The Instigator
Multi-Wargasm
Pro (for)
Tied
16 Points
The Contender
Roasted_Marshmellow
Con (against)
Tied
16 Points

Muhammad was a prophet of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 9 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 880 times Debate No: 41624
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

Multi-Wargasm

Pro

The motion being put forward is that Muhammad, blessed be his name, was and is a prophet of the one true God.

Pro will have to prove unanimously that Muhammad was and is a prophet of God, whereas con will have to stipulate how this is not so.
Roasted_Marshmellow

Con

What is the proof that Muhammed is a prophet of God?
Debate Round No. 1
Multi-Wargasm

Pro

In order to establish why Muhammad was a prophet of God we must establish the exact magnitude of what God is; that he is a multi-dimensional being that transcends any facet of the human condition, in both time and matter, and, as such, cannot be explained in his complexity with mere words and cannot, for the present, be fully grasped by simple definitions. Even his patriarchal status is merely for arguments sake. As such, if we are to accept this then we have to accept that all we do is his will, for we are an integral part of his creation for the simple fact that we are here and that the whole history of creation is already known to him, abstractly speaking of course. Therefore, one must accept that anything done was already intended, from the crusades to the holocaust. It is done so to speak. Thus, when Muhammad became a prophet, he did so as God's will and, therefore, cannot be separated from his station.
Roasted_Marshmellow

Con

You have not given any proof to support your hypothesis of him being a prophet of God. Again I ask you where is your proof?
Debate Round No. 2
Multi-Wargasm

Pro

If we are to have a theological debate, then it is your duty to disprove the motion as well as it is mine to prove it. So far you have done nothing, save the demand for evidence. I have given you my theological argument and my stance behind it and although I cannot give solid factual proof like an eye witness testimony, I believe in the consensus that theological debates are not based on their factual objectivity. If they were, there would be no point of them, as God would be proved and all the fun would be taken away. However, I stand by my philosophy on the matter and although there are not enough rounds to the debate for its continuation, I welcome you to another debate on the matter, in the mind that we can deconstruct each other's argument without objection to respective statements.
Roasted_Marshmellow

Con

You have to use objective proof the fact that you have none is fact enough to prove that Mohammed was not a prophet. Again I would ask for real evidence of him being a prophet, but you have none to give. So, I will just conclude with I am happy to debate you on this again when you gather evidence of Mohammed being a prophet instead of just you saying that he is because you believe it. After all atheists believe there is no God,and they think its true does this make them right? You think he is a prophet and you think its true does this make you right?
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
So's your mother
Posted by swag_master 3 years ago
swag_master
muhammad is a little bitch
Posted by Multi-Wargasm 3 years ago
Multi-Wargasm
"After all atheists believe there is no God,and they think its true does this make them right? You think he is a prophet and you think its true does this make you right?"

To all your questions, I'd have to answer yes. If we have no concept of ideology, we have to assume that all beliefs are right in some broader sense, otherwise they would not exist.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by STALIN 3 years ago
STALIN
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro provided no proof, Con stated this several times.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the burden of proof and must make a prima facie case. A prima facie case is one that stand on it's own merit. Pro did not make a prima facie case, since no evidence was offered. I can see the point that what Pro did was offer a "proof" that depended upon equivocation of the word "prophet," and that con failed to point out that error, but I think Pro's argument was so clearly empty it did not stand on its own. Therefore con did not need to say anything to win. Con should have pointed out the equivocation and denied every statement that Pro made, including the existence of God and predestination. Still, Pro offered no evidence and that's enough.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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: Pro posed an argument but didn't really support it with facts and resources but Con didn't even bother to refute Pro's arguments and only asked for objective proof from Pro, but that was all he did. Pro did not give any proof and Con did not follow the instructions from round 1 where he had to stipulate why Pro was incorrect, so conduct is tied.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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: Pro made a terrible argument for Muhammad being a prophet of God, and it's kind of understandable that Con wouldn't realize an argument had been made. But he did, in fact, make an argument. Con didn't refute it. Moreover, Con failed to make any argument showing that Muhammad was not a prophet until the last round. I don't think new arguments in the last round should be counted, and it was a horrible argument anyway, so I'm going to give arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by TheGhostOfFreedom 3 years ago
TheGhostOfFreedom
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Religious debates can't be based upon physical proof since the concept of God is spiritual in nature.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The points for more convincing arguments go to Con, as he showed that Pro did not supply the proof for his statement "Pro will have to prove unanimously that Muhammad was and is a prophet of God, whereas con will have to stipulate how this is not so." Con was left with nothing to debate as nothing was proven. Points for conduct and grammar are shared, as both made very few errors. Sources points are shared ,as no debater supplied sources.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: The definitions should have been in R1 to be counted... With that said all pro seemed to have were assertions, and all con had was appeals to ignorance; while I cannot advance either in argument when neither made one (sorry pro, you tried), conduct is another matter. " whereas con will have to stipulate how this is not so." Con did not do this, instead he ignored the R1 setup from the start.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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 actually agree that in a round where no evidence passes through, the Con side wins. I actually agree with Con that Pro had a burden to fulfill, and if Pro gave no reason for Muhammed, blessed be his name, to be a prophet, then Pro fails to meet that standard. Con was right to simply agree that yes, Pro does believe this is true, but that no evidence is offered. In a world where no evidence if offered for a particular thing, then any number of other possibilities can contend with it equally. Infinity vs. one. (I hope that last point wasn't too confusing, but basically I can think of a very large number of possibilities wherein Muhammad is not a prophet of God, and only the strict scenario that Pro outlines to defend that he is). Also, Pro ignored three times the request for proof. Therefore, I say sources and conduct go to con.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
Multi-WargasmRoasted_MarshmellowTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither used sources, con's only point of argumentation is the "lack of objective proof". While I agree with this, it was presented in a poor manner that holds very little weight. In a theological debate, pro is right, concrete evidence and tangible proof, especially this resolution, is near impossible to come by. At this point, con must attempt to refute pro's assertions, not just rely on his appeal to ignorance or burden of proof of fallacies. (In this case the burden of proof is shared) Conduct to pro for attempting to debate, and con did have grammatical issues.