The Instigator
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
merciless
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

I should have won this debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,473 times Debate No: 17920
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

truthseeker613

Pro

I should have won the following debate: http://www.debate.org...
No semantic cheap shots on the word "should".
merciless

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Pro

(The debate under discussion was unclear, unorganized, and complex. Therefore,) The main point of this round will be to clarify the points to be debated in this debate:

Pro is clearly more experienced and organized in this debate, which is probably why he won. However based on the content, he did not fulfil his BoP.

I will start off with the reasons given for pros victory:

v1)pros arguments were not successfully refuted

v2)While Pro was not very convincing in his argument, he at least made an attempt.

v3)Pros claims were standard in dense the Koran, Con was not familiar with the standard rebuttals to this and even allowed Pro to shift the BoP back to them (Con has to prove the Koran is corrupted - what?). Fairly dominating performance by Mirza, 3:1.

v4)Kind of a poorly worded resolution. Pro had a better structured and supported argument overall.

My responses:

v1:pros arguments were not successfully refuted:

My response:

Pros arguments were as follows:

a1)The Koran is the only preserved religious book.

a2)The Koran contains no contradictions nor errors.

a3)Mathematical complexity of Koran.

a4)Mohamed is prophesied by old testament.

a5)science in Koran.

I will show where these arguments were successfully refuted:

a1)The Koran is the only successfully preserved religious book.

refutation:

a) The claim was made without evidence. R2

b) The original Hebrew bible also has no mistakes. R2

a2)The Koran contains no contradictions nor errors:

response:

1)claim without evidence. R2

2)Not having contradictions, is not supernatural. R2

3)challenge to bring contradiction in bible.

a3)Mathematical complexity:

response:

1) Not particularly complex, or significant. R3, R4.

2)Lack of evidence. R3, R4.

Pro provided an You tub video over 1h 50m. That's called an argument?

a4) Mohamed prophesied by old testament:

Response:

1)Verses are not clearly referring to Mohamed. R4.

a5)science in Koran.

Responses:

Each of the examples were addressed in R5 showing the following problems:

a)unoriginal.

b)obvious.

c)Not the plain meaning of the verse.

v2) While Pro was not very convincing in his argument, he at least made an attempt

What? BoP was on my opponent. And all evidence was refuted as shown above.

v3)Pros claims were standard in dense the Koran, Con was not familiar with the standard rebuttals to this and even allowed Pro to shift the BoP back to them (Con has to prove the Koran is corrupted - what?). Fairly dominating performance by Mirza, 3:1.

Response:

What I responded to voter #1's cement suffice here as well. As pointed out previously pro was challenged for evidence.

v4)Kind of a poorly worded resolution. Pro had a better structured and supported argument overall.

Response:

poorly worded resolution is not a reason. Indeed pro was clearly much more experienced and organized. But that doesn't matter what matters is content. Which was discussed above.

I now turn it over to my opponent so we can pinpoint, were this debate lies.
merciless

Con

It seems like you are referencing the voters' comments from the debate you say you should have won, but since you don't specifically say so, it is hard to tell. Your case is hard to understand since you don't organize it into specific arguments.

I will start by stating all my arguments on why you shouldn't have won.

Contention 1: Evidence for Judaism is evidence for all other monotheist religions

You agreed that Judaism is very similar to Islam and Christianity. Parts of your holy books have the same meaning, which brings me to my first point. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe in the same God. If there is evidence that this God exists, then there is evidence for all three of these religions.
I agree that there are differences among these three religions, but their foundation is the same. If one can provide evidence for the foundation, one can provide evidence for all three religions. The differences arise from differences between men and God, and you yourself cannot prove (or tell) which differences are from God and which are from men.
Thus from the very start you doomed yourself to lose.

Contention 2: You only asked for evidence, you stated no arguments against what your opponent said

In your debate with Mirza, your typical argument was this: "Frankly your evidence thus far I have found quite unconvincing." As you can see, this is not an argument at all, but a request for more information. Mirza could simply give a few hyperlinks, and your whole case would fall to pieces. In fact, that is exactly what happened.

Contention 3: You did not refute all of your opponent's points, and thus that debate's resolution is affirmed

After giving evidence that the Qu'ran is perfectly preserved, you did not have an adequate answer. The resolution required that you refute all your opponent's points. Since you did not refute the point mentioned above, the resolution is affirmed and Mirza wins.

P.S.

Even in this debate, you state that Pro did not fulfill his burden of proof, but you did not show how Pro failed to meet his burden of proof. You only explained why the voters were wrong. Let me summarize their comments for you: Pro was not very convincing, but Con made no real arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Pro

Rebuttal:

contention#1: Evidence for Judaism is evidence for all other monotheist religions

False. Prof of the matter is that they fundamentally reject each other.

The main difference between Judaism and Islam, which was the crux of the debate, is the acceptance of Mohamed as gods profit and the Koran as gods word.

Contention 2: You only asked for evidence, you stated no arguments against what your opponent said

False. I refer the reader to the previous round. (2ndly If BoP is on pro and he doesn't do so he loses.)

I will now show how con did do more then just demand evidence:

To evidence #1 I wrote:

a) The claim was made without evidence. R2

b) The original Hebrew bible also has no mistakes. R2

Note in b I provided a clear counter argument. I will go into more detail in response to c3.

With regard to the hyper link that my opponent refers to as evidence of the claim. The link was as follows:
http://www.saudinf.com... http://www.masjidma.com.... In other words it didn't realy work. . That's not called evidence. I will go into this argument in more detail in c3.

I would continue with the rest of the arguments but I have already done so in the previous round. In which I said the main point of this round was to pinpoint the points to be argued. my opponent makes here a blanket claim rather then a specific one. This blanket claim has now been addressed. For each individual argument. I refer the reader to R2 for general responses to each argument. Lastly I will repeat that, anyway, when BoP is on pro and he makes claims without evidence con does not have to refute them with any more than a demand for evidence, until evidence is provided there is nothing to refute.

Contention 3: You did not refute all of your opponent's points, and thus that debate's resolution is affirmed

From what my opponent writes in c3 it appears he is referring to argument #1. The Koran is the only preserved religious book.

I will show how pro refuted this argument:

1) R2 3 lines from the top: " I ask you to prove this, specifically with regard to the original version of the bibl in Hebrew."

His response for evidence was a link. It didn't work. No evidence.

His response to the counter example of the original Hebrew testament was, that it is a translation of a translation. A claim which con rejected. R3 top. (pro did not realize this until R4)

R3. my opponent countered my claim by bring up the dead sea scrolls and minor differences in the texts of the prophets specifically Isaiah.

R4. top. I pointed out that con mention specifically the Hebrew bible which is the 5 books of Moses, Isaiah (which is part of the prophets) is not part of the Hebrew testament.

R4b. Pro responded that several scriptures were lost.

R5. Con responded even if some books were lost they weren't all lost. There were many copies and some were saved.

R5b. Pro clearly misunderstood what con wrote. He assumed that what was meant was that certain portions of the bible were lost in their entirety.

So to close my argument regarding this pro did not respond adequately to the demand for evidence, he simply provided a link which did not work. Further more he did not refute the counter example of the original Hebrew.

p.s.

The fact that pro did not provide evidence for his claims reflects that he did not fulfil his BoP.
merciless

Con

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal:

Contention 1:
Muslims and Jews worship the same God, even if there are differences between the two religions, they are fundamentally the same. We can compare Islam and Judaism with different sects of the Islamic religion. Sunnis and Shiites "fundamentally reject each other", but the foundation for their religions is the same, thus evidence for the religion of one sect is evidence for the religion of another sect.

Contention 2:

Answer to R2a: this is the equivalent of asking for evidence.

Answer to R2b: this does not disprove any of your opponent's points, and you do not bring up any evidence for this in the course of the debate.

My opponent's comment about Mirza's sources is hard to understand. I'm assuming the hyperlinks did not work on his computer, but that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist (refer to Mirza's William Nuir quote). Mirza clearly explained what he meant: "There are literally thousands of old copies of the Qu'ran that perfectly match the texts of one another."

My opponent claims that "when BoP is on pro and he makes claims without evidence con does not have to refute them with any more than a demand for evidence." You have to remember that the burden of proof is two-sided. Pro has the burden of proving his statement. Con has the burden of refuting Pro's statements, and not just demanding evidence. While Pro's sources really don't support his burden of proof, you also failed to support your burden.

Contention 3:
Con obviously did not read Pro's argument. Pro's response was that few things survive the passage of time. That the Qu'ran in its original wording survived is a sign of it divinity. Con had no response to this.

P.S.

If Con does not read Pro's case or sources, and only asks for more sources, he has failed to fulfill his side of the BoP.
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Rebuttal:

"Contention 1: Evidence for Judaism is evidence for all other monotheist religions"

My opponent attempts to compare Judaism and Islam, to 2 sects of Islam. This analogy is inherently faulty.
From the very fact that Judaism and Islam are 2 different religions and not merely 2 sects of the same religion show that they are fundamentally different. Otherwise they would be 2 sects of the same religion, not 2 different religions.
Although Islam is a take off of Judaism. Judaism is not a take off of Islam. Thus they are fundamentally different.
This is clear from the debate itself as the debate related to the validity of Mohamed and the Koran.
So to repeat although they may be fundamentally similar they are also still fundamentally different,
This fundamental difference lies in the Koran and Mohamed upon which Islam is based.

"Contention 2:

Answer to R2b: this does not disprove any of your opponent's points, and you do not bring up any evidence for this in the course of the debate."

I will explain how it disproves pros point:

Pros point: "1.The Koran is the only preserved religious book" R1

Bringing the original Hebrew testament as a counter example, of a religious book beside the Koran that has been preserved, disproves pros statement.

The claim is made that no evidence for the counter claim was brought. Indeed it wasn't, so lets take a look at pros evidence for the preservation of the Koran:

(1. If you go to the debate and click on pros link in R2 the following comes up:
"You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'http://www.masjidma.com...' at line 1"
When I copied and pasted in this debate I fixed it. Don't take my word for it go to the original debate, http://www.debate.org... . Round 2, and check it out yourself. It could be the problem is the computer not the link, but I've already tried it on a few computers and that's what came up. This is all besides the point as the links did not contain anything pertinent to the debate anyway.)

2.If you go to link you will find that it does not support my opponents claim. My opponent claimed the Koran has not been altered since it was written, every word in the original is exactly the same as the current prints.

If you read the 1st link you will notice 2 things:
a) It says it is CLAIMED to be 1,300 yr. old.. and "Supervisor of the Shada Archaeological Palace in Abha, Anwar Mohammad Al-Khalil, said that the Quran is beautiful. I cannot say exactly when it was written. In order to find out, we must have it examined at a specialized research centre, he explained." And more importantly :

b)It says nothing regarding how it matches up with current Korans, which was pros whole point. As we can see clearly no evidence here.

Now lets have a look at the 2nd Link:

For your convenience I have cut and pasted it's contents here:

"An old manuscript copy of the Noble Quran has recently been discovered in northwest China���s Gansu Province.
The oldest of its kind known in China, the handwritten copy of the Noble Quran is estimated to be written around 9th century A.D. or earlier, according to the People daily. Experts say that the book was brought to China from Central Asia.

Given its cover style, the technique used for illustration, calligraphic model, and the paper, the newly-discovered copy of the Holy Quran is supposed to be one of the world���s oldest."

Again not a word about whether it is the same wording as that of the current Korans.

So in fact pros links, even if they did work, (which I don't think they did), provided no evidence for his claim that the text of the Koran has remained unchanged.

"Contention 3:
Con obviously did not read Pros argument. Pros response was that few things survive the passage of time. That the Quran in its original wording survived is a sign of it divinity. Con had no response to this."

As I wrote several times already con obviously did read pros response as he provided a counter example. The objection was made that no evidence was given for the counter argument. Well, that's just fine bec. No evidence was given for the original evidence as was just shown above.
BoP was on pro. Pro made an argument providing no evidence. Pro called him on it. Con failed to provide adequate evidence. Pro fails to fulfil his BoP. Pro should lose. Vote pro. (In this debate not the other one.)
merciless

Con

Rebuttal to Rebuttal:

Contention 1:
Judaism and Islam are two different religions: This does not show that they are fundamentally different. The Qu'ran and the Torah tell essentially the same story and support the same morals and values. Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods" and "details of belief as taught or discussed". Jews and Muslims worship the same God, and (as Mirza points out) the Qu'ran teaches the history of Moses as does the Torah. Furthermore, my opponent admits that "Islam is a take off of Judaism", which means that evidence for Judaism is evidence for Islam. My opponent may argue that "Judaism is not a take off of Islam", but this is irrelevant to my contention, since I said that evidence for Judaism is evidence for other religions, not vice versa.

Contention 2 and 3:
You do state that there is an unadulterated Torah, but you do not provide any sources for your claim. I would like to point out that Mirza, on the other hand, provides a quote from a strong condemner of Islam admitting to the preservation of the Qu'ran. At the very least, you should lose points on the reliability of your source.

Since your claim wasn't backed by evidence when evidence was clearly needed, it should be considered a moot argument. Thus Mirza's point about the Qu'ran being the only preserved religious book still stands.

In addition, this was the only argument you stated in the course of the debate. For Mirza's other arguments, you just demanded evidence and came up with hypothetical situations. Mirza of course would get the points for more convincing arguments, since he actually had arguments.

You keep stating that the BoP was on Pro. I agree, but I ask you to refer back to my statement about the BoP being two-sided. You have not refuted that.
Debate Round No. 4
truthseeker613

Pro

Closing up this argument, I'd like to say that it's centered on two points:
1) Judaism and Islam are fundamentally different from each other, mainly because of acceptance of the Qur'an and Mohammed. Furthermore, Mirza did not even make this as an argument for evidence of Islam.
2) Whether or not Mirza brought evidence, the Qur'an has remained the same through the ages.
a) Mirza's link did not work.
b) The link was not evidence for his claim.
Vote "pro" here and "con" there.
merciless

Con

Conclusion:
This debate is centered on three points:
1) Whether evidence for Judaism is evidence for other monotheist religions.
2) Whether or not the meager arguments and evidence that my opponent used against Mirza are adequate to win.
3) Whether or not my opponent refuted all of Mirza's arguments.

I have shown that evidence for Judaism is evidence for other monotheist religions, since at least two monotheist religions including Islam share the Jewish God. Furthermore, my opponent himself admitted that Islam is a takeoff of Judaism, thus conceding that evidence for Judaism is evidence for other monotheist religions. That Mirza did not make this argument is immaterial. I made this contention to point out how the resolution gave my opponent's opponent the advantage. Voters reading the debate may have been thinking the same thing.

I have pointed out that my opponent did not make many arguments and depended on asking for sources to negate his resolution. I have also pointed out that his arguments were not sourced like his opponent's. Thus his arguments are insufficient to win.

I have shown that my opponent has not refuted all of Mirza's points, as his counter claim of the Torah being perfectly preserved is not sourced and thus falls. Mirza provided evidence in the form of a quote to support his point of the Qu'ran being the only preserved religious book.

Thus my opponent's loss in the debate in question is absolutely justified. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
...A debate about another debate... ^A^
Posted by justice007 5 years ago
justice007
I think this was a good debate. pro made a good point if I could vote I would vote pro in both debates.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
sorry, I will stop. please clearly explain to me clearly what the big deal is? and Why exactly does it bother you so much?
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
I weep for the quality of this site... that seems to be slipping more and more every day.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
I'll probably respond thurs. night/fri. morning.
Posted by merciless 5 years ago
merciless
Please post before Friday 1 pm so that I have time to respond before the weekend.
Posted by merciless 5 years ago
merciless
You do know that DDO auto-saves your arguments as you type, right?
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
The following can be ignored I am just saveing my work.

I will start off with the reasons given by the voters in the comment section of the voteing. These are the actual words, copied and pasted, of the voters:

1)pro's arguments were not sucessfuly refuted

2)While Pro was not very convincing in his argument, he at least made an attempt.

3)Pro's claims were standard in dense the Qu'ran, Con was not familiar with the standard rebuttals to this and even allowed Pro to shift the BoP back to them (Con has to prove the qu'ran is corrupted - what?). Fairly dominating performance by Mirza, 3:1.

4)Kind of a poorly worded resolution. Pro had a better structured and supported argument overall.

My responces:

1)pro's arguments were not sucessfuly refuted:

My opponents arguments were as follows:

1)The Qur'an is the only preserved religious book.

2)The Qur'an contains no contradictions nor errors.

3)Mathamatical complexity of Quaran.

4)Mohamed is prophesized by old testament.

5)science in quaran.

I will show where I succesfuly refuted pro's arguments:

Argument#1)The quaran is the only succesfully preserved religious book.

refutation:

a) The claim was made without evidence. R2

b) The original hebrew bibal also has no misstakes. R2

argument#2)The Qur'an contains no contradictions nor errors:

responce:

1)claim without evidence. R2

2)Not haveing contradictions, is not supernatural. R2

3)chalenge to bring contradiction in bibal.

Argument#3)Mathamatical complexity:

responce:

1) Not particularly complex, or significant. R3, R4.

2)Lack of evidence. R3, R4.

My opponent provided an You tub vidio over 1h 50m. common thats called an argument?

Argument#4) Mohamed prophesized by old testiment:

Responce:

1)Verses are not clearly refering to Mohamed. R4.
No votes have been placed for this debate.