The Instigator
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Islamic Scripture is from God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,234 times Debate No: 29034
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Magic8000

Con

Resolution: Islamic Scripture is from God (the typical tri-omni God of the 3 Abrahamic religions and Islamic Scripture is Qur'an+Hadith.)

I will be taking the Con side.

The burden of proof is shared.

Rules:

No Insults.
No Forfeits.
No Semantics.
No Fallacies.
8000 Characters max.
4 Rounds.
72 Hours to post.
1 Week voting perioid.
Start arguments for the resolution in first round.

I will now pass to Pro for his arguments.
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

I wish to thank my honourable opponent for giving me this opportiunity, and I admire him for the courage to touch such an interesting but hard topic.

Secondly, I need my rival to know that the Koran is a book for every kind of human being, of all places, of all times. This means that if it contained only one type of evidence, it could only proof its supernatural origin to a few people.
But the Koran has plenty of types of evidence...

From the time it was revealed (about 1400 years ago) until somehow the 18th century, the thing that man admired most was literature. This most commenly because quite only monks had learnt to read and write, so if one could, and could beautifully, he was pretty admired.
Imagine then, that from that day to this, no man, Muslim nor non-Muslim, has ever succeeded to bring a better and more beautiful piece of Arabic poetry than the Koran. No expert on Arabic poetry worthy of the name has ever denied this.

It is mentioned in the glorious Koran:
"And if thou art in doubt of what we sent down to you and to our Servant (Mohammed), bring then a similar chapter from yourselves, and call upon your witnesses apart from Allah, if thou art truthful" (Koran, 2:25)

This means that God (who is by the way not 'tri-omni' in the sight of Muslims, as my opponent mistaked himself) gives this challenge to all men to produce a chapter somehow like it. Impossible, no-one has ever done it or will ever do.

But now, it is not very common anymore that people would describe devinity to a sublime work of literature. Today is the age of science.

My opponent has read my debate on the compatibility between the Koran and modern science (http://www.debate.org...) This indication of scientific facts should be enough to please a scientific mind. If my opponent wants more, he may ask. But if he watches the entire video of dr. Zakir Naik, he will find out soon enough...

Now, another thing a book of divinity should be is free from contradictions. Every religious book on earth has contradictions with COMPLETELY PROOFED scientific FACTS or with its own sayings, except the Koran. My rival is completely permitted to say one if he can.

I am now waiting for my rival's respond, which I exspect to arrive soon, and I thank him again for his effort...
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Con

Thank you for accepting

I would like to start with my arguments.

A. Science

It's often stated that the Islamic Scripture contains knowledge of modern science. However many of these verses are extremely vague or was already known at that time. The Qur'an + Hadith does contain information that is now known to be at odds with modern science.

Pro does link to a debate he had where he gave arguments for scientific knowledge. I will not respond as they weren't given in this debate and I'm unsure if pro meant for me to respond or not.

1a. Horses.

And (He has created) horses, mules, and donkeys, for you to ride and use for show; and He has created (other) things of which ye have no knowledge.
Qur'an 16:8

The Qur'an states horses were created for us to ride, but we know that wild horses can't be ridden. We know that horses had to be domesticated in order for us to ride them. Even then modern horses that are domesticated still need training to be ridden. The raw creation wouldn't of been rideable.

2a. Layers of the Earth.

MiraclesOfTheQuran.com claims the Qur'an accurately predicts the number of layers of the Earth's atmosphere. [1] M.O.Q claims it's 7 and cites this verse

It is He Who created everything on the earth for you and then directed His attention up to heaven and arranged it into seven regular heavens. He has knowledge of all things. (Qur'an, 2:29)

However this isn't correct. The Earth only has 5 layers as stated by NASA and other web-sites.[2][3[4]

3a. Perfect Creation?

This Islamic web-site says that these verses mean our bodies were created perfectly [5]

" In numerous Verses of the Qur'an, Allah tells us that He has created everything, including human beings, in the most perfect form. In the following verse, Allah explicitly states this with regards to the human creation:"

32:7

Who perfected everything which He created and began the creation of man from clay.

27:88

And you see the mountains, thinking them rigid, while they will pass as the passing of clouds. [It is] the work of Allah , who perfected all things. Indeed, He is Acquainted with that which you do.

95:4

We have certainly created man in the best of stature;

Contrary to this verse, our bodies are far from perfect.

Talk.Origins states
" In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better. "[6]

Wikipedia also gives examples. Here's one
" Crowded teeth and poor sinus drainage, as human faces are significantly flatter than those of other primates and humans share the same tooth set. This results in a number of problems, most notably with wisdom teeth. "[7]

4a. Black Cummin

Narrated Khalid bin Sad: We went out and Ghalib bin Abjar was accompanying us. He fell ill on the way and when we arrived at Medina he was still sick. Ibn Abi 'Atiq came to visit him and said to us, "Treat him with black cumin. Take five or seven seeds and crush them (mix the powder with oil) and drop the resulting mixture into both nostrils, for 'Aisha has narrated to me that she heard the Prophet saying, 'This black cumin is healing for all diseases except As-Sam.' Aisha said, 'What is As-Sam?' He said, 'Death."" - Sahih Bukhari 7:71:591

Muhammad said black cummin can heal all diseases. Can it cure Cancer, AIDS, bird flu and so many other diseases too? Black Cummin has been shown to have some medicinal properties (as with other herbs), however it only helps. It's far from the cure or healing of all diseases.

B. Contradictions

1b. Allah's son?

The Qur'an says if Allah willed he could have a son

" 39:4
Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son,
He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create:
but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.)
He is Allah, the One, the Irresistible. (Yusuf Ali)

If Allah had willed to choose a son,
He could have chosen what He would of that which He hath created.
Be He Glorified! He is Allah, the One, the Absolute. (Pickthall)"

However this verse suggests he cannot

" 6:101
Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth;
How can He have a son when He has no consort?
He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things."

The Qur'an seems to ask these rhetorical questions knowing the answer is no.

Pro's Argument

1. The Qur'an Challenge and the moving goalpost fallacy.

Pro presents the famous Qur'an challenge. That no one could ever produce something like or better than the Qur'an.

However the challenge can never be met in the eyes of the Islamic people. As they want something at the beauty of the Qur'an or better.

Here's the problem, what constitutes beauty? Beauty is subjective. Asking to produce something like the Qur'an is like saying produce an ice cream like or better than strawberry. The goalpost can always be moved and the Muslims can always say "it's not as good as Sura X". Of course no Muslim would say anything's like or better than the Qur'an, as their Islamic presuppositions will always be in the way.

Furthermore there's many imitated Suras.

http://www.suralikeit.com... is a list of imitated Suras. In my opinion they're like the Koran's. However the goalpost will probably be moved.

The True Furqan is a whole book that a responds to the Qur'an challenge.

Pro states that God isn't tri-omni. I think he is mistaken. Just to clear up, when someone talks about a "tri-omni" God they mean the 3 main characteristics that refer to the God of Abrahamic religions.

Conclusion

The Islamic scripture is full of scientific errors and the Qur'an challenge is nothing special that has been met.

[1] http://www.miraclesofthequran.com...
[2] http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov...
[3] http://www.srh.noaa.gov...
[4] http://geography.about.com...
[5] http://www.quranicpath.com...
[6] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

Thank you, my dear rival, for reacting so promptly.

Furthermore, I have came in my life across many people as my opponent, who claim to have found contradictions in the Koran. They mostly quote a verse - or just a part - and set something by it or try to manipulate the readers so it will look a bit immoral...
My opponent is doing quite the same...

His argument would be perfectly in shape if the verse would read thus: "And He has created horses, mules and donkeys, all in natural willing obedience, for you to ride and use for show...".
Or thus: "And He created wild horses, mules and donkeys: prepared for riding just after capture..."

This is not so. The argument is lame and manipulated. Nevertheless I admire his courage to try it. I would not be able to do so...

Secondly, it is clear my opponent is not Shakespeare. He does not seem to recognize the difference between 'heavens' and 'earth'. The Koran states that the heavens are made in seven layers, not the earth. And the Koran is not even specifically referring to the atmosphere while stating thus.

"And indeed We have adorned the nearest heaven with lamps (stars)..." (Koran, 67:5)

This means that the entire
observable universe is in fact the closest of these seven heavens... And nothing in the field of astronomy rejects the existence of another form of universe (multiverse, as the theory is called) outside of our observing.

Next, the exact definition of perfect, Oxford Dictionary says: 'having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics'. The exact definition of imperfect, according to Oxford, is: 'not perfect; faulty or incomplete'.

Allow me to give an example.

If one creates a robot to serve people in a restaurant (which happened quite a time ago) and he lets him serve a couple in a restaurant, when he sees this happens just as he wanted it, he calls it 'perfect'.
When the robot explodes while carrying the plates to the table, it didn't go as planned and the test was 'imperfect'...

Though, when one invents a new bomb or explosive, and tests it; when it explodes, the test was 'perfect'. When it doesn't, it was 'imperfect'.

Whether something is perfect of imperfect, it depends on the goal with the creation.
And God's goal is different with every person.

For example, some people are born blind. We could call this imperfect, but this might be a test for them AND their parents. Some people blame God or even forsake Him when something undesirable happens to them. Those who do so, didn't pass the test and have committed an 'imperfect' reaction. Those who succeed to remain having faith in God, with or without the gift of sight, hearing, two legs or arms, and so on: they have committed a perfect reaction...

As for his pointing of the Hadiths, he seem to think that those are perfect. We do NOT believe the hadiths are perfect, because they are written by a man, you see. The Koran also refers to the healing of natural products as honey (as in 16:68-69) but says their is simply a benefit.
Perhaps our Prophet (peace be upon him) has slightly overdone it, to know for sure his people would not play with it, but if God wills, He may cure a man having him eat grass...


Then, my opponent gave something very interesting, one of the most interesting I have ever seen. I thank you for that, this helps me to remember to think about my own Book, and not only that of others.
He states that God contradicts his own Words in the Koran by stating in several places that if He would, he could have a son, but then says that He cannot have one without a wife.

This verse is responding to the religion that is popular for saying God has a son: Christianity.
The Koran says that the People of the Book (Christians/Jews) started accusing Mary, mother of Jesus, of having committed adultery (i.e. with Joseph the Carpenter) while the Koran clearly says it is not so.
They didn't believe that Mary could have a son without a husband.
But these people do believe that Jesus is the son of God. So how could He have a son without a wife, if Mary couldn't have a son without a husband?

It was a simple indication, understandable for man. Interesting question, nonetheless...


Then, I would like to say, I sincerely doubt whether my opponent has a diploma on Arabic Poetry or even reads and understands Arabic. If I am mistaking, do correct me.

This challenge is not to the Muslims, this challenge is to the Arabs, for all of them were lovers of poetry in the time of the Koran's revealing. And any true Arabic poet, Muslim or non-Muslim cannot deny none of this work is better than that of the Koran.

You gave me these imitations, I do read and understand Arabic on a low base, and to my opinions, these don't even come close to the beauty of the Koran.
But do carry me an absolute proof of someone, who is not Muslim, graded in the knowledge of Arabic Poetry and who can say that those chapters are better than those of the real Koran.

Now, my opponent still has two rounds left to give me some contradictions I cannot solve.
Good luck.

Peace upon all who reads this.

Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Con

1a. Horses.

Pro objects to the argument, yet doesn't show why it's wrong.

His argument would be perfectly in shape if the verse would read thus: "And He has created horses, mules and donkeys, all in natural willing obedience, for you to ride and use for show...".
Or thus: "And He created wild horses, mules and donkeys: prepared for riding just after capture..."

Does Pro think wild horses weren't created? There was never a "natural obedience". This obedience took thousands of years of domestication, evolution and cross-breeding. Not much more to say as pro claims this argument is "lame"and "manipulated". However he does nothing to show this is the case.

2a. Layers of the Earth.

Pro is seemingly insulting here by claiming

"it is clear my opponent is not Shakespeare. He does not seem to recognize the difference between 'heavens' and 'earth'. "

However, he's only negating another Muslim's interpretation.

This means that the entire observable universe is in fact the closest of these seven heavens... And nothing in the field of astronomy rejects the existence of another form of universe (multiverse, as the theory is called) outside of our observing.

What do you mean? The universe is made of trillions of galaxies and most multiverse theories state there's an infinite amount of universes [1]. Which doesn't help Pro at all.

3a. Perfect Creation?

By Oxford's definition of "imperfect" can it be said that humans are imperfect? As we do have faults in our "design".How could it be said that man is in the best form? As 95:4 states

We have certainly created man in the best of stature;
and the Islamic site I quoted says

" In numerous Verses of the Qur'an, Allah tells us that He has created everything, including human beings, in the most perfect form...."

Pro claims Allah thinks our bodies are perfect, yet if Allah uses his idea of what is perfect and poorly reflects what it is on humans, how could it be said that we have any knowledge of what Allah is saying at all?

It's strange pro uses the adjective definition of "perfect" instead of the verb definition [2]. The Koran clearly is talking about a verb, this means Pro is committing the equivocation fallacy.

4a. Black Cummin

We do NOT believe the hadiths are perfect, because they are written by a man, you see. The Koran also refers to the healing of natural products as honey (as in 16:68-69) but says their is simply a benefit.
Perhaps our Prophet (peace be upon him) has slightly overdone it, to know for sure his people would not play with it, but if God wills, He may cure a man having him eat grass...

It looks like Pro has negated the resolution he was arguing for.

Pro says in the first round

"Now, another thing a book of divinity should be is free from contradictions. Every religious book on earth has contradictions with COMPLETELY PROOFED scientific FACTS or with its own sayings, except the Koran."

So I guess the Hadith isn't from God.

1b. Allah's Son?

This verse is responding to the religion that is popular for saying God has a son: Christianity.
The Koran says that the People of the Book (Christians/Jews) started accusing Mary, mother of Jesus, of having committed adultery (i.e. with Joseph the Carpenter) while the Koran clearly says it is not so.
They didn't believe that Mary could have a son without a husband.
But these people do believe that Jesus is the son of God. So how could He have a son without a wife, if Mary couldn't have a son without a husband?

If the God of Christianity is the God of the Qur'an the question is meaningless. It also makes no sense, as Mary would be the consort. I also request Pro provide context instead of stating the context.

Qur'an Challenge

I do read and understand Arabic on a low base, and to my opinions, these don't even come close to the beauty of the Koran.

This is subjective. As I said. Pro has committed the fallacy of moving the goalpost. Pro can always claim "it's not as good". Why should we accept his opinion over the one's who have written the imitated suras?

I can provide a challenge to produce a better ice cream than strawberry to prove it's divine. Everyone who tries to meet it can always be brushed off by me saying "it's not as good."


I'll pass back to Pro.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://lmgtfy.com...
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

I thank my rival once again.


And I ask my dear opponent whether the verse said 'horses' or 'wild horses'. It clearly said 'horses', did it not?
And even if it said 'wild horses' it would not be illogic. A wild horse can become a domesticated horse, and the Koran does not say in this verse that he did everything that is neccesary to ride the horse and that we have no more work with it. It said that He created them for the purpose of riding and show, but not that we did not have to work for it...
Furthermore, if a foal is kept in captivity and domestication from the very beginning of his life, he does not become wild in the least. It gets used to its living situation and bows itself to it. Is this horse then not a creation?
I hope my opponent will leave this horse topic now, for no more arguing is possible for a healthy mind after reading this clear answer...

Then, my honourable rival, I did not intend to insult you at all. Please do not feel offended.
But I just suprised myself over the fact that you could not see the difference between two very clear opposites: heavens and earth...
And as you said, it is most of theories that say that. And it remains a theory, that can always change after science advances.
If we can follow the multiverse theory that says there is not an infinite but a great and almost incountable number of universes outside our own, this universe is our closest heaven.
Unless of course, what would not quite suprise me, there are also stars in the entire multiverse, which would mean that even the multiverse is no more but part of the closest heaven...


Moreover, I believe my opponent has missed a piece of my previous argument. I said that something is 'imperfect' when something occures that is not meant to happen with it. If God deliberatly forms a man thus with only one arm or leg, blind, deaf, or some other 'faults', these are not really faults, because God intended so. He wanted the man to have just one arm or leg, to be blind or deaf, etc.

And Allah does not think, Allah knows. If He intends to make something happen, it happens
perfectly according to his plan. It is not the form that is perfect (which would point to the adjective my rival rejected) but the plan according to which God made the human beings. (which is more like a verb, do you not think?)

Now, I know for sure this instant that my rival has not the knowledge on Islam he seemes to have.

THE HADITHS ARE
NOT FROM GOD BUT FROM THE PROPHET MOHAMMED.
And the reason we have got them today in our hands, is from hearsay. The Prophet said something, people heard it. After the Prophet's death, people started quoting him and writing his words down. These quotes are not always truthful. The knowledge in it came from God, but past trough the lips of Mohammed (peace be upon him) who was only human, not divine, and then past trough the ears and mouths of his followers. There might be here and there something wrong, so if you would stay to the topic.
We are arguing about the divinity of the Koran, NOT THE HADITHS.

My opponent has now flew over the topic of this thing with God's son. I gave clear arguments. If my opponent's brain cannot process clear arguments, that is no matter. As long as you, voters, are clever enough, there is no matter...

And furthermore, I simply gave my opinion on the false chapters my opponent gave me to read.
I underlined the most important sentence of my argument and still, my rival uses my opinion to manipulate the minds of the voters.

My opponent yet proved he can read. Read this then: And any true Arabic poet, Muslim or non-Muslim cannot deny none of this work is better than that of the Koran.

I now give my rival another chance to give real and undenyable arguments. I hope for him and his dignity in my eyes he will either succeed or give up the debate...
Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Con


1a. Horses

I ask my dear opponent whether the verse said 'horses' or 'wild horses'. It clearly said 'horses'

Are wild horses somehow not horses? If I make the statement “All humans speak a language” and if you point to some wild humans in jungles that don’t speak any type of language, would a valid response be “I said all humans not all wild humans”?

even if it said 'wild horses' it would not be illogic. A wild horse can become a domesticated horse

The domestication took years for a rideable horse [1]. You can’t just raise a wild horse and expect it to be rideable.

and the Koran does not say in this verse that he did everything that is neccesary to ride the horse and that we have no more work with it... not that we did not have to work for it

Let’s say a computer is purchased and the store owner says it’s created for the purpose of running. If it’s taken home and we find out it needs several parts to run, how can it be said the purpose was to be ran if the parts were never there? Would a valid response by the store owner be “Well I didn’t say it has every necessary piece to run.”? Saying it was created to run presumes no work is needed. Just like the store owner, the Qur’an doesn’t say horses were created to be put together.

This analogy is being generous too. It’s more like hackers taking a cell phone, figuring out how to convert voice to data, then the cell phone company claiming it created the cell phone for that purpose. When the company is confronted, would a valid response be “Well, we didn’t say no work needed to be done”? Can the company really state it created it for that purpose?


Furthermore, if a foal is kept in captivity and domestication from the very beginning of his life, he does not become wild in the least. It gets used to its living situation and bows itself to it. Is this horse then not a creation?

It can’t be said God created it in a domestic manor. The domestic creature would’ve been thanks to man.

I hope my opponent will leave this horse topic now, for no more arguing is possible for a healthy mind after reading this clear answer...

Ad hominem.

2a. Layers of the Earth

Then, my honourable rival, I did not intend to insult you at all...But I just suprised myself over the fact that you could not see the difference between two very clear opposites: heavens and earth...

I’ve seen “heavens” refer to three things.
1. Sky
2. Space
3. Afterlife
“Heavens” doesn’t just have one meaning. If Pro clicked on the source from M.O.Q he would see this

“The word "heavens," which appears in many verses in the Qur'an, is used to refer to the sky above the Earth, as well as the entire universe. Given this meaning of the word, it is seen that the Earth's sky, or the atmosphere, is made up of seven layers.” [2]

Why should we accept your interpretation instead of the one at miraclesofthequran.com?

And as you said, it is most of theories that say that. And it remains a theory, that can always change after science advances.

Based on the evidence, it’s likely if a multiverse exists, it’s infinite [3]. We can postulate it may change to fit the Qur’an, but we can also postulate the heliocentric model will be replaced. We must go by the evidence.

If we can follow the multiverse theory that says there is not an infinite but a great and almost incountable number of universes outside our own, this universe is our closest heaven.

Then what relevance does the number 7 have? Even if the number of universes was only uncountable it still doesn’t help you.

3a. Perfect Creation?

Moreover, I believe my opponent has missed a piece of my previous argument. I said that something is 'imperfect' when something occures that is not meant to happen with it. If God deliberatly forms a man thus with only one arm or leg, blind, deaf, or some other 'faults', these are not really faults, because God intended so. He wanted the man to have just one arm or leg, to be blind or deaf, etc.

I did address it as it was based off equivocation. If faults are different to God and God uses his idea of what a fault is to communicate, how can it be said we know what God is talking about at all? As if words mean different things to God and he uses these definitions to talk to humans, it can’t be said we have any idea what Allah is trying to say at all. You’re saying God is the ultimate standard of perfection and whatever he creates is perfect. However this makes the word “perfect” arbitrary according to God’s will however language needs to be constant.

I will also note that an all loving deity wouldn’t create a man with faults. You previously said it could be a test, however an all knowing God wouldn’t need to test anything. He would already know the answer. It’s like flipping a double headed coin to see if it what the outcome will be. If flipping that coin will cause anyone harm then an all loving God wouldn’t flip it.


And Allah does not think, Allah knows. If He intends to make something happen, it happens perfectly according to his plan. It is not the form that is perfect (which would point to the adjective my rival rejected)

It would refer to “perfect” as in being created “perfect”. Furthermore as I’ve shown the Qur’an refers to the structure of man as the “best form”.

but the plan according to which God made the human beings. (which is more like a verb, do you not think?)

It’s not that there was no verb, but your definition was an adjective to defend a verb.

4a. Black Cumin

THE HADITHS ARE NOT FROM GOD BUT FROM THE PROPHET MOHAMMED.

I have been told by other Muslims it was. I apologize if I was misinformed, but you did accept to this debate titled “Islamic Scripture is from God” and in the first round I defined it as “The Qur’an+ Hadith.” Rather you believe this or not, you accepted it, which means you conceded against the resolution you were arguing for. If the resolution needs to be modified it was your job to let me know before you accepted anything.


1b. Allah’s Son

My opponent has now flew over the topic of this thing with God's son. I gave clear arguments. If my opponent's brain cannot process clear arguments, that is no matter. As long as you, voters, are clever enough, there is no matter...

I demur. It is Pro who evaded this one and committed the ad hominem fallacy. I simply asked Pro to cite the context and I pointed out flaws that it was a response to Christians. There was no reason whatsoever for Pro to insult and not answer my objections.

Qur’an Challenge

I underlined the most important sentence of my argument and still, my rival uses my opinion to manipulate the minds of the voters.

My opponent yet proved he can read. Read this then: And any true Arabic poet, Muslim or non-Muslim cannot deny none of this work is better than that of the Koran.

Pro has given no citation for this. Furthermore if it was true it would still be subjective and wouldn’t prove anything. If every single ice cream man agreed there was no better ice cream than strawberry and some claimed it’s evidence of divine inspiration , that doesn’t prove strawberry ice cream is divine.

It’s like a rapper saying since no one can “flow” like him therefore he’s the world’s greatest rapper.

Conclusion

*I’m disappointed that Pro results to insults in the debate. This not only is fallacious, but also violates the first rule in the debate. Here’s some examples

“no more arguing is possible for a healthy mind after reading...”

“If my opponent's brain cannot Process clear arguments, that is no matter. As long as you, voters, are clever enough...”

Pro is suggesting I’m too stupid to understand the argument. I would like to remind Pro he is representing the Islamic religion and shouldn’t act in this way.

*Pro uses fallacies such as the moving goalpost, ad hominem and equivocation.
*Pro makes several spelling mistakes.
*Pro evaded 1b and conceded against the resolution.
*Pro doesn’t do too well in backing up his argument.

I hope everyone enjoyed reading this debate as I did participating in it.

Sources in comments.
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Pro

PhileasFoggOfVictoria forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Awww man, forfeit....

I just thought of another analogy. Saying horses were created for us to ride is like saying bananas were created for our eating convenience.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Moriningsun's link gave pretty good evidence. The burden of proof is on you to show it did exist. Until then the story is at odds with historical evidence.

I'm sorry if you're offended by the spelling accusation, but part of the voting is who had the better spelling and grammar. For this reason there's a "Check Your Spelling" button at the bottom of the argument text box.
Posted by PhileasFoggOfVictoria 4 years ago
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
I also am very offended by the indication of my spelling...
I am not a native speaker, and I am not an adult.

I hope you could excuse me these errors.
Posted by PhileasFoggOfVictoria 4 years ago
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
I did not said that I agreed with the thought that Mecca did not exist until the 4th century, I said I could agree with the statement that there was no real prove of its existance, but can you give me real evidence that it didn't exist?
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Nope, it looks like there wasn't even a thought named mecca until the 4rth century.

How can you agree with it? Doesn't it contradict your faith? Wasn't it built by Abraham?
Posted by PhileasFoggOfVictoria 4 years ago
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
I do agree in his statement, but is there also a bit of evidence that it was not built in the time where it has been suposed to be built?
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Very intriguing Morningsun. Thanks!
Posted by Morningsun10000 4 years ago
Morningsun10000
There is not ANY historical or archaeological evidence that Mecca ever existed before the 4th century. http://brotherpete.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
Magic8000PhileasFoggOfVictoriaTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Magic8000PhileasFoggOfVictoriaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Trinitrotoluene 4 years ago
Trinitrotoluene
Magic8000PhileasFoggOfVictoriaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: abc