The Instigator
greatusernamedude
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
judeifeanyi
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

All Christians should support the separation of church and state.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
judeifeanyi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 981 times Debate No: 43627
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

greatusernamedude

Pro

Intelligent debate on the separation of church and state is vital and should stay intact. Intelligence has been likened to a game of chess and I do not intend to lose one round.
judeifeanyi

Con

Martin lurther king junior was wise when he said'injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' tracing this to the motion at hand, why should all chritians accept seperation which i will term segregation? So we should accept what will bring hatred? What will bring jealousy? What will bring competition in the church? Indeed it is impunity to even mention that..ponder on this, lets critically analyze this, when we accept segregation, it will in all ramification bring hatred people from this church will always encourage you not to go to the other one rather theirs which is jealousy and that is not what we want as chritians, and if there is seperation of churches, it will lead to hatred because one from this denomination, will never accept what is been done in the other denomination as a good thing..ponder on this, lets look at the issue of state, should we segregate? Don't we know that if we seperate, it means we re against one another? And that is indeed what we do not want so ladies and gentlemen, i think I am ahead of this arguement based on the fact that segregation is not good which is my stand
Debate Round No. 1
greatusernamedude

Pro

Okay, so, I believe that you misunderstand what the term "separation of church and state" means. Separation of church and state simply refers to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (http://www.pbs.org...)
It simply means that Government will have a hands off approach to religion, and that government will not establish a national religion. (http://www.pbs.org...) Basically it means, "Hey, government, leave religion alone. Neither force anyone to worship in a specific way, nor should you prohibit anyone from worshiping how they want."
judeifeanyi

Con

The greatest purveyor of violence, is our own goverment 'martin king junior' take it or leave it, based on the motion which was to be debated, you have failed in all ramification because you did not explain in your rich text what you meant which makes me the leader in this arguement..thats not withstanding,I Will be addressing the non issue which was raised by the proposistion side, the question still remains, whats your stand on this matter? None. Whats your arguement? None. Which shows that the proposition side, does not even have any arguement, or stand upon which their arguement is to be built.....judging based on the explanation which was portrayed by by you, if chritians should be allowed to seperate, the goverment as the governing councel of every state, will have limited power which will weigh down the government in all ramification and that is never the type of country we would like to befit our future generation to...my stand still remains, chritians should not allow I repeat, should not allow such because it will weigh down the powers of our government
Debate Round No. 2
greatusernamedude

Pro

Let me go through your entire argument and address each point one by one, to show you that your entire premise in round 2 is faulty, and that if I decided to, I could report this argument and you'd be made to look very bad.
1: I was being compassionate when debating you, because I inferred that you can't spell, you seemed like a decent person, and I thought, okay, give this guy a break. Debate him at his level.
2: I said in my original statement that Intelligence has been likened to a game of chess and I do not intend to lose one round. That is still the case; however, when I read your argument to my original opening, as I said before, I was assuming that you were a decent person with a very somewhat limited education that I should show mercy to, and maybe the whole "Intelligence is chess" argument didn't apply to this particular situation. I see that I was wrong in assuming that. Allow me to continue to blast holes into your argument one by one in each of your previous posts and each future post. It will happen if you are not civil from this point on.
3: As mentioned in point 2, I was civil in my first post to you; you were anything but civil in your post to me. I will remain civil from this point on, will you?
4: You continue to call Christians "chritians." Let me go on the record and say now, I am a Christian, not a "chritian", whatever that is. You assume I am talking about segregation, therefore accusing me of being a racist, do I read you correctly? In no way am I a racist. You say it is impunity to even mention something, but you do not specify what. Why don't you go research the definition of impunity and you'll find out some interesting stuff.
5: At the very end of your argument, you say, "my stand still remains, chritians should not allow I repeat, should not allow such because it will weigh down the powers of our government". Oh, no! Let us please not weigh down the powers of our government, whatever we do!! Am I being ironic, or were you? I thought that you said at the beginning of your argument that our government is the greatest purveyor of violence.

But please, continue to explain why you are the leader in this argument. Or, step up and debate me civilly, as I attempted to do when I read your reply to my first post. Either way, if you continue to behave uncivilly, I will report this argument, for reasons that I haven't even begun to explain.
judeifeanyi

Con

Indeed, i made mistakes in my spellings not because i can't spell it but because i was using predictions to type but thats not withstanding, you have not even given us one reason to support your arguement...now let me start by exposing your weaknesses..1.you have not given any solid arguement, you only base on corrections which is not even reboutal 2.when i quoted martin king, you should first of all understand the quote before you try to afress 3.you don't even match me not to talk of debating me in what manner you call it because you don't even have a stand which is the foundation upon which your arguement is been built...based on this, i am the leader in this arguement..moreover, if you want to give a full reboutal, you should learn how to...you said you don't want to even lose any round, so should i have mercy on you? It is a game of chess agreed but that is if you win..you have even committed fallacy based on your first outing because you are pleading that you wouldn't like to lose any..so dear, give us substansive reason to back up your points..you said you will report this arguement because of uncivil reasons but when i checked my dictionary to see the uncivily, it was nothin to write home about..please this is round 3 and you have not given us your substansive arguement
Debate Round No. 3
greatusernamedude

Pro

I see the basic problem here, so let me now address that. "All Christians should support the separation of church and state." All, meaning every, Christians, meaning someone who follows the teachings of Jesus (which you can learn about in any Bible that contains both the Old and New Testament ), either generally or specifically, Should, meaning in this context, have a moral obligation to, Support, meaning assist, The, meaning something previously mentioned or about to be mentioned, or assumed to be common knowledge, Separation, meaning moving something apart or dividing it into distinct elements, Of, meaning in this context referring to which specific thing, Church, meaning a building used for public worship, And, which is a conjunction used to connect words in a sentence, State, meaning government. I can continue to do this with each of our posts, but there is a key piece of information that has been brought to my attention which, if stated in my next post, would secure this debate for me alone. So, in light of this knowledge, I suggest what is known in chess as a draw. If you choose not to accept a draw, I will win in my next post.
judeifeanyi

Con

I admit it, you are already begging for draw when you have not raised any argument..you only defined some basic terms which will aid to your argument but you have not presented any argument. My question is this, what is your stand? You don't even have any stand on this debate which makes me the leader in this argument..that's not withstanding, based on the argument, I still say that goverment should be allowed to make decision as regards to formation, and other activities because when we clearly look at the definition of government, it incompasses on taking care of the affair of the state which the church is even involved..my dear, when i quoted martin king junior, that the greatest purveyor of violence is our own goverment, the goverment there is you and I so don't misunderstand me.
Debate Round No. 4
greatusernamedude

Pro

My stand is exactly this... "Intelligent debate on the separation of church and state is vital and should stay intact." As a Christian, I wish to add my two cents to this debate, and show that Christians can be very intelligent. You have proved your intelligence to me in that last post so it's no longer important to me whether or not I win this debate.
judeifeanyi

Con

Indeed your stand is strong and weak because you didn't explain your stand....thats not withstanding government should have control over the formation
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by AwesomeStanely 3 years ago
AwesomeStanely
Theoretically speaking, absolutely the church should not interfere or be directly influencing matters of state.
HOWEVER...
The 'state' should be a governing body derived from the people it represents and controls. Should a majority of people support a religious institution being involved in matters of state than the populous should feel free to incorporate its morals, beliefs and religious authorities into its governance*.

(*as long as it does not forcibly impose religion on its citizens)
Posted by whatledge 3 years ago
whatledge
Very tempting, but I'll let someone more suitable take it, as I will only be playing the devil's advocate.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Please define "separation of church & state"
Posted by FluffyCactus 3 years ago
FluffyCactus
I'll accept. If Catholic counts as Christian in your opinion, that is. That is to say, I would argue for a Church-run state. NOT a State-run Church.
Posted by Oxymoron 3 years ago
Oxymoron
I'll accept -- if the meaning/legal implications of the Separation of Church and State are contestable.
Posted by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
Is the church in the resolution the Christian Church? If that is the case, I'll gladly accept this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
greatusernamedudejudeifeanyiTied
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: Pro didn't seem to provide any substantial form of argument.