This resolution needs some explaining, so before I go into the rules, here's how the debate works.
Anti-Islamic Activist Ali Sina pledged to give away 50k S Dollars to anyone that can disprove that Muhammad (pbuh) was among the following charges:
-a mass murderer
-a cult leader
-a mad man
This challenge however is inherently fallacious, as Ali Sina blatantly shifts the burden of proof away from the instigator of the claim to the one challenging it. So I will try to reasonably tweak his rules for the sake of the debate:
-Burden of Proof is on Pro
-Pro must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Muhammad was at least the 7 of the previous charges.
-Follow the format.
To clarify: Pro must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least 7 or more of these charges, Con must refute at least 7 or more of these charges.
Muhammad: MuM17;ammad ibn F3;Abdullāh, in short form Muhammad, prophet of Islam who lived from 537 AD to 632.
R2: Opening Arguments
R4: Closing arguments/Closing Rebuttals (no new arguments)
Before even beginning, let me make clear my intention is not to attack Muslims or to demean them...the purpose is to expose what ironically enough, Muslim sources have to say about the character of Muhammad. I don't deny that Muhammad was in some ways good, as most people are; but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the bad side of Muhammad that Muslims don't like talking about. So this escape route won't work, the good in Muhammad cannot be used to disregard the bad side of Muhammad.
If you are someone who has already convinced yourself that Muhammad is the greatest human being to ever live then nothing I say is going to change your mind. I just hope some things I say make some of you Muslim(s) think.
I will be appealing to nothing but Sahih (authentic) traditions attributed to Muhammad and the earliest biographies on Muhammad's life. Now let's dive in.
Because of space limitations, I will only prove what I have space to prove.
"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess." (Qur'an 4:24)
What does 'expect those whom your right hands possess" mean? No need to guess, the Hadiths tell us how Muhammad understood this verse:
"Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end)." (Sahih Muslim 3432)
So according to Muhammad, it doesn't matter if you capture married women in war, once they are captured in war, their marriage is annuled and the captor can now have sex with her against her own will. The text doesn't need to say rape, to any sane person this is rape plain and simple. What is more shocking is the heading of the place I found this Hadith which says :
Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Chapter 29: IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A CAPTIVE WOMAN AFTER SHE IS PURIFIED (OF MENSES OR DELIVERY) IN CASE SHE HAS A HUSBAND, HER MARRIAGE IS ABROGATED AFTER SHE BECOMES CAPTIVE.
Hence, Muhammad allowed and encouraged rape.
A pedophile is an adult who has sexual intercourse with young children or is sexually attracted to young children.
"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)
To someone who doesn't have a personal bias or agenda in favor of Islam, this certainly seems like a Pedophile. Muhammad was 53 years old, a man old enough to be Aish'a grandfather and yet he still decides to have sexual intercourse with a girl who is 9 years old.
Torturer:Kinana b. al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has," SO HE KINDLED A FIRE WITH FLINT AND STEEL ON HIS CHEST UNTIL HE WAS NEARLY DEAD. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515; emphasis mine)
According to the earliest biography on Muhammad's life, Muhammad commanded his thugs to light a flint and steel on fire and to burn the victim's chest because he was hiding treasure from the supposed prophet of God. Don't tell me lighting someone's chest on fire isn't torture - it is.
It is unthinkable that the earliest biographer on Muhammad's life who was a Muslim would invent such an embarrassing story, especially since Muslims were the ones trying to prove Muhammad was a prophet.
"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off." (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 461-464)
What is truly shocking about this incident is that not only does it prove Muhammad was a mass-murder, Muhammad goes beyond all that to the point of genocide against the Banu Qurayza tribe. I said it before, I will say it again...it is unthinkable that a Muslim would willingly report this story had it not occured. I as a Christian living 200 years after Jesus would never in my right mind invent stories of the Savior that would cast him in bad light.
Muhammad is not only a mass-murderer, he committed genocide.
Mad-man:Muhammad's contemporaries thought he was a madman.
"You are not, [O Muhammad], by the favor of your Lord, a madman." (Qur'an 68:2)
Why would the Qur'an go out of its way to point out the fact that Muhammad was not a madman? The only plausible explanation for this is that Muhammad was being called a madman by his contemporaries and the Qur'an goes out of its way to respond to the claim being made by Muhammad's enemies.
If this logic is applied to the Qur'an verse I cited, con has to admit Muhammad was indeed a madman - for this is how his contemporaries viewed him.
If he will reject this line of reasoning, he must reject the line of reasoning that Muhammad was known as trustworthy - therefore he was.
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
"A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet and said: Messenger of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood." (Sunan Abu Dawud 4348)
So a slave-mother was murdered by Muhammad for what...threatening to annhilate Islam? threatening to murder his wives? threatening to kill Muhammad? No, simply for insulting him, and the punishment for a slave mother assassinating the man who is suppose to be the greatest man to ever live is to stab her to death. This is assassination pure and simple.
Muhammad was an assasin.
Ironically enough, Muhammad himself admits that he was a looter in no uncertain terms...
"Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: Allah's Apostle said, "Booty has been made legal for me."" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 351).
For those of you who don't know, booty is basically stolen goods acquired during war.
By quoting nothing but the facts provided by Muslim sources I have proven that Muhammad was at least 7 of the things listed. Hence my job is done. I can't wait to see how con is going to respond to all these well estabished facts about Muhammad's life provided by Muslims who believe Muhammad was a prophet of God.
UtherPenguin forfeited this round.
Well since no response was given to anything I said, I will give con the benefit of the doubt and give him another chance in the next round to post his reponse.
Nothing more needs to be said, I have thoroughly made my case already.
Due to an unintentional absence the last round, I will make up by merging my opening case with rebuttals. Thanks to Con for his patience
As I could not fit my entire opening case and rebuttals in this round without surpassing the character limit, I will put 1 of my rebuttals in this round and focus mostly on the entirety of my opening case, with the exception of the case “Misogynist” accusation, as to not violate the 4th round rule of “no new arguments”. This round will be primarily my opening case; the next round will be primarily my closing rebuttals.
With all intentions presented: a foreword.
Foreword: Historical relativity
It is important to note that when judging historical figures, or evaluating their overall character. One ought to consider the values that were dominant of the society at the time, as do most historians. It is a at best, hugely unfair to judge individuals of bygone days by modern standards. As said individuals would not have only been wholly unaware of as they would not have yet, but would also make no practical sense as such morals would have been followed by anyone at the time. That is not to argue for complete moral relativity, but to ignore historical context in instances like these would be unfair at best, but at worst, the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Such is the opinion upheld by most modern historians of the field. As illustrated by British Historian Christopher Dawson:
Argument 1: Narcissism
Narcissism is a personality disorder characterized by an overinflated since of self importance, often creating a lack empathy towards others and a strong tendency towards vanity and openly seeking admiration . In short, among the most characteristic symptoms of narcissism include:
-Regular displays of arrogance and haughty behaviour
-Requiring constant and excessive praise for validation
- A strong sense of entitlement and a lack of empathy towards others.
Thus, in order to prove that Muhammad(pbuh) is a narcissist, one would have to show any enduring patterns of conceit, entitlement, vanity and arrogance both in his character and throughout historical accounts of his life (the Seerah).
However, it is throughout the Hadith, Sunnah and Seerah that such character cannot even be hinted towards. Not in his character, his beliefs or any account of his life can one rationally come to the conclusion of narcissistic tendencies.
Abu Dharr narrates: “Once, I observed Salman and Bilal arriving in the presence of the Noble Prophet (S). Salman, out of respect, fell down at the Prophet’s feet and kissed them. The Noble Prophet (S) endeavoured to prevent him from performing this act.
“Do not perform acts that the non-Arabs perform for their emperors,” advised the Noble Prophet (S). “I am (just) a servant from amongst the servants of Allah - I eat what they eat and sit where they sit.” ( Dars-hai Az Zindagi-e-Payambar, Page 162; Biharul Anwar, Volume 76, Page 63 )
It is in this narration that one can see not only a strong since of humility being displayed by Muhammad, but also the refusal to be held up to a pedestal. Such behaviour would be near impossible to an individual holding any narcissistic tendencies, as the constant need for validation from others would prevent them from acting as such. As well as the fact that such an individual would feel entitled in doing so, as they believe themselves.
Furthermore, it is in his beliefs that narcissism is condemned. As constantly throughout authentic narrations does Muhammad denounce arrogance. As seen in the Hadith below:
“Verily, Allah has revealed to me that you must be humble towards one another, so that no one wrongs another or boasts to another.” -Source: Sahih Muslim 2865, Grade: Sahih (Authentic)
Argument 2: Lecher
Lecherous behaviour is defined by exhibition of an excessive and offensive degree of sexual desire. In short, for one to prove Muhammad (pbuh) as a lecher, one would have to demonstrate that he constantly exhibited excessive sexual lust to the point of indecency. However, both historical standards and the morals of today, Muhammad (pbuh) was in fact the opposite, being highly chaste throughout his life.
In fact, he had remained wholly abstinent until his first marriage to Khadijah at the age of 25. Keep note, that the opportunity to engage in pre-marital sex was fully open in the region at the time. The fact that Muhammad remained chaste up until marriage is emblematic of his deliberate refusal to engage in his sexual desires until a married and willing partner was found, in this case his first wife Khadija .
Therefore, Muhammad’s sexual behaviours simply couldn’t be described lecherous by simple virtue of that fact. However, one can go farther into the Sunnah to see the clear condemnation of fornication made in the hadith as seen in the Hadith below.
Narrated by Abdullah Ibn Masud:
We were with the Prophet while we were young and had no wealth whatever. So Allah's Apostle said, "O young people! Whoever among you can marry, should marry, because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty (i.e. his private parts from committing illegal sexual intercourse etc.), and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual power." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, #4)
Arg/Rebuttal 1: Pedophilia
As referenced in my previous foreword one cannot honestly evaluate the character and morality of historical figures without coming into serious consideration of the cultural context of their time. I.E, to judge what is and is not pedophilia by the subjective standards of society. Therefore, to judge whether or not Muhammad (pbuh) exhibited any inclinations towards pedophilia, one must come to an objective observation on what pedophilia is. According to Professor Abel G, Greenberg D in his 1996 Understanding assessment and treatment of Paraphillias. Pedophilia is described
“ the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children” 
In Pro’s argument, the basis of his charge to Muhammad as a pedophile comes in the following hadith in Sahih Bukhari, in reference to the consummation of Aisha (RA). As seen below:
"Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." 
The age of Aisha’s age and consummation is not being denied, however, this consummation had occurred because Aisha had reached the age of puberty. In 7th century Arabia, the age of maturity and consent was not 18 but depending on the age that puberty is reached. If Muhammad (pbuh) had exhibited pedophilic inclinations, than he clearly would not have waited 3 years for the consummation to occur. The consummation had to had occurred for a reason if he (pbuh) would wait such a specific span of time before consummation would occur. As the Quran was at the very core of Muhammad’s beliefs system, it is also important to not that pre-pubscent intercourse is prohibited. As seen in Surah An-Nur, ayat 59
“And when the children among you reach puberty, let them ask permission [at all times] as those before them have done. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.”
The Quran, in this ayat, clearly prescribes a specific age before any martial intercourse is permissible, that being the age of puberty. Women in Arabia of the time, and women inhabiting arid climates similar to that would have had to grow up quicker, and had the strong tendency of reaching the age of puberty rather early.
If that is not enough proof, French philosopher Montesquieu, whom in his treatise The Spirit of Laws (which used in the development of the American constitution) also states that women in hot climate, women were marriageable at ages 8,9 and 10 years old. And that was in reference to consummation itself, and not chaste marital relations.
With Aisha being the only significantly young wife of Muhammad (pbuh), it is also important to note that Muhammad showed no special degree of sexual inclination to the prepubescent, a required burden in proving that he is a pedophile.
My apologies for my unintentional absence in the last round, as I could not fit my whole case into this round alone, I will wrap things up in the final round (primarily focusing on rebuttals). Now, Onto to Pro.
Con said: "One ought to consider the values that were dominant of the society at the time, as do most historians. It is a at best, hugely unfair to judge individuals of bygone days by modern standards. As said individuals would not have only been wholly unaware of as they would not have yet, but would also make no practical sense as such morals would have been followed by anyone at the time."
My response: While this might be true to a certain extent, it is briging up irrelevant points. Notice that we aren't just judging any old joe-shmoe; we are judging a man whom his followers (wrongly) claimed that he had superior moral characters that set him apart from others. Some go as far as to state that Muhammad was the greatest man to walk this Earth. So con's point is just pulling the wool over the readers eyes. Slavery was bad and always has been. Does that justify slavery when it was acceptable to the social norm? Hell no, never was and never will be. And I say to you that even though marrying young might have been the social norm during Muhammad's time, Muhammad supposedly being a prophet of God shouldn't be like others. If everyone jumps off a cliff that doesn't justify a prophet of God doing so also. Likewise Muhammad is not excused for sleeping with a 9 year old girl just because it was the social norm back then. I would expect more from someone whose followers claim him to be the greatest man to ever live.
Con later went on to try to absolve Muhammad from being a narcissist by showing that he refused to be given praise because he was just a servant of God.
My response: Since I haven't really looked into this particular charge against Muhammad and since I don't deny that Muhammad may have been somewhat humble, I will concede this point. But I never argued that Muhammad was a narcissist, so let's see how con can respond to the charges I did make against Muhammad.
Con said "In short, for one to prove Muhammad (pbuh) as a lecher, one would have to demonstrate that he constantly exhibited excessive sexual lust to the point of indecency."
My response: I will do just that:
Narrated by Anas: The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6)
What...the prophet's sexual desires were so out of control that he had to have sex with 9 of his wives in a single night? This man would make High Hefner jealous. Just so I am clear, I am not saying having sex with your wife is a bad thing, but to have sex with 9 of your wives in the same night proves exactly what you asked for...that Muhammad had excessive sexual desires.
Narrated Maimuna: When ever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 300)
I think we have our answer...Muhammad had excessive sexual desires to the point that he even wanted to fondle with his wives while they were on their period...talk about a creep.
Con pointed to some source to define pedophilia and later tried to show that Muhammad didn't have sex with Aisha until she was 9.
My response: I will cite a study conducted to determine the average age of puberty in ancient societies including the medieval Middle East, Muhammad's time:
Con can read it if he wishes but according to the study, the average age of puberty in the Medieval Middle East is 12-13. Hence Aisha was still pre-pubescent when Muhammad had sex with her. So if the overwhelming evidence from the Hadiths is correct (and it almost certainly is) then Muhammad has sex with someone who was 9 years old; which is before they reached puberty before 12-13. Hence Muhammad is a pedophile according to the standards Con himself appealed to and the definition of pedophilia he provided me.
Muhammad had no sexial inclination with the prepubescent?<---Your claim.
Buddy, I just proved my case. According to the study I cited, the age of puberty is 12-13 for people in Medieval Middle East (Muhammad's time). Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old - which is not the age of puberty. Hence according to your own definition, you are refuted and Muhammad is exposed as a pedophile.
Please note that we are already done with rebuttals and Con hasn't responded to anything I have said with the possible objection to my pedophilia charge.
Since Con claims to have missed round one for unintentional reasons, he has to provide a thourough refuation to the claims I have made. I already responded to the jist of his arguments.
If con cannot provide refutations of my claim in the next round, then the debate is over for him.
I don't even think anything in my opening argument can be rebutted unless con wants to play the game of dismissing his own sources when they expose Muhammad.
I appealed to the same sources he appealed to, so if he is going to play the eenie meenie monie moe game with the Islamic sources, I will do exactly that to to his citations of Islamic sources.
This round will be primarily focused on rebuttals of round 2 and address rebuttals made by Con in the previous round. As to be consistent with the 4 round “no new arguments” rule, I will not be addressing the “Misogynist: charge but will primarily focus on rebuttals of opening cases in the 2nd round.
R1: Mass Murderer/Assassin
In this argument, Pro goes a step further than Sina’s original charge, arguing not only that Muhammad (pbuh) engaged in mass murder, but was also genocidal towards the Jews. In turn, Pro has increased the burdens put on him in this argument by extending the original claim, however, as will be seen in this rebuttal, this burden fails to be maintained.
Firstly, the basis of Pro’s argument of mass murder having occurred was in citing the incident of Banu Qurayza’s execution, all while failing to consider the historical context of the execution. Firstly, it is important to see why Banu Qurayza in specific was executed. If Pro’s claim were true, and Muhammad (pbuh) was genocidal towards the Jews, then he would have wasted no time in making sure the other Jewish tribes of Madinah (Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa) followed the same fate. However, both of the aforementioned tribes also provoked the Muslims to the point of war, but upon surrendering, both tribes were allowed to peacefully depart with all belongings intact. 
It’s important to keep note of that, because, if what Pro suggested was in the least bit true, Muhammad would have had no problem in slaughtering the tribes of Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa. Hence, Muhammad (pbuh) could not have been genocidal because of that. Because like Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa were among the three dominating Jewish tribes of Madina at the time.
Instead, the reason why Banu Qurayza was executed, and not the other two tribes, was due to clear acts of treason.
Following the Hijirah of 622 AD, the Muslims had fled to Madinah as the equivalent of asylum seekers. Having made a treaty among the major Jewish tribes of Yathrib, Banu Qurayza included .
The contents of this treaty were as followed:
“To the Jew who follows us belongs help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided. The peace of the believers is invisible … The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers… The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document”
- Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah [Translated by A. Guillaume], page 232-233
The tribes of Banu Nadir were allowed to depart upon surrender, yet despite that, they continued to fight against the Muslims even after being let go, hence commiting clear treachery against the treaty. Only warrior men of Banu Qurayza, who fought against the Muslims during the siege were executed, on the basis of treachery, not on the basis of religion. None of the executed included women, children or non combatants, all of them were soldiers who deliberately engaged in treachery .
By removing historical context of the incident of Banu Qurayza, Con not only paints an inaccurate picture of the event, but commits a clear act of intellectual dishonesty. The execution of Banu Qurayza had nothing to do with genocide, or anti Semitism, it was simply an action that had to be taken place in response to backed stabbed by Banu Qurayza. Muhammad (pbuh) allowed Banu Nadir to leave unharmed, yet they continued to undermine the treaty by working with the Quraysh and fighting against the Muslims. Banu Qurayza would have done the same had this action not occurred. Hence, this point has been refuted.
Pro here uses the reason that since Muhammad’s (pbuh) contemporaries regarded him as mad, and also regarded him as trustworthy, muslims must call him both as to be consistent with previous reasoning. As seen below:
“The only reason I point out what Muhammad's enemies said about him to prove my case is because often times Muslims will claim that Muhammad was known as the truthful one among his contemporaries - even his enemies; they use this to prove that Muhammad was an honest man and wouldn't lie about being a prophet.”
The problem with this logic is that, not only does it fail to prove anything objectively. But does not accurately represent why Muslims regard Muhammad (pbuh) as trustworthy. True, Muhammad was known as “Al-Amin: (the trustworthy one), yet that came from his character as seen throughout the Seerah. The accusation of insanity came as an unproven claim used for the sole purpose of undermining him (essentially, loaded language.)
This logic, on its own, fails to prove in any way that he (pbuh) was in fact mad. The argument is based off hearsay, and not verifiable evidence. Unless pro can prove through the Sunnah or Seerah that Muhammad (pbuh) was objectively insane, then this burden simply fails to be held.
Pro cites the treatment of captive women after the Battle of Hunayn.. And cites Hadith Sahih Muslim 3432. However, the Hadith itself makes no mentioned of consent, or sexual intercourse with captive wives. Only that marriage had been abrogated. Since marriage between Muslim and mushrik (polytheist) was not allowed at the time, neither was sexual intercourse. The hadith only says it’s permissible, not that it’s allowed against consent.
In short, Pro has failed to sufficiently meet the burden of proof of the debate. That being, to prove at least 7 charges beyond a reasonable doubt. As at least 5 of these charges have been thoroughly refuted, Pro hence did not meet the burden of proof required to win this debate.
All thanks to Pro for an interesting and though provoking debate.
HardRockHallelujah forfeited this round.