The Instigator
dan564891
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Wikipedia should not remove the images of Muhammad from the article "Muhammad".

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 8 votes the winner is...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,081 times Debate No: 23498
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (42)
Votes (8)

 

dan564891

Pro

The Wikipedia article in question can be found here... http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is complete nonsense and Wikipedia are right to keep the pictures on the site.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I accept your argument and will be arguing that Wikipedia should remove the current images of Muhammad from the article "Muhammad."

I assume arguments will begin in Round 2. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
dan564891

Pro

Thanks for accepting.

It's my understanding that certain Muslim communities forbid any depictions of Muhammad.

It is widely questioned as to whether the images on Wikipedia might be offensive to some Muslims. My question is simply, what makes Islam so special that people should treat it differently from other religions?

What makes Muslims think they have the right to demand these pictures be removed from a public encyclopedia? Wikipedia is neutral in this matter... it does not deem Islam to be wrong or inhuman.

Although not exactly facts... these images are culturally relevant a great number of people.

Islam does not deserve special treatment from anyone.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I thank my opponent for his argument and will now proceed to offer my own in place.

The current images of Muhammad are not of the highest possible quality. Indeed, if we were to keep the same paintings and sketches of Muhammad, we would be sacrificing the display of a superior image for an inferior one. There are four images of Muhammad which directly show the prophet’s face.

The first one, an illustration of Muhammad re-setting the Black Stone, can be located at http://goo.gl... – note that upload.wikimedia.org refers to Wikimedia Commons, where Wikipedia publishes and draws its public domain images. This file, used on Wikipedia, is resolved at 626 x 459. A superior image of the exact same composition can be found at http://goo.gl... – which is 640 x 469. This is a 14 x 10 improvement over the original Wikipedia image.

The second image, a graphic showing Muhammad’s revelation from the angel Gabriel, is found at http://goo.gl... – this image is 720 x 542. A grander image can be found at http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 800 x 602. This is an enhancement of 80 x 60, a considerable change in overall quality.

The third illustration, Muhammad’s arrival in Mecca, can be found at http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 497 x 777. Once again, a larger, quality picture can be seen at http://goo.gl... and is 550 x 860. This resolution change is 53 x 83.

The last illustration, depicting Muhammad’s teaching to Muslims, has been uploaded to http://goo.gl... and has a resolution of 600 x 360. It does not take much work to find a superior image, located at http://goo.gl... and which has a resolution of 736 x 442. This enhancement is 136 x 82.

For each and every one of Wikipedia’s current images of the prophet Muhammad, a superior and higher quality image can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Note that these images are all in the public domain so copyright infringement is irrelevant. Because there are enhanced pictures available online, and because Wikipedia displays pictures that are not up to par, I thus insist that Wikipedia should remove the current pictures of Muhammad, and, of course, replace these images with the higher quality duplicates.

I look forward to my opponent's response.

Debate Round No. 2
dan564891

Pro

Perhaps my opponent is trolling, or simply doesn't understand what this debate is about.

Is there any point trying to have a serious debate about the disgusting wishes of Islam ?
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

My opponent states the following: "Perhaps my opponent is trolling, or simply doesn't understand what this debate is about." My opponent's argument concerns the treatment of Islam by non-Muslims. I actually agree with him that Islam does not deserve special treatment.

However, the title of the debate is "Wikipedia should not remove the images of Muhammad from the article 'Muhammad'." Thus, any evidence that the current images on Wikipedia should be removed is relevant to the debate. I have shown that the images currently displayed on the Muhammad page are not of the highest quality available and should thus ideally be removed and replaced with images that are.
Debate Round No. 3
dan564891

Pro

I think it's obvious that I'm not talking about the quality of the images.

Muslims believe it's disrespectful towards them to show ANY images of Muhammad.

I thank my opponent for ruining what could have been a very provocative and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 4
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NotYourFault 5 years ago
NotYourFault
Everybody who claims Nur-Ab-Sal used semantics, please cite examples. Otherwise, he did not use semantics. Also, there is no reason dan564891 should be given conduct because he directly insulted Nur-Ab-Sal multiple times, he called muslim religious views disgusting and nonsense, and Nur-Ab-Sal did none of that. I don't see why there is such an issue here.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
OberHerr, where do I lose Conduct? I did not intend to troll nor did I post an irrelevant argument, and I have not been insulting to my opponent.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
None taken. I actually thought the picture quality would be easier to defend than Muslim religious views in a free speech society, which is why I took that route.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
dan, the argument when in a way you did not intend or imagine it. That is extremely likely. Don't get too angry over it, just remember it for next time. I thought that Nur-Ab-Sal was not even stretching the meaning of the question. It was semi-closed, not fully closed, and was argued well. I disagree, and think the rebuttal to his argument was incredibly easy to accomplish (no offence), but you did not even attempt it.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I have not attempted to even be remotely amusing. I am merely trying to give you some advice for future debates. Dan, once again, the debates on this site follow a pretty standard format; while laying out arguments differs from user to user, outlining the rules of the debate as well as any definitions for terms likely to be challenged is standard procedure. There is no rule on DDO about offering terms of the debate, but if you don't, any relevant argument is valid. As for taking this site too seriously, you complained in the debate and the comments section and are still arguing with me even after you secured a win. Please.
Posted by dan564891 5 years ago
dan564891
Again, you're taking the site and the "rules" of debating too literally.

Perhaps you should stop trying to be funny and just accept the debate as it was intended.

Anyone reading this please vote for Pro.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
in Round 1* before arguments begin, I should add.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
You continue to repeat yourself. No matter how clear you believe you were, you did not specify the parameters or rules or definitions concerning the debate, your argument from common sense is irrelevant. Take a look at any major debate and the Instigator or Contender will have laid out the terms of the debate. If you do not lay out the terms, any interpretation is fair game.
Posted by dan564891 5 years ago
dan564891
I quote myself in round 2 ..... "It's my understanding that certain Muslim communities forbid any depictions of Muhammad."

I think that when you combine this statement with the title of the debate, it's perfectly clear that I don't intend to debate the quality of the pictures, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
As for the Conduct points, that is up for the voters to decide. It was you who called the wishes of Islam "disgusting" and stopped the debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 5 years ago
Travniki
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: So this debate really should be tied because Con went off on abusive Semantics, while Pro outlined what he wanted to debate.
Vote Placed by ras2000 5 years ago
ras2000
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: god is the only god
Vote Placed by zach12 5 years ago
zach12
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Better argument.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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: Semantics
Vote Placed by NotYourFault 5 years ago
NotYourFault
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented his points better, regardless of semantics, pro told con he "ruined the debate", and con used better/more sources.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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: Semantics, and conduct.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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: CON posted a legitimate argument, but did not go down the route of islamic rights. This is something that is possible to have happened. The argument stands.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 5 years ago
Mrparkers
dan564891Nur-Ab-SalTied
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: Semantics.