I should have won this debate

Rebuttal: "Contention 1: Evidence for Judaism is evidence for all other monotheist religions" My opponent attempts to compare Judaism and Islam, to 2 sects of Islam. This analogy is inherently faulty. From the very fact that Judaism and Islam are 2 different religions and not merely 2 sects of the same religion show that they are fundamentally different. Otherwise they would be 2 sects of the same religion, not 2 different religions. Although Islam is a take off of Judaism. Judaism is not a take off of Islam. Thus they are fundamentally different. This is clear from the debate itself as the debate related to the validity of Mohamed and the Koran. So to repeat although they may be fundamentally similar they are also still fundamentally different, This fundamental difference lies in the Koran and Mohamed upon which Islam is based. "Contention 2: Answer to R2b: this does not disprove any of your opponent's points, and you do not bring up any evidence for this in the course of the debate. " I will explain how it disproves pros point: Pros point: "1. The Koran is the only preserved religious book" R1 Bringing the original Hebrew testament as a counter example, of a religious book beside the Koran that has been preserved, disproves pros statement. The claim is made that no evidence for the counter claim was brought. Indeed it wasn't, so lets take a look at pros evidence for the preservation of the Koran: (1. If you go to the debate and click on pros link in R2 the following comes up: "You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '. http://www.masjidma.com...' at line 1" When I copied and pasted in this debate I fixed it. Don't take my word for it go to the original debate, . http://www.debate.org... . Round 2, and check it out yourself. It could be the problem is the computer not the link, but I've already tried it on a few computers and that's what came up. This is all besides the point as the links did not contain anything pertinent to the debate anyway. ) 2. If you go to link you will find that it does not support my opponents claim. My opponent claimed the Koran has not been altered since it was written, every word in the original is exactly the same as the current prints. If you read the 1st link you will notice 2 things: a) It says it is CLAIMED to be 1,300 yr. old. . and "Supervisor of the Shada Archaeological Palace in Abha, Anwar Mohammad Al-Khalil, said that the Quran is beautiful. I cannot say exactly when it was written. In order to find out, we must have it examined at a specialized research centre, he explained. " And more importantly : b)It says nothing regarding how it matches up with current Korans, which was pros whole point. As we can see clearly no evidence here. Now lets have a look at the 2nd Link: For your convenience I have cut and pasted it's contents here: "An old manuscript copy of the Noble Quran has recently been discovered in northwest ChinaÃï¿½â‚ï¿½â„ï¿½s Gansu Province. The oldest of its kind known in China, the handwritten copy of the Noble Quran is estimated to be written around 9th century A. D. or earlier, according to the People daily. Experts say that the book was brought to China from Central Asia. Given its cover style, the technique used for illustration, calligraphic model, and the paper, the newly-discovered copy of the Holy Quran is supposed to be one of the worldÃï¿½â‚ï¿½â„ï¿½s oldest. " Again not a word about whether it is the same wording as that of the current Korans. So in fact pros links, even if they did work, (which I don't think they did), provided no evidence for his claim that the text of the Koran has remained unchanged. "Contention 3: Con obviously did not read Pros argument. Pros response was that few things survive the passage of time. That the Quran in its original wording survived is a sign of it divinity. Con had no response to this. " As I wrote several times already con obviously did read pros response as he provided a counter example. The objection was made that no evidence was given for the counter argument. Well, that's just fine bec. No evidence was given for the original evidence as was just shown above. BoP was on pro. Pro made an argument providing no evidence. Pro called him on it. Con failed to provide adequate evidence. Pro fails to fulfil his BoP. Pro should lose. Vote pro. (In this debate not the other one. )