Some authentic Hadeeths show that Prophet Mohammad was neither highly moral nor well-mannered

My opponent has chose not to respond to my refutation, which means I'll be only countering the apologetic he provided in the previous round. It's important to note that both my references for the hadeeths were accurate according to my opponent. My only mistake was that I left out the chain of narrations in the first round.1- Concerning my first reason:Both of us have reached an agreement that the first hadeeth is authentic. However, my opponent insists that Prophet Mohammad was well-mannered and highly moral when saying "If you see a man performing Jahilya's funeral rituals, make him bite his father's pen!s." I've explained my position on that matter in the first round, but I will extend my explanation here. The Prophet is expected to be a moral teacher and someone who "puts a high price on manners and morals," as my opponent argues. However, when reading the quotation, it sounds like something P Diddy would have said. I'm not making a comparison between the two men , but rather explaining how disjoint the quotation seems from the character of a (supposedly) highly moral and well-mannered person, who also happens to be a teacher who preaches manners and piety.1A- Contention 1: " First of all, in our society the word 'penis' or any euphemism of it is considered pejorative. But, as my opponent knows better than I, in Islam, we have no taboos. Everything we need to talk of, we talk of. No censure. "The Prophet used "Hin Abeeh" (father's male) as a euphemism for pen!s, and he did that because saying "Faraj"(pen!s) was a taboo in that particular situation. Nonetheless, he conveyed the vulgar meaning. That is why I didn't find him well-mannered. I would understand the Prophet saying that in a private discussion that deals with sexual or medical matters, but this is clearly not the case in the hadeeth I provided. According to the authentic hadeeths and the Prophet himself, vulgarity is not something God likes. "Beware of vulgarity for indeed Allaah does not love the one who is vulgar in speech nor the one that's vulgar in action, and beware of oppression, for oppression will be darkness on the day of resurrection..." This is an authentic hadeeth (Ibni Hibbaan V.11 Page 530) narrated by Ibni Hibbaan[1]. My opponent has yet to convince me that "make him bite his father's pen!s" is not a vulgar expression, but something God would like. Paramount to that, there is no question that vulgar terms and expressions are prohibited in Islam according to that authentic hadeeth, as opposed to the looseness my opponent claims is present in Islam.1B- Contention 2: "Biting the private parts of your father can be seen as an immorality. Asking someone personally to do so is an insult and therefore as well immoral. But the prophet did not address any person directly: he stressed the seriousness of such actions by making it a little heavy... Not within the borders of immorality."Imagine a person saying, "He who prays like a Jew, will be forced to rape his mother." How is that not an immoral command? It follows all my opponent's criteria. (1) It's not addressing a person directly, (2) it's stressing the seriousness of such action, (3) It's making the situation heavy (I don't agree that the Prophet made the situation just a "little heavy"). Clearly it is an immoral command because of the threat. Similarly, the Prophet's command is immoral because of the "make him bite his father's pen!s." Needless to say, the Prophet insulted everyone who practices those rituals by what he said. How is that not insulting, but saying that to one person is?My opponent supplied a definition of morality which I accept, although I don't agree with his line of reasoning. We already have an immoral action and a decision that says that anyone caught doing the rituals should be punished. I ask my opponent to define to me the traits/aspects of an immoral commandment. I simply consider the aforementioned commandment immoral based on the Islamic morality because of: (1) vulgarity of the words, (2) obscenity of the act and the (3) violent and terrifying threat.2- Concerning my second reason:The second hadeeth described Prophet Mohammad pushing Aisha and causing her pain. I'm going to directly deal with the only objection my opponent raised.2A- Contention 3: "None of the words in the Arabic context refer to an injury, and Aisha herself spoke only good about the Prophet after his death, which makes it only more clear that none of the results of violence mentioned above is actually present in this case."I believe my opponent misunderstood the definition of violence which he brought fourth. It says "Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury...". If a push didn't result in injury, but had a high likelihood in resulting in injury, it still is considered violent. Let us not forget that the push we're talking about resulted in pain for Aisha. Furthermore, If none of the Arabic context refers to an injury, this doesn't mean that an injury didn't happen. I didn't mention an injury, so the BoP(Burden of Proof) is on my opponent to prove that one didn't happen. Aisha—did—speak well of her husband after his death, but let us not forget that she was appealing to this followers and political allies[2] and that domestic violence was common back in those days[3]. I wouldn't be shocked if a wife beaten by her husband would say positive things about him on his funeral at the times Mohammad. It's like children beaten by their fathers praising them after they grow up. I don't see that impossible as my opponent suggests. In summary, the two reasons still hold. I haven't seen any good apologetic that changed my mind about my position. My location is Lebanon(my opponent asked me that in the previous round).[1] Ibni Hibbaan V.11 Page 530[2] Spellberg, D.A. (1996). Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha bint Abi Bakr. Columbia University Press. pp. 4-5. ISBN 0-231-07999-0, ISBN 978-0-231-07999-0.[3] muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_womens_history/summary/v023/23.3.clark.html