Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sieben vs. Mirza: Construction of Islam RFD

m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 6:33:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My RFD for this debate- http://www.debate.org...

Before the debate: Obviously, I'm a Muslim. I'd side with the Muslim on this one.

After the debate: Sieben did not convince me. I probably seem biased, but bias is inevitable. I'd say I'm being far more objective than I am being preferential to Islam.

Conduct: Mirza wins this point; Sieben misconstrued Mirza's arguments far too many times, and honestly, it frustrated me while reading it. To see something like "It's not hard to write a book that doesn't have contradictions" albeit such a controversial topic shrouds religion is both ignorant and obnoxious. Further, the whole "barf" comment was unnecessary- Sieben even admits that he didn't watch the whole video, which is definitely a burden he has as a contender in the debate.

Generally, I despised Sieben's entire approach to the debate. I was quite appalled.

S&G: No real issues here. I'll probably be begged to give Sieben this point, but I'll wait and see.

Convincing Arguments: Following from the Conduct point, Mirza wins. Sieben's arguments were full of non-sequiturs and argumentum ad ignorantiums or whatever you wanna call them; he didn't do enough research, and clearly was below the minimum proficiency level in having enough knowledge to debate about Islam. Quoting a long verse from the Qura'an and complaining about it being a run-on sentence is like me saying that a translation of "I love you" in Hungarian, which is "Szeretlek", and then complaining about it not having proper grammar because a complete sentence in English can't be a single word. I hope Sieben is understanding where I'm coming from.

Further, Mirza mentioned that the history of the verses is important; and they are, as a matter of fact. Quoting the Qura'an without understanding the context is like blaming the US revolutionary war on the Native Americans because they fought battles. That doesn't take into account, 1) which tribe we're referring to (different tribes took different sides), 2) the abuse the Native Americans withstood, and 3) the British instigation of the war with the "Shot heard 'round the world".

Sources: Mirza. Sieben used a Qura'anic translation that Mirza did not prefer he use, and mostly cited sources to appeal to scientific facts that don't garner him any offense in terms of the debate, which was about the "CONSTRUCTION of Islam". He complained about mountain types and clay composition, as opposed to really appreciating the arguments at hand before responding to them.

_____________________________________________________________________
In conclusion, 6 points to Mirza.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 6:59:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree that Sieben made some serious mistakes in the debate, but I am not prepared to determine who won. To be honest, I can't tell what they were trying to prove. Mirza made a bunch of statements about the Koran, Sieben addressed some of them successfully and some of them poorly. I don't want to judge based on my outside knowledge that 1) Sieben disregarded many issues of context and 2) that I don't think Mirza's argument proves anything substantial about Islam. Neither debater strongly addressed what I saw as the main flaws in the opposing argument.

I will vote either 3-2 in favor of Sieben or 0-5 in favor of Mirza once I get a better idea of what the were trying to prove. Perhaps someone can elaborate on that.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:04:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 6:59:38 PM, Grape wrote:
I agree that Sieben made some serious mistakes in the debate, but I am not prepared to determine who won. To be honest, I can't tell what they were trying to prove. Mirza made a bunch of statements about the Koran, Sieben addressed some of them successfully and some of them poorly. I don't want to judge based on my outside knowledge that 1) Sieben disregarded many issues of context and 2) that I don't think Mirza's argument proves anything substantial about Islam. Neither debater strongly addressed what I saw as the main flaws in the opposing argument.

I will vote either 3-2 in favor of Sieben or 0-5 in favor of Mirza once I get a better idea of what the were trying to prove. Perhaps someone can elaborate on that.
The resolution says "Construction" of Islam. I understand your viewpoint, but considering that Sieben made absolutely nothing significant to sort of de-constructing Islam, I have affirmed the resolution.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:25:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 6:33:19 PM, m93samman wrote:

Conduct: Mirza wins this point; Sieben misconstrued Mirza's arguments far too many times, and honestly, it frustrated me while reading it. To see something like "It's not hard to write a book that doesn't have contradictions" albeit such a controversial topic shrouds religion is both ignorant and obnoxious.
It is easy to write a book without contradictions. It doesn't matter if they're controversial. If you say "gays should die" and "everyone should get an abortion", you're controversial but not contradictory.

Further, the whole "barf" comment was unnecessary- Sieben even admits that he didn't watch the whole video, which is definitely a burden he has as a contender in the debate.

Did you read the prestandards in round 1? You're not allowed to just give sources without an explanation. He just said "look this video is proof that im right". That's abusive because its a way for him to circumvent the character limit and place undue burden on the audience.

Generally, I despised Sieben's entire approach to the debate. I was quite appalled.

Really? I thought mirza was a total joke. He didn't take the debate seriously at all.

Convincing Arguments: Following from the Conduct point, Mirza wins. Sieben's arguments were full of non-sequiturs and argumentum ad ignorantiums or whatever you wanna call them;

Wait. Give an example?

Even if I did make those, mirza didn't call them out. You're basically voting for mirza based on something he didn't do.

he didn't do enough research, and clearly was below the minimum proficiency level in having enough knowledge to debate about Islam. Quoting a long verse from the Qura'an and complaining about it being a run-on sentence is like me saying that a translation of "I love you" in Hungarian, which is "Szeretlek", and then complaining about it not having proper grammar because a complete sentence in English can't be a single word. I hope Sieben is understanding where I'm coming from.

Okay. Did you read the part where I said we should just throw it out because A) you can't debate art, and B) I don't speak arabic?

Further, Mirza mentioned that the history of the verses is important; and they are, as a matter of fact. Quoting the Qura'an without understanding the context is like blaming the US revolutionary war on the Native Americans because they fought battles. That doesn't take into account, 1) which tribe we're referring to (different tribes took different sides), 2) the abuse the Native Americans withstood, and 3) the British instigation of the war with the "Shot heard 'round the world".

Where is this at all relevant in the debate?

Sources: Mirza. Sieben used a Qura'anic translation that Mirza did not prefer he use,

Wait. I asked mirza in the comments section and I used that one. But I don't see how it would have been any different if I had used a different translation.

and mostly cited sources to appeal to scientific facts that don't garner him any offense in terms of the debate,
Wait. If the Koran is WRONG about something, I win. Mirza NEVER EVER EVER rebutted the mountains example. On that issue ALONE I win.

which was about the "CONSTRUCTION of Islam". He complained about mountain types and clay composition, as opposed to really appreciating the arguments at hand before responding to them.

What did I miss? Mirza's sole arguments were about how infallible the koran was.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:28:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wait wait wait. You can't vote against me just because you think I'm wrong. You vote based on what the DEBATERS did. Mirza left HALF THE DEBATE UNFINISHED.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:35:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:28:32 PM, Sieben wrote:
Wait wait wait. You can't vote against me just because you think I'm wrong. You vote based on what the DEBATERS did. Mirza left HALF THE DEBATE UNFINISHED.
You misrepresented numerous points I made, you made so many nonsensical points that I could not even use 20,000 characters to rebut each and every, so don't pretend like I had the option to rebut all of your points. It is called prioritizing. By this alone, you surely dropped my arguments. You criticize me for not rebutting your arguments - but take a look at the way you tried to rebut mine. I say Z, you say I said Y. That's not a rebuttals. I could have done the same to you, but you used horrible methods of arguing. You picked the resolution, not I. You didn't de-construct anything. And the mountains being pegs part was rebutted in the last round.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:37:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
By the way, I didn't solely rely on the Qur'an. I went into other scriptures to prove my points, but in order not to make you feel that I avoided more than half of your point (which is nonsense), I rebutted as much as space allowed me to.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:39:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:35:24 PM, Mirza wrote:

You misrepresented numerous points I made,
Which ones?

you made so many nonsensical points that I could not even use 20,000 characters to rebut each and every,
You left about 2k characters the last time I counted. You're not even trying. You had TWO rounds to make your full arguments. I'm the one who should be crying about lack of space.

so don't pretend like I had the option to rebut all of your points. It is called prioritizing.
So you can't address the mountain example, you have to waste time talking about how the koran is the oldest and unchangedest book?

By this alone, you surely dropped my arguments.
Which ones?

You criticize me for not rebutting your arguments - but take a look at the way you tried to rebut mine. I say Z, you say I said Y. That's not a rebuttals.
Example?

I could have done the same to you, but you used horrible methods of arguing. You picked the resolution, not I. You didn't de-construct anything. And the mountains being pegs part was rebutted in the last round.
Oh good. Great. I'm not allowed to give a rebuttal to that now because its past due. Good job you sneaky fück. You just tanked the whole debate and then after I couldn't respond, you finally decide to start trying. Good job. Kill yourself.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:41:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:37:22 PM, Mirza wrote:
By the way, I didn't solely rely on the Qur'an. I went into other scriptures to prove my points, but in order not to make you feel that I avoided more than half of your point (which is nonsense), I rebutted as much as space allowed me to.

Your last round has 7k characters.

Your 4th round had 6342 characters.

Get bent.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:52:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:39:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
Which ones?
Only book unchanged (have you heard of contradistinction?) as the main point. Then the sea+ land = 100. Mountains being pegs - I gave a source. I can't take my religion seriously (you said that - misrepresentation of my views). And so on.

You left about 2k characters the last time I counted. You're not even trying. You had TWO rounds to make your full arguments. I'm the one who should be crying about lack of space.
That would not be enough to rebut every single thing, plus rely on something else than the Qur'an. You would remain whining about dropping your points. As a matter of fact, you're the one who whined for a debate before it started, and I accepted it to shut the door of your whining.

So you can't address the mountain example, you have to waste time talking about how the koran is the oldest and unchangedest book?
I mostly followed the exact order of arguments, so yes.

Which ones?
Read above.

Example?
Read above.

Oh good. Great. I'm not allowed to give a rebuttal to that now because its past due. Good job you sneaky fück. You just tanked the whole debate and then after I couldn't respond, you finally decide to start trying. Good job. Kill yourself.
This time I spent full characters, and even then, I could not address all your points. The last round is used for rebuttals. If not, then what else? Jokes? Collect yourself. You're whining over a debate you horribly argued for. Move on instead of being pathetic.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 7:53:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:41:23 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/26/2011 7:37:22 PM, Mirza wrote:
By the way, I didn't solely rely on the Qur'an. I went into other scriptures to prove my points, but in order not to make you feel that I avoided more than half of your point (which is nonsense), I rebutted as much as space allowed me to.

Your last round has 7k characters.

Your 4th round had 6342 characters.

Get bent.
You get bent. I didn't either instigate the debate, pick the resolution, nor try to make you accept the debate while being hasty. You're acting like a foolish child.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:00:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:52:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 7:39:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
Which ones?
Only book unchanged (have you heard of contradistinction?) as the main point.
That's a terrible point. How does it make the Koran true? Its a necessary but INSUFFICIENT condition.

And the oldest book in the world IS unchanged because its the ORIGINAL COPY.

Then the sea+ land = 100. Mountains being pegs - I gave a source.
In the last round. Can Sieben rebut it? No. Because you left it till the end. Good job.

I can't take my religion seriously (you said that - misrepresentation of my views). And so on.

Well you apparently don't because your effort was so piss poor.

That would not be enough to rebut every single thing, plus rely on something else than the Qur'an.
So you don't even have to try now? Give me a break.

You would remain whining about dropping your points.
Because you're a pathetic debater. Its called economizing your arguments.

As a matter of fact, you're the one who whined for a debate before it started, and I accepted it to shut the door of your whining.
So what? You're a total troll and coward. Of course I'm going to complain if you just run your mouth like an idiot on the forums.

So you can't address the mountain example, you have to waste time talking about how the koran is the oldest and unchangedest book?
I mostly followed the exact order of arguments, so yes.
Lol. You left characters. You cut it off prematurely.

This time I spent full characters, and even then, I could not address all your points. The last round is used for rebuttals.
Yes, its used for rebuttals. Not for new evidence, which you had. Not for new points, which you had. You don't understand how you turned it into a 2 round debate by only rebutting arguments in the last round? Whats the point in the other rounds? You're just tanking them and then going all tryhard in the last round. Its pathetic.

If not, then what else? Jokes? Collect yourself. You're whining over a debate you horribly argued for. Move on instead of being pathetic.
Oh please. You got NOTHING on me Mirza. Zilch.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:00:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:53:12 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 7:41:23 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/26/2011 7:37:22 PM, Mirza wrote:
By the way, I didn't solely rely on the Qur'an. I went into other scriptures to prove my points, but in order not to make you feel that I avoided more than half of your point (which is nonsense), I rebutted as much as space allowed me to.

Your last round has 7k characters.

Your 4th round had 6342 characters.

Get bent.
You get bent. I didn't either instigate the debate, pick the resolution, nor try to make you accept the debate while being hasty. You're acting like a foolish child.

Red herring. Don't claim you didn't have enough space when you went way under the character limit. Fückhead.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:03:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Mirza, to be fair, you're the one who usually doesn't accept debates unless your exact requirement are used. Some times you just have to suck it up and compromise if everything isn't done your way in a debate.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:03:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:39:19 PM, Sieben wrote:
Oh good. Great. I'm not allowed to give a rebuttal to that now because its past due. Good job you sneaky fück. You just tanked the whole debate and then after I couldn't respond, you finally decide to start trying. Good job. Kill yourself.

Lol, that's what Mirza always does. Just re-read the one we did on Sha'ria law. I cut my R3 to 4k characters because he was whining about lack of space. Despite that, he still dropped a bunch of arguments, only to resurrect them in the last round.

Case in point: 78; 819; 7,756. http://www.debate.org...

5,383; FORFEIT; 7,816 http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:14:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:00:09 PM, Sieben wrote:
That's a terrible point. How does it make the Koran true? Its a necessary but INSUFFICIENT condition.

And the oldest book in the world IS unchanged because its the ORIGINAL COPY.
You misrepresented my point. I never claimed that the Qur'an is the oldest. You said I did, hence you make a stupid misrepresentation of my viewpoints. Moreover, the oldest book is not full, and I said that in the debate. Those are mere fractions.

Then the sea+ land = 100. Mountains being pegs - I gave a source.
In the last round. Can Sieben rebut it? No. Because you left it till the end. Good job.
No, it was in the 4th round. You spoke about adding words so it becomes 100, while that had nothing to do with what I said.

Well you apparently don't because your effort was so piss poor.
And your method of arguing is below poor. Thanks for the compliment.

So you don't even have to try now? Give me a break.
Try? You think I got all day long for this site? It doesn't matter how many debates I have, whether or not I am online, but if I have time to actually argue - and if you want someone to argue 100% of his time, and make sure he uses all the char. space, then you know what? Don't create childish threads to get them to accept your nonsensical challenges because you can't wait.

Because you're a pathetic debater. Its called economizing your arguments.
It is impossible to address every point properly if there are too many of them, and they require deep analysis. When you make over ten points whereof each require scientific data, historical data, etc., do you expect me to rebut each of them with two lines?

As a matter of fact, you're the one who whined for a debate before it started, and I accepted it to shut the door of your whining.
So what?
I did you a little favor, despite having to waste some of my own time on you.

You're a total troll and coward. Of course I'm going to complain if you just run your mouth like an idiot on the forums.
That, again, has nothing to do with what I said. Before we even discussed this, you made that idiotic thread and started calling me out. You acted idiotically, just like you do now. The fact that you challenge someone to a debate doesn't mean that he's got the time for it, or that he has to accept it immediately. You couldn't wait for anything, and just whined in the thread that I finally let go for the sake of your health. I think that arguing with you just makes you more act more foolishly than you usually do.

Lol. You left characters. You cut it off prematurely.
You cut off my time due to your dumb behavior. Eye for an eye.

Yes, its used for rebuttals. Not for new evidence, which you had.
It is inevitable to bring some new arguments that are actually just follow-ups of your earlier ones. If you say that Graph X is the best in the world, how can I ever rebut it by not saying that Graph Y is the best in the world, which would actually constitute a new argument? It is part of rebuttal.

Not for new points, which you had. You don't understand how you turned it into a 2 round debate by only rebutting arguments in the last round? Whats the point in the other rounds? You're just tanking them and then going all tryhard in the last round. Its pathetic.
I didn't try hard. Those other points were quickly addresses because I made rebuttals. In fact, I didn't even make any significant arguments in the last round at all. All I did was to build upon what I said, but you didn't understand.

Oh please. You got NOTHING on me Mirza. Zilch.
No, I do not. I think your behavior needs more treatment than a debate you argued horribly on.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:17:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:03:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Mirza, to be fair, you're the one who usually doesn't accept debates unless your exact requirement are used. Some times you just have to suck it up and compromise if everything isn't done your way in a debate.
If anything, I accepted each and every requirement that Sieben came up with. I didn't instigate it. I followed all of the rules. What's the fuss? Also, I don't accept debates when people don't come with proper criteria, no. My views are not simple, nor do they have to be. But that's irrelevant to this thread. What is relevant is that I followed the rules, addressed the arguments I could (notice how he doesn't grasp the idea of not having time to debate, perhaps), and so on. His whining is normal for him. Not unexpected.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:19:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:00:45 PM, Sieben wrote:
Red herring. Don't claim you didn't have enough space when you went way under the character limit. Fückhead.
2K characters are nothing for rebuttals on the points you made. I should have used at least 5K to make the point of other scriptures prophesying the beloved Prophet, but I feared that I didn't have the opportunity to even get to your own points. And notice how there's a concept called "time" - if you wish to question my use of it, please do so. If not, be silent about it.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:21:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:19:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:00:45 PM, Sieben wrote:
Red herring. Don't claim you didn't have enough space when you went way under the character limit. Fückhead.
2K characters are nothing for rebuttals on the points you made. I should have used at least 5K to make the point of other scriptures prophesying the beloved Prophet, but I feared that I didn't have the opportunity to even get to your own points. And notice how there's a concept called "time" - if you wish to question my use of it, please do so. If not, be silent about it.

Mirza, just because you don't have enough it doesn't mean you should be like "no, you're not allowed responding using the max amount of characters". lrn2paraphase.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:22:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:03:39 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Lol, that's what Mirza always does. Just re-read the one we did on Sha'ria law. I cut my R3 to 4k characters because he was whining about lack of space. Despite that, he still dropped a bunch of arguments, only to resurrect them in the last round.

Case in point: 78; 819; 7,756. http://www.debate.org...

5,383; FORFEIT; 7,816 http://www.debate.org...
When you have a problem, bring it one on one, not when you have someone who can support you arrogantly all the time. You don't know me, can you grasp that? I forfeit when I wish to do so. I am not going to run to my computer and turn on this site in order to finish a debate. Sure, I do make some of my last rounds longer than the others - but that is because I try to summarize everything so that it doesn't get forgotten, or because I have more time. It's nothing to deliberately gain votes. I don't care about that.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:22:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:21:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:19:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:00:45 PM, Sieben wrote:
Red herring. Don't claim you didn't have enough space when you went way under the character limit. Fückhead.
2K characters are nothing for rebuttals on the points you made. I should have used at least 5K to make the point of other scriptures prophesying the beloved Prophet, but I feared that I didn't have the opportunity to even get to your own points. And notice how there's a concept called "time" - if you wish to question my use of it, please do so. If not, be silent about it.

Mirza, just because you don't have enough it doesn't mean you should be like "no, you're not allowed responding using the max amount of characters". lrn2paraphase.
What are you talking about? Did I say he shouldn't use max. characters?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:25:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:22:55 PM, Mirza wrote:

What are you talking about? Did I say he shouldn't use max. characters?

From the debate:

Mirza will make arguments in round 1 and 2. My rebuttals in round 2 and 3 will consist only of 4000 words. This is to give Mirza's first rebuttal in round 3 a chance of actually addressing all my counter arguments. Afterwards, there is no char limit.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:26:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:25:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:22:55 PM, Mirza wrote:

What are you talking about? Did I say he shouldn't use max. characters?

From the debate:

Mirza will make arguments in round 1 and 2. My rebuttals in round 2 and 3 will consist only of 4000 words. This is to give Mirza's first rebuttal in round 3 a chance of actually addressing all my counter arguments. Afterwards, there is no char limit.
And your point is?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:28:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:26:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:25:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:22:55 PM, Mirza wrote:

What are you talking about? Did I say he shouldn't use max. characters?

From the debate:

Mirza will make arguments in round 1 and 2. My rebuttals in round 2 and 3 will consist only of 4000 words. This is to give Mirza's first rebuttal in round 3 a chance of actually addressing all my counter arguments. Afterwards, there is no char limit.
And your point is?

In a debate if it's set to 8,000 characters max then it's expected that both debaters will be allowed to use all 8,000 characters. If space is a problem, learn to paraphase. I'm just trying to give you advice.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:30:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:14:24 PM, Mirza wrote:

You misrepresented my point. I never claimed that the Qur'an is the oldest.

Not just that it was the oldest, but that it was the oldest unchanged book. Obviously there are many unchanged books right? Derp. Here's you:

It is, first and foremost, the only book which has not been changed by even a word for 14 centuries, i.e., since it was revealed unto mankind. While other books have been present for long times, such as the Bible, all these books have been changed,

You said I did, hence you make a stupid misrepresentation of my viewpoints. Moreover, the oldest book is not full, and I said that in the debate. Those are mere fractions.

The oldest book is not "full"? What?

No, it was in the 4th round.
The mountains was in the 5th round. Derp derp derp.
You spoke about adding words so it becomes 100, while that had nothing to do with what I said.
Maybe I misunderstood you because your english is so piss poor. You wrote:

"I can go very deep into this, but for instance, "sea" and "land" are both mentioned together with the value of 100, i.e., 100%. The amount of the word "sea" (out of 45 from sea + land) makes up about 71.11%, while the rest 28.88% is "land.""

Which I said would be very easy to do if you already knew the ratios of sea to land, because you could just keep writing and extra sentence about it.

Well you apparently don't because your effort was so piss poor.
And your method of arguing is below poor. Thanks for the compliment.

Red herring. You don't take your religion seriously because you can't even be bothered to use the full space to defend it... or allocate time - since many of the rounds you had indicated were rushed.

So you don't even have to try now? Give me a break.
Try? You think I got all day long for this site? It doesn't matter how many debates I have, whether or not I am online, but if I have time to actually argue - and if you want someone to argue 100% of his time, and make sure he uses all the char. space, then you know what? Don't create childish threads to get them to accept your nonsensical challenges because you can't wait.

Wait. You just copped out. So no matter how little effort you show, you'll always defend it saying I had something else to do. I'll tell you what, I usually give multiple arguments against the retarded things you say. And now I'm going to add "well I don't have to try because I didn't have enough time".

Don't bite off more than you can chew. Its your RELIGION. You're supposed to take it seriously.

Because you're a pathetic debater. Its called economizing your arguments.
It is impossible to address every point properly if there are too many of them, and they require deep analysis. When you make over ten points whereof each require scientific data, historical data, etc., do you expect me to rebut each of them with two lines?

Its called economizing your arguments and not biting off more than you can chew. Most of your arguments were so unbelievably vague and poor, requiring vast amounts of substantiation, and you try to make them in a paragraph with no evidence. Its YOUR fault if the topic is too complicated. Don't bring it up if you can't handle it.

That, again, has nothing to do with what I said.
Well its why I challenged you. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Before we even discussed this, you made that idiotic thread and started calling me out.
Well you say a lot of stupid crap.

You acted idiotically, just like you do now. The fact that you challenge someone to a debate doesn't mean that he's got the time for it, or that he has to accept it immediately.
So set a deadline for yourself!

You couldn't wait for anything,
SOURCE?!

and just whined in the thread that I finally let go for the sake of your health.
I don't believe that. I had to shame you into accepting the debate.

I think that arguing with you just makes you more act more foolishly than you usually do.
Well arguing with religious nuts is always a fiasco.

Lol. You left characters. You cut it off prematurely.
You cut off my time due to your dumb behavior. Eye for an eye.
How did I cut off your time? HOW? You had THREE days!

It is inevitable to bring some new arguments that are actually just follow-ups of your earlier ones.
Well, then which new arguments did I use in the last round? None? Because they're just EXTENSIONS of things I've already said! Saying that "not all mountains are fold-block mountains" is a new assertion. I can't rebut it.

If you say that Graph X is the best in the world, how can I ever rebut it by not saying that Graph Y is the best in the world, which would actually constitute a new argument? It is part of rebuttal.

That's why you have rounds 2-4 to make arguments in. Its a fücking 5 round debate where you get the FIRST and LAST word. You have NO EXCUSE.

I didn't try hard.

Nonononononono. "Tryhard" means you just do whatever cheap little gimmick you can to win.

Those other points were quickly addresses because I made rebuttals. In fact, I didn't even make any significant arguments in the last round at all. All I did was to build upon what I said, but you didn't understand.
No. You introduced your first rebuttal to the mountain example in the last round. You had space to do it in BOTH previous rounds but you didn't. Why not? WHY NOT? Because you're an underhanded debater. See Kenyon's comment.

No, I do not. I think your behavior needs more treatment than a debate you argued horribly on.
What behavior? I'm mad because you debate like an idiot and still think you're hot sh!t.

YOU THINK YOU CAN WIN A DEBATE EVEN IF YOU DROP HALF THE ARGUMENTS

If that isn't retarded, I don't know what to say.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:31:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:28:37 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:26:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:25:44 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:22:55 PM, Mirza wrote:

What are you talking about? Did I say he shouldn't use max. characters?

From the debate:

Mirza will make arguments in round 1 and 2. My rebuttals in round 2 and 3 will consist only of 4000 words. This is to give Mirza's first rebuttal in round 3 a chance of actually addressing all my counter arguments. Afterwards, there is no char limit.
And your point is?

In a debate if it's set to 8,000 characters max then it's expected that both debaters will be allowed to use all 8,000 characters. If space is a problem, learn to paraphase. I'm just trying to give you advice.
First of all, I didn't complain about him using his characters. Second of all, if I didn't use all chars., so what? Do you know what I have to do IRL? Do you know whether or not using them all would have helped making him whine a bit less? He would have said, "Dropped 8 points!" instead of "Dropped 10 points!" Useless. He made enough points for me having to switch from arguments to rebuttals in the third round already.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:33:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:17:10 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:03:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Mirza, to be fair, you're the one who usually doesn't accept debates unless your exact requirement are used. Some times you just have to suck it up and compromise if everything isn't done your way in a debate.
If anything, I accepted each and every requirement that Sieben came up with.

ACTUALLY

You totally failed to follow the evidence prestandards. You just kind of linked a bunch of stuff but didn't explain it. Like on the math - you just said "there are many examples of math miracles in the koran - see here". You let websites and youtube videos make your arguments for you. That's totally abusive. Here, watch.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Please rebut all these arguments. Oh wait. That would take you several pages? You don't have that much space? Oh well that's why I banned it at the start of the round.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:33:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 7:04:06 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 6:59:38 PM, Grape wrote:
I agree that Sieben made some serious mistakes in the debate, but I am not prepared to determine who won. To be honest, I can't tell what they were trying to prove. Mirza made a bunch of statements about the Koran, Sieben addressed some of them successfully and some of them poorly. I don't want to judge based on my outside knowledge that 1) Sieben disregarded many issues of context and 2) that I don't think Mirza's argument proves anything substantial about Islam. Neither debater strongly addressed what I saw as the main flaws in the opposing argument.

I will vote either 3-2 in favor of Sieben or 0-5 in favor of Mirza once I get a better idea of what the were trying to prove. Perhaps someone can elaborate on that.
The resolution says "Construction" of Islam. I understand your viewpoint, but considering that Sieben made absolutely nothing significant to sort of de-constructing Islam, I have affirmed the resolution.

I have no idea what that means. Can you guys take a break from your catfight for a minute and explain what the objectives of Pro and Con were in the debate?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:34:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:19:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/26/2011 8:00:45 PM, Sieben wrote:
Red herring. Don't claim you didn't have enough space when you went way under the character limit. Fückhead.
2K characters are nothing for rebuttals on the points you made.
So you just arbitrarily gave up at 6k? Lol.

I should have used at least 5K to make the point of other scriptures prophesying the beloved Prophet,
Yeah you didn't even address that did you :(

but I feared that I didn't have the opportunity to even get to your own points. And notice how there's a concept called "time" - if you wish to question my use of it, please do so. If not, be silent about it.

I don't care if you were rushed. You can't win a debate just because your life is complicated. Seriously.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 8:35:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 8:33:35 PM, Grape wrote:

I have no idea what that means. Can you guys take a break from your catfight for a minute and explain what the objectives of Pro and Con were in the debate?

Well I actually left it up to Pro to clarify that. But implicitly its to prove that Islam is a "true" religion.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...