The Instigator
shakuntala
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Valar_Dohaeris
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

Can this religious work be considered Christian

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 9 votes the winner is...
shakuntala
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 626 times Debate No: 68428
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (9)

 

shakuntala

Con

Can this religious work be considered Christian
https://www.scribd.com...
Debate Round No. 1
shakuntala

Con

pro says
"just no"

but that is my position being con
pro is arguing my position
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

Christian - a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

A poem cannot be a person

res negated
Debate Round No. 2
shakuntala

Con

as con my position is that
this work is not christian

pro says this work is not christian
he is thus arguing my position
pro is pro because being pro means he has to argue that this work is christian
pro in fact is arguing this work is not christian thus is agreeing with me
so thus I must win the debate
Valar_Dohaeris

Pro

For something to be Christian , it must be a person. As Pro never specified terms, I am allowed to apply a general term to the debate. A Christian is a "follower" of "Christ". It's nonsensical to refer to a non sentient being as a "Christian" because it requires one to be sentient at the least.

Christian Work =/= Christian.

In addition to this, even if we granted that this debate was around Christian texts. The book still would not be Christian. It contains explicit imagery about sex, hint's of rape, cursing, etc. All of which traditional Christian teaching reject. Either way it's a lose lose
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Both of them got banned.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
Holy. Crap. Valar pulled the second worse cause of semantics I've ever seen... You can't just redefine words like that. The definition was obvious to everyone already. You used the wrong definition, and THEN you argued the Con position.

lol @Beginner...
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Congrats, you failed to do a simple noobsnipe.
Have a cookie.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Beginner
To stoop so low as to noobsnipe an adbot. :D
I guess it doesn't hurt since he's going to just forfeit. Still..............
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
No.
Posted by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Why do you keep having these debates?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's case is basically pointing and laughing at anything that is not a person being called "Christian" such as Christian Churches, Christian Prayers, and in all probability The Missionary Position. ... In essence Pro negated the resolution she is in favor of, BRILLIANT!
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides argued for Con, so Con wins.
Vote Placed by warren42 2 years ago
warren42
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tries to take the Con side???
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued Con's side.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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: The definition of "Christian" here isn't really up for grabs... It's implicate and obvious. That move was inappropiate and loses Pro conduct. Spelling isn't important. Arguments were obvious... Pro argued Con's position. Tweka, Con didn't have to define his position... It's Con. That's that... Con is Con... Sources to Con.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued for the wrong side. However, con needs to work on his grammar. Pronto.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued for the wrong side.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was arguing for the wrong side, so args to Con. Sources to Con as they were the only one to provide a link. S/G to Pro as Con's capitalization/punctuation weren't proper.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
shakuntalaValar_DohaerisTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly Con did not specify what is his role in this debate. Secondly, I can see no argument by Con. Thirdly, Con just briefly repeat the title of the debate. Pro clarifies her position in round 1. Pro points out that the title of the debate is wrong. Therefore, she wins this debate with no doubt. Con has bad grammar.