This is the first of three videos of a debate.
Nadir Ahmed vs. David Wood (1 of 3): "Does Islam Promote Violence Towards Non-Muslims?"
From what I remember of the debate, the Muslim speaker, Nadir Ahmed, relies on the supposed historical context of the verses revealed in the Koran to provide his own meaning. He provides his own made up version of history in the process. I think most people could have torn through Nadir's arguments, including his counter hadith.
The debater speaking in the affirmative, David Wood, argued the Koran is a complete book with clear passages. One doesn't need historical context to interpret the Koran. He effectively cancels Nadir's primary argument, although David never presses Nadir to justify interpreting the Koran historically.
But if one were to interpret some verses historically, then where would that line of interpretation end? Should Muslims no longer follow the passages dealing with criminals/sinners because they were revealed in a time when the early Muslims lacked prisons and jails?
Beyond that, Nadir's performance in the debate will remind forum members of a member here who, like Nadir, is all style and no substance - claiming, for instance, as Nadir did throughout the debate, that an argument is refuted rather actually refuting any argument at all.