The Instigator
SkepticsAskHere
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

A Challenge To Non-Christians!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,869 times Debate No: 16282
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (39)
Votes (11)

 

SkepticsAskHere

Pro



This a challenge to anyone who is not a Christian! I'm giving you guys the ability to pick the topic, I will be the pro-Christian position and you can be whatever. I will be posting youtube video responses and you can choose to do the same if you would like to but it's not mandatory. Please choose a real topic and don't just enter some stupid topic. Please run it by me in the comments, my youtube channel, my email (skepticsaskhere at gmail.com). I'm used to a L/D format so you can expect that. The video explains more.

BTW here's a list of my beliefs so you guys can have a list to choose from:

Everything in the Bible is God breathed and inspired
Christian: Protestant
God is the God of the bible
Jesus is the only way to salvation
Demons and angels do exist
NeoCreationist (I support micro evolution)
Trinity of Jesus God and the Holy Spirit

Good Luck!
Grape

Con



Welcome, SkepticsAskHere. I hope that this debate ends up being productive. I have indicated my acceptance and I look forward to hearing your case for God. We can flesh out the burden of proof as we go, but I think the impetus is on both of us to provide a viable philosohy. Once your definition of God and reasons for believing in Him have been outlined, I will offer my criticisms and my case for a purely physical world. We can then proceed in whatever direction that takes us.
Debate Round No. 1
SkepticsAskHere

Pro




God is the trinitarian God of the Bible. He is a trinity that consists of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.
God is the Creator, a will, everywhere, and he speaks. If I say anything contrary to the God of the Bible slam it in my face and please correct me. Also, I would like to say that God cannot sin and also that he cannot do anything that is illogical.

http://carm.org...

Case
1 Contention: The Bible is Inspired by God
Sub A: Messianic Prophecies

http://carm.org...
Sub B: Scientific Accuracies of the Bible
http://carm.org...


2 Contention: The Fine Tuning of the Universe
http://www.godandscience.org...


Grape

Con



I respond to SkepticsAskHere and make a case for why naturalism is sound and it is not necessary to accept the supernatural.
Debate Round No. 2
SkepticsAskHere

Pro

I will use the same lineup as last time but then issue is my computer is extremely slow and the fact of the matter is that I was not able to get the video to load in time, so please forgive me I will post it in the comments as soon as it loads and in my next round as well for those of who would like to see it viewing the debate. I apologize for the inconvenience. Ignore this if I'm able to post the video, but it is unlikely.

I need a definition of what you consider supernatural as well.
Grape

Con

Here is the next round of the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
SkepticsAskHere

Pro

Previous round video:



This rounds video:



http://carm.org...



This is my evidence for superior new testament reliabilty.

Grape

Con

Unfortunately I will be getting home later tomorrow than I had anticipated. I have several errands to run after school that cannot be postponed. I will be able to post my response in the comments approximately 3-4 hours after the deadline would have been reached. Sorry for the inconvenience. It seems that we're even now.
Debate Round No. 4
SkepticsAskHere

Pro

No worries on the video, I got mine in time so it's no big deal.



You don't have to post an outline, but I simply felt like doing so.

God being supernatural- God is supernatural

Well then God really can’t be tested (electron demonstration)

Other religions have the same prophetic claim. Can you say one is superior?

Yes because the prophecies in the Bible are extremely specific, but I’ll get on more to that later.

Argument for his own message in one book

Well we use the evidence of inspiration inside scripture that points to a God!

Bad Greek Issue

Well actually we have manuscripts that weren’t in Greek. Most of the Greek was Paul who of course spoke mainly Greek. Tongues possibly?

The Eye of the Needle, camel or rope?

The Eye of the Needle was actually a very compact place known to the people of the time. SO it is camel.

Romans did not usually pierce, Jesus could have been stabbed

But he WAS pierced so it only confirms the rare situation that Jesus was in, but I will expand once again on prophecies later.

Science predicted, people who had access to the same technology, time, had same idea

The point of these arguments was that these people came before the ancient people you described, and weren’t scientists in the least. I’ll expand later. They didn’t try to see if the world was floaing they just knew! Valleys of the seas, water cycle. Evaporation

Earth floating is supported or floating? Most people would say floating

No at the time it was an extremely common belief that the Earth was held.

Did not believe celestial beings, that’s why I don’t believe in evidence because I don’t see any.

Not adequate evidence to examine universe

Could be different ways that the universe could have been made.

We don’t have enough evidence, but right now the evidence that we do have points to this. You’re speculating, however this shouldn’t be a voting issue.

7 strands of RNA

I’m not here to debate evolution and the origin because I really don’t know as much as I should about the origin!

We don’t see it in a politics today

It’s because you’re not looking for it

Holocaust

Read evidence for holocaust prophecy

Catholic Church didn’t forgive Galileo a long time ago

Church has done horrible things to science to delay needed research for further scientific discoveries.

Evil and God, there is no purpose

Different issue and we could do an entirely different debate just on that topic.

The fact of the matter is science is too young to determine our worldviews, so let’s look at the evidence we know of for sure.

Talk about the detail of messianic prophecies.

The Bible predicts the rise, decline, and fall of Islam.

Scientific Accuracies

I have shown you the accuracy of scripture, the prophecies in the Bible, and scientific accuries.

Thank You for the debate!



Reasons for voting decision:
You can decided what you would like to put fot the first four issues, however, I feel I have had stronger arguments with sources to back up everything I say, while my opponent only speculates
.

Sources
http://www.bibleforetoldholocaust.com...
http://www.lifeofchrist.com...
http://www.maitreya.org...

Grape

Con

Outline:

Metaphysical Naturalism:

Pro cannot negate my offensive. We could observe evidence of the supernatural using science but we don't. This is very problematic. We do observe evidence of electrons, and our practical use of comple electric machines indicates that their existence is highly likely.

Prophecies:

All the prophecies are vauge. Many of them are dropped because there is no eviden (virgin birth). Others are obvious (Jews being persecuted) and could have easily been predicted. Pro claims to have 300 prophecies but presents only a few. If the cream of the crop are this weak it is doubtful the others are better. An inspired book would be expected to be a lot more accurate and specific.

The piercing prophecies is vague and does not refer to crucifiction as it was commonly practiced.

Bad Greek:

Confusion about the Bible makes it difficult for us to accept it's inerrancy. The rope-needle analogy makes more sense and it would be a bad decision to include such a specific reference anyway. The fact that we can even debate this shows that the doctrine of inerrancy is too questionable to be considered overriding evidence.

Simulation Argument:

Dropped. A computer simulation provides a better explanation for why the universe would be fine-tuned if it was.

Probablity:

Pro's argument relies on one condition for he determination of universal constants (low reptition and high variability). There are infinitely many possibilities and we cannot determine the actual conditions. However, modern physics points to little or no variability in the constants.

Problem of Evil:

Either dropped or not understood. The suffering in the world does not fit with an all-loving God. It's not about what I want, it's about the state of things. The world sucks and if God cares about us he is not doing a good job. Pro does not counter this point.

Qu'ran:

It is written better than the Bible and thus has a better claim to inerrancy. Vague prophecies you can prove happened are better than specific ones that you can't (virgin birth). The Qu'ran is the best literary work in the Arabic cannon. The Bible is not even close to the best literary work in the Western cannon. Why did God make Shakespeare a better writer than himself?

Voting concerns:

I did not post links to sources, but I specifically cited evidence in my videos. My arguments were mostly based on philosophy or well known scientific facts. I gave credit where credit was due and any scientific claim could be backed by Google or a quick look at a textbook.

Pro's arguments were pretty soundly demolished or severally mitigated. The fine-tuning argument has been refuted and Pro did not even understand the point of the objection. The Qu'ran's better claim to inerrancy means that the evidence is against the God of the Bible being God if he exists. Prophecies don't necessarily affirm God, and they aren't nearly as strong as they should be if a work is inspired. God can't even inspire more accurate knowledge of the universe than ancient people could figure out with primative math.

My offense is not rebutted and carries cleanly through. He cannot refute the methodological naturalism argument or the Problem of Evil, and he does not even attempt to. Both of these arguments point to the fact that it is very unlikely that God exists.

Based on this, you should vote arguments to Con and tied the other voting points. Thanks to SkepticsAskHere and to readers for their judgement. Good night.





Debate Round No. 5
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Ya well you'd defiantly have to format your case and show something like

Contention 1: I should win.... etc.
{Evidence inserted here}

Contention 2: I should win again.... etc.
{Evidence inserted here}

But that would be all they could put. They would explain their arguments in the video.

Well yes of course but I feel like I could have argued it so much better than I did due to the lack of time. It was like we had to attack and defend about ten different arguments in a round, so it was very sloppy.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
I guess LD is okay for certain topics, but the format doesn't emphasis use of evidence,so the debates tend to be shallow expressions of beliefs. The details of the back-and-forth structure arenot so important as keeping arguments focus and wll-supported. Perhaps refernce links could be presented in the text.

Incidentally, regarding the fine tuning argument, perhaps the most-favored current theory is that there are an infinite number of universes spanning higher dimensions, covering all possible variations of parameters. We happen to be in one of them that supports life. It's an unproved theory. Con's argument that be don't know how many would support life is also valid.

If one deals out a hand of bridge, the chances of getting the deal observed is so small it would not occur in a trillion trillion lifetimes. Nonetheless, that is what is observed, and the next deal is guaranteed to produce another deal that is equally improbable. No one argues that divine intervention is necessary to play bridge, on the grounds that otherwise getting whatever observed has too small a probability. For improbable events, we need to know the proportion of successes. With the universe, it might be the only success, but it is selected as the one we are capable of observing.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
I'm sure a lot of people would be, I think I'll get started on that tomorow
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
I see your point, though I feel like anyone spread/sped would get vote bombed hard on this site (with good reason).

I would watch an LD video debate for sure, or some variation of LD/policy.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Well what would you think about Lincoln/Douglas times. So we can have a 1ac (6), 1nc(7), 1ar(4), 1nr (6), and finally a 2ar (3). The rounds would be short and easy to watch. This way you would HAVE to only have 1 or two arguments.

The reason I'm not sure about policy is because I know someone is going to start spreading in the video and its built for two people you know?
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
You should consider doing it similar to policy, where you have constructive rounds and rebuttals.

So for example, 1-2 8 min constructive rounds and 1-2 5 min. rebuttals.

This keeps the debates to a reasonable length and the shorter rebuttal rounds force more analysis and refinement of arguments. With only 5 minutes you cant restate every point you have made, but need to choose what is most important/strongest.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Ya I agree, I want to do another video debate, but only with a longer time for arguments, limit the video to 5 minute max, and each side only having one argument (if not one side having an argument and then Con having to refute it). Each side had a main argument that neither side was really concerned with. I had prophecies, my opponent had the fine tuning refutation. Overall it was really sloppy.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
If the Geneva Conventions do not specifically ban video debates with 25 minute rounds, then they should be amended to close that loophole. Pro's repetitive unsupported claims were especially bad. Neither side did a good job of structured, concise arguments that video debates need to be effective. If the participants enjoyed it, okay for them, but it's no fun to judge. The video limit should be ten minutes per round, that's equivalent to about 8000 characters. Eight minutes per round would be better.

Pro offered a selection from a list of topics. I think it would have been better if Con took just one topic, rather than having such a rambling debate. It finally settled to mostly prophesy as proof of God. The cited prophesies were non-specific and largely claimed to be both presented and proved by the Bible, not by independent sources. If proved, it would only confirm an ability to make prophesies, not the infinite powers of God.

Missed deadlines and unlimited video times seem agreed-to by both sides as not being conduct violations. There were no standards for presentation style, so no Conduct or S&G. If video debates persist, S&G ought to be applied to the quality of the video presentation style. It would be reasonable to give Con the style points, but I'll withhold that.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Agreed, I repeat what Reformed said. Why did you just tie it up?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I want to hear what Kohai has to say about this. If he doesn't have an explanation I'm reporting him just like I did Jar... and we see that Jar isn't around anymore either

Kohai, I expected better from you. You talk about conduct, then you cheat to sway debates...
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: jar never voted -.-
Vote Placed by Atheism 4 years ago
Atheism
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Two people counter bombed jaw's vote, yet jar never voted. Real.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 5 years ago
headphonegut
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh god stupid counters there's a clear winner here I don't believe jar v bombed also Arguments to con for his effective counter to the supernatural And prophesies
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to give points for sources to Pro but I can't award points for arguments. Like Roy said, watching an hour and a half of video, the equivalent of a movie, of back and forth arguments is not fun to judge
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Vote removed
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall a good debate... echoing everything that everyone else said about videos... tedious to judge. Ultimately, Pro made a better argument. I also gave him source points because although the Bible was the primary source for both (either for or against) Pro showed a greater understand of proper hermeneutic and exegetical methods. Using a source poorly doesn't get as much credit as using a source well.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: A rambling way-too-long debate. It came down to Pro's claims of prophesies being vague, self-affirming, or too obvious. What, in any case, are the grounds for prophesy proving God rather than aliens, time machines, or mere mystic oracles?
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote-bombing Jar, who obviously didn't listen to the debate or read anything in the debate. If he had, he would realize Con did argue in round four, but due to being delayed Con argued in the comments section.
Vote Placed by NextLevelSwag 5 years ago
NextLevelSwag
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped some stuff thought and never really attacked skeptics main argument about prophecies, Con didt hav sources either
Vote Placed by detachment345 5 years ago
detachment345
SkepticsAskHereGrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con did a good job of defending the position that we shouldn't accept supernatural beings