatment for sexual/erectile dysfunctions, and they were withal the first to establish a diagnose for these dysfunctions. Moving on, the Muslims introduced and pioneered in cough syrup, medical alcohol, experimental surgery, injection syringe, opthalmology, and I can go on for hours. Moreover, in the year 754, the first pharmacies were instituted by Muslims. This was a tremendeous yardstick in the medical world.

b. Technology

Muslims invented and developed further many mechanical technologies which were highly beneficial and inluential. Among many, some of the inventions were artificial simulations of weather phenomena, bayonet mount, grab dedger, and so forth. Musli also made fascinating contributions and inventions to navigational techonlogy, e.g., aviation. On top of that, inventions within the category of analogue computers were also splendiferous. Among many, some inventions were a lunisolar calendar computer, programmable analogue computer, linear astrolabe, and so forth.

c. Science

Within the general fields of science, Muslims made many discoveries that were, without doubt, world-changing and world-benefitting. The last reference elaborates and touches many topics in this area. [5]


No matter what someone says about this, the fact that Muslims opened the way to the European Renaissance should never be doubted, and the fact will not be changed. While the Muslims were not perfect (they were humans, too), their achievements and examples to be followed outweighted their negative deeds. Their works were used by scientists during Renaissance, but also today.



Debate Round No. 2


1stLordofTheVenerability forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My sincerest apologies about missing round two. Two rounds may not due justice to this debate, and so I ponder if my opponent would like to continue further in a sequel debate?

It has been most enjoyable. I tend to concur that my opponent can't possibly attempt to rebut my arguments, but I intended only to provide some preliminary counterarguments to his claim before he assumed the burden of the proof and formulated a focus to this debate.

I will address his rebuttals briefly:

1. The Carolingian Renaissance was one of, "...a whole series of minor renascences that terminated the few centuries of what really were 'the Dark Ages,'.... Each of these rebirths, consisting of a revival of learning and centering on Roman and to a lesser degree Greek antiquity, had altered and revitalized only the rather restricted milieus of the educated inside and outside of the monasteries..." (pg. 83, German 20th Century Philosophical Writings by Wolfgang Schirmacher). In no way did the Carolingian Renaissance alone eradicate the "Dark Ages", but the knowledge gained and the information stored assisted tremendously with the emergence of Europe into the Renaissance at a much later date. Art, architecture, literature, music and even legal reforms were created by Charlemagne and his successors, and some of them are still appreciated or utilized in this era.

2. Muslim expansion

My opponent is attempting to avoid the very fact that Islam wouldn't have spread to North Africa and Europe if it hadn't been for brutal conquest. He does this by issuing a challenge and creating the proverbial, "straw man." Indeed, Moslems did, occasionally, migrate peacefully, as have people of all religions, and nobody could possibly have misinterpreted by statements to include minor peaceful movements of the occasional settlers. However, he also asked, "What army conquered West Africa?" The answer to that question is not one army, but various coups and violent uprisings or attacks on what had been a peaceful order, "In 1802, Uthman Dan Fodio, a Fulani scholar, led a major jihad. With the help of a large Fulani cavalry and Hausa peasants, Uthman Dan Fodio overthrew the region's Hausa rulers and replaced them with Fulani emirs. The movement led to centralization of power in the Muslim community, education reforms, and transformations of law." and many other examples can be found, " In the 1850s, Umar Tal returned from pilgrimage claiming to have received spiritual authority over the West African Tijani Sufi order. From the 1850s to 1860s, he conquered three Bambara kingdoms." (2.) I think my opponent will find that West Africa was not wholly Moslem until the 1800s, far beyond the remnants of the "Golden Age," and therefore his protestations are irrelevant.

3. Origin of the Renaissance

My opponent apparently proclaims that the "scientific achievements" that we have today were influenced moreso by Moslems then by the European scholars and scientists, many of whom I have already named, and none of whom had contact with any Moslem predecessor (if there was a predecessor). In essence, Moslem technology benefited mostly Moslems, if it even benefited them.

For example, my opponent claims that Moslems perhaps influenced navigation, sailing and flight. I therefore researched further into the history and came across a single man named Abbas Ibn Firnas, who claims to have attempted to glide in an attempt at aviation. His feeble attempt included this, "He covered himself with feathers for the purpose attached a couple of wings to his body, and, getting on an eminence, flung himself down into the air, when according to the testimony of several trustworthy writers who witnessed the performance, he flew a considerable distance, as if he had been a bird, but, in alighting again on the place whence he had started, his back was very much hurt, for not knowing that birds when they alight come down upon their tails, he forgot to provide himself with one." (3). The Greeks were the first to experiment with flight, including a man called Archytas, who supposedly flew two hundred metres - farther than Abbas and his feathers. He probably obtained the idea from another Greek, Daedalas. In the fifth century, the Chinese experimented with hot air balloons. Eilmer was the first reported European to glide over two hundred feet (4), and he was an English monk with no prior interaction with Moslems.

Navigation and shipbuilding was not a Moslem strength. In fact, the Moslems were terrible ocean goers - at a time when most European powers had heavy, ocean going vessels with cannon (galleons, cogs, caravels etc.), they still relied on the ancient galley and the various versions of that design. The Ottomans could never assert naval dominance over any European country. The Tripoli pirates and the Barbary corsairs were seafaring types who dared not to venture from the safety of their coasts and the Mediterranean Sea. When engaged by far superior European and American navies, they completely collapsed. It was not Moslems who enabled exploration.


Though I can't disprove each of my opponent's points, I do contend that he is incorrect about the first pharmacy, which was reportedly Sumerian in 4000 B.C. (5, 6) The Egyptians also had a fine medicinal practice, and it is reported that they were able to operate on cataracts, puncturing a small hole in the eye of the patient with a hollow instrument, and the Indians had their own technique in 6th century BCE. (7) "The earliest recorded shop dealing with sales of medicines in London was opened in 1345." (8) Cough syrup can't have been "pioneered" in Europe, either, as each nation had a distinct recipe - many involving a quantity of Chinese opium.

I ask that my opponent at least same some of his "pioneers" - particularly the one regarding the bayonet mount, since bayonets themselves had no use on the hand cannons that the Mamluks purportedly utilized against the Mongols (a weapon the Mongols may have obtained from China),

Therefore, while I have no doubt that the Moslems revelled in a glorious era filled with innovation and advance, they certainly were not key to Europe's emergence from the Dark Ages. If that were to be the case, then why did they themselves stumble at about this time?

My opponent makes the ludicrous claim that the Visigoths were tired of King Roderick and actually invited the Moslems to conquer. This claim is simply ludicrous, though various historians do consider it as a possibility. If the Visigoths were so pleased, why did it require a seven year campaign led by Tariq ibn-Ziyad himself to conquer the Peninsula? Why didn't they launch a coup, depose Roderick and then invite the Moslems through their border? This was certainly possible at such a volatile time.

I might mention that Christians and Jews did coincide peacefully during this time, but the Moslems made it amply clear that if they were not leading the nations of Europe, they would not reside peacefully under the reign of a Christian ruler. Therefore, the Moslems themselves caused the friction between religious factions.
Due to room constraints I can't add much else - I do hope that you concur that we should continue the debate with at least two more rounds, though, Mirza. : )

Cheerio, thanks for a good debate! It has been most enjoyable and thought provoking (and it's always enjoyable to delve into history!).








1. Influence

My opponent makes a case for me, not for him. He says that the Carolingian Renaissance alone did not eradicate the Dark Ages, but "the knowledge gained and the information stored assisted tremendously with the emergence of Europe into the Renaissance at a much later date." He completely ignores the fact that this is the same case with the Islamic Golden Age. Muslims did not directly go through the start line to renaissance, but their works made great contributions. In fact, he has not met my challenge to cite any expert work on the matter of the Carolingian Renaissance as a main period contributed to eradicating the Dark Ages. On the contrary, I can link numerous sources, both Muslim and non-Muslim, confirming the fact that Muslims made splendiferous contributions to ending the Dark Ages. This is because their works were and are still used in many areas, hereby in science, too. They influenced Europe with their inventions.

Con has not cited any source, not even an unreliable one, which says that the inventions of Muslims only benefited them. He asserts his own views. On the other hand, I have cited many sources which support my views. The societal prosperity of Muslims lead to political freedom during the European Renaissance. They put forth the best examples of how interreligious cultures could prosper, how science should be handled, and so forth. This should not be ignored. Con merely says, "It benefited Muslims only" while that is far from the truth. Their works were used to do further research in science.

The book "The Canon of Medicine" by Ibn Sina, also known as Avicenna, was completed in year 1025. Although this happened a few centuries before the European Renaissance, the medal encylopedia of 14 volumes was reprinted dozens of times after the16th century. Avicenna contributed a lot to science and medicine, and there are very few disputes about that among historians.

"The Persian text Qanun was translated into Latin as Canon medicinae (...) Its encyclopaedic content, its systematic arrangement and philosophical plan soon worked its way into a position of pre-eminence in the medical literature of Europe, displacing the works of Galen and becoming the text book for medical education in the schools of Europe. The text was read in the medical schools at Montpellier and Leuven as late as 1650, and Arnold C. Klebs described it as 'one of the most significant intellectual phenomena of all times.'" Sources are not a problem for me. Neither are facts. But, they are a problem to Con because he used neither of them properly in his arguments. Disregarding character space, I can probably cite hundreds of sources from various perspectives that deal with the Muslim influence on Europe before and particularly during the European Renaissance.

2. Muslim expansion

I would like to say that I did not intend to write West Africa, but East Africa. Disregarding the mistake, my opponent went into the early modern history of West Africa, which is totally irrelevant even if I did want to talk about West Africa, but I did not want to. Nonetheless, Con again tries to portay the spread of Muslims and Islam as a bloody trip. He ignores the reasons for that. He ignores the fact that Muslims came to Asia and spread Islam because trade opened many ways for Muslims to connect with the rest of the world. They managed to spread Islam by accepting converts. Were some people forced to accept Islam? Perhaps. It does not mean much to the fact that there are always exceptions. And, Con also ignores the fact that even though Muslims sometimes fought for conquest, there were wise reasons for that. As I said before, sometimes they were asked for help. I made a case for the conquest of one of the most prosperous societies in the Medieval World, and that alone is significant for this debate.

Furthermore, even if Muslims did fight many battles, and perhaps many of them were unjustified, remember that this happened all around the world, and not in all Islamic societies. Moreover, the United States influences the world in various ways today, even though it has troops all around the world, it wages wars in quite a few countries, and so forth. Does it mean that this country is not one of the most prosperous scientific and technological countries in our globe? No, it does not. Pros and cons do not have to eradicate each other. Therefore, Con's claims about Muslim "brutality" in no way negates the fact that Muslims made major contributions to driving the Dark and Brutal Ages out of Europe.

3. Origin of the Renaissance

Once more Con asserts that Muslims "didn't have contact to European scholars and scientists. Do we have contact to Charles Darwin? Do we have contact to Aristotle? Do we have contact to Albert Einstein? Do we have contact to Isaac Newton? I think not. It does not mean that we cannot be influenced by their works. In various physics classes and categories you hear about Newton and Einstein. In various biology classes you hear about Darwin. Their works have been written down, preserved, and they are influencing our world this day today. Similarly, of course Muslims were not "required" to have "contact" with people who lived after them. But there is influence. There are books (Cordoba in Muslim Spain had more books in its libraries than any other city in Europe), and books help influencing generations upon generations, and so on.

"In essence, Moslem technology benefited mostly Moslems, if it even benefited them"

With due respect, that would not even be compatible with Soviet Russia jokes.

Moving on, my opponent wrote some lengthy explanations and cited a few quotes on aviation. Considering I said, "e.g., aviation," I have no need of wasting character space elaborating on the point. I refer to "Flying's strangest moments: extraordinary but true stories from over 1000 years of aviation history:"

Additionally, Con negatively criticized my arguments for navigational technology. Yet again he keeps bringing up some historical points about e.g., the Ottoman Empire. What has that got to do with the Muslims having originated the caravel, which was very useful for sea travelling? It was brought to reality due to the invention of the qarib ship. Again, Con tries to negate my points by bringing up irrelevant history. That is not proper.

What is more is that even though we can trace something back to very ancient history, it does not mean that something that came after didn't have an origin in more modern times. For instance, the idea of evolution was not thought of by Charles Darwin to begin with. However, he was the mastermind behind the theory, and he established the scientific evidence for it more than anyone else, and also included "Natural Selection." E.g.: However, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't give credit to Darwin for introducing the most significant and influencing part of evolution. Similarly, the first pharmacy in Baghdad was far more influencing than any alleged drugstores preceding it, hence my point stands.

"If that were to be the case, then why did they themselves stumble at about this time?"

I already answered that. Isabella and Ferdinand exterminated Jews and Muslims in Al-Andalus. Low on character space. See:

To conclude, I have made it evident that Muslims made phenomenal contributions to enlightening the Medieval Europe. My arguments are not refuted. Thanks to my opponent and the readers - the resolution is affirmed.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
@1stlord: I guess I wasn't THAT biased, was I?
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
Samman obviously always votes as anyone would expect. Totally disregard my RFD, bro, and the fact that the exact same vote was cast by someone else. I'm just voting to smite you, I didn't really read anything.


Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
Samman obviously voted as anyone would expect.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago

Before/After: My opinion was definitely not changed.

Conduct: Con forfeited, obviously costing him that point.

S/G: No real issues here. Some minor mistakes by both sides, I won't count it against either side.

Arguments/Sources: Con argued as I had predicted, and like any xenophobic person would. They provide the history of the planet that was written by the Europeans, and then shun non-Europeans for what the Europeans wrote in the history books. If you look to an objective history that encompasses the *ENTIRETY* of history, as opposed to the responses of certain groups of people to events that aren't mentioned, sure- some people will look worse. But the truth is, the Muslims DID save the knowledge that Europe lost in the dark ages. The Muslims DID expand upon this knowledge, housing it all in libraries. And the Muslims DID give the Europeans the knowledge they lost and helped them breakthrough. To claim otherwise is absolutely ridiculous and, I believe, insulting.

Again, although I may seem biased, I'm also being objective. The fact of the matter is, history can't be debated; I didn't like this debate to begin with BECAUSE it's a debate about history. History is a set of facts, and if you know the facts then it's game over. That was the case here; Con wanted to provide a false history with no facts, and lost at his own game.

I'm probably gonna get a lot of sh*t for this RFD, and so, in a preemptive preparatory statement-


Or just acknowledge that what I'm saying is true.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
I'm not feeling well, but I should be able to make the post in two days. : )
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 7 years ago
Forfeit?!? Whaaat? Jeepers criminy! This is becoming annoying... Sorry, Mirza, I'm not quite certain how I misjudged the time... I'm quite prepared to carry on, though I lost some of the material I had prepared.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
"So, if Muhammed is a loving chap and Allah a benevolent God, why would he lay siege on Mecca thereafter?"

Are you talking about the one where the Meccans surrendered and then there was a peaceful transfer of power, or the one with the nuclear bombs and F12 fighter jets?
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
It's funny how you always mention what the Muslims do, but never what the pagans did to them. And only the bad that the Muslims do; not the good. It's absolutely laughable.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
"before challenging proven statements from someone as knowledgeable on the topic as myself."

you're a funny guy.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
"but the early Christians were also persecuted - did they retaliate with sieges and great battles? I think not."

Had the Muslims not retaliated, they would not have existed any longer.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest on arguments to Pro, conduct on the forfeit.
Vote Placed by m93samman 7 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I may seem biased, sure. I probably am. RFD in comments section (writing it after I cast my vote)
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 7 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit