Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Any Decent Voters Out There?

YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:02:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:07:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:02:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

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

- I want Voters to be cautious, because you feed of their gullibility. I don't understand it, it's like a spell you cast on them & they go blind, you just say "it's certain", & they are all certain that it's certain.

- I also want them to know what they judging before they do.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:06:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

cant vote...
Never fart near dog
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:10:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:06:11 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

cant vote...

- Yeah, I think your Elo must be above 2,000 or something. :(
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:50:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:07:24 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:02:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

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

- I want Voters to be cautious, because you feed of their gullibility. I don't understand it, it's like a spell you cast on them & they go blind, you just say "it's certain", & they are all certain that it's certain.

- I also want them to know what they judging before they do.

Yes, that's called poisoning the well, which is a blatently dishonest move. You ask for non bias voters, and you introduce bias by saying things I cannot defend against in the debate.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:50:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:07:24 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 10:02:17 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

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

- I want Voters to be cautious, because you feed of their gullibility. I don't understand it, it's like a spell you cast on them & they go blind, you just say "it's certain", & they are all certain that it's certain.

- I also want them to know what they judging before they do.

Yes, that's called poisoning the well, which is a blatently dishonest move. You ask for non bias voters, and you introduce bias by saying things I cannot defend against in the debate.

Why did you put up a thread asking if anyone wanted to do a Google Hangout with you?
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 12:58:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:50:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
Yes, that's called poisoning the well, which is a blatently dishonest move. You ask for non bias voters, and you introduce bias by saying things I cannot defend against in the debate.

- No, it's not dishonest. My points are there to make the voters alert & not fall for any cheap tricks, & that works against both of us. If they are going to actually check the sources, they are going to do it for both of us. & if they are going to check the proofs, they'll do it for both of us.

- If you were really honest in the debate then you shouldn't fear the voters may find what I say to be true.

- Plus, I am not even sure this would work. You can't blame me for wanting honest voting.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:25:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:58:10 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:50:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
Yes, that's called poisoning the well, which is a blatently dishonest move. You ask for non bias voters, and you introduce bias by saying things I cannot defend against in the debate.

- No, it's not dishonest. My points are there to make the voters alert & not fall for any cheap tricks, & that works against both of us. If they are going to actually check the sources, they are going to do it for both of us. & if they are going to check the proofs, they'll do it for both of us.

- If you were really honest in the debate then you shouldn't fear the voters may find what I say to be true.

- Plus, I am not even sure this would work. You can't blame me for wanting honest voting.

You called his sources false links and bad translations. That's incredibly dishonest. If you were trying to be honest, you'd just implore everyone to carefully review the evidence. This is pretty low. At least on my account, you're fortunate that I can't vote because I'd be inclined to vote against you for such a dirty play.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,928
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Envisage stop casting spells on people.

Yassine you should've expected to be the underdog in that debate. Marriage between a 9 year old and a 50 year old is not intuitively a "good" thing so most people's presuppositions are automatically against you from the onset.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 1:37:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:25:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:10 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:50:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
Yes, that's called poisoning the well, which is a blatently dishonest move. You ask for non bias voters, and you introduce bias by saying things I cannot defend against in the debate.

- No, it's not dishonest. My points are there to make the voters alert & not fall for any cheap tricks, & that works against both of us. If they are going to actually check the sources, they are going to do it for both of us. & if they are going to check the proofs, they'll do it for both of us.

- If you were really honest in the debate then you shouldn't fear the voters may find what I say to be true.

- Plus, I am not even sure this would work. You can't blame me for wanting honest voting.

You called his sources false links and bad translations. That's incredibly dishonest. If you were trying to be honest, you'd just implore everyone to carefully review the evidence. This is pretty low. At least on my account, you're fortunate that I can't vote because I'd be inclined to vote against you for such a dirty play.

- I stated facts, I didn't make up anything:
> http://archives.drugabuse.gov... <<< a none working source.
> "If the religion allows it, then we can't legislate against it." <<< An inexistent source.
> http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source.

=> Go, check them yourself.

- I am imploring the Voters to Check the Sources. Saying that some of Envisage's sources are false doesn't make me dishonest, because that's a fact. As I said, you can check them yourself.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 2:38:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 12:10:50 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:06:11 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

cant vote...

- Yeah, I think your Elo must be above 2,000 or something. :(

But who cares man anyone with non-prejudice mind will vote for you in my humble opinion, and im not saying it becasue im a muslim its about the debate..
Never fart near dog
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 2:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:35:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Envisage stop casting spells on people.

Yassine you should've expected to be the underdog in that debate. Marriage between a 9 year old and a 50 year old is not intuitively a "good" thing so most people's presuppositions are automatically against you from the onset.

- I know, I even noticed that the RFDs in the current votes discuss exclusively Pedophilia, which was Envisage's argument against me, & none of them discuss any of the 100 arguments I advances. The prejudice & bias is clear & it blinds & shuts off everything that contradict it.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 3:32:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:35:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Envisage stop casting spells on people.

Sorry, I never got my letter to Hogwarts though so it's tough to control my powers sometimes.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 3:39:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:37:33 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:25:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:10 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:50:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
Yes, that's called poisoning the well, which is a blatently dishonest move. You ask for non bias voters, and you introduce bias by saying things I cannot defend against in the debate.

- No, it's not dishonest. My points are there to make the voters alert & not fall for any cheap tricks, & that works against both of us. If they are going to actually check the sources, they are going to do it for both of us. & if they are going to check the proofs, they'll do it for both of us.

- If you were really honest in the debate then you shouldn't fear the voters may find what I say to be true.

- Plus, I am not even sure this would work. You can't blame me for wanting honest voting.

You called his sources false links and bad translations. That's incredibly dishonest. If you were trying to be honest, you'd just implore everyone to carefully review the evidence. This is pretty low. At least on my account, you're fortunate that I can't vote because I'd be inclined to vote against you for such a dirty play.

- I stated facts, I didn't make up anything:
> http://archives.drugabuse.gov... <<< a none working source.
> "If the religion allows it, then we can't legislate against it." <<< An inexistent source.
> http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source.

=> Go, check them yourself.

- I am imploring the Voters to Check the Sources. Saying that some of Envisage's sources are false doesn't make me dishonest, because that's a fact. As I said, you can check them yourself.

"http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source." - Why is this a fake source?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 3:44:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are often votes we don't like or disagree with. Welcome to DDO, brah.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Harikrish
Posts: 11,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 3:50:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 2:50:21 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:35:27 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Envisage stop casting spells on people.

Yassine you should've expected to be the underdog in that debate. Marriage between a 9 year old and a 50 year old is not intuitively a "good" thing so most people's presuppositions are automatically against you from the onset.

- I know, I even noticed that the RFDs in the current votes discuss exclusively Pedophilia, which was Envisage's argument against me, & none of them discuss any of the 100 arguments I advances. The prejudice & bias is clear & it blinds & shuts off everything that contradict it.

Pedophilia is a serious crime and being an illiterate Arab is hardly an excuse. This is why I credit the illiterate prophet for creating 800 million illiterate Muslims out of the 1.4 billion. When Muslims are encouraged to follow the prophets example and marry girls at such an early age, they force the girls to remain illiterate. Tbe children of illiterate parents don't do very well and are disadvantaged.
The prophet married Aisha when she was just 6 and he was 54 years old. She could not have children because the prophet must have ruined her productive organs forcing her to consummate their marriage. It is believe she poisoned the prophet. Most Muslim child brides don't have that option.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 4:15:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 3:39:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
"http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source." - Why is this a fake source?

- Envisage claimed this:
"Narrated Jabir b. 'Abdullah: "Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him byslapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this."

> & he provided the link (http://sunnah.com...) as source, which obviously does not contain any of his claims, which makes it a fake source to deceive readers that the claim is real. & he lied about it 3 time in the debate, probably hoping no one will check!
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 4:27:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 4:15:19 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:39:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
"http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source." - Why is this a fake source?

- Envisage claimed this:
"Narrated Jabir b. 'Abdullah: "Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him byslapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this."

> & he provided the link (http://sunnah.com...) as source, which obviously does not contain any of his claims, which makes it a fake source to deceive readers that the claim is real. & he lied about it 3 time in the debate, probably hoping no one will check!

OIC
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 5:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 4:27:43 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 3/6/2015 4:15:19 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:39:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
"http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source." - Why is this a fake source?

- Envisage claimed this:
"Narrated Jabir b. 'Abdullah: "Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him byslapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this."

> & he provided the link (http://sunnah.com...) as source, which obviously does not contain any of his claims, which makes it a fake source to deceive readers that the claim is real. & he lied about it 3 time in the debate, probably hoping no one will check!

OIC

- Yep :)
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 5:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 4:15:19 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:39:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
"http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source." - Why is this a fake source?

- Envisage claimed this:
"Narrated Jabir b. 'Abdullah: "Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him byslapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this."

> & he provided the link (http://sunnah.com...) as source, which obviously does not contain any of his claims, which makes it a fake source to deceive readers that the claim is real. & he lied about it 3 time in the debate, probably hoping no one will check!

Oh, so that's what you meant. It's nit a fake source then, it's a non-supportive source.ma false source is to state that a source is fabricated, or created by some manner. However your problem is with the source use. When you say "it doesn't exist", most people (including myself) think you sappare saying the entire hadith #3506 doesn't exist, which of course makes no sense to me or to anyone else.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 5:35:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 5:30:48 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 3/6/2015 4:15:19 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 3:39:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
"http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source." - Why is this a fake source?

- Envisage claimed this:
"Narrated Jabir b. 'Abdullah: "Muhammad's father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him byslapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this."

> & he provided the link (http://sunnah.com...) as source, which obviously does not contain any of his claims, which makes it a fake source to deceive readers that the claim is real. & he lied about it 3 time in the debate, probably hoping no one will check!

Oh, so that's what you meant. It's nit a fake source then, it's a non-supportive source.ma false source is to state that a source is fabricated, or created by some manner. However your problem is with the source use. When you say "it doesn't exist", most people (including myself) think you sappare saying the entire hadith #3506 doesn't exist, which of course makes no sense to me or to anyone else.

- I admit my use of English is a hindrance sometimes, nonetheless a source has to be checked regardless if the opponent contest it or not.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 8:03:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for.

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

At 3/6/2015 12:58:10 PM, YassineB wrote:

- No, it's not dishonest. My points are there to make the voters alert & not fall for any cheap tricks, & that works against both of us.

It's funny, what you wish to warn others of is exactly what you did to Envisage. Cheap tricks. How very dishonest.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:56:33 AM, YassineB wrote:
- My debate with Envisage is currently in voting period:

> The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good:
* http://www.debate.org...

- & I am looking for honest voters who are unbiased about the subject, if you are biased, then please don't vote. Voters must actually read the entire debate, including the sources, or else, shouldn't vote.

- This thread will also serve as a discussion about the debate itself & the RFDs of the voters.

* Warnings:

1. The Resolution requires a Shared Sufficient BOP, & thus both parties are subject to the same Rule. I noticed that the current votes don't mention my arguments or my rebuttals at all, as if I didn't give any, & talk solely about Envisage's arguments & rebuttals. So, please keep that in mind.

2. Most of Envisage's sources are either false links, or false translations, or unreliable inauthentic sources, or don't qualify as sources, or don't support what they were sourced for, or literally speak against what they were sourced for. So, please CHECK THE SOURCES.

Eg. Envisage suggests that Muhammad should've adopted Aisha as was customary in their time, & provided this source as evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
> If anyone actually checked the source, they would realise that it negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam"

3. Most of Envisage's arguments (if not all) are bare assertions, such as: "it's almost certain", "it is evident that" , "it is undisputed that" , "we can all agree " , "clearly". . . While reading, if you see statements such as these, ask yourselves: why?

Eg. Envisage says: "it is virtually impossible for Pro or myself to affirm what the relationship was either way. We can both agree that Muhammad and Aisha were sexually attracted to each other, and this would explain virtually every single Hadith Pro presented equally well"
=> Why is that the case? <<< You notice Envisage didn't argue for this, or establish it, he just asserted it as truth.

4. Envisage's main argument is Pedophilia, & is based on the idea that the Marriage was for sexual purposes. So, please check for Envisage's proof for this, & for my refutation (which includes showing that the purpose of the Marriage has nothing to do with the age or virginity of Aisha, nor with sex, & has everything to do with other decent purposes).

This is absolutely horrible conduct. You're telling voters how they should read the debate. That's completely inappropriate.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 10:02:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 1:37:33 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 1:25:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:58:10 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 12:50:28 PM, Envisage wrote:
Yes, that's called poisoning the well, which is a blatently dishonest move. You ask for non bias voters, and you introduce bias by saying things I cannot defend against in the debate.

- No, it's not dishonest. My points are there to make the voters alert & not fall for any cheap tricks, & that works against both of us. If they are going to actually check the sources, they are going to do it for both of us. & if they are going to check the proofs, they'll do it for both of us.

- If you were really honest in the debate then you shouldn't fear the voters may find what I say to be true.

- Plus, I am not even sure this would work. You can't blame me for wanting honest voting.

You called his sources false links and bad translations. That's incredibly dishonest. If you were trying to be honest, you'd just implore everyone to carefully review the evidence. This is pretty low. At least on my account, you're fortunate that I can't vote because I'd be inclined to vote against you for such a dirty play.

- I stated facts, I didn't make up anything:
> http://archives.drugabuse.gov... <<< a none working source.

I don't see that citation anywhere in the debate. Maybe you can quote some of the surrounding text?

> "If the religion allows it, then we can't legislate against it." <<< An inexistent source.

Then ask him to cite it in the debate. Don't whine about it outside of the debate while panhandling for votes.

> http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source.

Like he said, it just isn't supportive. Again, something to address during the debate rather than after the fact when you're losing. It just looks petty.

=> Go, check them yourself.

- I am imploring the Voters to Check the Sources. Saying that some of Envisage's sources are false doesn't make me dishonest, because that's a fact. As I said, you can check them yourself.

It's poisoning the well. And you didn't originally say "some" of his sources were bad. The implication, without specifying, is that all, or at least most, are bad. I suppose English not being your first language is an acceptable excuse for the language misunderstanding, but this behavior should obviously be wrong no matter what language you speak. Address problems during the debate. After, just ask for votes and encourage folks to be thorough. Continuing to attack your opponent afterward is just wrong on so many levels.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 11:25:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 9:17:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is absolutely horrible conduct. You're telling voters how they should read the debate. That's completely inappropriate.

- Yeah, I am telling Voters to actually read the entire debate, check the sources, & look out for logical fallacies, => Horrible conduct!

- If the Voters (some of them) just read the entire debate, they wouldn't have lied about stuff that didn't even happen in the debate, which clearly indicate that they didn't read the debate at all.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 11:31:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 11:25:41 PM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 9:17:59 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
This is absolutely horrible conduct. You're telling voters how they should read the debate. That's completely inappropriate.

- Yeah, I am telling Voters to actually read the entire debate, check the sources, & look out for logical fallacies, => Horrible conduct!


No, you're telling voters how to vote.

- If the Voters (some of them) just read the entire debate, they wouldn't have lied about stuff that didn't even happen in the debate, which clearly indicate that they didn't read the debate at all.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:08:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 10:02:34 PM, Burzmali wrote:
> http://archives.drugabuse.gov... <<< a none working source.

I don't see that citation anywhere in the debate. Maybe you can quote some of the surrounding text?

- To expand, in virtually every aspect of PTSD, the risk factors are increased tremendously, especially when sex is taken into account, where this essentially doubles an already massively increased risk.[ http://www.nida.nih.gov... ]
=> Click on the link, it's gonna send you to this:
http://archives.drugabuse.gov...

> "If the religion allows it, then we can't legislate against it." <<< An inexistent source.

Then ask him to cite it in the debate. Don't whine about it outside of the debate while panhandling for votes.

- You'd know I did, if you read the debate.

> http://sunnah.com... <<< a fake source.

Like he said, it just isn't supportive. Again, something to address during the debate rather than after the fact when you're losing. It just looks petty.

- Potato, potato. He used a source that isn't to support a claim he made, that's both dishonest & fraudulent.
- Again if you read the debate, you'll realise I specifically asked for the source.

=> Go, check them yourself.

- I am imploring the Voters to Check the Sources. Saying that some of Envisage's sources are false doesn't make me dishonest, because that's a fact. As I said, you can check them yourself.

It's poisoning the well. And you didn't originally say "some" of his sources were bad.

-- I said most are bad, & some are flat out false.

The implication, without specifying, is that all, or at least most, are bad.

- Yes they are, here is a list:

> Envisage introduced 2 sources about the Marriage itself:
1. A bad translation of an account related by Aisha where Muhammad allegedly hits her, which I refuted by both bringing the correct translation & showing that his is false for it contradicts Aisha"s (& other"s) own testimony.

2. An inexistent account he made up & lied about 3 times on the debate, & did not provide any source for it, just a false link: http://sunnah.com... that does not mention any of his claims, which must be penalised.

3. & a series of Hadiths & verses cut out of context, unrelated to the Marriage, & not linked.

> He also introduced other dubious sources, such as:

4. http://www.faithfreedom.org...
>>> A known unauthentic anti-islamic unscholarly, & thus unreliable source.

5. http://wikiislam.net...
>>> A known unauthentic anti-islamic, & thus unreliable source.

6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
>>> A source that negates Envisage's claim instead of supporting it, which must also be penalised.
>>> He asserts that it was customary to adopt girls instead of Marrying them, while in fact, as I established it it was VERY customary to marry girls & adoption is prohibited by Islamic Law, the Law of Muhammad himself, which he lied about & brought as proof the link above (http://en.wikipedia.org...) , which he SURELY did NOT check, for it refuted his claim saying: "the traditional Arab form of adoption was no longer recognized in Islam; it was replaced by kafala. Zayd reverted to being known by his original name of Zayd ibn Harithah and was no longer considered Muhammad's legal son after the revelation of Q33:5".

7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
>>> Which does not say anything about what Envisage claimed: "who married for sexual interests is, by definition, a paedophile, a known mental disorder"

8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
>>> A survey that doesn"t even qualify as a source, nor does it support his claim.
>>> He claimed : "Aisha was almost certainly had not reached puberty at the time of consummation" <<< his proof of that is the said link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) , a survey based on the study of 311 girls that doesn"t even support his claim!!!! Extrapolating from 311 persons to the entire human race gave him 'Certainty', LoL. << Which I refuted by providing even more reliable sources for the age of puberty & precocious puberty. (check R-4, point [40]).

9. http://archives.drugabuse.gov... <<< a none working source.

>>> Already mentioned.

10. a series of sources that does not support Con"s alleged consequentialist Child Marriage.

>>> Such as this: http://www.dailyexpress.com.my... .

11. "If the religion allows it, then we can't legislate against it."

>>> An inexistent (I checked) source.

12. A series of sources remotely unrelated to the topic such as sexual attraction to objects!!!

>>> !!!!

13. http://en.wikipedia.org...
>>> A source clearly unrelated to the topic, talking about abuse & prison & hostages (where we are talking about a freaking Marriage) which Envisage did not even try to link to the actual Marriage, where is the abuse? how is Aisha a hostage or a prisoner? . . .

14. Plus three other sources about the definition of Pedophilia & its studies in the modern west.

=> That"s about it, that"s ALL Envisage has provided as sources: some unreliable & dubious, some don't qualify as sources, some speaking against his own claim, which is misleading & defeats the whole purpose of a source in the first place, some not really supporting Con"s claim, which again defeat the purpose of a source, some not working, some not even linked, & the rest not even related to the Marriage at hand. & Con must be penalised for both Conduct & Sources because of this.

I suppose English not being your first language is an acceptable excuse for the language misunderstanding, but this behavior should obviously be wrong no matter what language you speak.

- You rushed into Conclusions here!

Address problems during the debate.

- I mention the lack of valid sources in my debate several instances, & instead I get penalised for Sources, LoL. Which shows that the Voters did NOT really check any of the sources, that's exactly why I am urging them to CHECK THE SOURCES.

After, just ask for votes and encourage folks to be thorough. Continuing to attack your opponent afterward is just wrong on so many levels.

- I am not attacking him, I am stating simple facts, & anyone is welcomed to check. & when I say: CHECK THE SOURCES, I too am subject to that. If the Voters check the sources they'll do it for both of us, & thus this works against both of us, not just Envisage.

- Check the Votes, all who voted in "Sources" chose Envisage, which indicates a bias, & that they didn't really check the Sources. & so, I am raising awareness here. If the Voter goes into the debate with the intention to verify the sources, they'll definitely find serious problems.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:13:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 11:31:43 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
No, you're telling voters how to vote.

- Yes, I am telling them to Vote properly.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 12:22:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/7/2015 12:13:39 AM, YassineB wrote:
At 3/6/2015 11:31:43 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
No, you're telling voters how to vote.

- Yes, I am telling them to Vote properly.

Giving specific details on how to vote "properly" is called trying to influence the voters to vote in favor of you. Which is called inappropriate and bad conduct.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."