Total Posts:253|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sharia Law RFD

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:34:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I like JKenyon. I don't like Mirza, but I'll at least respect him because I think he has good effort. So I want to stay on everyone's good side which is why I am writing such a long RFD. I took 3 pages of physical notes so let no one say I vote based on my own opinion!!

My judging philosophy is to just flow all arguments. If they're dropped, they count against the other side. In an ideal world, you POINT OUT THE ARGUMENTS YOUR OPPONENT DROPS AND THEN WEIGH THEM, but that didn't always happen. So while I don't like to use my own judgment, I will probably have to partially weigh arguments myself to decide the round...

I imposed my own tags on my notes... so yes I know JK didn't say "hayekian knowledge problem", but its the most shorthand way for me.

JK is unformatted. Mirza is bolded.

1)

a) Paternalistic
-Negative Rights Criterion - Neg rights are physical and therefore insufficient, examples of abuse - Actually neg rights are conceptual ala NAP - Some innocent things with bad consequences, like slander, should still be prohibited
-Deontological Ethics - total freedom means no morality
-Hayekian Knowledge Problem - Freedom doesn't automatically make you happy
-Some actions are intrinsically bad - This is circular... "good" is subjective anyway -

b) Oppression of Women
-Hijaab - Has its upsides. Men are also oppressed - So what if men are also oppressed? Its less freedom = oppression. - Its not "oppression" its guidance to live the good life. - Guiding is VOLUNTARY, not LAW - Guidance and oppression are a false dichotomy
-deontology again - free to choose hijab and sharia voluntarily - SL IS voluntary, and a lot of ppl convert to SL. Voluntary conversions to Islam are not examples of LAW
-NEW ARGUMENT IN LAST ROUND - Women are more illiterate than men :I

c) Alcohol Prohibition
-Failure - SA released all this other bad stuff, so why would they lie about alcohol? NEW ARGUMENT European evidence - STDs and bad things are caused by too much freedom.
-unintended consequences - Appeal to prohibition theory

d) Economics
-No interest = market screwed - EXTENSION Give me all your money!
- Interest is replaced with honor
- Interest does not benefit the economy Time theory of money etc... What about malaysia and islamic nations themselves?
- Sins allowed out of necessity

2)

a) SL is Harsh
-Borderline sadistic - Historically islams have been oppressed :(
- Who cares - Well its not really "sadism" because they control it.
b) Retributive justice is unsound
-Utilitarian objection - Its an optional last resort - Should NEVER be used. NEW ARGUMENT If its so good, how come we don't superexecute people? (4 eyes for an eye). We can prevent bad things.
-Restorative is superior

3)

a) Eurhtaophho dilemma - All morality is subjective Then god is superfluous to this debate - But god says good things
b) Changing laws.... - Change is good Utilitarian argument requires a very heavy banhammer
-Pork is cool now - Pork has blood which is bad
c) Evidence for Koran?

Decision coming on next post
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 8:34:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
I like JKenyon. I don't like Mirza, but I'll at least respect him because I think he has good effort. So I want to stay on everyone's good side which is why I am writing such a long RFD. I took 3 pages of physical notes so let no one say I vote based on my own opinion!!

My judging philosophy is to just flow all arguments. If they're dropped, they count against the other side. In an ideal world, you POINT OUT THE ARGUMENTS YOUR OPPONENT DROPS AND THEN WEIGH THEM, but that didn't always happen. So while I don't like to use my own judgment, I will probably have to partially weigh arguments myself to decide the round...

I imposed my own tags on my notes... so yes I know JK didn't say "hayekian knowledge problem", but its the most shorthand way for me.

JK is unformatted. Mirza is bolded.

1)

a) Paternalistic
-Negative Rights Criterion - Neg rights are physical and therefore insufficient, examples of abuse - Actually neg rights are conceptual ala NAP - Some innocent things with bad consequences, like slander, should still be prohibited
-Deontological Ethics - total freedom means no morality
-Hayekian Knowledge Problem - Freedom doesn't automatically make you happy
-Some actions are intrinsically bad - This is circular... "good" is subjective anyway -

b) Oppression of Women
-Hijaab - Has its upsides. Men are also oppressed - So what if men are also oppressed? Its less freedom = oppression. - Its not "oppression" its guidance to live the good life. - Guiding is VOLUNTARY, not LAW - Guidance and oppression are a false dichotomy
-deontology again - free to choose hijab and sharia voluntarily - SL IS voluntary, and a lot of ppl convert to SL. Voluntary conversions to Islam are not examples of LAW
-NEW ARGUMENT IN LAST ROUND - Women are more illiterate than men :I

c) Alcohol Prohibition
-Failure - SA released all this other bad stuff, so why would they lie about alcohol? NEW ARGUMENT European evidence - STDs and bad things are caused by too much freedom.
-unintended consequences - Appeal to prohibition theory

d) Economics
-No interest = market screwed - EXTENSION Give me all your money!
- Interest is replaced with honor
- Interest does not benefit the economy Time theory of money etc... What about malaysia and islamic nations themselves?
- Sins allowed out of necessity

2)

a) SL is Harsh
-Borderline sadistic - Historically islams have been oppressed :(
- Who cares - Well its not really "sadism" because they control it.
b) Retributive justice is unsound
-Utilitarian objection - Its an optional last resort - Should NEVER be used. NEW ARGUMENT If its so good, how come we don't superexecute people? (4 eyes for an eye). We can prevent bad things.
-Restorative is superior

3)

a) Eurhtaophho dilemma - All morality is subjective Then god is superfluous to this debate - But god says good things
b) Changing laws.... - Change is good Utilitarian argument requires a very heavy banhammer
-Pork is cool now - Pork has blood which is bad
c) Evidence for Koran?

Decision coming on next post

I haven't even read the entire thing. I read Mirza's first major response, and I couldn't believe how far he was able to twist logic inside out in order to rationalize such a ridiculous set of laws.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:40:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Serious Sieben is Serious.
: 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.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:41:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I haven't even read the entire thing. I read Mirza's first major response, and I couldn't believe how far he was able to twist logic inside out in order to rationalize such a ridiculous set of laws.

As opposed to ad hominems, could you justify your deep-seated hate of Islam, which you clearly know nothing substantial about?
: 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.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:48:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 8:41:56 PM, m93samman wrote:
I haven't even read the entire thing. I read Mirza's first major response, and I couldn't believe how far he was able to twist logic inside out in order to rationalize such a ridiculous set of laws.

As opposed to ad hominems, could you justify your deep-seated hate of Islam, which you clearly know nothing substantial about?

Yeah, I'll explain that when you're able to logically justify your deep-seated hatred of women rights and freedom of expression, which you clearly know nothing substantial about.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:50:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 8:48:06 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:41:56 PM, m93samman wrote:
I haven't even read the entire thing. I read Mirza's first major response, and I couldn't believe how far he was able to twist logic inside out in order to rationalize such a ridiculous set of laws.

As opposed to ad hominems, could you justify your deep-seated hate of Islam, which you clearly know nothing substantial about?

Yeah, I'll explain that when you're able to logically justify your deep-seated hatred of women rights and freedom of expression, which you clearly know nothing substantial about.

If I had any of those characteristics, I would justify for them. Unfortunately, I don't, and neither does shari'a law. Islam was the first religion (Muslims were the first group of people) on earth to honor women to the degree that they do.

Like I said, why the deep-seated hatred of that which you know nothing about?
: 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.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 8:57:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 8:50:34 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:48:06 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:41:56 PM, m93samman wrote:
I haven't even read the entire thing. I read Mirza's first major response, and I couldn't believe how far he was able to twist logic inside out in order to rationalize such a ridiculous set of laws.

As opposed to ad hominems, could you justify your deep-seated hate of Islam, which you clearly know nothing substantial about?

Yeah, I'll explain that when you're able to logically justify your deep-seated hatred of women rights and freedom of expression, which you clearly know nothing substantial about.

If I had any of those characteristics, I would justify for them. Unfortunately, I don't, and neither does shari'a law. Islam was the first religion (Muslims were the first group of people) on earth to honor women to the degree that they do.

Like I said, why the deep-seated hatred of that which you know nothing about?

Forcing a woman to wear a particular piece of clothing is simultaneously a removal of women rights and free expression, which Sharia Law intends to enforce. You were certainly fond of this in the comment section of the debate, so it seems that you DO withhold these characteristics.

You're a proud Muslim who favors Sharia Law. Instead of cowering away from where your values really lie, how about you instead stand up for your convictions? If Western society is so backwards, this should be an easy feat for you to accomplish.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 9:03:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 8:50:34 PM, m93samman wrote:

If I had any of those characteristics, I would justify for them. Unfortunately, I don't, and neither does shari'a law. Islam was the first religion (Muslims were the first group of people) on earth to honor women to the degree that they do.

Like I said, why the deep-seated hatred of that which you know nothing about?

To be fair, Islam did improve the rights of women to those of Pre-Islamic arabia. Unfortunately, that isn't the case so much today. Much of the world has managed to progress while Islamic countries have just stayed the same. Sure, I disagree with the objectification of women in western society and such, but depriving them of rights isn't going to solve that problem either. There needs to be a fair balance. The east and west seem to both be going to extremes on opposite ends of the spectrum. Just my thoughts on the subject...
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 9:05:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 8:57:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:50:34 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:48:06 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:41:56 PM, m93samman wrote:
I haven't even read the entire thing. I read Mirza's first major response, and I couldn't believe how far he was able to twist logic inside out in order to rationalize such a ridiculous set of laws.

As opposed to ad hominems, could you justify your deep-seated hate of Islam, which you clearly know nothing substantial about?

Yeah, I'll explain that when you're able to logically justify your deep-seated hatred of women rights and freedom of expression, which you clearly know nothing substantial about.

If I had any of those characteristics, I would justify for them. Unfortunately, I don't, and neither does shari'a law. Islam was the first religion (Muslims were the first group of people) on earth to honor women to the degree that they do.

Like I said, why the deep-seated hatred of that which you know nothing about?

Forcing a woman to wear a particular piece of clothing is simultaneously a removal of women rights and free expression, which Sharia Law intends to enforce. You were certainly fond of this in the comment section of the debate, so it seems that you DO withhold these characteristics.

You're a proud Muslim who favors Sharia Law. Instead of cowering away from where your values really lie, how about you instead stand up for your convictions? If Western society is so backwards, this should be an easy feat for you to accomplish.

So, you've managed to avoid the question and shift the focus to me. Anyways,

Clothes isn't oppression, unless you'd like to argue that private schools with dress codes are oppressive to children. I had a lecture about this in one of my classes, I don't recall the name of the school... anyways, this school run in Ohio forces students to wear bright red coats and bowties and slacks EVERY day. Their average rate of passing on standardized reading exams is 15% higher or so than every other school in the country.

On a side note, you need to clarify why protection is oppression.

So, after standing up for one conviction that you seem to unjustifiably loathe, it's your turn to actually choose words to make sentences that mean things.

Oh, and Shari'a law isn't absolute, in case that was something else that you didn't know. As I have demonstrated, you know very little.
: 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.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 9:07:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 9:03:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

To be fair, Islam did improve the rights of women to those of Pre-Islamic arabia. Unfortunately, that isn't the case so much today. Much of the world has managed to progress while Islamic countries have just stayed the same. Sure, I disagree with the objectification of women in western society and such, but depriving them of rights isn't going to solve that problem either. There needs to be a fair balance. The east and west seem to both be going to extremes on opposite ends of the spectrum. Just my thoughts on the subject...

Thank you, for your civil contribution to the discussion.

Regarding the bolded, I would argue that you can't really infinitely increase rights; there are only so many rights that you can possibly have. Islam, I feel, very justifiably knows exactly where the limit is.
: 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.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 9:07:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So that was just note taking... here's my analysis

1)

a) Mirza basically trolls JK with tons of arguments. JK doesn't try very hard to rebut Mirza's simple, down to earth "bad things are bad and should be illegal" philosophy.

Kenyon's problem is that he just kind of assumes libertarian law. He should have spent more time developing it and just run the standard defenses of LL... it should have been pretty easy.

Although JK is mute on many of Mirza's challenges, JK points out that Mirza's logic is circular - "Bad things are bad". Mirza doesn't have a defense or articulate a philosophy of when things are bad...

To me, the judge, this results in legal nihilism. I can't even accept Mirza's philosophy on emotional grounds because he repeatedly tells me to ignore emotion elsewhere in the debate :P

So as much beaten up as JK was on this point, it still winds up pretty bad for Mirza. Mirza, like Kenyon, also assumes a moral philosophy without proof. I don't see why I should accept either, therefore no Libertarian Law and no Sharia Law... Since Kenyon's BOP is just to disprove SL, this point goes to him.

b) This is a utilitarian argument coming from Kenyon :P There's a bit of an empirical bitchfest in this round that I have to throw out the window because Kenyon brings up female illiteracy in the last round, when Mirza can't respond to it (which I'm sure he would have been able to. "Women don't need to read cus they cookin")

The most interesting part of this subpoint is in the distinction between oppression and guidance. Kenyon says that guidance is voluntary, not law. Mirza says that something can be both guiding and law at the same time. This is where a definition of LAW would have been helpful... No matter which way this point turns out though it doesn't matter to me as a judge, since I'm already a legal nihilist and don't care about voluntary libertarian law.

c) Mirza makes the somewhat convincing case that the Saudi government probably releases good statistics on drug use. This could have been argued a lot better by kenyon, but so what?

Prohibition theory is largely unanswered by Mirza. Both sides fail to weigh the pros/cons of less (but more dangerous) alcohol consumption.

Kenyon puts up new evidence, citing Europe. Mirza annoyingly says that people get STDs because they have too much freedom. Its just annoying. I'm can't make a vote on it.

D) Economic THEORY goes toootally unanswered by Kenyon. This is a utilitarian argument too... but I can actually vote on this because if Kenyon out utility-s Mirza, Kenyon simultaneously fulfills the libertarian and utilitarian (non)standards.

Stepping back a little, I think the economic argument went way over Mirza's head. Luckily, Kenyon references incentives and time value of money.

Mirza counters with empirical arguments. Kenyon could have easily looked up that malaysia actually does have interest rates :) http://www.tradingeconomics.com... But he didn't so it doesn't factor into my decision.

Mirza says that sins are allowed out of necessity. Kenyon could have blown the sh*t out of this argument because it means there are no laws. He didn't... Mirza doesn't flow this allowance though or apply it directly to the interest case. Indeed, he maintains that zero interest is good for economies, a point which he loses on theoretical grounds.

So since SL prohibits the charging of interest, and because I think Kenyon won the interest point, Kenyon out-utilities Mirza ON THIS POINT.

2) Mirza just kind of says we should always tinker with society to make it better. Kenyon's only real option here would be to critique the incentives and knowledge of the tinkerer. Kenyon has a reductio to the absurd, but since Mirza can tinker with his system to make it better, he can just say "well I won't have bad things in SL"

THIS IS ABUSIVE. Kenyon should have pointed it out. If Mirza is going to change SL if Kenyon finds something really wrong with it, Kenyon can never ever win the debate.

Kenyon should also have pointed out that the tinker theory of law is not unique to SL...

Overall, I don't think Kenyon wins anything on this point.

3)

I hated this point. So what about the nature between god and the koran and SL? Mirza is advocating SL on OTHER grounds. He doesn't use "god says so" in his rebuttal.

This is the point where Kenyon should have really pressed that SL is arbitrary even IF the tinkerer's don't-do-drugs-and-have-sex-once theory of law were correct, it wouldn't have to be SHARIA law. It could be formulated secularly.

Mirza says morality is subjective in response to the Eutuaoslphyo dilemma. Again, Kenyon should have torn Mirza up over this, so I just have to roll with it. Fortunately, if morality is subjective I can just ignore all moral arguments made by either side. I wind up not caring about SL at all.

So I'm voting Kenyon on "most convincing arguments". Kenyon's accusations of moral circularity stick against Mirza, whos otherwise convincing common sense arguments become moot.

I also think Kenyon wins the interest rate point. Kenyon would have done better to go disprove Malaysia having no interest rate, to pose the "give me all your money" challenge sooner, etc. I'm voting off of THEORY because neither side weighs evidence vs theory, and theory is more universal so...

Lastly, Mirza shoots himself in the foot when he says that ethics are subjective. This causes me to become totally nihilistic about the round and wonder why I should prefer LL to SL or vice versa.

I'm giving conduct to Mirza because Kenyon brought up some new arguments in the last round DX.

This debate should have been a lot better. I think Mirza could have been creamed no questions if Kenyon had set up a better case for LL instead of assuming LL and critiquing SL on the basis that it is not LL. Kenyon is only saved because he is able to out-utility Mirza on some points. Note, he doesn't prove that LL is more utilitarian than SL... he proves that some aspects of SL are anti-utilitarian (like interest rates). So if utility had been established as the criterion for the round, I would still vote down SL on the basis that we can formulate a better code of law out of it.
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
11/1/2010 9:09:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 9:07:21 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 11/1/2010 9:03:25 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

To be fair, Islam did improve the rights of women to those of Pre-Islamic arabia. Unfortunately, that isn't the case so much today. Much of the world has managed to progress while Islamic countries have just stayed the same. Sure, I disagree with the objectification of women in western society and such, but depriving them of rights isn't going to solve that problem either. There needs to be a fair balance. The east and west seem to both be going to extremes on opposite ends of the spectrum. Just my thoughts on the subject...

Thank you, for your civil contribution to the discussion.

Regarding the bolded, I would argue that you can't really infinitely increase rights; there are only so many rights that you can possibly have. Islam, I feel, very justifiably knows exactly where the limit is.

I do agree there is a such thing as too much freedom, yes. I'm opposed to both extremes.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 9:28:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 9:05:42 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:57:30 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:50:34 PM, m93samman wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:48:06 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 11/1/2010 8:41:56 PM, m93samman wrote:
I haven't even read the entire thing. I read Mirza's first major response, and I couldn't believe how far he was able to twist logic inside out in order to rationalize such a ridiculous set of laws.

As opposed to ad hominems, could you justify your deep-seated hate of Islam, which you clearly know nothing substantial about?

Yeah, I'll explain that when you're able to logically justify your deep-seated hatred of women rights and freedom of expression, which you clearly know nothing substantial about.

If I had any of those characteristics, I would justify for them. Unfortunately, I don't, and neither does shari'a law. Islam was the first religion (Muslims were the first group of people) on earth to honor women to the degree that they do.

Like I said, why the deep-seated hatred of that which you know nothing about?

Forcing a woman to wear a particular piece of clothing is simultaneously a removal of women rights and free expression, which Sharia Law intends to enforce. You were certainly fond of this in the comment section of the debate, so it seems that you DO withhold these characteristics.

You're a proud Muslim who favors Sharia Law. Instead of cowering away from where your values really lie, how about you instead stand up for your convictions? If Western society is so backwards, this should be an easy feat for you to accomplish.

So, you've managed to avoid the question and shift the focus to me. Anyways,

I've stated early on that I will be demanding a sufficiently logical answer from you before I put forth my problems with Islam, which I will get to.

Clothes isn't oppression, unless you'd like to argue that private schools with dress codes are oppressive to children. I had a lecture about this in one of my classes, I don't recall the name of the school... anyways, this school run in Ohio forces students to wear bright red coats and bowties and slacks EVERY day. Their average rate of passing on standardized reading exams is 15% higher or so than every other school in the country.

People *choose* to attend private schools, so this example is not analogous. Sharia Law will impose a particular garment for women to wear, regardless of whether they want to wear it or not. This, by definition, rips women of the right to express themselves how they please, and because it targets women alone, it also becomes an issue of women rights.

On a side note, you need to clarify why protection is oppression.

Protection isn't always a form of oppression in my view, for I support public police, which rely upon involuntary taxation. However, you have yet to establish how this stupid dress "protects" women. All you've done is cite higher test scores in private schools, which has little to do with the dress code anyway.
LiquidLiquid
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2010 9:58:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here's a suggestion, and I'm not really taking a side here:

Sharia law is voluntary, and only applies to Muslims. And for the libertarians/anarchists: who says Sharia Law has to be put into effect by a government? Assume a state of anarchy: Do you think law would be libertarian? Not necessarily. You would probably have many different legal systems running at once. It wouldn't be government if it was voluntary. I mean, Somalian xeer law is sharia influenced.

How about we live and let live?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:12:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/1/2010 9:05:42 PM, m93samman wrote:
Clothes isn't oppression, unless you'd like to argue that private schools with dress codes are oppressive to children. I had a lecture about this in one of my classes, I don't recall the name of the school... anyways, this school run in Ohio forces students to wear bright red coats and bowties and slacks EVERY day. Their average rate of passing on standardized reading exams is 15% higher or so than every other school in the country.

This doesn't work when you don't believe life is a test in the same way as a Theist.

You present an example of children 'forced' to wear a uniform and show that they have much higher acedemic percentage BUT you can't show any evidence that living under Sharia law improves your chance of going to Heaven or any overwelming proof that remotely suggests it improves living standard.

Of course us unenlightened heathens prefer chicks with boobs sticking out as opposed to women wearing cloths that hide 100% of their identity.

First impressions mean so much in western social psychology. How much more difficult it is to get an impression of someone's when you can't see their facial expressions.

Instant, subconcious prejudice, at the very least.

...

And you know this.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:26:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 1:12:52 AM, tvellalott wrote:

This doesn't work when you don't believe life is a test in the same way as a Theist.

You present an example of children 'forced' to wear a uniform and show that they have much higher acedemic percentage BUT you can't show any evidence that living under Sharia law improves your chance of going to Heaven or any overwelming proof that remotely suggests it improves living standard.

Of course us unenlightened heathens prefer chicks with boobs sticking out as opposed to women wearing cloths that hide 100% of their identity.

First impressions mean so much in western social psychology. How much more difficult it is to get an impression of someone's when you can't see their facial expressions.

Instant, subconcious prejudice, at the very least.

...

And you know this.

You know, my mom made that very same argument, or at least a similar one once. She was like "How do you know you can trust the person when they're covered up?" And no, I don't think it would make a difference for a Muslim whether they live under Shari'a Law or not. I don't think it would have any affect on whether they believe they go to heaven or not. It's really just a system of governce based on Islamic morality. If there's certain things they don't like maybe they just shouldn't do those things. For example, if you don't like pork then don't eat it. Simple.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 1:32:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
In my defense...

At 11/1/2010 8:34:47 PM, Sieben wrote:
I like JKenyon. I don't like Mirza, but I'll at least respect him because I think he has good effort. So I want to stay on everyone's good side which is why I am writing such a long RFD. I took 3 pages of physical notes so let no one say I vote based on my own opinion!!

My judging philosophy is to just flow all arguments. If they're dropped, they count against the other side. In an ideal world, you POINT OUT THE ARGUMENTS YOUR OPPONENT DROPS AND THEN WEIGH THEM, but that didn't always happen. So while I don't like to use my own judgment, I will probably have to partially weigh arguments myself to decide the round...

I imposed my own tags on my notes... so yes I know JK didn't say "hayekian knowledge problem", but its the most shorthand way for me.

JK is unformatted. Mirza is bolded.

1)

a) Paternalistic
-Negative Rights Criterion - Neg rights are physical and therefore insufficient, examples of abuse - Actually neg rights are conceptual ala NAP - Some innocent things with bad consequences, like slander, should still be prohibited
-Deontological Ethics - total freedom means no morality
-Hayekian Knowledge Problem - Freedom doesn't automatically make you happy
-Some actions are intrinsically bad - This is circular... "good" is subjective anyway -
I defined "good" by determining that it is the contrary of harm.

b) Oppression of Women
-Hijaab - Has its upsides. Men are also oppressed - So what if men are also oppressed? Its less freedom = oppression. - Its not "oppression" its guidance to live the good life. - Guiding is VOLUNTARY, not LAW - Guidance and oppression are a false dichotomy
-deontology again - free to choose hijab and sharia voluntarily - SL IS voluntary, and a lot of ppl convert to SL. Voluntary conversions to Islam are not examples of LAW
The "men also have tasks" was a response to sexism. I clearly won that argument. I never said "men are also oppressed, therefore neither men nor women are actually oppressed." That would be a bad argument. I said that there is no sexism involved in the laws.

-NEW ARGUMENT IN LAST ROUND - Women are more illiterate than men :I
I had little characters space. I almost had no left in the end actually. Nevertheless, that argument is not a proper attack on Shari'a Law. Women are allowed to get an education, and just because some poor countries who claim to be Islamic do not follow the law properly doesn't mean that it is due to Shari'a at all.

c) Alcohol Prohibition
-Failure - SA released all this other bad stuff, so why would they lie about alcohol? NEW ARGUMENT European evidence - STDs and bad things are caused by too much freedom.
-unintended consequences - Appeal to prohibition theory
My statistics on drug trafficking was in no way related to alcohol prohibition. Why people misunderstand this over and over again is fairly interesting. It was a response to the fact that J.Kenyon said that "the Saudi government doesn't release crime statistics."

d) Economics
-No interest = market screwed - EXTENSION Give me all your money!
- Interest is replaced with honor
- Interest does not benefit the economy Time theory of money etc... What about malaysia and islamic nations themselves?
- Sins allowed out of necessity
Yes.

2)

a) SL is Harsh
-Borderline sadistic - Historically islams have been oppressed :(
- Who cares - Well its not really "sadism" because they control it.
Elaborate.

b) Retributive justice is unsound
-Utilitarian objection - Its an optional last resort - Should NEVER be used. NEW ARGUMENT If its so good, how come we don't superexecute people? (4 eyes for an eye). We can prevent bad things.
-Restorative is superior
I responded fairly. There is no unsoundness with retributive justice.

3)

a) Eurhtaophho dilemma - All morality is subjective Then god is superfluous to this debate - But god says good things
b) Changing laws.... - Change is good Utilitarian argument requires a very heavy banhammer
-Pork is cool now - Pork has blood which is bad
c) Evidence for Koran?
a) Proving that the law is not bad when both of us are arguing from a moral perspective doesn't actually require me to prove God's existence and involvement.
b) Yes.
c) The blood does not flow out when killing the swine, and blood is prohibited in Islam.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 2:26:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here's my RFD. Not as detailed as Sieben, but hopefully informative of how I saw the round. Feel free to ask me any questions and I'll clarify.

Grammar

I've limited my grammar in-depth RFD to three consecutive early paragraphs from Mirza's first round:
"As for beach" – missing "the"
"The prohibition on intoxicants are highly effective" – should be "is" not "are"
"The government releases crime statistics as good as can be" – should be "well" not "good"
"to prevent too regretful deeds" – missing an "of"
"I hardly doubt they are many" – should be "I hardly think" or "I doubt"

J. Kenyon makes a few grammatical mistakes, but they are not as widespread.

Unsourced claims by Mirza: Sun lotions are not entirely safe (and might cause cancer, as some scientists have said)
And pork can gives over 50 types of diseases.

But I don't think either merits giving away the source point. It wasn't extremely noticeable that one person had higher quality sources.

Note: Mirza, I don't consider it valid to refer me to another debate since there is a character limit for a reason.
Note: I also don't read any of the sources that are linked by either side, since I think sources should be explained in the debate.

No good refutation to the paternalism principle being bad

Justice
Retribution – deterrent effect on theft => goes to Mirza (cites statistics)
Restitution => goes to J. Kenyon (more beneficial to society if victim gets paid back)
Recidivism => new argument in the last speech, thus disregarded

Euthyphro Dilemma – compelling but not sure how this ties back to the resolution. If I am convinced by J. Kenyon that Shari'a is determined by man, not God, does that really mean it's not a good moral system? This is why I need to know the rez. I don't think Mirza answers this well – he concedes that if God mandates something because it is good that there must be some moral code external to God meaning God is not the ultimate source of morality. But Mirza severs out of this: "Why do I even have to prove that Shari'a is from God?"

Libertarianism
Goes to Mirza since J. Kenyon never answers how racism would be prevented under his moral system.

Death for bullying to the point of suicide
Goes to J. Kenyon – he was clearly trying to apply this argument to the "eye for an eye" aspect of Shari'a. This would be pretty absurd.

Mirza's education example is a compelling example of how we need to be forced to do things that we might not want to do. J. Kenyon does, however, offer analysis as to how parents can force their children to do things under his moral system.

Interest payments
Clear win here for J. Kenyon, mostly because I refuse to read sources. Mirza doesn't offer much of an argument besides offering URLs. J. Kenyon provides clear analysis as to how there is a time value to money, which should be represented by interest payments. Mirza has no answer to JK's argument that interest increases the availability of loans.

Although Mirza does defend that societies can function without interest, that doesn't mean he meets the BOP of defending Shari'a law. Something can be illogical and an inferior system but still be functional to some extent.

Pork

Goes to J. Kenyon. He cited evidence that uric acid levels are higher in other types of meat. He also provides analysis that people should eat what they want, taking risks into account.

Overall

Hard to judge – no weighing mechanism. No way to even determine whether something is good or bad. Is abortion bad? Is someone being racist bad? I'm asked to rely on my own beliefs on these and many other examples, instead of the debaters offering a moral system for me to judge these examples against. How do I, as a judge, decide which things must be outlawed and which things must be allowed?

Only J. Kenyon, in what feels like a fractured sort of way, provides much of an answer to this question – allow anything that does not violate the rights of others. J. Kenyon's moral system feels incomplete, but he put the BOP on Mirza of justifying Shari'a, so he shouldn't have to completely prove that his morality is superior.

J. Kenyon won that God is not the source of Shari'a's moral authority, since there is some "good" that is external to God. Without falling back on God, Shari'a thus seems like an arbitrary system that has no logical justification for outlawing pork and interest payments - issues, which again, J. Kenyon won.

That's the easiest "out" for me. Everything else is extremely messy.

So all of the above explains my argumentation vote in favor of J. Kenyon.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 2:42:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
bluesteel, I do not want to go too deep into my defense because people have their own opinions and that is it.

However, some points against me are really too weak. For instance, I clearly refuted the uric acid argument in the last round. I said that the blood does not flow out, hence the components remain in the meat. When chickens are slaughtered, the blood flows out, removing all the harmful material. Blood is not healthy. So the pork argument is on my side.

Some points like interest and Divine Command Theory, if I made my own arguments for the former instead of citing sources, I would have no space for other arguments because the topic is broad, and I would still lose arguments conduct because J.Kenyon's arguments would stand unrebutted. Is it my fault? No. I did what I could regarding space char.

As for grammar & spelling, I think it's a tie. Overall, mine was fine but some typos always happen, and sometimes my browser delays when I write.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 3:16:33 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 2:42:28 AM, Mirza wrote:
bluesteel, I do not want to go too deep into my defense because people have their own opinions and that is it.

I don't know why you feel the need to defend yourself. You did a good job too.

However, some points against me are really too weak. For instance, I clearly refuted the uric acid argument in the last round. I said that the blood does not flow out, hence the components remain in the meat. When chickens are slaughtered, the blood flows out, removing all the harmful material. Blood is not healthy. So the pork argument is on my side.

It's only logical to assume J. Kenyon's source would take measurements of uric acid in post-slaughtered animal meat. Even if the blood stays inside the animal, J. Kenyon's sourced argument proves that uric acid levels are still lower in pigs than chickens, etc.

Some points like interest and Divine Command Theory, if I made my own arguments for the former instead of citing sources, I would have no space for other arguments because the topic is broad, and I would still lose arguments conduct because J.Kenyon's arguments would stand unrebutted. Is it my fault? No. I did what I could regarding space char.

Sorry...running out of characters sucks. You probably should have gone first so you could fully offer your own case.

But it's really not within my rights to read your sources. This defeats the purpose of having character constraints. It also defeats the point of debate - your sources may be far more convincing than you are.

As for grammar & spelling, I think it's a tie. Overall, mine was fine but some typos always happen, and sometimes my browser delays when I write.

Beyond the multiple mistakes I listed (only from a few paragraphs in your first round), you corrected a number of other ones in the comments section, so I'm a little surprised you'd argue this. Your spelling/grammar weren't atrocious but J.Kenyon's was clearly better in this debate than yours.

On a completely separate note from the debate and my decision, I just researched your pig slaughter claim because I found it hard to believe that they leave the blood in the pig (and I wanted to know if I was really eating that sh!t). You're just wrong Mirza. http://www.hyfoma.com...
Although pig's may not have clearly defined necks, they have the same carotid artery in their neck areas and will bleed out like any other animal when it is severed, as the source above explains.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 6:09:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 1:32:24 AM, Mirza wrote:
I defined "good" by determining that it is the contrary of harm.
I
The "men also have tasks" was a response to sexism. I clearly won that argument. I never said "men are also oppressed, therefore neither men nor women are actually oppressed." That would be a bad argument. I said that there is no sexism involved in the laws.
Okay. It doesn't change much. I don't flow it for Kenyon anyway.

-NEW ARGUMENT IN LAST ROUND - Women are more illiterate than men :I
I had little characters space. I almost had no left in the end actually. Nevertheless, that argument is not a proper attack on Shari'a Law. Women are allowed to get an education, and just because some poor countries who claim to be Islamic do not follow the law properly doesn't mean that it is due to Shari'a at all.
Right. Its HIS faux paus, not yours. He brought up the new evidence. He should have presented it in the first round.

My statistics on drug trafficking was in no way related to alcohol prohibition. Why people misunderstand this over and over again is fairly interesting. It was a response to the fact that J.Kenyon said that "the Saudi government doesn't release crime statistics."
Yeah I actually flowed this issue to you. I thought you rebutted his objections well.

a) SL is Harsh
-Borderline sadistic - Historically islams have been oppressed :(
- Who cares - Well its not really "sadism" because they control it.
Elaborate.
I didn't vote on this issue. No one told me I should care if legislators get off on law enforcement.
b) Retributive justice is unsound
-Utilitarian objection - Its an optional last resort - Should NEVER be used. NEW ARGUMENT If its so good, how come we don't superexecute people? (4 eyes for an eye). We can prevent bad things.
-Restorative is superior
I responded fairly. There is no unsoundness with retributive justice.
You did. I didn't vote based on my opinion of Retributive justice.
3)

a) Eurhtaophho dilemma - All morality is subjective Then god is superfluous to this debate - But god says good things
b) Changing laws.... - Change is good Utilitarian argument requires a very heavy banhammer
-Pork is cool now - Pork has blood which is bad
c) Evidence for Koran?
a) Proving that the law is not bad when both of us are arguing from a moral perspective doesn't actually require me to prove God's existence and involvement.
Exactly right.
b) Yes.
c) The blood does not flow out when killing the swine, and blood is prohibited in Islam.
I certainly did not vote on this issue :)
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
11/2/2010 7:20:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
As for sources, I can see nothing in J.Kenyon's which is more authentic than that of any of my sources. Firstly, it is about quality, not quantity, as the voting point clearly says - "reliable sources." Secondly, some sources like http://madmikesamerica.com... was actually to help J.Kenyon. His link did not work, so I replaced it. Is that bad? No. Moving on, some of his sources like http://www.fallacyfiles.org... are nothing special at all. I see nothing in them which is better than any of my sources.

I put pictures as sources, yes. I put statistics as sources, yes. Moreover, there was nothing in J.Kenyon's sources which I would have to rebut. I actually did address the argument about freedom, which he supported using an external reference. However, he didn't debunk either my statistics, or even my links which proved that an economy can be successful without interest. He himself could have attacked the sources or posted counter-sources, which he didn't do. Therefore, there is nothing on his side with which he deserves the votes on sources.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 7:37:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't expect this to affect anyone's judging, since I didn't bring it up in the debate, but the reason for the DCT/Revelation/Euthyphro stuff was because of the specifically religious aspects of Shari'a, like stoning apostates. I've been ridiculously busy and I wrote the last round in about an hour. Mirza threw a crapload of silly arguments at me in the second round, so I had a hard time getting around to everything and I forgot to mention that bit.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 7:39:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 7:37:42 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I don't expect this to affect anyone's judging, since I didn't bring it up in the debate, but the reason for the DCT/Revelation/Euthyphro stuff was because of the specifically religious aspects of Shari'a, like stoning apostates. I've been ridiculously busy and I wrote the last round in about an hour. Mirza threw a crapload of silly arguments at me in the second round, so I had a hard time getting around to everything and I forgot to mention that bit.
Treason is usually punished with capital punishment, and it is not religious.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 7:44:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 7:39:03 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/2/2010 7:37:42 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I don't expect this to affect anyone's judging, since I didn't bring it up in the debate, but the reason for the DCT/Revelation/Euthyphro stuff was because of the specifically religious aspects of Shari'a, like stoning apostates. I've been ridiculously busy and I wrote the last round in about an hour. Mirza threw a crapload of silly arguments at me in the second round, so I had a hard time getting around to everything and I forgot to mention that bit.
Treason is usually punished with capital punishment, and it is not religious.

Yes it is, treason is, by definition, a betrayal of one's country; apostasy is leaving one's religion. Do you think Christian families should be allowed to stone their children for converting to Islam? Besides, you're forgetting, I'm a libertarian, I'm pro-treason.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2010 7:51:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/2/2010 7:44:23 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 11/2/2010 7:39:03 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 11/2/2010 7:37:42 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I don't expect this to affect anyone's judging, since I didn't bring it up in the debate, but the reason for the DCT/Revelation/Euthyphro stuff was because of the specifically religious aspects of Shari'a, like stoning apostates. I've been ridiculously busy and I wrote the last round in about an hour. Mirza threw a crapload of silly arguments at me in the second round, so I had a hard time getting around to everything and I forgot to mention that bit.
Treason is usually punished with capital punishment, and it is not religious.

Yes it is, treason is, by definition, a betrayal of one's country; apostasy is leaving one's religion. Do you think Christian families should be allowed to stone their children for converting to Islam? Besides, you're forgetting, I'm a libertarian, I'm pro-treason.

Libertarians are pro-treason? Assuming you are being tongue in cheek.