The Instigator
backwardseden
Con (against)
The Contender
AmberFountainPen
Pro (for)

Young Boy Found at a New Mexico Compound Died in a Ritual Ceremony, Prosecutors Say

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
AmberFountainPen has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 1,468 times Debate No: 117724
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Con

TIME: Young Boy Found at a New Mexico Compound Died in a Ritual Ceremony. . .

Prosecutors in New Mexico told a court Monday that a 3 year-old boy whose remains were found in a remote compound had died during a ritual ceremony "to cast out demonic spirits. "

Relatives of the boy, Identified as Abdul-Ghani Wahhaj, Believed he would "return as Jesus" to guide their future attacks against financial and government targets, Prosecutors alleged Monday, According to Reuters.

"They were awaiting for Abdul-Ghani to be resurrected to let them know which government institutions to get rid of, " Taos County Prosecutor John Lovelace said.

The allegations came during a hearing of three women and two men arrested on charges of child abuse after authorities raided their derelict property on Aug. 3. They had been led there by a months-long search for Adhul-Ghani, Who was allegedly abducted from his mother"s home in Atlanta last December.

Authorities found 11 malnourished children at the compound, Ranging in age from one to 15 years. The children and infants were being trained to use firearms "in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit school shootings, " according to court documents cited by Reuters.

The 3-year-old"s body was uncovered three days after the initial raid.

Court documents named the adults as Lucas Morton and his wife Subjannah Wahhaj, Subjannah"s brother Siraj Ibn Wahhaj " who has also been charged with the alleged abduction of his son Abdul-Ghani " and his wife Jany Leveille, And another sister, Hujrah Wahhaj. The three women were mothers to the 11 children at the compound, Police said.

District Judge Sarah Backus set each of the suspects" bonds at $20, 000, Rejecting prosecutors" requests that they be denied bail.

RULES: Prove that the judge was correct and that these butchers who murdered the 3 year old deserved to be let off with a gouchie smoochie kissy kissy poo poo slap on the wrist of $20, 000 in bail by the judge who's brains were obviously not intact within Miss Sarah Backus skull at the time of that hammering went down and that religion is such a "good" thing.

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
AmberFountainPen

Pro

I'd like to start off by saying that I do not condone the alleged behavior of the defendants, But I do agree wholeheartedly with Judge Backus's decision.

According to the New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Sec. 13, Bail is a viable option to all defendants with the exception of those who have committed capital offenses. That being said, The ruling Judge Backus made was in response to a case regarding 11 counts of child abuse, Not a case regarding any amount of murder, So bail is a very viable option.

Though the allegations surrounding the case are troubling, They lack substantial evidence. As you stated, A large portion of the prosecution's argument centered around how the defendants were training the children to be, More or less, Terrorists. The prosecution provided little concrete evidence of this, Simply the compound's gun range and the defendants' religion. All the firearms were legal, Religion is not a determining factor of guilt, And none of this relates directly to child abuse. Judge Backus prompted the prosecution for more evidence regarding the focus of the case, Child abuse, During the hearing, But the prosecution did not fulfill this request and instead hoped the judge would would jump to conclusions based off of the other evidence.

Another factor as to whether the defendants receive bail or not is their danger to society and others. Prior to this case, None of the defendants had criminal records, And all of their abusive activities were conducted solely within their family. If the defendants were released pending bail, They would pose no threat to their 11 children, As the children would be in the custody of child protective services.

Court cases can induce many emotions, But it is the job of judges to remain as neutral as possible and stick to the facts and the evidence. Though this may not always produce the desired outcome for sympathizers of the victims, It's their job, And they have to stand by it. If Judge Backus denied bail to the defendants, She would be siding with the prosecution, As they did not provide any substantial amount of concrete evidence to warrant denial of bail. By doing what she did, She is remaining neutral and leaving the decisions of guilt to the trial.

One more note - $20, 000 in bail (each) isn't just a slap on the wrist. They still have to face trial for their crimes.

Sources:
New Mexico Constitution: http://www. Sos. State. Nm. Us/nmconst2017. Pdf
Judge Backus's written order explaining her actions: https://www. Abqjournal. Com/1209212/taos-judges-written-order-elaborates-on-controversial-compound-decision. Html
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Con

"Murdering a 3 year old is a capital offense. So the judge was wrong. "
"Judge Backus never said that murdering a three-year-old was or was not a capital offense, And neither did I, " Well first off, Who really cares what you think? You do not have the power to stick your christianity into this case which is what you are doing and you know it. So because of that this will have to be the closing chapter of this well worn debate in which you cannot win in which the judge was clearly wrong and she should be out of a job and locked up. She's not as bad as Donald Trump, The worst president of all time, But close.

You didn't even look at the evidence.

And you know what? Wow. I'm such an idiot. I really am. I should have ended the debate in the previous RD. The TIME article in RD1 more than proves that the judge was clearly wrong.

"Authorities found 11 malnourished children at the compound, Ranging in age from one to 15 years. " That was also confirmed in the first newspaper article posted in RD2.

"The children and infants were being trained to use firearms "in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit school shootings, " That's also confirmed in the video from the Washington Post in which you didn't watch.

I get it, I really do. You are a christian so you are trying to defend your religion in which case, Sorry, You cannot do. But then again there's no such a thing as christianity.

The judge, Just like Donald Trump (who doesn't even believe in a fraudulent god and he knows it as his tells shine brighter than a super nova) should be brought up on charges for serious abuse of the system.

This absolutely has everything to do with your religion. Remember Waco? What about Jim Jones? Its all religion by crazed lunatics. The 5 defendants are no different. They just had a smaller compound. That's the only difference. And now that they are set free, What do you think they will do next in 15 or 20 years if not stopped and they gain a large commune? Do you really think it will be any different? Oh I get it their guns are for what purpose exactly. Oh and oh yeah were these defendants ---ever--- evaluated by any psychologist? Not a psychiatrist. A psychologist. AND for an extended period of time? That answer is NO! Get---a---clue.

Your next argument will be ignored. You clearly have no idea what dangerous game you play. Tell you what. . . Since you are so confident of your verdict, Why don't you take a backyard stroll and go interview the 5 defendants? Ahhhhhh but you never will and you know it. You will hide under your sheets because the sight of them when you get close to them would make your skin crawl and you know it. I'm done. There's nothing you can possibly say to save your pathetic positioning. Bye.
AmberFountainPen

Pro

Before I begin, I want to first make it clear that I have nothing against you and apologize if anything came across that way. I have an irk you don't feel the same about me.

"Well first off, Who really cares what you think? "

To respond to that, I was simply pointing out something I suspected you missed that I included in my previous argument.

"You do not have the power to stick your christianity into this case which is what you are doing and you know it. "

I didn't even mention religion in my previous argument. You started talking about your own atheism ("Prayer has been proven time and time again TO NOT WORK. ") and then crucifying the judge.

" 'Authorities found 11 malnourished children at the compound, Ranging in age from one to 15 years. ' That was also confirmed in the first newspaper article posted in RD2. ' "

Yes, I know. It was also included in the article I posted in my first argument, If you read it, And mentioned in my own argument. I accepted that was true, Saying "The only concrete evidence the prosecution provided was malnourishment and poor living conditions" in my arguments.

"That's also confirmed in the video from the Washington Post in which you didn't watch. "

We're arguing about a court case. If it wasn't presented in court, It's irrelevant to the judge's decision.

"You are a christian so you are trying to defend your religion. "

I am unaware of when my religion was mentioned, How I supposedly defended it, Or how it relates to this debate.

"There's no such a thing as christianity. "

Christianity is a religion, And therefore exists. I don't deny the presence of other religions because I don't believe in them. Additionally, I'd like to point out my first argument, Where I did mention religion didn't matter in this debate, And it still doesn't, So why do you spend half your argument talking about my religion? I'm not personally involved in the case.

"Serious abuse of the system. "

I find it alarming you think that a judge judging something is abusing the system. I could also say that, In a way, You're abusing this website's system if you fail to abide by your own guidelines for the rounds of this debate.

"Since you are so confident of your verdict, Why don't you take a backyard stroll and go interview the 5 defendants? "

I'm only defending one person, And that's Judge Backus.

On my first unrelated note, Might I suggest that if you make another debate four rounds long, Be advised that people don't usually change their opinions halfway through the debate. The winner is determined by the people who read the debate, Not whoever gives up first.

Once again, I maintain that Judge Backus made the best decision she could.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Con

I get that you have nothing against me and I in turn have nothing against you. You have played a smart hand in which I cannot say for most that debate with me here at DDO who invent excuses form something in which they clearly know nothing about and yet they pretend that they do and they thus invent excuses for it = a very bad idea especially to someone who knows better and I usually do know better. If not, Then I educate myself to know better or I do not become involved with that debate and or subject.

"Well first off, Who really cares what you think? " That's a remark stated because you cannot insert yourself into the thickened plot of what has already happened by influencing a very poor judgement by an inadequate judge who received who knows how many death threats?

"You do not have the power to stick your christianity into this case which is what you are doing and you know it. " You mentioned "Religion is not a determining factor of guilt, " the hell it isn't. Especially considering the fact that these defendants believed that the 3 year old would rise from the dead and become christ. Its completely insane.

"I didn't even mention religion in my previous argument. You started talking about your own atheism ("Prayer has been proven time and time again TO NOT WORK. ") and then crucifying the judge. "
Repeating from RD2 "The only evidence received by the Court regarding this child is that he was ill and disabled and that the defendants prayed over him and touched him on the forehead prior to his death, " the judge wrote. "

" 'Authorities found 11 malnourished children at the compound, Ranging in age from one to 15 years. ' That was also confirmed in the first newspaper article posted in RD2. ' "
Yes, I know. " Well if you know, Then that's child abuse. However, That's not the only evidence especially "The children and infants were being trained to use firearms "in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit school shootings, " according to court documents cited by Reuters. " I used that from RD1. That's child abuse and severe child abuse at that. How can ANY judge ignore that?

"That's also confirmed in the video from the Washington Post in which you didn't watch. "
"We're arguing about a court case. If it wasn't presented in court, It's irrelevant to the judge's decision. " How do you know what was and what was not presented in court for this case? I'd be willing to bet that all of the information was. How could it not have been? After all, The verdict made national news in pretty near every major and even minor news source across this country for a manure spread decision and rightly so. Had the judge convicted them not a chance in this universe would that verdict made national news. It would have been passed over and forgotten.

"You are a christian so you are trying to defend your religion. " Your religion was not mentioned. So forgive me if I went overboard in which case I did. I was wrong. However your christ and savior did play a major key role. Again, The boy in which was 3 years old was believed to become christ. "New Mexico compound: Muslim woman believed dead boy would be reincarnated as Jesus, FBI says" That is pure insanity at ts finest. And again, These rodent defendants never dreamed of taking the boy to the hospital?

"There's no such a thing as christianity. " "Christianity is a religion, " well see, Nobody except for maybe 1, 000 people, If that, On this planet follows what christ has stated in the bible. And then again christ is a false messiah to begin with as he broke a few of god's laws without his permission and christ also lied about god unless its all are misprints in your bible. And there's no proof for christ having ever existing with supernatural powers to begin with, Much less existing in the first place, Just like your god. "I don't deny the presence of other religions because I don't believe in them. " How do you know you don't believe in them if you don't know what their beliefs are? See that's an "argument of ignorance fallacy" which again is why religion most certainly does play a HUGE factor here.

"Serious abuse of the system. "
"I find it alarming you think that a judge judging something is abusing the system. " You shouldn't. She---let---them---go. I can't engage my time with you on this anymore. Sorry. Its very clear that you have no idea, None, As to what child abuse is. She let all defendants go with "All the defendants were charged with 11 counts of child abuse. " To deliberately cause the death of a 3 year old toddler (foaming at the mouth) who had died to "cast out demonic spirits" and would be " believed dead boy would be reincarnated as Jesus" in other words they let---him---die---because---they---were---completely---insane, And not take him to the hospital. Then to have a stockpile of guns - for what possible reason? To train kids for terrorism which was quoted by 2 of the boys. To malnourished kids? Etc etc etc. This all was most assuredly right in front of the judge. What more could she possibly want? A deck of cards to prove that the 3 of clubs is the correct card to pick. Wow.

I also mentioned in the "RULES" "and that religion is such a "good" thing. " You did not do this. Religion played a HUGE part in this case and proved that the defendants were quite insane and how easy it is for others to use religion as a scapegoat for an insanity plea to help get them off with pretty much everything that they do in their lives including the murder of a 3 year old boy because they believed he had demonic spirits and would be reincarnated as jesus.
AmberFountainPen

Pro

Thank you for finishing this debate.

"That's a remark stated because you cannot insert yourself into the thickened plot. " If you read either of my arguments, I was simply pointing out a misinterpretation of the facts on your part by pointing out evidence I provided in my previous argument. I was not and have not inserted myself.

"The hell it isn't. " Legally, It isn't, And once again, I must remind you, The murder of the three-year-old is not a charge in this case.

"Repeating from RD2. . . " I'm not sure what you're even aiming to prove with this point. All you've done is prove my points that you were talking about religion and that there wasn't sufficient evidence. Thanks?

"Then that's child abuse. " Never have I denied there was child abuse, As I've maintained in all of my arguments. The point is that Judge Backus asked the prosecution for additional concrete evidence that would warrant a denial of bail, Because, As I cited in my first argument, Child abuse alone is not enough to warrant denial of bail. Judges can't jump to conclusions when making decisions like this, As I mentioned in my previous argument, So only concrete evidence can be used when determining bail; not unsubstantiated claims.

"How do you know what was and what was not presented in court for this case? . . . The verdict made national news. " I'm struggling to see how these two points you've made are connected by any logical base, Other than the fact that, Chronologically speaking, Common sense dictates that a video made by a news agency released after the case would not be presented in court.

"So forgive me if I went overboard in which case I did. " Thank you.

"However your christ and savior did play a major key role. . . 'New Mexico compound: Muslim woman believed dead boy would be reincarnated as Jesus, FBI says. ' " Though this is not pertinent to the main argument, I would like to take the time to explain the misinterpretation. The actual quote from the FBI agent referred to the child being reincarnated as the messiah. Although this word is often associated with Jesus, It is also used to refer to similar figures in any religion, Which is what likely led to the mistake in the article's headline. Though it doesn't really make a difference, Christianity was not involved. I just wanted to clarify this because you've spent a substantial amount of time talking about it.

"There's no such a thing as christianity. " First of all, Again, This isn't related to the argument, So I'm not sure why you keep focusing on it. Look, I have no issues with you not believing in it. I have no issues with people not following the literal text of the Bible in full. I don't. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a religion. That's inherently incorrect.

"She---let---them---go. " No, She didn't. Do you not understand how bail works? They still have to face trial for their actions, They just don't stay in jail in the meantime. Yes, They were charged with eleven accounts of child abuse. The trial's going to determine whether they're guilty or not.

"Religion played a HUGE part in this case and proved that the defendants were quite insane. " I haven't denied the part religion took in leading the defendants to take such actions. I'm saying that religion alone doesn't change how guilty they are. The actions themselves speak for that. The only way religion could be included in determining guilt in these circumstances is perhaps the death of the three-year-old, In which religion would provide a certain intent, Which determines the degree of murder, But again, That is not the subject of this case. Additionally, They haven't made an insanity plea, As you've stated. They're only in the first phase of the trial.

Judge Backus made the best decision she could with the limited concrete evidence the prosecution provided. Denial of bail in child abuse cases in New Mexico is only legitimate with substantial amounts of evidence. The amount and type of evidence were unsubstantial in the court of law, No matter what your opinion of the defendants' guilt is. If anyone's to blame for the defendants getting bail (which there very well may not be), It's the prosecution for not doing a good enough job. The defendants are not free to go, And will be held accountable for their actions when the trial is over.

Judge Backus did the right thing. She did her duty and followed the law. She should be commended for standing her ground in such an emotional case.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
@mosc
I don't really know how I'm seeing this comment now, But no. Wrong again.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@IQ 32

So your parents raped you at the age of 8. Ewwwwwwwwww. Disgusting.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
That's REALLY strange; at just eight years old, Many adults described me having the emotional maturity of someone near their age; my household was absolute chaos and I had to take care of myself for the most part. If you've ever seen the film Matilda, The way she acted and had to do things was very similar to what I had to do. The reason for having to do so was different, However; her family didn't care, My family had their hands full.
If you ask my parents or any adult that knows me on a somewhat personal level, I'm fairly certain they would all agree (given the fact most of them said it, Anyways).

Ugh I HATED the attention I did get as a child, Though. It was always from anyone but my parents. And comments on how "intelligent" I was for my age and that I was going to become a doctor (which they are partially correct about in a sense), And how I had such "beautiful blue eyes" and "long eyelashes" and was "so cute".
Barf.
The ones I did like were the ones that treated me like someone almost there age. I was able to have extensive conversations with them and they were quite enjoyable.
So I was either fawned over or treated like someone three times my age. No in-between. Either treated like an object to adore on, Or someone to have a conversation with. No in-between.
No childhood.
Fun, Right?

I'm pretty focused on people more so than myself. I have skipped an activity in order to help them, And I've even spent money on buying them over-the-top gifts (because I'm weird that way) even though I had been meaning to save up. Maybe that's just more foolishness than anything.
But yeah, I'm not too fond of myself.
Intra-personal intelligence is my lowest out of the 9 types.
Hooray inferiority complex!
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@IQ 32

Babies are self centered and normally adored and loved. A person who expresses the emotional maturity of a child - something all together different.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
@mosc

Well, That was the implication I received so heavily that I went along with it.
I was wrong, Apparently. So sorry for making that mistake.
Wait, Don't self-centered people NOT get along? They would want the other person to focus on them when in actuality they focus on themselves, Right? So, If you claim both @backwardseden and I are both self-centered, Why is it that we can have civil and polite conversations between one another?

I'm not saying "I know you are but what am I" simply to brush off any insult, I'm saying it because it seems to be genuinely true. You had to use online insults and a website that generated "smart" insults just to try to win, In which I picked apart each one and threw all of them back in your face. As a response, You made some sort of joke about the sexuality I claimed to be. This doesn't offend me, But I just wish you had a better comeback; you are quite a letdown and a disappointment. I wish there was a trash chute for things like you, But, Inconveniently, There's not.

And are you saying @backwardseden is childish and you're not? Really? I get that your I. Q. Is that of someone with an extra part of chromosome 21 present in all their cells, But I would still think you'd be able to recognize at least some level of immaturity you possess.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@IQ 32

That U make a pathetic attempt to justify this backwards dude with your childish
"I know you are but what am I" imp arguments. HaHaHa what a joke, Please have your lover stop butt f*cking you when you "rite". LOL
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@IQ 32

Never did i say or imply that you carried on a love affair with the backwards dude. Only that his name implies that he like yourself as perverted sexual tendencies based upon the name backwardseden. I know neither of you for squat. Only that you both behave with a self centered low IQ on this forum.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
"The all knowing stuttering ego of backwardseden he's the first to inform all that they know nothing and that he possesses a monopoly upon all knowledge. HaHaHa what a joker. This loser demands that all others become his doormat. . . Think he alone has justification to express his crude rude behavior. . . Assumes the center of attention spins around himself. . . Has an addiction for compliments. . . Lives as an energy vampire. . . Lacks all empathy for others feelings. . . Totally lacks self esteem deep down. . . Only jabbers his opinions and does not know how to listen to other people. . . He's a taker and never a giver. . . Probably has no other hobby other than worship himself. . . Pretends that he has friends while all others do not. . . Values only himself. . . This dude has a small universe, His statements employ "should" and "must". . . The friends of this loser - only superficial. . . He feeds off of other people's psych. . . Totally incomplete, That's why he does not finish debates. . . Lacks internal confidence. . . Can not imagine other viewpoints from his own. . . Opinionated having only superficial knowledge. . . Harsh critic of others. . . Has virtually no long lasting relationships. . . Lacks the ability to feel empathy for others. . . Behaves as the arrogant type. . . Inadequacy defines his life. . . He maximizes his opinion and minimizes all other opinions. . . He thinks the world owes him. . .

Please everyone should pity this fool and don't treat him too harshly, His fragile ego cracks like an egg. He hides his damaged ego with loud outbursts and allot of bluster. "

Almost all of this describes you perfectly it made me laugh that you had called @backwardseden all these things when you yourself fit the description nearly 100%.

Can you just make an attempt at proper grammar? I'm still trying to get used to English and it's difficult when people like you with an I. Q. Of -3. 27 spell words like that.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
@mosc

Nope. I do not live like that. It would be pretty strange to walk around.
I'm assuming you mean me as the "f@ggot". Let's break this down just to show that you're wrong again for the millionth time.
1. I live in Illinois, He lives in Florida.
2. @backwardseden has made it abundantly clear that though he supports gay rights, He's straight.
3. I'm 16; it wouldn't be legal.
4. As if my family would allow a stranger in my house.
5. We share an interest in general music and I'm thankful he challenged my views. We've had conversations back and forth about these topics and a few others, But have never met in person.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
mosc
@Kent_Hovind

The all knowing stuttering ego of backwardseden he's the first to inform all that they know nothing and that he possesses a monopoly upon all knowledge. HaHaHa what a joker. This loser demands that all others become his doormat. . . Think he alone has justification to express his crude rude behavior. . . Assumes the center of attention spins around himself. . . Has an addiction for compliments. . . Lives as an energy vampire. . . Lacks all empathy for others feelings. . . Totally lacks self esteem deep down. . . Only jabbers his opinions and does not know how to listen to other people. . . He's a taker and never a giver. . . Probably has no other hobby other than worship himself. . . Pretends that he has friends while all others do not. . . Values only himself. . . This dude has a small universe, His statements employ "should" and "must". . . The friends of this loser - only superficial. . . He feeds off of other people's psych. . . Totally incomplete, That's why he does not finish debates. . . Lacks internal confidence. . . Can not imagine other viewpoints from his own. . . Opinionated having only superficial knowledge. . . Harsh critic of others. . . Has virtually no long lasting relationships. . . Lacks the ability to feel empathy for others. . . Behaves as the arrogant type. . . Inadequacy defines his life. . . He maximizes his opinion and minimizes all other opinions. . . He thinks the world owes him. . .

Please everyone should pity this fool and don't treat him too harshly, His fragile ego cracks like an egg. He hides his damaged ego with loud outbursts and allot of bluster.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.