The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Igor
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Ban all illustrated Bibles now!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,263 times Debate No: 6068
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

According to all the popes and archbishops and that, all the people who lived wholesome, blameless lives (and who were born since the Bible was written and who lived in countries where Christianity was practiced) were sent to Heaven.

Now, please imagine one day in the afterlife where the innocents are lawfully going about their celestial business when one of them pops into a hallowed hostelry for a sacramental scotch and soda.

Well, this beatified boozer has a couple. Actually, he has a few. And on his way to the consecrated crapper for sacred slash, our inebriated angel accidentally bumps into a guy with a beard, thus causing him to spill his beer.

"Oi! Thee," says the bloke with the beard, "Didst thou spill my pint?"

"So what if I did," replies the deceased drunkard, "Have you got a problem with that, beardy?"

"Right, that's it," says Beardy, "Thou and me, outside on yonder cloud, NOW!"

So, they both went outside to scrap it out. However, our half-cut hero's hirsute opponent possessed more special moves than all the Mortal Kombat characters put together and, as the sloshed seraph lay prostrate and utterly defeated, his bearded enemy decided to FINISH HIM!

Oh dear, oh dear! Well, now, all that could have been avoided. You see, what our winged whisky-drinker didn't realise was that the aggrieved pub-goer he had been fighting was, in fact, none other than the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

But he couldn't have known that because in his illustrated Bible, Jesus was depicted thus:

http://ce.byu.edu...

While the bloke that offered him outside (and subsequently kicked his head in) looked like this:

http://www.lycos.co.uk...

Well, why shouldn't he look like that? No living artist has ever seen Him so how could they know how to paint Him? It's no wonder, then, that an angel that hadn't been introduced to Him would fail to recognise Him and land himself up in a fight he could never win as a result.

Therefore, in order to avoid any future angels becoming involved in alcohol-fuelled, posthumous punch-ups with The Lord, I submit that illustrations in Bibles should be banned forthwith

Thank you.
Igor

Con

I negate the resolution: Ban all illustrated Bibles now

[Topical Observations]

1) The resolution states ‘ban'. Because an average constituent of society cannot put forth direct laws that directly affect others, this resolution deals with the government achieving the action

[Definitions]

1) Ban: to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution

2) All: a whole amount

[Value/VC]

Value: Justice
Value Criterion: Government Intervention

Justice is inherent to the resolution because it deals with making new legislation (no laws currently do this action). Justice is giving each their due. My value of justice is upheld through government intervention. The resolution states an action that will undoubtedly affect members of society. Therefore, my opponent must prove how this governmental intervention is just.

[Contentions]

1) One of the most important goals of any given government is to promote happiness to its constituents. Because the definition of ban includes the ‘performance' (use) of something, in this case illustrated bibles, it also includes the government taking away illustrated bibles from members of its society, not just preventing the future sale of such items. Because Christianity is the largest religion in this world, and the bible, illustrated or not, is the most important piece of scripture for this religion, as well as the fact that the Bible has been printed over five billion times since 1815 and translated into over 2,000 different languages, all point to the fact that the bible promotes happiness. Thus, taking away something that promotes happiness would be decreasing happiness.

2) Banning illustrated bibles would have negative economic effects on a society. In order for a society to exist, it must have a strong economy. Millions of illustrated bibles are sold each year (approx. 25 million), and over 90% of Americans say that they own a bible (the average is 4 per household). This has two positive effects: creates jobs (publishers) and creates tax revenue. Therefore, banning the future distribution of illustrated bibles (which make up the majority of bibles) would hurt publishers (bibles outsell the top-seller every week 2 to 1) and it would not increase tax revenue, which can then be used to fixing everyday problems this country faces.

[Rebuttal]

[Value]

--> he gives not value, thus mine is superior and the ‘higher standard'

[Value Criterion]

--> once again, he does not present one. You can therefore extend my VC through the round

[Contentions]

My opponent does not clearly mark his arguments, but I will try my best:

‘no living artist has ever seen Him so how can they know how to paint Him'

I have 3 arguments

--> Through digital computer processing, scientists have actually identified some features of Jesus' face from the Shroud of Turin

--> nobody is making anybody buy illustrated bibles. If you feel this way, simply buy a bible with no illustrations of Jesus

--> Not all illustrations in books are of Jesus. Because my opponent only argues that the illustrations of Jesus are wrong, other illustrations (which, by the way, are a majority) are okay
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

With many thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate, please take it as read that I accept his Observations, Values and Definitions.

Now, to address his contentions:

1) While I am willing to accept that it is governments' duty to promote happiness amongst its citizens, I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well. Clearly, a devout Christian who has followed the teachings of the Bible throughout his time on Earth should expect an eternity of harmony and bliss in Heaven. However, this could be ruined if he got snuffed out in a pub fight with Jesus just because his Bible led him to believe that He looked like some hippy in a dressing gown rather than, say, Russell Brand.

2) Destroying all the illustrated Bibles, which as my opponent pointed out, represent the majority of all Bibles in circulation, would, on the contrary, be good for the economy. Thousands of jobs will be created in the publishing industry to help satisfy the demand for new un-illustrated Bibles. Furthermore, the confiscated Bibles could be sold on to heathens, heretics and other non-believers for use in their bathrooms – the exceptionally thin pages would make them ideal substitutes for toilet paper.

Moving on now to address his arguments.

"Through digital computer processing, scientists have actually identified some features of Jesus' face from the Shroud of Turin"

Radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic, and therefore the image no more resembles Jesus than the figure portrayed in, say, Edward Munch's The Scream.

http://www.mcri.org...
http://www.journeywithjesus.net...

"Nobody is making anybody buy illustrated bibles. If you feel this way, simply buy a bible with no illustrations of Jesus"

That doesn't mean they should be legal. It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures. For example, a novel about child abuse that goes into graphic detail would not be banned but the film version of the book, which included graphic scenes of children being raped, would be.

"Not all illustrations in books are of Jesus. Because my opponent only argues that the illustrations of Jesus are wrong, other illustrations (which, by the way, are a majority) are okay"

An extension of the last analogy: if the police raided the home of a middle-aged former pop-star (who had been twice accused of sexually interfering with little boys in past and who was on record as saying that sharing his bed with young boys was the most natural thing in the world) and found a German DVD which showed boys being raped on a Bavarian mountainside, should they let him off if he claims he wasn't looking at the sick perverts molesting their victims, he was only admiring the beautiful scenery in the background?

In conclusion, there is no consensus of what Jesus looks like, it depends on your version of the Bible. After all, Bible are specially produced for all sorts of people:

porn stars:

http://fireproofnew.sellmerch.com...

Cockney wide-boys

http://www.brf.org.uk...

comic-book geeks:

http://www.theartofsiku.com...

and people with learning difficulties / people from Norfolk, England:

http://www.thebricktestament.com...

In each version Jesus is depicted very differently. So, in the hereafter, when it all kicks off in a blessed bar on a Saturday night on Cloud 9, and the fists start flying, a devout and pious Christian soul might condemn himself to an eternity in Hell, simply by making the innocent mistake of glassing Jesus in the face and then kicking Him in the bollocks when He was down on the ground – and all because He didn't look anything like His picture in the Bible.

Therefore, for the sake of all divine debutants, I urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.
Igor

Con

Although I do not believe what Brian_Eggleston believes on this issue, I do believe that he is a worthy opponent and, in general, a nice guy

I will move on to defend my case, then attack my opponents

[Value, Value Criteria, Definitions, and Observations]
--> he agrees with all of them. End of story

[Contentions]
"I believe that this responsibility should not be limited to their lives on Earth, but should extend to their prospects of happiness in the afterlife as well"

I have 2 responses

--> My opponent is saying that he does not believe in separation of State and Church. Because he is arguing on the Church's behalf, and because the Church is FOR the separation of State and Church, this is hypocritical and counterproductive to what the Church wants

--> We do not continue to give welfare checks to the deceased or provide social programs for them, so why should we continue to try to promote happiness to the dead? It is not the government's job to promote happiness after death. Besides, if you agree with my opponent, isn't heaven the state of pure happiness?

"Destroying all illustrated bibles....would be good for the economy"

I have 1 response

--> Destroying all illustrated Bibles would cause thousands of people to lose their respective jobs. But, some people would regain those jobs (the people that rewrite the Bible), yet some, like the people who illustrate Bibles, would lose their jobs and would become a detriment to society. So, as you can see, this would be negative for the economy

Now, I will move on to my opponents case

"radio carbon dating proves this filthy remnant was created around 1355, probably as a hoax relic..."

I have one response

--> Pope Benedict the 16th, Jesus' successor, openly acknowledges that it is from Jesus, when he says, "An image that has not been made by human hands."

"It's not the words that are dangerous; it's the pictures"

I have two arguments

--> Once again, these pictures are not dangerous. Because they pose no eminent threat to society or to the government itself, as well as the fact that the government should become affiliated with religious aspects of people's lives, there is no reason for this act of banning bibles

--> Agreeing with my opponent restricts one right to freedom of speech. If two different illustrators have two different depictions of Jesus, and you like one better than the other, does that make the 'worse' one wrong? Of course not

"An extension of the last analogy"

--> Because he attacks with the same argument, I can defend with the same argument. Simply refer to my last argument

[Voting Issues]

--> he agrees with my value, value criteria, definitions, and observation. I attacked all of his points and defended all of mine

[Conclusion]

All government's should be secular, or non-religious. Because simple illustrations that aid the learning ability of the youth do not pose any eminent threat to society or the government, the government should not get entangled with the Church. Who knows, maybe a nuclear holocaust would ensue. And we do not want that to happen.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nik 8 years ago
Nik
I hate russel brand, As if a cheap coke head commedian, would dare insult a legendary character from a even more legendary program.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
brian_egglestonIgorTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
brian_egglestonIgorTied
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