The Instigator
tahir.imanov
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Quran has contradictions and discrepencies.

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 2 votes the winner is...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,870 times Debate No: 39640
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)

 

tahir.imanov

Con

Rules:
1. The source must be cited for every quote.
2. Images are allowed to post verses from Quran as images (arabic only)
3. The pro must post which translation of Quran he/she uses, so con can check it.
4. Also, pro must show which translation of hadith he/she uses, so con can check it.
5. Any verse(s) is (are) going to be quoted by pro, will be accepted as he/she knows how muslim scholars interpreted that (those) verse(s).
6. In case pro or con violates rules, pro or con will recieve 7-point-loss.
7. Because of pro posts the first argument, on last round he/she must post "No argument will be posted here as agreed."


Definitions:
Allah - One True God
Prophet/Messenger - The person who is chosen by God to deliver The Message.
Revelation - The Message which God reveales to prophet in order to guide people.
Quran - The Last Revelation for all humankind.
Hadith - Sayings, actions of Muhammed (pbuh) and things that he confirmed.

If Pro wants to define something that is not on this list, he/she must post it first on Comment section, so that we can come to agreement on definition.



The PRO must post the first argument, and burden of prove on him/her. Proof must be valid and sound.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for the challenge.

All I need to do to win this debate is to show that one discrepancy or contradiction exists in the Koran. For that reason my arguments will be short and I hope the readers do not hold that against me in voting. The burden lies on my opponent to show why the Surah I quote are not contradictions.

The first contradiction I will point out is that the Koran contradicts how Muslims should treat other believers.
In Surah 2:109 the Koran says to treat other believers well and with love. "Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things."(1)
However, in Surah 9:29 the Koran says that you should fight against other believers. "Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."

The second contradiction in the Koran is regarding how long it took to create the heavens and the earth.
In Sur7:54 it took 6 days. "Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then mounted He the Throne. He covereth the night with the day, which is in haste to follow it, and hath made the sun and the moon and the stars subservient by His command. His verily is all creation and commandment. Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds!"(3)
However, in Surah 41:9-12 it took 8 days (2+4+2 = 8). "Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals ? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds.He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask; Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower."(4)

The third contradiction relates that Allah is not capable of doing everying or is he.
In Surah 35:1 it says that Allah is capable of anything. "Praise be to Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, Who appointeth the angels messengers having wings two, three and four. He multiplieth in creation what He will. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things."(5)
However, in Surah 6:101 it says that Allah cannot have a child so Allah is not capable of doing everything."The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things ?"(6)

The fourth contradiction is that the Koran does not know how long a day is for Allah.
In Surah 22:47 a day for Allah is defined as one thousand years. " And they will bid thee hasten on the Doom, and Allah faileth not His promise, but lo! a Day with Allah is as a thousand years of what ye reckon."(7)
However, in Surah 70:3-4 it says a day for Allah is fifty thousand years. "From Allah, Lord of the Ascending Stairways (Whereby) the angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years."(8)

The fifth contradiction in the Koran relates to Allah forgiving sinners.
In Surah 4:110 it says that Allah will forgive sinners."Yet whoso doeth evil or wrongeth his own soul, then seeketh pardon of Allah, will find Allah Forgiving, Merciful."(9)
Yet, in Surah 4: 168-169 it says that Allah will not forgive. "Lo! those who disbelieve and deal in wrong, Allah will never forgive them, neither will He guide them unto a road, Except the road of hell, wherein they will abide for ever. And that is ever easy for Allah."(10)
These verses on forgiveness are especially interesting as the come from the same Surah. I gather the proof reader was not thinking well that day.

The sixth contradiction that I want to point out is a great one as there are three options. This contradiction relates to what man was made from.
In Surah 25:54 man was created from water. "And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful."(11)
However, in Surah 6:2 man was created from clay: "He it is Who hath created you from clay, and hath decreed a term for you. A term is fixed with Him. Yet still ye doubt!"(12)
Then lastly man was created from dust in Surah 3:59. "Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is."(13)
So what was it? Dust? Water? Clay?

For now, I think these are enough contradictions. This is not the end though as there are more contradictions in the Koran than these pointed out.

I realise there are many contradictions pointed out here and my opponent may not have characters to get to them all. As such I ask that my opponent address them from point 1 in numerical order.

I hand the debate back to my opponent.

(1) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(2) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(3) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(4) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(5) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(6) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(7) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(8) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(9) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(10) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(11) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(12) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
(13) http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Debate Round No. 1
tahir.imanov

Con

tahir.imanov forfeited this round.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

My opponent unfortunately had to forfeit the last round.

As such I will extend my arguments of contradictions in the Koran to the next round. I believe these contradictions are enough to prove my case and defined in the final round.

Back over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
tahir.imanov

Con

1. Treating Non-Muslims
-"Many of the People of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things." 2.109
"Allah warned His believing servants against following the ways of the People of Book, who publicly and secretly harbor emnity and hatred for the believers, and who envy the believers, while they recognize the virtue of the believers and their Prophet . Allah also commanded His believing servants to forgive them and to be patient with them, until Allah delivers His aid and victory to them. Allah commanded the believers to perform the prayer perfectly, to pay the Zakah and He encouraged them to preserve the practice of these righteous deeds." Ibn Kathir
-"O you who believe! Verily, the Mushrikin are impure. So let them not come near Al-Masjid Al-Haram after this year; and if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you if He wills, out of His bounty. Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." 9.28-29
"Allah commands His believing servants, who are pure in religion and person, to expel the idolators who are filthy in the religious sense, from Al-Masjid Al-Haram. After the revelation of this Ayah, idolators were no longer allowed to go near the Masjid. This Ayah was revealed in the ninth year of Hijrah. The Messenger of Allah sent `Ali in the company of Abu Bakr that year to publicize to the idolators that no Mushrik will be allowed to perform Hajj after that year, nor a naked person allowed to perform Tawaf around the House. Allah completed this decree, made it a legislative ruling, as well as, a fact of reality." Ibn Kathir
So one verse is about the People of the Book and another one is about mushrikun (idolators). No contradiction here. As I said, read few verses before and after.

2. The Days
-"Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds. He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask; Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient. Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and we decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower." 41.9-12
You need little knowledge of Arabic to understand it. The verses of 11 and 12 use the adverbs "thummah" and "fa" which imply consecutiveness of action. Neither of these two are used in verse 10 (the only one which mentions four days) which instead uses the adverb "wa" implying parallel, or "overlapping" actions. In other words, the grammar tells us that the four days mentioned in verse 10 are a continuation of the two mentioned in verse 9. The four days of "measuring the earth's sustenance" refers to the two days of the creation of the earth in addition to the two days of the "spreading out of the earth's features.
Ask any orietalist. You don't add first 2 to the 4, it is just in the 4.

3. Able to do all things
First thing you need to understand "actions" of God does not contradict to attributes of God. If you ask how we know this, God tells us in the Quran. For example God is Eternal, therefore God does not die, or commit suicide. God is All-Seeing, so God does not become blind. God is All-Knowing, so God does not become ignorant. The verse 6.101 is answer to people who says God has sons and/or daughters (offspring).
"child is the offspring of two compatible spouses. Allah does not have an equal, none of His creatures are similar to Him, for He alone created the entire creation." Ibn Kathir
By definition God is One, therefore He has no offspring or spouse or any partner.

4. Time Periods
If you agree with the statement "Time is relative" then you cannot object to these verses. But if you are going to object, I will answer in next round.

5. Forgiving
The 4.110 is talking about people who does wrong and then seek forgiveness (and they receive forgiveness). And 4.168-170 is speaking about the people who reject God and still in the position of rejection (who does not believe in God and does not seek forgivenes). Both are two different issues.

6. So what was it? Dust? Water? Clay?
All of them. Why are you taking them separetly. What is the clay? Oh no, it is soil, dust and water!
"Two of the crucial components for the origin of life - genetic material and cell membranes - could have been introduced to one another by a lump of clay, new experiments have shown.
The study of montmorillonite clay, by Martin Hanczyc, Shelly Fujikawa and Jack Szostak at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, revealed it can sharply accelerate the formation of membranous fluid-filled sacs." http://www.newscientist.com...

In case if you don't know you are using Pickthall Translation. And I am very dissapointed of your "infinitly" poor argument. All you have done is asking to Sheikh Google and then copy and paste. I call it Copy-Paste Argument. You have done no reasoning, no checking with any scholars or any orientalists. Even Sarah Palin could do better (It is a joke).
Go to http://alim.org... you can get translations, tafsir and many other things to build up an argument (real argument). And if you need any literature on issue, just ask I will provide you with them.

Thank you for reading.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for the chance to engage in this debate.

My opponent has attacked my "poor" argument, and has told me I could have used better translations. I think its now necessary to point out that a) I dealt with this translation issue before the debate and so my opponent is been disingenuous and b) this debate is about contradictions in the Koran and I showed a few of these contradictions and will reply to these rebuttals. Remember to win this debate I only need to show 1 (one) contradiction in the Koran.

Regarding the issue of translation in the comment section, I had the following discussion (edited for space).
Me: Ok, so if I use the skepticsannotated Koran. Is that an acceptable translation. If yes, I will take the debate.

Also, and this is important. Do I need to cite the scholars interpretation as well or do I just have to know it. After all its my interpretation that matters right, so I gather its not necessary and as such I will not cite a scholars interpretation.
Opponent: All I ask, Who is the translator, when the translation was published and who is the publisher, so i can check it. If you are going to use online translation, give the link to the website.
About tafsir, I just want to be sure the Pro knows the rules of interpretation. What is explicit text, what is ambiguous, abrogation, consensus, and also personal reasoning.
Me: In other words. Back to my original argument. If its not an accepted (biased/apologetic) interpretation it will get thrown out as been wrong.
Opponent: Dude you can easily check what is literal and what is metaphor.
Minimum IQ required for it is 40.

As you can see from the comments, the discussion about translating and interpretations was discussed before the debate began and was decided on. As such the debate focuses solely on contradictions in the Koran with that in mind let me continue to my rebuttals.

Contradiction 1:

My opponent uses versus 28 and 29 together to excuse the contradiction in the Koran by saying the idolaters spoken of in verse 28 are the people spoken of in verse 29. This is false as 28 and 29 are stand alone as 28 refers to idolaters "Verily, the Mushrikin are impure. " However 29 very explicitly is talking about non believers "Fight against those who believe not in Allah". Additionally, I want to add that mushrikin according to the resources I have looked at all mean polytheist, as such non believer.(1,2) So these verses mean a) do not let the non believer come near the sacred mosque and b) make war on the non-believer.

Contradiction 1 is upheld and so contradictions exist in the Koran.


Contradiction 2:

My opponent has stated that I cannot understand it until I can fully understand Arabic and the conjugation words, as such I guess I cant understand if it is a contradiction. I will not take my opponents word that it is not a contradiction though as using what my opponent has said I think the Koran now says the world was created in 4 days unlike my original statement, as the last 2 should also be included in the 4 "Ask any orietalist. You don't add first 2 to the 4, it is just in the 4."


May I add here, that reading the translation provided from my opponent means what I pointed out in my first round argument "Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds. He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask". Allah created the earth in 2 days, then he placed hills rising above it and counted these hills etc in four days. Just in case my opponent proposes then that this still makes six days this value would exclude the days required to create the heavens.

I believe contradiction 2 is upheld, as the rationale supplied by my opponent works both ways.

Contradiction 3:

I am well aware of the fact that Allah does not have a child. This contradiction has nothing to do with Allah having a child or the oneness of Allah. This point has got to do with the fact that Allah is all powerful and can do anything (as the Koran sates) he should be able to have a child, but Allah cannot.

This means contradiction 3 stands. Plainly said all powerful means all powerful, but if there is something Allah can't do then Allah is not all powerful. This is not word games about attributes and actions, this is logic.

Contradiction 4:

My opponent digs deep here using relativity as a solution to the problem of inaccuracy in the Koran regarding how long a day is to Allah. Please, could my opponent elaborate as its not stated whether its special or general relativity and I need my opponent to clarify this position.

However, even using any form of relativity this argument fails as it is relative to Allah and people as the verses say "a Day with Allah is as a thousand years of what ye reckon" and " the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years." Hence, a day is defined for Allah as either fifty thousand or a thousand years.

Contradiction 4 stands.

Contradiction 5:

My opponent tries to mislead us into believing that the two categories are either "people who does wrong and then seek forgiveness" or "ppeople who reject God and still in the position of rejection". However if we look at the actual verses it says the two people are of one category "Yet whoso doeth evil or wrongeth his own soul," or "Lo! those who disbelieve and deal in wrong". If my opponent wants to elaborate on this, maybe it would also be beneficial to elaborate why Allah only wants to guide some people to hell "Allah will never forgive them, neither will He guide them unto a road, Except the road of hell,". If Allah is all merciful why is he guiding people to hell?

Contradiction 5 stands.

Contradiction 6:

Here my opponent goes towards the fact that life can be created from clay minerals. Does my opponent realize that if life can arise through an unguided process like the article cited that the need for a god is void. In effect my opponent is throwing the whole Koran away here, as Allah is no longer needed and so he accepts the contradictions cited. If my opponent is not discarding the Koran then this contradiction holds.

In addition, maybe my opponent would like to elaborate why the Koran still uses three different components from which man is made. The fact is the three items cited are not the same and this is a contradiction in the Koran. Even if water and dirt can sometimes make clay (or mud) why then are dust and water still separated?

Contradiction 6 stands.

I have shown in this rebuttal that all the contradictions pointed out in my first round hold. Remember I only have to prove 1 contradiction to win this debate.

I hand the debate back to my opponent and the voters.

(1) http://www.islamhelpline.net...
(2) http://www.pwhce.org...
Debate Round No. 3
tahir.imanov

Con


First of all I did not say you should use or you could have used better translation, I just pointed out you are using Pickthall translation, which means the web site you were quoting from also uses Pickthall translation, obviously you were not aware of that. Secondly, I did not attack your argument, I said what is obvious, that you are using Copy-Paste argument. And I know the fact that you have to show at least 1 (one) contradiction, and you are entitled to your opinion, but facts are facts. So, let's go to the “contradictions”.



1. The verse 2.109 is talking about the People of Scripture, who will try to turn you away from the truth, and verse 9.28 is talking about Al-Masjid Al-Haram and idolaters of Mecca (after conquest of Mecca). And they are two separate issues. For example, If you try to turn me away from truth I will use 2.109, but if you try to enter Mecca I will use 9.28. By the way, “mushrik” means “the person who is in state of shirk” and “shirk” is “the establishment of partners placed beside God.”



2. About “the second contradiction,” I explained the adverbs and what you believe is irrelevant, we are dealing with facts here not belief. Do you speak Arabic or do you know any orientalist who agrees with your point (well, Google says there is none).



3. “The third contradiction” - 6.101 is speaking about offspring of two partners. God does not have any partner, therefor God does not have any offspring. God is Absolute and Eternal, therefor all attributes of God is absolute for eternity. I already explained this. Asking “Can God have son?” is equivalent to “can you draw triangle which is also circle at the same time?” It shows deficiency of the person who asks such question, not of the God, as God does not have any deficiency.



4.And they will bid thee hasten on the Doom, and Allah faileth not His promise, but lo! a Day with Allah is as a thousand years of what ye reckon.22.47


He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon.32.5


(Whereby) the angels and the Spirit ascend unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years.70.4


As you read the verse 70.4 is talking about the angels and Spirit and “Day” (yawm) in these verses does not mean 24-hour-day, it means period (time period, or long period of time). So there is no contradiction here.



5. I already explained the issue of “forgiving” and you are still insisting and trying to make your point using the half of the verse by ignoring other half. Very “rational” thing to do. If a person is a disbeliever and deal in wrong when (s)he dies (s)he goes to hell, exception is if (s)he recognizes the truth and seeks forgiveness.



6. Pro tries to scrutinize my point, by saying therefor God is not needed anymore. If that is case then why don't we see it now in nature around as, and if it did happened by accident, surely it can be reproduced artificially in labs.


Examine the following example:


“I used ….. to make pie”


(a) ….. water …..


(b) ….. flour …..


(c) ..... dough …..


How are these statements contradictory?!



God Knows The Best.


iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

No argument will be posted here as agreed.
Debate Round No. 4
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
the first contradiction is also reconcilable [I think]:

that Surah, Surah 9, it has commands about the war time, not in general, just for war. when you read verse 3&4: it says:

9:3
And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the disbelievers, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, that is best for you; but if you turn away - then know that you will not cause failure to Allah . And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment.

and 9:4:
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him]. http://quran.com...

so, now: Quran9:29 is talking about unbelievers described in 9:3&4. if nonbelievers[/people of the book] of islam makes a war against muslims, this verse is for them, and this is for just the wartime{not for all wars, just for one war happened in the era of Muhammad. if war occurs now, then that verse is not to be used. that verse was given as a command during that war, that is all}.

Quran 2:109 is talking about people of the book in general.

this contradictions are all reconcilable for me, I can fix them. I can do it by using quran, not adding an interpretation of someone else, just I will use one or two more verse from the same surah. except the 3rd one, I cant do that one since I have no arabic knowledge.
Posted by JonathanDJ 3 years ago
JonathanDJ
You know, what's a bit ironic about this, is that Con is forced to admit defeat if he really believes Islamic doctrine to be true. The Ulamah over the centuries have said that earlier revelations are indeed contradicted by later revelations but that it's dealt with by abrogation.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Thanks Artur.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
dude i have no spelling mistakes. except one.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
I made a mistake, I apologise.

On RFD I wrote Tahir as PRO, in fact he is con. That is my fault, I apologise. I voted for atheist, congrats @atheist. Atheist won this debate. (in my view)
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
I would like to debate these topic again, who will critical, who will focus on external issues, and first of all will use his/her reasoning faculties to make an argument, not Sheikh Google.
You cannot find any internal inconsistency, because the scope of interpretation is closed and defined by Quran.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
You asked for contradictions and you got them that's what he debate is about right?
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
Sorry for not posting my argument. I was busy. please post your next round argument I will answer them all together. But I would like to say your arguments are Christian arguments. There is a rule if Christian makes a point by quoting Quran to contradict his/her point quote 2-3 verses before and after. And I am little disappointed. I was hoping for critical argument, and all you have done is ask to Sheikh Google and copy-paste from a web-site.
Posted by Salisbury 3 years ago
Salisbury
Well... the rules of the argument make it biased and somewhat futile. The contention Pro is supporting is that there is contradictions in the Quran. These would be logical contradictions, irrespective of contextual or cultural claims to exonerate them. Even a proper exegesis of the text would not change the nature of the contradiction, it may only assert that the intention of the author was not contradictory, or that in a culturally accurate context, it was seemingly understood as a non-contradiction.

There is nothing to obligate him to be sensitive to a religious context, aside from the assertion that such a consideration would alter the intention and therefore the meaning. The cultural and historical deference is not a burden that he should carry, at least not in this format, since the premise of the argument is so very simple: the Quran has contradictions and discrepancies.

The paradigm should exist on the logical consistency of the text as it appears in absolute terms and not in the possible variability of its interpretation. If indeed anyone should have this sensitivity and should make these arguments, it should be Con. And he should be the one convincing us that these considerations alleviate the contradiction, and then provide a sound argument for why that is the case.

I've had these debates before, though. They're pretty tiring. You can jump through hoops to satisfy religious people, but in the end, they can use exegetical interpretations for deception and self-deception, just as much as eisegetical interpretations. It gives them the illusion of scepticism... which they probably find comforting, but it rarely matches true scepticism.

In order for Con to get my vote, he would have to convince me that they are not contradictory, without assertions about variable meaning. He would have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, that another meaning was intended in the context. But still waiting on that rebuttal! *sad face*
Posted by FluffyCactus 3 years ago
FluffyCactus
It's not that I've already made up my mind, it's that I've read the few arguments that are presented so far and noticed to things. First, they don't follow the agreed upon guidelines. Second, they follow the line of reasoning that is used by one who does not recognize a religious text as a religious text. By this I mean, as mentioned in my previous comment, that no category of eisegesis of a text can ever pride itself over the exegetical interpretation. And a proper exegesis takes into consideration the traditional reading of a text, whereas most eisegetical ones do not. This is, once again, a basic understanding in ancient literature. They need to be understood from within, only then can one have a sound argument against them.

I meant no disrespect by 'choosing sides'. It just seemed that your argument was going in a direction that has too often been used. One that unfortunately misunderstands exegetical readings of text. Again, no disrespect, most people do not know how to properly execute a dialogue of this nature. It is an unfortunate byproduct of our sub-par modern education.

If I find, throughout the course of this debate, that you use a more efficacious argument than those that I have previously witnessed, I may vote Pro. Good luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
tahir.imanoviamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO(Tahir) was so weak about this debate and to explain the contradictions. I think I could do better on these contradictions than Pro did. For example: the 3rd contradiction(Allah cant have child=/=omnipotent) was the easiet one to refute but Pro failed to refute even this one. Con had normal conduct but PRO was worse hence I vote CON for conduct he did. cOn made better arguements, I do not care grammar but as a novelty I always vote it for the side who made better arguements.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
tahir.imanoviamanatheistandthisiswhyTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct due to forfeiture. Con also loses S&G, as I spotted multiple spelling mistakes in his statements. I'm sorry I didn't bother to check any of the sources, but that's because the arguments mad by both debaters are fairly believable. Thus I won't award any points for those. Arguments go to Pro, because even if the rest of his contradictions may be a bit shaky, the ones numbered 3, 4 and 5 given by him were, in my opinion, pretty much undisputable. Since Pro only needed one, I believe he's won this debate.