The Instigator
Ulughbeg
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Esiar
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Prophets took advantage of free speech or met opposition from people who got insulted by free speech

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 1 vote the winner is...
Ulughbeg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 369 times Debate No: 68679
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Ulughbeg

Pro

Prophets took advantage of free speech in order to pass on their so-called divine teachings to people or met harsh opposition from people who got insulted by prophets' words. An exact instance is prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) life. He passed on his divine teachings to his followers by using free speech, due to what today muslims exist. And he came across harsh opposition when he insulted idolaters from Mecca of that time by saying that the things they had been worshipping to had just been stones but not Gods. Expectedly, idolaters turn Muhammad (pbuh) out of Mecca by stoning him. From what Muhammad (pbuh) gets dangerously injured. Similiar incident happpens to him when he starts to spread his teachings among Jews. Jews throw him out too, by wounding.

PS. In spite of being insulted, idolaters of Mecca and Jews were wrong by being against free speech and stoning the prophet of Islam.
Esiar

Con

If someone is convinced that their message is from God (This goes for any prophet, not Muhammad, who I think is a false prophet), and this being saying they are God tells them to tell people something, the people would even if free speech didn't exist.

Jesus knew the Jews wanted to kill him, but he continued to speak. Same thing with the people before him.
Debate Round No. 1
Ulughbeg

Pro

>> If someone is convinced that their message is from God (This goes for any prophet, not Muhammad, who I think is a false prophet), and this being saying they are God tells them to tell people something, the people would even if free speech didn't exist.

So my point is non-existence of free-spech is wrong.
_______________________________________________________
>> Jesus knew the Jews wanted to kill him, but he continued to speak. Same thing with the people before him.

The same argument applies: Jews were wrong by being against free-speech and planning to kill Jesus.
Esiar

Con

Oh, I misunderstood your argument. You are right.
Debate Round No. 2
Ulughbeg

Pro

>>This goes for any prophet, not Muhammad, who I think is a false prophet

By the way, the debate is not about falsehood of certain prophets. The prophets (or the scriptures from which we got to know about them) may reject each other, but the fact is that each of them had/has followers, each of them were/are considered to be a prophet by their followers. (note: that's not objective of you BTW)

I'll remind you the point of the topic: Prophets took advantage of free-speech or met harsh opposition from people who got insulted by prophets' free-speech and tried physically damage them (prophets). So, going against free-speech was wrong even if it had insulted them.
Esiar

Con

Yeah, I misunderstood you. You are right about what you said IMO.
Debate Round No. 3
Ulughbeg

Pro

So we can put an end to this debate then (doesn't even look like a debate, honestly)
Debate Round No. 4
Ulughbeg

Pro

Thank you for participating.
Esiar

Con

Ok. God bless.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
UlughbegEsiarTied
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: Con agrees with Pro's arguments.