Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse.

My opponent seems to have put up a smoke screen when cornered. I contend that my arguments are on topic. First, where religion ends and science begins is a gray area because both claim some of the same territory. A good example is creationists claiming the Earth is under 10,000 years old. Yet, the scientific community claims and provides evidence that the Earth is over four billion years old. Therefore, the topic of "how old is the Earth?" could fit into either religion, or science, or both categories. Second, my opponent does not understand the distinction between types of evidence. In my round two argument I used a combination of both scientific and non-scientific evidence. Definition of evidence "a thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weighed the evidence for and against the hypothesis." [10] As you can see the first example is generic evidence, the broken window. The second example is scientific evidence. To understand the difference you need a basic understanding of the scientific method. "Peer-review and professional consensus This step is the most crucial, and it turns research into the "evidence" that we all talk about. The researcher has to present their data, results and conclusions in the form of a scientific report or paper. This must be reviewed by their scientific peers " only they are qualified to assess the validity of the methods and the accuracy of the conclusions the researcher has drawn from the results. "[11] In summary, the scientific method is a robust method to ensure accuracy. To be scientific evidence, the data must go through an intense process that greatly improves reliability over generic evidence. As for being off-topic, no I reaffirm that I am on topic. If the resolution was, "Islamic religious doctrine states the prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse" my opponent would be correct. This is not the topic though, instead the topic is " the Islamic prophet fly to heaven on a winged horse." This allows both sides to use sources and evidence scientific and non-scientific from sources other than Islamic religious texts. Even if you consider religious texts as evidence, just about every other religion contradicts each other. Let alone the contradictions within the Koran itself. ""Those who believe [in the Qur.an], and those who follow the Jewish [Scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any one who believe in God and the last day, and work righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord: on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." (Sura 2:62). Now, read a counter "revelation" in Sura Imran: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam [Submission to God] he will be in the ranks of those who have lost all spiritual good" (Sura 3:85)" You can't seriously consider the Koran as evidence when it contradicts itself. Again, I reaffirm my position that my opponent has no evidence and I have evidence. My evidence is on topic and thus admissible. Evidence against no evidence is clear, vote Con. 10. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 11. http://phys.org... 12. http://www.beholdthebeast.com...