The Instigator
RTN1994
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Christian "only" debate- No christian can be against abortion but for the death penalty!

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 8 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,529 times Debate No: 24066
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (8)

 

RTN1994

Pro

This is a debate for christians only because its content is directed toward a christian individual, although It really mirrors for everyone. My statement without sourving, merely opinion: You cannot be against Abortion but for the Death Penalty because they both entail in taking the life of a human being! The only difference is age. Like abortion you don't have the authority to decide someone's death, whether for your own selfish reason or for mere "convenience.". I am now restating why you must be christian because NO CHRISTIAN CAN BE NOR SHOULD BE FOR ABORTION.... The CON
should state their case in a similar matter; opinion no sources or statistics. ----forgive my ordering for I am on my ipod----
KeytarHero

Con

I accept the debate. It doesn't seem like it will be a very long one.

I am opposed to abortion but in favor of capital punishment. This is certainly not an inconsistent position to hold. My pro-life position is about the protection of innocent life. If someone commits a murder in cold blood, they forfeit their own right to live, nor do they have any right to expect the government to protect them.

In fact, God originally instituted capital punishment in the Old Testament. There many sins, not just murder, that was deserving of capital punishment.

That's about all I have to say, opinion-wise (since Pro doesn't want sourcing or statistics. Back to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
RTN1994

Pro

Interesting, however God had also changed after the old testament. Remember, the flood use to wipe out almost all of humanity for being out of control (basically)? He said he would never do that again and therefore changed. The old testament is irrelevant to the point of many issues be God is significantly different in the new testament. Btw, remember the he who is without sin cast the first stone? So, if you are a sinner it is not up to you to determine the fate (life and death) of another individual because you are not perfect either! Just because someone commits a horrible crime doesn't mean they give up their right to live, that is a concept that humans and the "law" have, a concept much mirrored in the code of hamurabi.
KeytarHero

Con

Thanks again for issuing this debate.

Pro's concept of God is, unfortunately, flawed. The Scriptures say that God doesn't change (James 1:17). God has promised to never again flood the Earth. This doesn't mean that He has changed, it just means that He will never again bring such a judgment on Earth until He returns again (and when He does, it will be by fire and not by flood).

God is the same God in the Old and New Testaments. God has always been a God of justice (in the Old Testament, we have examples like Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the New Testament we have examples like Ananias and Sapphira, who were struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit). God has also always been a God of love and mercy (in the Old Testament, we have examples like Lot, who was spared from the destrution of Sodom because he was a righteous man, and in the New Testament we have numerous examples of God's mercy, such as Jesus taking our place on the cross to die for our sins). God has never changed; the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. In fact, the word "testament" would be better translated "covenant." The Old Testament refers to Jews under the Old Covenant, and the New Testament refers to Christians who are under the New Covenant.

When Jesus said "let He who is without sin cast the first stone," He was referring to personal vengeance. I have no right to go out and take revenge on someone. Capital punishment is about justice, not revenge.

The Code of Hammurabi is not a Christian document, nor is it considered part of Biblical canon. Therefore Christians are not required to live their lives by that code if any part of the code conflicts with Biblical teaching.
Debate Round No. 2
RTN1994

Pro

Most of which has been posed by the con has been a debate for sometime...many claim God doeshttp://www.2pi.info... .

You cannot say it is flawed because much analysis of the bible is opinion since it is determined in over thousands of ways, including many "versions" which are updated almost on an annual basis.

I would like to get to the grit, as I have limited time currently and leave for Colorado tomorrow. <--packing....uuugh

-Stoning was not used as just a "means" of vengeance. It was used as justice because the reason was the individuals had either committed adultery or some kind of a "fracture" of the law or order.
http://www.keyway.ca...

This was their way of justice back then.

Also, "that is a concept that humans and the "law" have, a concept much mirrored in the code of hamurabi" which I stated has nothing to do with christians following it nor giving credence to it. However, from my studies in criminal justice, our laws has been greatly been modeled after the code of Hamurabi, "It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant length in the world."-wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I said it mirrored the concept too. Which it does.
KeytarHero

Con

Thanks again to Pro for his response.

It is irrelevant whether what I said has been debated for some time. Pro has not rebutted any of my points, so I extend them into the next round. God doesn't change, and Pro has not shown how He does. I gave reasons to support my argument. The Bible is not updated annually. There are many "good" translations of the Bible, but one of the best is the NASB (New American Standard), and the NKJV, while not perfect, is one of the better translations. Pro has not shown how God changes. Simply making a promise not to do something again does not mean that someone changes their nature.

Pro has also supported my point that capital punishment is about justice, not about vengeance.

Additionally, Pro's point about the code of Hammurabi is irrelevant (though I do confess I misunderstood what his point was last round). However, even if the concept of a murderer forfeiting his right to life is simply a "human" concept, then it seems that by Pro's own argument it is the only one that can be trusted. If God constantly changes (as he alleges), and you can't trust the Bible (again, as he alleges), then you could not trust the Bible on matters of justice. You would be left with only human intuition, in this case that a murderer forfeits his own right to life.
Debate Round No. 3
RTN1994

Pro

The contender has not taken on my point that "capital punishment" is wrong and that you CANNOT BE FOR IT IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION, WHICH IS THE MAIN POINT (and has yet to be proven wrong) and has then distracted to looking towards interpretations of the bible. Instead of using lingo like "one of the best" for bibles and searching through bible quotes and passages with interpretations that can VARY GREATLY AND IS BASED OFF OF PERSONAL OPINION LIKE STATED BEFORE, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS: WHY is killing a baby different from killing an adult? You have not negated my claims at all except trying to prove that capital punishment has happened? whaaa...? I know it happened back then, I made that a point, my point was JESUS WAS NOT FOR IT, that was the point of the CAST THE FIRST STONE reference, which you then brought up personal vengeance.

IT IS THE CONTENDER'S JOB TO PROVE ME WRONG ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BEING ABLE TO BE SUPPORTED WHEN ONE IS AGAINST ABORTION.-he has not

vote for PRO!
KeytarHero

Con

Once again, I thank Pro for the opportunity to debate.

It was not my job in this debate to prove capital punishment wrong. The resolution is that one cannot oppose abortion and support capital punishment. I have shown that it is not incoherent to support capital punishment but not abortion, namely because I believe in the protection of innocent life. In abortion, an innocent human's life is taken, and in capital punishment, a convicted murderer is put to death. The differences between a murderer and unborn human are like night and day.

Since the stipulations of the debate was that it was between Christians, I was justified in bringing up the fact that God instituted capital punishment. Jesus is God (John 1:1, 14). If God was for it in the Old Testament, then Jesus was for it in the New. The verse about casting the first stone was regarding personal vendettas, not regarding capital punishment as done by governing authorities.

I have shown why it is not inconsistent to oppose abortion and support capital punishment. I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tnkissfan 4 years ago
Tnkissfan
Not a great debate.
Posted by Tnkissfan 4 years ago
Tnkissfan
Murderers and babies are miles apart on the justification list!
Posted by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
RFD Continued:

...ruled out sources for the entire debate; I'm going to be generous and not dock him the sources point for making and then going back on this ridiculous rule.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
RTN, you weren't very clear. I, also, thought you meant no sources for the entire debate.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
No sources should never be a rule (for a serious debate), and anyone who proposes such a rule should be mocked and ignored. Telling people "no sources" is telling them :"no confirming or denying any of the claims made here". It's lunacy.
Posted by RTN1994 4 years ago
RTN1994
BTW, I said NO SOURCES For THE OPENING STATEMENT Which NONE OF YOU GOT!
Posted by RTN1994 4 years ago
RTN1994
I don't care about points, no one can say who win these things.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Don't argue in the comments, RTN, just for that I'm docking your conduct point.
Posted by RTN1994 4 years ago
RTN1994
Vote for PRO, he side stepped the issues and never made the point! Killing an adult is different how from killing a child was never answered and my contender focused on verbage over the issue!
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
I am not Christian...however, I was raised in a Christian household, and am familiar with Christian texts. So while I am not technically a Christian, I have the knowledge fo a Christian. Will that suffice?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by KADET_4N6 4 years ago
KADET_4N6
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
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: This debate was very one-sided, none of cons points were refuted.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: All around Con was more convincing.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offered nothing too substantial in regards of his arguments. Not much weight to rebuttle statements as well. Con offered reasonable clarification and addressed all arguments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
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: Con is obviously for capital punishment but against abortion. By a plain reading of the resolution, that makes Con the winner. Can we find another reading of the resolution, one more favorable to Pro. Yes, but Pro doesn't do much with it. Con distinguishes the two killings; one involves innocent life, the other not. So then Pro is reduced to trying to force a scriptural interpretation on Con, which Con is not forced to accept. Victory: Con.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
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: Conduct: tied. I may retract this if Pro continues arguing in the comments, but at the moment I see no need to. SP/G: Tied. No complaints. Arg: Con. Pro started out by claiming no difference between an aborted fetus and an executed criminal; Con showed a vital distinction, and Pro had no relevant answer, instead getting sidetracked in theology. Obviously not your area, Pro; stick to what you know or do better research. S: Pro's initial statement seemed to rule out sources for the entire debat
Vote Placed by twsurber 4 years ago
twsurber
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Flawed arguments on the Pro side. Cons gets the nod.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a very straightforward argument: abortion protects the innocent, while DP punishes the guilty. This argument seemed beyond Pro, as he was unable to craft a reasonable argument against this claim whatsoever. He also violated his own rules.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
RTN1994KeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for the vote: Arguments: Con was sufficiently able to argue that the death penalty is accepted by the Bible, while abortion is condemned by the Bible, and so he sufficiently proved that a Christian can be against one and for the other. Conduct: Pro both broke his own rules by providing sources and tried to argue in the comments section, which is rude and not a propert way to debate, so I docked his conduct point. For those two reasons, Con got the point.