EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Islam is evil:

1 point
11 points
KetuvimKetuvim (PRO)
This Google Document of mine, which I created, contains my argument:


Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-26 09:45:09
| Speak Round
condeelmastercondeelmaster (CON)
The argument provided by Pro has an amount of characters of approximately 19000. The rules of this debate say that the arguments presented should be of no more than 8000 characters long. As maths can prove, the Pro's argument is more than double the long permitted. This means that Pro is breaking the rules, thus Pro has lost the debate. 

Thank you for the challenge anyway. Hope you follow the rules so we can have a fair debate next time. Cheers!

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-26 10:37:54
| Speak Round
KetuvimKetuvim (PRO)
Actually, I only posted around 60 characters, the rule is against posting more than 8000 characters, which I did not do.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-26 12:49:45
| Speak Round
condeelmastercondeelmaster (CON)
It's still cheating!! The argument must be 8000 characters and yours was pretty longer. Judges must take into account not only the cheating but the attitude towards it.

Anyway, I've read your whole argument and It's complete based upon sacred texts. Sacred texts are not credible sources. For further information search in Google for scholar sources or credible sources. 
Since your sources are not credible ones, your argument is also not credible.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-26 12:55:06
| Speak Round
KetuvimKetuvim (PRO)
You do not need a bible to tell that beating or raping your wife is wrong do you? According to Unholy Qur'an 4:34 beating your wife is OK, and according to Unholy Qur'an 2:223 raping your wife is also OK, so you tell me, is either of these things OK?
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-29 07:56:48
| Speak Round
condeelmastercondeelmaster (CON)
Then how is it that Pro believes in the bible? How is it that Pro believes in a text as violent and "evil" as the Quran. 

Quoting Pro's "holy" bible:

  • "Then I heard the Lord say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children."  Is it good to kill innocent children? Is it good to have no mercy, nor pity?
  • "If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she also defiles her father's holiness, and she must be burned to death." Is it good to burn your daughter till death?
  • "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." Is it good to stone people to death?
  • "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." What about cannibalism? Is good too? And humiliation. 
  • Nearly all Leviticus is pure violence and blood and hate.

As you can see, Pro's arguments are contradictory. He says that Islam is evil and the bible is good, but the same violence is found in both texts. 

What pro doesn't get is that religions aren't defined just by a book. So saying Islam is evil just for the existence of violent passages in its sacred text is invalid. 

Resolution negated.

The bible passages were this: Ezekiel 9:5; Leviticus 21:9; Leviticus 20:27; Leviticus 26:29.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-01-29 09:45:10
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
A few comments regarding what has been said about this debate...

Firstly, I agree that one cannot simply post a minimal number of characters in the debate engine to "meet' the rule requirements, only to undermine that with a document far exceeding the word count for the topic. We should be honest in the way we conduct ourselves in debate and not undermine the rules.

That being said, I take great issue with condeelmaster's assertion that a religious text is totally irrelevant to discussing the morality of a religion.

To suggest "Well the bible has immorality in it also" is a classic example of the Tu-Quoque fallacy. To say "you too" does not do anything the clear one of the problem of their own position. That is like a criminal trying to plead their case by saying "well, he did it too!" Such a statement does nothing to clear oneself of the claims.

Islam in particular says that Muslims are to go to the People of the Book (followers of the Bible - Jews and Christians) in order to settle matters of interpretation.

As such, the topic of this debate is not, "The Bible is Evil" but "Islam is Evil". And while one could certainly look at events such as terrorist acts, things that take place in Muslim societies etc - What is the common refrain? "Islam is peaceful. The QUR'AN forbids this violence." Now, while happen to believe that the Qur'an teaches violence, Note, that if the Qur'an is good enough for a Muslim to say "Islam is not defined by what some bad muslims do, but rather by the teachings of the Qur'an, Hadith, Sirah etc, then likewise the Qur'an ought to stand up to scrutiny.

Ketuvim - I suggest that if you wish to debate this topic in the future, you do so by honoring the rules of the debate, and the intentions behind them. For condeelmaster - I think you ought to reconsider the your dismissive assertions of religious texts in a debate around religious morality.
Posted 2020-04-22 07:25:52
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-01-29 16:22:31
lannan13Judge: lannan13    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
There isn't much here to say. I have viewed the document and the key issue is that Google Docs can be edited at anytime to change the path of the debate. This is normally why I like it for people to go and have their argument in the debate so that it is in bold, engraved, thus cannot be changed. The second issue I see here is that Pro violates the character limit as there's no way that fits within the rules. This is an automatic forfeiture in my eyes and this is a violation of conduct in the debate. Though, I am certain that if Pro would've posted his arguments in the debate that he would have won the debate, that's not the case. For the above reasons I have no choice, but to vote Con.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2016-01-30 17:18:53
fire_wingsJudge: fire_wings
Win awarded to: Ketuvim
Not much to say. Giving the debate to Ketuvim because she has the only arguments, meaning that she wins the debate. If there was conduct, I will give it to Con, but because there isn't, vote Pro.

No googledocs, please!
2 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
0 comments on this judgement
2016-02-01 11:22:01
Anthony TaiJudge: Anthony Tai
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
2016-02-01 14:21:37
Lord FarnyJudge: Lord Farny
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
He's right, Ketuvim broke the rules. Sorry bud.
1 user rated this judgement as biased
0 comments on this judgement
2016-02-03 06:17:48
IncorrigiblePerspectiveJudge: IncorrigiblePerspective
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
2016-02-06 05:29:08
adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: condeelmaster
I'm sure this has been pointed out enough both in the debate and outside of it, but you really should be making your arguments in the debate, not inside Google Docs. Even if you copy-paste from GDocs into the debate, then that's fine. Using it to get around character limits, however, is especially manipulative.

It is not, however, in my view, a forfeiture. It is a source. A poorly cited one with little substantive argument behind it, but not a concession, either. Just because you (allegedly) yourself wrote a source doesn't mean it isn't valid, and I think I may differ from some of the others on this point.

The argument espoused in the document can be summed up like this: Christianity is true (premise), Islam fails to meet the Christian standard of good (various citations and interpretations), therefore Islam is bad. Pro extended this argument in the final round with an appeal to objective morality. It must be stressed, however, that while sourced, much of this material was more introduced to the debate by con than pro. Pro never substantiated their claims in the debate, making their argument inherently indefensible. This was a very unfortunate oversight, as the GDoc proves pro has done a substantial amount of research into this topic.

Con had two arguments. The first was not much better than pro's, which was that the bible commits the same errors that the qu'ran does. The reason this was not much better was that it was only introduced in the final round when pro had no chance to rebut it. Introducing entirely new arguments so late is hardly fair as it means you cannot really have a debate about those points. It would have been valid to raise the exact same point as early as round 1. I therefore didn't really buy into this argument much. Moreover, I'm not sure it even negates. Isn't it possible Christianity and Islam are both evil?

The second argument was the assertion that holy texts were non-credible sources, because apparently Google Scholar is. I needed some explanation as to why. If I accepted that pro's sources were non-credible, con wins the debate on the grounds of argument. However, just saying that they are not is not enough to convince me. Analysis or evidence would have done just fine. Heck, give me a narrative, show me a picture of Noah's ark and explain that "this is also in the bible. It is now known to be scientifically impossible. Can we therefore trust the bible?" Not the strongest argument, but better than nothing, and totally not hard to do. In fact con did it very well with their first argument!

I'm awarding this debate on burden of proof. Both pro and con had poor arguments, and its not because of their skills as debaters but because of HOW they presented their arguments: poor conduct by both sides, and both sides were guilty of shallow argumentation on a few points. But it is pro who had the burden to convince me of their case, not con. Con wins this debate by default.

I want to say a word about conduct. Both debaters will probably hate me for this but in my good conscience as a judge I don't really want to let it slide, either.

If one side really sucks in a debate, that doesn't mean they've given up, that just means they're not that good. Sometimes it's good sportsmanship to even kind of "make the argument for them", such as "even if (thing they didn't think to say), then (counterargument)". Debate is inherently adversarial, things can become heated, and those little shows of respect go a long way towards establishing the class of both sides.

It follows, then, that if one side has poor conduct in a debate, that doesn't mean they've given up either. It's also poor conduct to follow poor conduct by not debating the topic at hand. It's poor conduct to turn the debate into a mudslinging ad hom. war over who has the worse conduct.

This was such a shame because both sides clearly have the ability to write good points. Pro's argument would have easily fitted had they simply hotlinked their source citations (edeb8 lets you do that, unlike other debate sites). While con's last round argument was exceptionally good.

While there was a certain degree of skill shown by both sides in making arguments, I'd also like to just suggest that this topic usually concerns less theology and more morality. What do we mean by "good" or "evil"? If a religion contains bad commands, for example, but most adherants to that religion are good people, can the religion claim some credit for that? One side should present mosques as radical extremist centers of hate speech, the other, as community centers full of peace and goodwill. Of course the tenets of the religion are important, but what's more important is usually how it impacts on the everyday believers of the religion, and those around them.

I hope that helps and I invite any questions on this judgement if anyone would like more help or feedback.
1 user rated this judgement as constructive
1 comment on this judgement
Firstly, I did not say that Google Scholar was a credible source. What I did was encourage Pro to research in google what sources are credible and which are not. If you do so you will see that the bible is not a credible text for a scholar or debate ambient.

Secondly, I did say that it is possible that Christianity and Islam were both evil. However, I also pointed out that would be a contradiction, because Pro was stating that Christianity was good.

Lastly, I have to admit that maybe It was a bit non sportive to not counter argument just because Pro cheated.

Good judgement and good feedback. Thanks for spending time into this. Cheers!!!
Posted 2016-02-06 13:06:58
2016-02-06 09:07:54
ButterCatxJudge: ButterCatx    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: condeelmaster

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 3 weeks
  • Time to prepare: None