Originally Posted by Xing Lee

Bro, I don't know what the examiner is going to do but I made pretty much the same arguments in the paper as well.

I disagree with your opinion on quoting the Quran. Quran and hadiths are quoted even in Supreme Court's decisions as well. Last night I was reading the detailed verdict of Supreme Court's decision on implementing Urdu as a the official language and the Chief Justice narrated an incident from the life of Hazrat Faird Ganj Shakr as an example to make a point.

I said treat each subject according to its nature. You have to keep your audience in mind before talking about islam. Pakistan is a twisted country. Out problem is we justify everything according to quran. But follow it the least. And btw farid ganj baksh is a mystic. Quoting him isn't islamic per se.

Just because it becomes impossible to come up with with an argument against the Quran doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. Winning doesn't matter, the truth does.

Lol. Try talking to athiest, they'll give you such befitting answers, u'll mind will be boggled. When did i ever refute the quranic text. It's good to follow your life according to islamic principles. Its an another thjng to thrust your religious beliefs on others.

Secondly, from the years of experience that I have with online debates, I know you cannot convince anyone to change his/her opinion if he is not willing to. Its very rare that something like that happens. Especially if that certain someone has old scores to settle with you. The best you can do is to lay out your arguments and leave it to the people reading the debate to decide for themselves. And this is what my aim is here and I think I've made my self quite clear.

So u take it as a debate? I thought it was a discussion. I'm too good to be an internet warrior. And i do beleieve you cannot change other's belief online or offline. But discussions on tbe other hand gives you new ideas, shows you new avenues to explore. But u belittle yourself by saying u take it as a debate. And u belittle me by thinking i'm here to win it.


How can you possibly deny the merits of education? How can one even begin a conversation like this? Is it not true that education broadens one's vision? Is it not true that education makes you learn how to think critically? Is it not true that its makes you question everything? Is it not true that it makes you curious to find the truth? Is it not true it makes your mind much more cultured? Is it not true that an educated person is much more likely to be balanced and rational in his approach than an uneducated person? Is all of this not true? If you think the answer to any of the above is "no", then I'm sorry I can't help you. But if you think the answer to all the above is yes, then why shouldn't opinion of these people carry more weight than the opinion of others?

Yes, it does, that it why people, companies govt organisation hold certain educational requirements for the job or position advertised. The idea is to hire the most competent person to carry out the stated job. Please read DO the job. By that standard the focus of education should be on the leader being elected. Not the person who's voting for him. For voting the only requirement is common sense, ambition, objectivity. A voter can vote anyone who he deems responsible. Who he can associate himself with. Who, he thinks, will help him reach his ambitions, provide him quality of life. All this is not learnt in by acquiring degrees only. But also by social conditions and experience. i'm not denying the merits of education here. I'm refuting the condition of education to vote. Because it's downright illogical to think only educated people can think clearly. Intelligence is natural faculty provided by God. It is not learnt in school.

Your argument makes no sense at all. If education is set as the condition for voting like I proposed, then these kind of governments will no longer get elected. They only get elected because jahils vote for them because they get bamboozled by their narai and bhangrai again and again. That's the whole point!

It is your argument not mine. What kind of government are u talking about? How do the people in west elect their governments. Dont they have a high literacy rate? Do they always elect the right leaders? Narai and bhangrai is a cultural drawback in our society. It cannot be fixed with education only. And btw most of the educated people didnt even vote till last general elections! Where was the literate class in our society before that?


The end goal is the prosperity of the country. I don't care how we get there. I only have the end goal in my mind. If only 50% of the people are capable of understanding this and voting for its implementation without getting bogged down by senseless slogans of jahil politicians then only these people are the ones whose vote should matter more. End of story. The rest can continue the nara and bhangra party. A good government once selected will endeavor to provide education to all of the people no doubt. Every year more and more people will join the caravan due to this. I don't see any contradiction or problem in this.

The so-called jahil politicians have also a degree. Why dont they think with a balanced mind, broad-vision and cultured ambitions. Why do they think about themselves only? Why dont they think in broader terms? We have to change tbe culture, get rid of our cultural stereotypes. Education will play a good role in it no doubt. But discrimination won't. After all they are also electing a leader for themselves. If they vote less, they have lesser say in social, cultural political issues. Their grievances wont be addressed. The leaders will only be more concerned about the educated masses, leaving the uneducated- which most often is the poor class, more isolated. Creating yet another wide gap in the society.

You didn't read my post at all did you? If you call this discrimination then call the nature out for discrimination as well. Why the income disparity between highly educated and others? Why the disparity in respectability for highly educated people and others? Call FPSC out for discrimination for having a bachelors requirement for CSS. Call colleges out for discrimination for having metric requirement for admission. Call all the jobs in the world out for discrimination because they require a certain degree for appointment.

It's income distribution, not income disparity. Employees are paid based on the the level of mental activity involved in the job task. The more technical, sophisticated a given job is, the more you are paid. A clerk cannot get the same salary aa the doctor, no matter if they work the same number of hours a day.
College roll out their requirements because the course needs students who have prior knowledge of the subject going to be studied. Can you do masters in chemistry without studying the basics at graduate level. How will u cope with the technical jargon? How would you know about court proceeedings. Different laws and what not. U cannot expect a college to give you admission in masters if you didnt atudy it at an intermediate level as a graduate student. Because u wont be able to cope with a vast syllabus in a given time period to complete a degree. I have already stated why organisation look for individuals with certain requirements. So u cannot give the same argument for viting. Because it doesnt require lots of techincal work or prior study to vote. Voting is neither a job nor degree. Justifying it with aforementioned arguments is pretty childish.


The entire argument is that in this society education will not be the norm because the government doesn't give a damn about it! In fact, its against it! You said it yourself. Government needs jahils in high numbers so that they can be easily fleeced for votes again and again! This cycle can only be broken if the opinions of jahils currently in the society starts carrying lesser weight than the opinion of the educated masses. This is the entire crux of my argument! Otherwise we'll never get out of a situation like today where hoards and hoards of jahil people who don't understand anything vote for their brethren only on the basis of biradari, stupidity and narai. Our history proves this.


Alright, here i kind of agree with you. But how do we decide who is the jahil here? Who gave us this authority. I already told u how i think education alone doesnt make us literate. Literate people have also voted for corrupt govts. Or literate masses have cared the least to elect the rightful govt. In such case how do we decide who is to vote? That's the problem.


If in the distant future a situation arises where everyone is educated at some level, even then if this law of nature is tinkered with it will create bad results and injustice in the society. If you remove the competitive nature of any society and everyone gets to lifts the trophy then why should anyone care to do better? If everyone wins the world cup then whats there to strive for?