The Marriage Between Prophet Muhammad & Aisha Is Good.

Thanks Pro.Preface:SourcingVirtually no sources were provided last round for the claims he makes, thus most of his claims are bare assertion fallacies. I included the version of Con’s sources as a pdf file the way I can currently see it an hour before my deadline, as such it would be unreasonable to expect other sources. Only references 1-9 are sources, all the others are unsourced, and thus should be treated as bare assertions.[ http://en.wikipedia.org...]ArgumentsRecall the rules:“Arguments are required to be taken to their full conclusions, suggestions & questions will be inadmissible.”Pro has taken none of his arguments (Marriage is a Union, Love Story, Relationship, Legacy) to their full conclusions, relying entirely on assumed premises to get to where he wants. Recall the definition of “good”:“healthy, sound, beneficial, favourable & decent ; not harmful, not defective, not unethical & not immoral” Even worse for Pro was how he attacked me in round 3:“Also, much of what Con said is a series of ill supported suggestions, bold claims & bad analogies, & as per my Rules, they shall remain inadmissible until properly supported, established & taken to their full conclusions. “Pro cannot have his cake and eat it. That’s applying a double standard otherwise.Hadith ReliabilityPro commits the bare assertion fallacy(again):“All the Hadiths I mentioned are either Sound or Good, & I’ve already sourced them.”I sourced my Hadith too, and I equally claim they are sound or good. Thus by Pro’s logic, they stand as reliable. Also Pro provides no evidence for the absence of the Sahih Muslim Hadith, and his reference is completely irrelevant to this matter.Defence of Positive Casei.) StrawmenPro spends extensive time attacking me alleged argument that Muhammad married Aisha because she was a virgin. I never made such an argument, thus this was an attack on a strawman (Ctrl-F my arguments for “virgin” and you will find no results)A2. Marriage Was UnhealthyMuhammad had mental health problemsDemonstrating Muhammad has mental health problems consequently demonstrates the marriage as unhealthyi.) HallucenationsPro largely drops my arguments that Muhammad experienced regular hallucinations, note that I made two line of arguments stemming from these hallucinations:1.The fact Muhammad was having regular hallucinations is significant evidence of Muhammad’s questionable mental health2.The content of these hallucinations is even more significant evidence of Muhammad’s questionable mental healthHe hallucinations we have reported in the Qu’ran only make for the hallucinations that Muhammad reported about, for all we know Muhammad had more hallucinations than reported (which would be unsurprising given his rich reported portfolio of them that consist of the Qu’ran).Hallucenation ContentPro completely ignores that I provided strong reasons to believe that Muhammad was most likely suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy, since many of Muhammad’s symptoms are representative of this disorder. Moreover Pro only answers with incredulity that Muhammad was a paedophile which is a paraphilia – another mental disorder.“Con suggests, with no proof whatsoever, that Muhammad was mentally unstable, for he allegedly had hallucinations, & mysteriously correlates this with the bad nature of the Marriage”1. The entire Qu’ran is evidence of Muhammad’s hallucinations, all 60,000 words of it. Muhammad himself affirms he was having visionsQu’ran 53:4-9"It is a revelation which has been revealed to him (4) and taught to him by the great mighty one (5) One strong, then he stood straight (6) and he appeared on the uppermost horizon (7) He then came nearer and nearer (8) until he was as close to him as the distance of two bows, or even less. (9)"It is pretty much undisputed in Islamic circles that Muhummad indeed was having visions (i.e)“Verse (5:33) is interpreted exactly as I said [3]. Con is making up false & non-authoritative interpretations of his own, & thus inadmissible.”Pro provided no reason to prefer his reading of the verse over a plain reading of the verse, he provides no sources or evidence to believe his claim, and thus we can reject this as another bare assertion. Moreover, it’s largely irrelevant, even if we accept a different interpretation, it still damages the credibility of Muhammad’s mental integrity.Furthermore, Pro completely drops my arguments that the Qu’ran advocates for drowning armies(2:50) , eternal torture of unbelievers (2:6-7, 2:107, 2:162), killing unbelievers (2:191-2). He attempts to cite his old debate (which does not address those verses whatsoever) which is insufficient regardless. Thus, the weight of evidence is against Muhammad being of sound mind.ii.)Muhammad Was A Pedophile/Pedophilic MarriageI established in the early rounds that the marriage was a paedophilic one, which again render’s Muhammad’s mental health dubious, and the entire relationship dubious since Aisha was far too young to understand nor consent on any meaningful level. I only presented the legal ages as a comparative device, it goes without saying that Aisha lacked any autonomy regarding the marriage arrangement (thus, arranged marriage).Pro shoots himself in the foot when he affirms that Aisha didn’t even see Muhammad for the first few years, since that’s an obvious restriction on her autonomy. Pro attempts to deny this:“The definitions of Pedophilia & Lust can not contradict more the character of Muhammad & the facts”Perhaps a medical definition of paedophilia will suffice:“a paraphilia in which an adult has recurrent, intense sexual urges or sexually arousing fantasies of engaging or repeatedly engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child”[ http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...]Muhammad clearly not only had sexual urges, but he also acted upon those urges, clearly fulfilling the definition of a paedophile.Pro attempts to appeal to the status quo at the time, but how is this anything more than an ad populum fallacy ? It simply follows that most relationships at the time, including all the child marriages were unhealthy and hence, not good.iii.) Health Consequences of Child SexPro completely ignores my arguments for negative health effects of child sex, which Muhammad married and consummated in spite of the risks. Thus, it is clear that Muhammad’s intentions were not platonic. iv. Other Options Even if adoption is prohibited by Islamic law today, there is no reason to assume it was the case when Muhammad lives, also he already had an adopted son, which Pro completely ignored. A1. Marriage Was ImmoralPro drops all my arguments for consequentialism, and completely ignores my arguments for the effects in the present day Islamic world, where millions of children are still being married off at extremely young ages as a direct result of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. In Some cases it simply cannot be legislated against *explicitly because of Muhammad’s marriage*. This is important to anyone who wants to buy Pro’s argument that Aisha had a legacy as a result of marriage, since they must weigh the consequences both good and bad. The marriage may well have given one woman a legacy, but at the cost of the suffering of millions of children today. This value judgement is an easy one.P3. Wife BeatingPro drops my argument that the Qu’ran allows for Wife beating in 4:34, which was one of Muhammad’s hallucinations, thus it follows that Muhammad advocates for wife-beating on some level. Pro disputed my Sahih Muslim Hadith 2127 (already addressed), but completely drops my other Hadith arguments (Sahih Muslim 3506 and Abu Dawad 2141).Thus, on balace Pro drops most the main poins of this argument.Rebuttals to Pro’s CaseOverviewPro’s case is a complete mess. He had to demonstrate that the marriage was “healthy, sound, beneficial, favourable & decent ; not harmful, not defective, not unethical & not immoral” however his arguments for such have not been comprehensive in the least and very much undeveloped. Anyone can go and cherry pick stories, and so to make a story one needs to actually provide a logical progression, which Pro has spectacularly failed to do this debate. Pro has not addressed any of the ethical, moral, health, or favorability aspects of the marriage. He has not made the argument that having the marriage would have been better than not having it. Pro's case is simply verbose and incomplete. A lot was said but very little was actually demonstrated.Conclusion On the balance of dropped arguments, and the generally weak case of my opponent, the resolution is not only upheld, but negated. pro did not demonstate the marriage was good on any level except perhaps legacy, which runs into significantly worse consequentialist dconsiderations. As such, a Con vote is necessary.I thank pro for this debate. It has been fun.