Mirza is SEXist and is using his religion as a sheild: also The Game

M = Mirza. Before I begin I would like those of you reading to cross-apply all of my arguments to my opponents new post. It seems the pro has run out of argumentative steam and has decided to simply re-state their points from the beginning without making any new arguments… I will first explain why the dropped points from my last post are important, then I will go down the pro's newest post and explain, again, why none of the quotes and evidence posted shows that M is sexist. MY Last Post: Analysis: "The resolution states both that M is sexist and that M uses his religion as a shield(spelling…) In order to win this debate the pro must prove that both of these statements are true. Also, I have been away from debate.org for some time and have no idea who Mirza is. Because of this, and because it would be impossible for me to read every single post he has ever posted, this debate should be limited to the quotes provided in Pro's opening post." These points have not been contested, so they flow through. Therefore the pro is prohibited from posting new information and quotes from M and is required to explain the second part of the resolution as well. If you read the Pro post they failed to even mention how M is hiding behind his religion, while I explained in detail why this was not the case. "On "using religion as a shield": First, by claiming that M used his religion as a shield Lovelife claims that he hides behind the mandate of his religion. Considering that it appears the debate these quotes came from was religious in nature, M was not hiding behind his religion, but simply explaining what he believed. believing something due to faith and hiding behind faith are not the same" Finally, I would also like to note that my interpretation of sexism was not contested: "Sexism- I would like to condense the offered definitions into a more concise, single definition: believing that one gender or sex is inherently less valuable than another." I will go in depth in response to the most recent pro claims, but I would like to also point out that the pro has failed to point out how ANYTHING they have said has shown that M believes that women are inherently less VALUABLE. Pro: "My opponet claims " none of the quotes from the link talk about the value of a women. One talks about rights in society which, again, has nothing to do with value.Let me post some of the ones I find that talk about value and having lesser rights:" Before I get to the quotes, I would like to re-iterate my point about religion and sacred texts. Those who follow a given religion (like Islam or Christianity) do not necessarily follow all the rules in their holy book. Christians, for example, do not follow almost any of the laws in the book of Leviticus. Modern Christians do not stone those who violate gods laws and most of them eat meat. Just because the Quran (with a Q) says something, it does not mean that all of its followers believe it. now, onto the quotes. "Women have rights that are similar to men, but men are "a degree above them." " 1.) This is simply talking about the rights of men versus women. It does not claim that women are less valuable, simply that, due to the society, they have different rights. "A woman is worth one-half a man" 1.) If you actually click the link after this quote, you see that it only refers to the ANCIENT equivalent of a jury. and not only does not have any application to modern day life, but has nothing to do with women being less valuable either. "Males are to inherit twice that of females" 1.) This again is a rule that is not followed anymore. If you look to modern day muslims, they can inherit as much as anyone else and gender does NOT come into the equation. Like Leviticus, this law is irrelevant. "Women are feeble and are unable to devise a plan. " 1.) so because someone is stupid they are less valuable? NO. This is another antiquated passage that was from a time when women were not educated at all and therefore were usually quite feeble-minded. "A man cannot treat his wives fairly." 1.) This has NOTHING to do with value at all. This quote is basically saying one cannot be impartial to two spouses even if one wants to. it goes on to recommend one tries to be fair anyway… ""Unto the male is the equivalent share of two females."" 1.) this is literally the exact same as the inheritance passage. LOOK TO MODERN LIFE! Muslim women can inherit just like anyone else. "Men and women are enemies!" 1.) Another translation of this line simply claims that men and women do not understand eachother and will therefore always be at odds… "You don't have to be modest around your wives or your slave girls "that your right hand possess." " 1.) Slaves are illegal everywhere… this is simply another antiquated law. "Believing women must lower their gaze and be modest, cover themselves with veils, and not reveal themselves except to their husbands, relatives, children, and slaves." 1.) in my last post I mentioned how in america and much of the rest of the world is it indecent for women to go topless. this is simply the ancient equivalent. "If men must speak to Muhammad's wives they must speak from behind a curtain. And no one must ever marry one of his wives." 1.) seriously, look to modern life, noone follows this law. "Those who "did wrong" will go to hell, and their wives will go to hell with them (no matter how they behaved)" 1.)The idea is that because the spouse is one's closest confidant, if one is continuously immoral it is unlikely that the spouse could remain in their position without also partaking in this evil. (of course I disagree and believe that, that everyone is saved anyway…) "Your wives and children are your enemies." 1.) see the quote about women being enemies from earlier. Basically, my opponent has come up with nothing new and continues to claim that antiquated laws in the Quaran somehow mean that M is sexist. Please look to modern muslims to see that these laws are clearly no longer followed. "he defends every part of the Koran, as any good religious person would" I like to think of myself and my pastors and such as religious people… but even they don't defend everything from the bible… you don't seriously believe that people still follow every rule written in every holy book do you? "M has set belief that women should act and dress a certain way just because if they don't it would make men lustful. " 1.) Regardless of if he said this or not, it was not a quote from your first post, and since you dropped my analysis, must be ignored for this debate. 2.) In America it's illegal and scandalous to reveal oneself… man or women. yet, noone seems to have a problem with these laws… This is the same kind of thing. "A man can beat his wife…she wants to "punish" him she must also punish herself." 1.) … it says nothing about cooking for oneself. Also in the modern world there are plenty of ways a women can deal with this. look to any religious text, they all have crazy parts that claim followers should commit grievous wrongs. However these laws are not followed by the majority of the members of the religion, and thus one cannot possibly claim that because of them the whole religion is evil… "If a man did get pregnant somehow… I am not saying everyone should always be treated the same, but people should be treated on if they earn it. Being a woman doesn't mean you earn anything differently than if you were a man (and vice versa)" 1.) Nothing wrong with this. If a women were a man… and did everything he did she certainly would be treated like one. However, like a man cannot give birth, a women cannot be a man. Because my opponent failed to make any new arguments and did not mention anything about hiding behind religion and using it as a shield I would like you to flow all of my untouched arguments to neg. I also believe that people should be treated FAIRLY. Equal and fair are not the sam