The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ajabi
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

islam more violent than chrisitanity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
Ajabi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 61780
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

islam is more violent than chrisitanity

this debate focuses on nonbelievers, not things such as stoning sinners. if you included this stuff, it'd be even more violent.

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

for some of the verses and the link to the above quote see the following link:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

the old testament was violent. then Jesus came and said things like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". and "turn your cheek". and people generally view Jesus's death as a pacification of God's wrath such that violence is not necessary anymore, and generally violence isn't seen as necessary any more.
islam still has commands for violence that doesn't have someone like Jesus standing in the way to stop them.
Ajabi

Con

I accept this debate. I would remind my opponent that the burden of proof is on them, and that it is not enough to provide a source, dairygirl must provide a written argument in this debate. The current article is nearly 50, 000 characters plus, it is unfair that I would get only 10, 000 characters. I am sure the voters would agree; so with that I urge my opponent to present an argument. May the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

just look at the most compelling quotes i gave that says it's the right thing to do, to kill infidels. if you want to post your own link, you're more than welcome. this was more likely just a cheap shot by con to not have to engage in argumentation and win by a technicality on a cheap shot.
Ajabi

Con

Absolutely not one bit. I think my opponent's accusations are in bad taste to say the least. Since s/he once more did not provide an argument and the burden of proof him/her I deserve to win this right here and now. Even then I will present verses of the Holy Quran, and sayings from Hadith in comparison from Bible verses. I will not write an answer to each verse presented in my opponent's source because I feel that is un-needed.

The first verse I present is where the Quran openly condemns unfair violence, it says: "Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors." Quran 5:32

Now keep in mind the Quran believes that Jesus and Moses were prophets, and that they were sent with Islam too, but their followers changed that Scripture. So here the Quran once more reiterates what God has sent to others before: that no one should ever harm an innocent.

So there until my opponent provides an argument, seeing how they have the harden of proof, I need not do anything else. This should suffice, I feel I have won because the next round is the last round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant ca
Ajabi

Con

I should start off by stating that my opponent has lost this debate because s/he has committed the intellectual dishonestly of copy/pasting word for word, without quotation marks his/her entire argument. If one searches (other than the Islamic verses) the text: ' The historical context of this passage...desist in their unbelief.' and Googles it one will realize that it is taken from the very site that my opponent quoted. This is extremely unfair, as my opponent should not plagiarize their material.

I shall therefore in protest not write anything new, but simple extend my previous arguments. I believe that according to debate rules this argument of my opponent should be disregarded because it is also in the last round of the debate, something not allowed. In any case my opponent has plagiarized their material. Even if it is not plagiarized my opponent's argument is factually inaccurate.

The word "fitna" means to create mischief, or chaos. That is why the word fitna is used instead of its translation. Fitna means one who disbelieves and causes chaos or problems. Or why is it that in Hadhrat Umar's perios (the 2nd Caliph) Islam had taken over modern day Iraq but Iraq remained non-Muslim for 50+ years?[1] As for the second verse, the cause of Allah here is Jihad, which also includes taking care of a mother, and this fighting is specifically in self defense. The last verse is also that if you are under seige harden your hearts and fight.

As I said however I won't engage the argument greatly for my opponent not only provided positive material in the last round, they plagiarized their material.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
I will try to answer today; I am on a phone, and so cannot type a long answer. Just FYI fitna means one who creates crises or disorder.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
when you mention Jesus remember,
that there are indeed portions of the Bible written by men, and kept as a historical record, such as the laws of eye-for-eye. Clearly not depicted in the scriptures to be of the mouth of God.
As much as any christian may argue with you about the holiness of the scriptures, neither arrogance nor ignorance changes facts. Jesus did not change anything, he only fulfilled the law.

neither islam nor Christianity teach violence.
ex. a man comes to town, who is a womanizer. he makes them feel comfortable and then neglects them, or abuses them, or abandons them, or gives them a disease, or takes their money, or tells their children foolish things like how to masturbate. This infidel is not to be punished immediately via islam scriptures. he is warned. If he continues to act this way, and refuses to listen. Is this Infidel better left alive or dead? For you see, soon many infidels make up the populous, and then you have no more stability, security, kindness, community or wisdom!

dairygirl4u2c SMARTEN UP! You are not even putting consideration into your topic before coming here to debate about it. YOUR NOT HERE TO LEARN! your here to enlighten! so Brighten up!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by twighlighttrees 2 years ago
twighlighttrees
dairygirl4u2cAjabiTied
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: For acuralty being able to defend his position in trueness and quite impressively with minimal holy text quotation, has kept the debate in line with an independent viewpoint.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
dairygirl4u2cAjabiTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: There are 2 ways to piss off Envisage. 1. Be a faggot and 2. Plagiarize. Congrats on pissing me off.
Vote Placed by n7 2 years ago
n7
dairygirl4u2cAjabiTied
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: Posting a link to a website without anything else is hardly making an argument Pro states he should just argue against the most compelling ones. Con makes an argument against the resolution and Pro plagiarizes her argument without responding to Con's. Con points out the plagiarism and refutes the one of the verses' interpretation. Pro dropped arguments and hardly made any of her own. Conduct and arguments to Con. S&G to Con as Pro makes many capitalization errors. Con's source was unbiased whereas Pro's wasn't. Sources go to Con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cAjabiTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro plagiarized and never managed to fully contest con
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
dairygirl4u2cAjabiTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Quickly going to address the plagarism. It is there. Much as Pro cites the page in R1, when she uses information from it again, she fails to do so. That would be reason enough to provide all 7 points to Con (which I do), but I could vote on other bases. Simply the fact that Pro has no arguments of her own is sufficient. Pro entirely utilizes arguments from that source and fails to provide her own, or even a restatement of those arguments in her own words, and as such fails to fulfill her BoP. I could vote on that as well, or the fact that Con only attempted to uphold her burden by the final round and therefore failed to provide argumentation in a sufficient timeframe.