- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
totally, totally against it. i have personally seen people take advantage of reservations and not work hard to earn their place, while those who actually work hard are left fending for themselves. there can be special considerations to people who actually need it. this system came into being when the fore mentioned classes were indeed backward and couldn't afford education and other amenities without special consideration. but now the divide is dissolved to a large extent, yet we see the practice still prevalent.
a child is a blessing, no matter in what form it comes. just like getting raped was not your fault, getting pregnant was also not yours, nor is the child's. it doesn't make any sense that the rapist continues to live while the child is killed for no fault of his. it should be the other way around. plus, i know i am way out of moral line when i say this, that child is the proof that the person u r accusing is indeed the rapist. no way to dispute that in court isn't it.
yes we should. porn is disgusting, its a universally accepted fact, plus its not real. watching porn creates a false sense of what the act of sex is, it raises unrealistic expectations which when remained unfulfilled leads to mental disorders. porn addiction is a real problem. so why is there still a question that censoring is necessary? the facts are out there, no one acts because it is a source of economy. its all about money, that's it.
First of all, he was not the founder of islam. prophet mohammed pbuh was the propogator of islam. islam's main view is that god is one.. and that is the concept that existed way before he was born.
secondly... when a criminal is sentenced, the main view is to punish the guilty but also to send a message that no crime goes unpunished. when one woman was punished for her crime, how many more will refrain from it. if it goes unpunished, many might adopt the way of adultery, where is the loyalty and trust in a marriage? imagine the disputes and problems that could be avoided.
next point- there is no verse about being violent towards non believers. the context you are talking about is the one where non believers were oppressive towards the believers, driving them into corners. then and only then was the concept of retaliation approved and that to only against those who have been oppressive towards the believers and not towards innocent. imagine someone constantly trying to throw you out of your house, what would you do? simply leave or fight back?
next point, quran doesn't tell us that we will go to heaven if we kill non believers. this again is out of context, the true context being, it is praise worthy to fight for your religion when, only when you are being oppressed solely for your beliefs and only in a state of war when they take up arms against the believers first. the truth is, if you kill a non believer, just because of his faith, you end up in hell.
lastly, as for the cutting of hands is concerned, this again is in line with the argument of adultery. if you steal unnecessarily then your are punished so that other may take a lesson from you and refrain from stealing. imagine if so many people stopped stealing fearing the punishment, its your belongings that will be safe.
Still think mohammed pbuh didn't preach peace?
there is always a context behind every verse of quran, find that out first before accusing solely on literal basis.
if you don't want to have a child, don't have sex. its as simple as that. just because you had a slip in the moment doesn't mean someone else has to lose a life. if you don't know the consequences of your actions, dont do it in the first place. its not like you will die if you don't have sex, but someone else will die if you abort. don't try to justify that taking a life is of least importance than controlling your desire to have sex.
depends on the cases. sometimes abortion is necessary if the pregnancy leads to the mother's life threatening conditions. but in other cases, it shouldn't be allowed. like you just cant abort a child because you slipped in your precautions while having sex, or if you get pregnant pre marital. its your fault, you face the consequences rather than taking a life.
yes it is. a man and a woman are physically and emotionally different. by having both, the child gets the best of them. the emotional empathy from his mother and a social out view from his father. though some are not blessed with both and some have neither despite having both, its circumstantial. in general sense, a child needs both.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!