Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debate: Islam (Pro) Vs. Christianity (Con)

Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:44:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
- I am thinking of doing a serious debate about Islam vs. Christianity:

(+) Resolution: Islam (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con).

(+) Topic: which of the two religions, Islam or Christianity, is: more likely true, more relevant, & overall better.

(+) Terminology: Religion = Scriptures, Practices, Beliefs, Ideologies, Denominations, History, Law, Theology, Spirituality, Philosophy, Thought, Sciences.

(+) BOP: shared.

(+) Rules: no forfeit, no disrespect & no bare assertions.

(+) Rounds: 5 Rounds, 8,000 characters 1st Round + 10,000 characters 2nd to 5th Round = 48,000 characters in total each.

(+) Structure: Pro => Arguments 1st-R, Arguments/Rebuttals 2nd-R to 4th-R, Rebuttals/Conclusion 5th-R + Con => Arguments/Rebuttals 1st-R to 4th-R, Conclusion 5th-R = 4 Arguments/Rebuttals + 1 Conclusion each.

(+) Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.

(+) Voting: either no-scoring debate, or judges voting.

(+) Judges: primarily atheist or agnostic (considering the nature of the debate), preferably not anti-religious nor anti-Islamic + equal number of muslim/christian judges. My list:
> Skepsikyima => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Zarroette => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> bsh1 => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> FaustianJustice => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Mizra => muslim. (http://www.debate.org...)
> lannan13 => christian. (http://www.debate.org...)

- I am looking for really good debaters, anybody interested?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:50:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:44:12 PM, Yassine wrote:
- I am thinking of doing a serious debate about Islam vs. Christianity:

(+) Resolution: Islam (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con).

(+) Topic: which of the two religions, Islam or Christianity, is: more likely true, more relevant, & overall better.

(+) Terminology: Religion = Scriptures, Practices, Beliefs, Ideologies, Denominations, History, Law, Theology, Spirituality, Philosophy, Thought, Sciences.

(+) BOP: shared.

(+) Rules: no forfeit, no disrespect & no bare assertions.

(+) Rounds: 5 Rounds, 8,000 characters 1st Round + 10,000 characters 2nd to 5th Round = 48,000 characters in total each.

(+) Structure: Pro => Arguments 1st-R, Arguments/Rebuttals 2nd-R to 4th-R, Rebuttals/Conclusion 5th-R + Con => Arguments/Rebuttals 1st-R to 4th-R, Conclusion 5th-R = 4 Arguments/Rebuttals + 1 Conclusion each.

(+) Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.

(+) Voting: either no-scoring debate, or judges voting.

(+) Judges: primarily atheist or agnostic (considering the nature of the debate), preferably not anti-religious nor anti-Islamic + equal number of muslim/christian judges. My list:
> Skepsikyima => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Zarroette => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> bsh1 => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> FaustianJustice => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Mizra => muslim. (http://www.debate.org...)
> lannan13 => christian. (http://www.debate.org...)

- I am looking for really good debaters, anybody interested?

A lot to address in such a small space. I don't think a claim of the whole scripture being true or not from a few verses is reasonable.

Also What if someone thinks the bible is not inerrant?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:50:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot to address in such a small space. I don't think a claim of the whole scripture being true or not from a few verses is reasonable.

- True, the purpose is not to prove once & for all which of the two religions is better, it's to present a case in a debate framework with a character limit & see which is gonna fair better.

Also What if someone thinks the bible is not inerrant?

- That would be a serious detriment to the Truth of Christianity, & also must be authoritative, which I doubt. Meaning, if someone claims the Bible is not inerrant he has to provide an authoritative source for his claim, the pope for example.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:57:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Define relevant, define better.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:02:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:57:44 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Define relevant, define better.

- Exactly how it's defined in the dictionary. The precise framework of the debate will be presented in the Opening Round.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:12:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:56:17 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:50:18 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
A lot to address in such a small space. I don't think a claim of the whole scripture being true or not from a few verses is reasonable.

- True, the purpose is not to prove once & for all which of the two religions is better, it's to present a case in a debate framework with a character limit & see which is gonna fair better.

Also What if someone thinks the bible is not inerrant?

- That would be a serious detriment to the Truth of Christianity, & also must be authoritative, which I doubt. Meaning, if someone claims the Bible is not inerrant he has to provide an authoritative source for his claim, the pope for example.

You argued that the Satanic verses were not in the original scriptures. How do you uphold that the Quran is inerrant, when you admit the scribes hand lies as well in Islam as it did in the first century Christendom.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:17:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:12:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You argued that the Satanic verses were not in the original scriptures. How do you uphold that the Quran is inerrant, when you admit the scribes hand lies as well in Islam as it did in the first century Christendom.

- My argument was for the fact that the Satanic Verses Incident never happened, not whether it was part of the scripture or not. The SV were never part of the scripture, original or not, that's a fact, even if we supposedly admit the alleged SVI.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:18:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:02:39 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:57:44 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Define relevant, define better.

- Exactly how it's defined in the dictionary. The precise framework of the debate will be presented in the Opening Round.

Relevant to what? World politics? Personal life of the bigest number? Average relevance to peoples daily life?

Good in what respect? Accordance with reality? Satisfying believers? Modernizing countries with a majority of believers in this faith? Literary finesse of the holy book?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:22:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:18:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Relevant to what? World politics? Personal life of the bigest number? Average relevance to peoples daily life?

Good in what respect? Accordance with reality? Satisfying believers? Modernizing countries with a majority of believers in this faith? Literary finesse of the holy book?

- Relevant to humanity in general.
- Better as in: more appealing, effective, advantageous, useful.
=> As I said, the precise framework of the debate will be finalised at the opening round.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:22:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:17:59 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:12:57 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You argued that the Satanic verses were not in the original scriptures. How do you uphold that the Quran is inerrant, when you admit the scribes hand lies as well in Islam as it did in the first century Christendom.

- My argument was for the fact that the Satanic Verses Incident never happened, not whether it was part of the scripture or not. The SV were never part of the scripture, original or not, that's a fact, even if we supposedly admit the alleged SVI.

So you think the Quran is inerrant?

Or would you debate that it has less errors than the Bible does?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:22:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:22:06 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:18:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Relevant to what? World politics? Personal life of the bigest number? Average relevance to peoples daily life?

Good in what respect? Accordance with reality? Satisfying believers? Modernizing countries with a majority of believers in this faith? Literary finesse of the holy book?

- Relevant to humanity in general.
- Better as in: more appealing, effective, advantageous, useful.
=> As I said, the precise framework of the debate will be finalised at the opening round.
Thank you :)
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:25:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:22:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So you think the Quran is inerrant?

- I don't think, I know & I believe the Qur'an is inerrant. That's one of the tenets of belief in Islam, & believing otherwise renders one automatically non-muslim.

Or would you debate that it has less errors than the Bible does?

- No, I would hold the position that the Qur'an has no errors.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:22:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
Thank you :)

- Don't mention it. =)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:27:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:25:20 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:22:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
So you think the Quran is inerrant?

- I don't think, I know & I believe the Qur'an is inerrant. That's one of the tenets of belief in Islam, & believing otherwise renders one automatically non-muslim.

Or would you debate that it has less errors than the Bible does?

- No, I would hold the position that the Qur'an has no errors.

What would be the quantitative measure of truthfulness?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:31:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:27:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What would be the quantitative measure of truthfulness?

- Truthful: agreeing with the facts, authentic, reasonable, inerrant.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:31:24 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:27:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What would be the quantitative measure of truthfulness?

- Truthful: agreeing with the facts, authentic, reasonable, inerrant.

So a comparison of an enumerated list of all the things factually wrong in each book?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:37:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:34:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:31:24 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:27:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What would be the quantitative measure of truthfulness?

- Truthful: agreeing with the facts, authentic, reasonable, inerrant.

So a comparison of an enumerated list of all the things factually wrong in each book?

- Not particularly, maybe I should add a rule about no shotgun argumentation. Plus, there is nothing factually wrong in the Qur'an.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:39:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:37:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:34:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:31:24 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:27:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What would be the quantitative measure of truthfulness?

- Truthful: agreeing with the facts, authentic, reasonable, inerrant.

So a comparison of an enumerated list of all the things factually wrong in each book?

- Not particularly, maybe I should add a rule about no shotgun argumentation. Plus, there is nothing factually wrong in the Qur'an.

Well, Yassine, I'm trying to understand how this debate would be judged by voters. how it would be a debate with a shared burden of proof as opposite to 2 preachers trying to convince the most people on the street.

Burden of proof is shared, What would be a goal or what would satisfy one person's burden over the other?
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:39:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:37:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:34:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:31:24 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:27:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What would be the quantitative measure of truthfulness?

- Truthful: agreeing with the facts, authentic, reasonable, inerrant.

So a comparison of an enumerated list of all the things factually wrong in each book?

- Not particularly, maybe I should add a rule about no shotgun argumentation. Plus, there is nothing factually wrong in the Qur'an.

Well, Yassine, I'm trying to understand how this debate would be judged by voters. how it would be a debate with a shared burden of proof as opposite to 2 preachers trying to convince the most people on the street.

- That's basically it, yes.

Burden of proof is shared, What would be a goal or what would satisfy one person's burden over the other?

- The better their support & impact are the better their claim would fair with voters.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:48:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:44:10 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:39:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:37:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:34:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:31:24 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:27:52 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
What would be the quantitative measure of truthfulness?

- Truthful: agreeing with the facts, authentic, reasonable, inerrant.

So a comparison of an enumerated list of all the things factually wrong in each book?

- Not particularly, maybe I should add a rule about no shotgun argumentation. Plus, there is nothing factually wrong in the Qur'an.

Well, Yassine, I'm trying to understand how this debate would be judged by voters. how it would be a debate with a shared burden of proof as opposite to 2 preachers trying to convince the most people on the street.

- That's basically it, yes.

Burden of proof is shared, What would be a goal or what would satisfy one person's burden over the other?

- The better their support & impact are the better their claim would fair with voters.

SO voters vote for what they were most moved by.

Interesting proselytizing. Too bad preaching religious dogma doesn't interest me. Good luck Yassine. I hope we find something more particular to debate over.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 7:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:48:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

SO voters vote for what they were most moved by.

- You're underestimating their powers of observation.

Interesting proselytizing.

- The voters are atheists, that's the last thing they'll be interested in.

Too bad preaching religious dogma doesn't interest me. Good luck Yassine. I hope we find something more particular to debate over.

- Thank you, we can surely find something to argue about, sure.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:13:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:44:12 PM, Yassine wrote:
- I am thinking of doing a serious debate about Islam vs. Christianity:

(+) Resolution: Islam (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con).

(+) Topic: which of the two religions, Islam or Christianity, is: more likely true, more relevant, & overall better.

(+) Terminology: Religion = Scriptures, Practices, Beliefs, Ideologies, Denominations, History, Law, Theology, Spirituality, Philosophy, Thought, Sciences.

(+) BOP: shared.

(+) Rules: no forfeit, no disrespect & no bare assertions.

(+) Rounds: 5 Rounds, 8,000 characters 1st Round + 10,000 characters 2nd to 5th Round = 48,000 characters in total each.

(+) Structure: Pro => Arguments 1st-R, Arguments/Rebuttals 2nd-R to 4th-R, Rebuttals/Conclusion 5th-R + Con => Arguments/Rebuttals 1st-R to 4th-R, Conclusion 5th-R = 4 Arguments/Rebuttals + 1 Conclusion each.

(+) Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.

(+) Voting: either no-scoring debate, or judges voting.

(+) Judges: primarily atheist or agnostic (considering the nature of the debate), preferably not anti-religious nor anti-Islamic + equal number of muslim/christian judges. My list:
> Skepsikyima => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Zarroette => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> bsh1 => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> FaustianJustice => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Mizra => muslim. (http://www.debate.org...)
> lannan13 => christian. (http://www.debate.org...)

- I am looking for really good debaters, anybody interested?
-
Just a suggestion.

Wouldn't it be better to debate the topic on the grounds of which is "better", rather than on "relevance", let alone "truth"?

The reasoning being as follows: by debating which one is better both sides could use concrete evidence from history and from current events, whereas "relevance" is too subjective and/or myopic a category, and debating the issue on which is likelier to be true would run the risk of a) turning into mere proselytizing and discussion of very obscure and very narrow fine points of doctrine and b) not impressing any atheists or agnostics or at any rate non-Christians/Muslims who might vote on it.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 10:25:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:44:12 PM, Yassine wrote:
- I am thinking of doing a serious debate about Islam vs. Christianity:

(+) Resolution: Islam (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con).

(+) Topic: which of the two religions, Islam or Christianity, is: more likely true, more relevant, & overall better.

(+) Terminology: Religion = Scriptures, Practices, Beliefs, Ideologies, Denominations, History, Law, Theology, Spirituality, Philosophy, Thought, Sciences.

(+) BOP: shared.

(+) Rules: no forfeit, no disrespect & no bare assertions.

(+) Rounds: 5 Rounds, 8,000 characters 1st Round + 10,000 characters 2nd to 5th Round = 48,000 characters in total each.

(+) Structure: Pro => Arguments 1st-R, Arguments/Rebuttals 2nd-R to 4th-R, Rebuttals/Conclusion 5th-R + Con => Arguments/Rebuttals 1st-R to 4th-R, Conclusion 5th-R = 4 Arguments/Rebuttals + 1 Conclusion each.

(+) Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.

(+) Voting: either no-scoring debate, or judges voting.

(+) Judges: primarily atheist or agnostic (considering the nature of the debate), preferably not anti-religious nor anti-Islamic + equal number of muslim/christian judges. My list:
> Skepsikyima => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Zarroette => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> bsh1 => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> FaustianJustice => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Mizra => muslim. (http://www.debate.org...)
> lannan13 => christian. (http://www.debate.org...)

- I am looking for really good debaters, anybody interested?

Yassine, you are not qualified to debate religious matters as you cannot reason without looking at your idol's words for instruction. You don't have your own opinions but are a tool of an ancient meglomaniac who still manages to mesmerize lesser intellects seeking AUTHORITY FIGURES to tell them how to think and act. Without the ability to reason on your own merits without relying on another man's opinions, and to us, remember, Muhammad is only another man with opinions and like butt holes, we all have them, his no more valid than Joe Blow down the street as God is not on the side of Dictators, a fact you would have learned long ago if you ever got your brain free of Muhammad's brainwashing it five times daily.

When you learn how to think on your own, then you can debate others, but not as a virtual clone of another person. Only ignorant fools let an ancient man dictate their lives using violence to do so. Debating Muhammad is exactly like debating Hitler or Stalin as he's just another monster who wanted to rule the world his way. We in the West don't tolerate dictators like the places you Muhammadans come from so it's time you learned how to join humanity and escape being a lackey for an ancient dead man's insufferable ambition to be another Moses, only worse. At least Moses shared leadership but not Muhammad which is typical of gangsters become dictators.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 10:46:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 10:25:47 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 4/21/2015 6:44:12 PM, Yassine wrote:
- I am thinking of doing a serious debate about Islam vs. Christianity:

(+) Resolution: Islam (Pro) vs. Christianity (Con).

(+) Topic: which of the two religions, Islam or Christianity, is: more likely true, more relevant, & overall better.

(+) Terminology: Religion = Scriptures, Practices, Beliefs, Ideologies, Denominations, History, Law, Theology, Spirituality, Philosophy, Thought, Sciences.

(+) BOP: shared.

(+) Rules: no forfeit, no disrespect & no bare assertions.

(+) Rounds: 5 Rounds, 8,000 characters 1st Round + 10,000 characters 2nd to 5th Round = 48,000 characters in total each.

(+) Structure: Pro => Arguments 1st-R, Arguments/Rebuttals 2nd-R to 4th-R, Rebuttals/Conclusion 5th-R + Con => Arguments/Rebuttals 1st-R to 4th-R, Conclusion 5th-R = 4 Arguments/Rebuttals + 1 Conclusion each.

(+) Sources: authentic & authoritative, whether within the same round or at the end of the debate. In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts.

(+) Voting: either no-scoring debate, or judges voting.

(+) Judges: primarily atheist or agnostic (considering the nature of the debate), preferably not anti-religious nor anti-Islamic + equal number of muslim/christian judges. My list:
> Skepsikyima => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Zarroette => atheist. (http://www.debate.org...)
> bsh1 => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> FaustianJustice => agnostic. (http://www.debate.org...)
> Mizra => muslim. (http://www.debate.org...)
> lannan13 => christian. (http://www.debate.org...)

- I am looking for really good debaters, anybody interested?

Yassine, you are not qualified to debate religious matters as you cannot reason without looking at your idol's words for instruction. You don't have your own opinions but are a tool of an ancient meglomaniac who still manages to mesmerize lesser intellects seeking AUTHORITY FIGURES to tell them how to think and act. Without the ability to reason on your own merits without relying on another man's opinions, and to us, remember, Muhammad is only another man with opinions and like butt holes, we all have them, his no more valid than Joe Blow down the street as God is not on the side of Dictators, a fact you would have learned long ago if you ever got your brain free of Muhammad's brainwashing it five times daily.

When you learn how to think on your own, then you can debate others, but not as a virtual clone of another person. Only ignorant fools let an ancient man dictate their lives using violence to do so. Debating Muhammad is exactly like debating Hitler or Stalin as he's just another monster who wanted to rule the world his way. We in the West don't tolerate dictators like the places you Muhammadans come from so it's time you learned how to join humanity and escape being a lackey for an ancient dead man's insufferable ambition to be another Moses, only worse. At least Moses shared leadership but not Muhammad which is typical of gangsters become dictators.

tell me does someone gives you money to write the same crap over and over again?
Never fart near dog
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 2:43:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:13:29 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

Just a suggestion.

Wouldn't it be better to debate the topic on the grounds of which is "better", rather than on "relevance", let alone "truth"?

- I think all three are important.

The reasoning being as follows: by debating which one is better both sides could use concrete evidence from history and from current events, whereas "relevance" is too subjective and/or myopic a category,

- Relevance can be defined more precisely, as in relevant to humanity in pre-modern, modern & post-modern societies, as in more applicable, more fitting, more appropriate.
- Relevance is an important point to show real impact in past, present & future.

and debating the issue on which is likelier to be true would run the risk of a) turning into mere proselytising and discussion of very obscure and very narrow fine points of doctrine

- Probable.
- But don't you think truth is important in such a comparison?

b) not impressing any atheists or agnostics or at any rate non-Christians/Muslims who might vote on it.

- At least this way they'd vote based on what is been said, not on how they feel about it.

- What would you suggest the Topic should be about, more precisely?
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:56:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 7:37:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
Plus, there is nothing factually wrong in the Qur'an.

The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder. Qur'an 54:1-3

"That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon." Sahih Bukhari 4:56:831
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
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 4:56:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 2:43:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:13:29 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

Just a suggestion.

Wouldn't it be better to debate the topic on the grounds of which is "better", rather than on "relevance", let alone "truth"?

- I think all three are important.

Of course, but for the sake of concision it might be better to stick to one of them rather than to try to tackle all three.

The reasoning being as follows: by debating which one is better both sides could use concrete evidence from history and from current events, whereas "relevance" is too subjective and/or myopic a category,

- Relevance can be defined more precisely, as in relevant to humanity in pre-modern, modern & post-modern societies, as in more applicable, more fitting, more appropriate.

- Relevance is an important point to show real impact in past, present & future.

Not to be flippant, but isn't everything both relevant and irrelevant in a post-modern society? I mean sure, if you can make it more precise, then it might be interesting to see how it plays out, though it would still be rather subjective.

and debating the issue on which is likelier to be true would run the risk of a) turning into mere proselytizing and discussion of very obscure and very narrow fine points of doctrine

- Probable.
- But don't you think truth is important in such a comparison?

Sure, but don't you think it would be a bit cramped if you choose to debate that topic? I mean just think about how many verses and suras would have to be quoted.

b) not impressing any atheists or agnostics or at any rate non-Christians/Muslims who might vote on it.

- At least this way they'd vote based on what is been said, not on how they feel about it.

You might be right on that point.

- What would you suggest the Topic should be about, more precisely?

I think the category of better is still the most cogent of the three, but it's your debate so you choose.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 10:56:29 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/21/2015 7:37:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
Plus, there is nothing factually wrong in the Qur'an.

The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder. Qur'an 54:1-3

"That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon." Sahih Bukhari 4:56:831

- Maybe someone will bring this up in the debate, although I doubt it!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:38:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 4:56:47 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

Of course, but for the sake of concision it might be better to stick to one of them rather than to try to tackle all three.

- I suppose, 8,000 words isn't enough to make such a huge case! Especially the case of Truth, this could very well take half the debate easily.

Not to be flippant, but isn't everything both relevant and irrelevant in a post-modern society?

- LoL! You just blew my mind.

I mean sure, if you can make it more precise, then it might be interesting to see how it plays out, though it would still be rather subjective.

- This is why a forum topic is useful, to get the insights of other people which may turn out to be helpful.

Sure, but don't you think it would be a bit cramped if you choose to debate that topic? I mean just think about how many verses and suras would have to be quoted.

- Demonstration of Truth will definitely prove to be strenuous. Maybe I should put a light requirement in this area.

I think the category of better is still the most cogent of the three, but it's your debate so you choose.

- Better is still a very ambiguous & loose quality, maybe more precision has to be added.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 8:07:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:38:58 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 4/22/2015 4:56:47 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:

Of course, but for the sake of concision it might be better to stick to one of them rather than to try to tackle all three.

- I suppose, 8,000 words isn't enough to make such a huge case! Especially the case of Truth, this could very well take half the debate easily.

Indeed, just imagine it: in every turn both participants would have to advance arguments in favor of why their religion is better, more relevant, and true, while trying to refute the arguments of the opponent on those same topics.

Not to be flippant, but isn't everything both relevant and irrelevant in a post-modern society?

- LoL! You just blew my mind.

That's my life purpose. I just killed that topic.

I mean sure, if you can make it more precise, then it might be interesting to see how it plays out, though it would still be rather subjective.

- This is why a forum topic is useful, to get the insights of other people which may turn out to be helpful.

Sure, but don't you think it would be a bit cramped if you choose to debate that topic? I mean just think about how many verses and suras would have to be quoted.

- Demonstration of Truth will definitely prove to be strenuous. Maybe I should put a light requirement in this area.

How light could it be without being utterly superficial? I mean, even if you limit it to proving that Jesus was/was not the son of God, that would still be pretty big.

I think the category of better is still the most cogent of the three, but it's your debate so you choose.

- Better is still a very ambiguous & loose quality, maybe more precision has to be added.

What about "more tolerant" or "healthier"? That would be more precise.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.