The Instigator
RandomTruth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,182 times Debate No: 53980
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (6)

 

RandomTruth

Pro

I do not believe that Christianity has a valid reason to exist:

1. It is based upon the mythology of the OT, including the story of Adam & Eve, whose 'original sin' is what Jesus was supposed to have died for. If that story is not literally true then Jesus' sacrifice is for naught.

2. Jesus' virgin birth is clearly impossible since there is the question of where the Y chromosome came from. Also, isn't it more likely that Joseph (her husband) is the father?

3. Jesus' resurrection is equally impossible since if he had really died then his body would have been decayed beyond recovery. So either he either didn't really die, in which case he wasn't resurrected; or he did die, and his resurrection is not true.

Even if my potential opponent invokes the magic of 'miracles', that would still not explain that physically, these are impossible things to have happen.

Thoughts?
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I want to start by thanking my opponent for creating this thought-provoking topic, and wish him the best of luck throughout the course of this debate.

The resolution is clear, my opponent is for the position that Christianity has no valid basis to exist. Whereas I am against that position and will argue that Christianity has a valid basis to exist.

I will begin by presenting some definitions for clarification purposes, followed by providing rebuttals against my opponents contentions and then will end this round by introducing my own arguments.

Definitions

Christianity: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies. [1]

Valid: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful. [2]

Basis: something (such as an idea or set of ideas) from which another thing develops or can develop. [3]

Exist: to have real being whether material or spiritual. [4]

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Rebuttals


I. "
It is based upon the mythology of the OT, including the story of Adam & Eve, whose 'original sin' is what Jesus was supposed to have died for. If that story is not literally true then Jesus' sacrifice is for naught."

Assuming that the story of Adam and Eve is not true is working under the premise that the literature of the Bible is not true. If this is the case, then the story of Jesus' sacrifice would also be not true. If the story of Jesus' sacrifice is not true then it is not that his sacrifice was for naught, but rather that his sacrifice never happened in the first place - being that it isn't true. Therefore, your point is null and ultimately void of any validity as I have shown that Jesus' sacrifice must also not be true if the story of Adam and Eve isn't, which is what you have claimed in your first contention. Unless you can prove the truth of Jesus' sacrifice over the truth of the story of Adam and Eve, this contention is defeated.

II. "Jesus' virgin birth is clearly impossible since there is the question of where the Y chromosome came from. Also, isn't it more likely that Joseph (her husband) is the father?"

Whether or not Joseph is the father, and whether the virgin birth is or isn't possible is not of any relevance to the resolution we are debating. There are many myths, legends, tales, and stories that we continue sharing with one another to this very day that are not logically sound or physically possible. Just because something is impossible does not mean that it shouldn't be told. Otherwise, we would never dream beyond our boundaries, because anything that isn't within reach would be immediately dismissed. By sharing tales that seem impossible, we are expanding our own range of possibilities [5]. A perfect example of this was the legend of the world actually being round. At first the thought of such things was scoffed at, but eventually we had methods to validate that claim and now it is accepted as a truth (for the most part, considering that there are still flat-earth theorists out there [6]).

[5] http://www.pickyourgoals.com...
[6] http://theflatearthsociety.org...

III. "Jesus' resurrection is equally impossible since if he had really died then his body would have been decayed beyond recovery. So either he either didn't really die, in which case he wasn't resurrected; or he did die, and his resurrection is not true."

First of all, the story goes that he was dead for three days.

"And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." - 1 Corinthians 15:4 (KJV) [7]

Secondly, according to the same source (The Bible), his body did not decay.

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." - Acts 2:31 (KJV) [8]

Lastly, you are once again making the mistake of using 'what is possible or not' to determine whether something should exist. This is not a justifiable means to deny the right to exist, especially for something that can be described as a story, legend, tale, or myth.

[7] http://biblehub.com...
[8] http://biblehub.com...

IV. "Even if my potential opponent invokes the magic of 'miracles', that would still not explain that physically, these are impossible things to have happen."

I have no need to 'invoke the magic of miracles' in order to make my case. This statement doesn't really make sense, I would ask for further clarification. Although if you mean that I am going to argue the validity of miracles then no. What I will say, in response to this, is that if these are the standards that you wish to hold when determining if Christianity has a valid basis to exist, then you are also throwing any other story/tale/myth/legend into this as well which includes Judaism, Islamic beliefs, Buddhism, and basically any other religion imaginable.

Arguments

It seems that my opponent only has one main argument: that which is seemingly impossible should not exist. When studying his remarks in Round 1 that is a reasonably condensed form of all his arguments. I have shown above, with my rebuttals, why such arguments hold no ground in this debate. That method of judgement has yet to be justified as a valid means for determining the right to exist and it also fails to justify every other form of being that would suddenly not have the right to exist along with Christianity due to the similar nature of countless other things - some of which I have listed above. I will now present my own arguments.

I. What is 'possible or not' is a poor standard for determining what should or shouldn't exist, and is generally harmful.

With it being known that Christianity would not be the only thing whose right to exist is jeopardized by the implementation of such standards, it is imperative that my opponent present justification for the immediate dismissal of other related things. Many religions would cease to exist according to the standards of what is 'possible or not' by the means in which my opponent hopes to see occur. As I stated above, Judaism/Buddhism/Islamic Beliefs/etc., would all cease to have a valid basis for existence if my opponent was allowed to have this standards put into practice. There are also countless tales including mythical creatures, any and all ancient mythology including the epic of Gilgamesh or the Greek gods and their feats, etc., that would also cease to have a valid basis to exist. The harm of ignoring such rich histories, regardless of their possibility or impossible elements would outweigh whatever outcome would come from erasing everything 'impossible' from our historical paradigm of understanding.

II. History, tradition and continued practice of Christianity provides justification and a valid basis for its existence.

Storytelling has been around longer than written language. [9] The fact that many stories contain elements that are seemingly impossible holds no grounds when considering whether that story exists or not. The only thing it determines is the likelihood of the story actually being probable, not whether the story in itself exists or not. This is the largest mistake my opponent has made. The fact that the story is even being spoken or read reflects the very nature of its existence in this world. This also provides a valid basis for existence. The fact that it is embodied as oral or written information and coded through oral or written language, that has meaning, validates its existence and provides the very base it would need to exist.

[9] http://www.storytellingday.net...

In Conclusion

I have provided definitions, rebuttals to every contention made by my opponent, and my own arguments.

I turn the floor back to my opponent. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
RandomTruth

Pro

Thank you for my opponent, for responding clearly. Unfortunately, he has just ended up confirming the underlying foundation of my OP. That Christianity is not based on any kind of truth but purely on myth.

1. Adam&Eve -> Jesus
Your response is purely circular. You cannot defend the existence of Jesus on the myth that he is purporting to have sacrificed him for. You are also avoiding my point that the story of Adam & Eve could not literally have happened since t is counter to human origins. Please address the OP.

2. Virgin Birth
Ah, so Adam & Eve is not a myth but Jesus' virgin birth is? Then it appears then that you agree that Jesus' miracles are likely untrue.

In doing so, you are confirming this point is precisely relevant to the resolution: if Jesus' virgin birth didn't happen, then that Mary's birth would also not be immaculate and therefore, Jesus is not born without sin at all. Making his eventual sacrifice a false one. Hence, another pillar of Jesus' sacrifice disappears.

3. Resurrection
I know the story, I am telling you the Bible is describing something that is wrong. I am telling you that when a body dies then it immediately begins to decay. All cells will die because there is no longer any oxygen to feed them.

If you're now saying that Jesus' resurrection is also a myth then please do so. But if you do then you knock down the last pillar of the purpose of Christianity.

4. Miracles
if Christianity has a valid basis to exist, then you are also throwing any other story/tale/myth/legend into this as well which includes Judaism, Islamic beliefs, Buddhism, and basically any other religion imaginable.

Precisely! But we are focusing on Christianity in this OP.

__________________________________________________________________

> that which is seemingly impossible should not exist.

This is not what I'm saying. I am saying that if the claims for Jesus' existence and purpose are founded on myth, then there is no real basis for Christianity to exist either. Firstly, you have yet to hold a position that these miracles are true and indeed, admit most of them are not true - this is what I argue too.

If you can find a denomination of Christianity that do not take these as literally true then they are likely not really a Christian religion but a Jesusian one.

I. What is 'possible or not' is a poor standard for determining what should or shouldn't exist, and is generally harmful.

With it being known that Christianity would not be the only thing whose right to exist is jeopardized by the implementation of such standards, it is imperative that my opponent present justification for the immediate dismissal of other related things.

Other religions are irrelevant to this discussion. That said, any religion that requires impossible things to have happened are susceptible to this argument.

The harm of ignoring such rich histories, regardless of their possibility or impossible elements would outweigh whatever outcome would come from erasing everything 'impossible' from our historical paradigm of understanding.

There is no harm at all. Greek, Roman and Nordic religions still enrich us but not as religions but as stories. It should be the same for Christianity - that it is the story of a culture that is waning in its influence.


II. History, tradition and continued practice of Christianity provides justification and a valid basis for its existence.


The only thing it determines is the likelihood of the story actually being probable, not whether the story in itself exists or not.

But Christianity doesn't exist as a story though does it? It exists as a factual set of claims of miracles and impossible acts being the basis its religion.


In Conclusion
I suspect that my opponent may be taking the line of argumentation that Christianity's existence is something other than a religion. I would suggest that to ignore that point is not what the OP is about or what Christianity is. Clearly, I am saying that Christianity is not a valid religion. Please address those points. Please also confirm whether you believe that A&E,VB&R are actual of mythical.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Rebuttals

My opponent began round 2 by stating that: "Christianity is not based on any kind of truth but purely on myth." Which he claims is the entire foundation of his position. I covered that perfectly when I said that my opponents arguments can be boiled down to, "that which is seemingly impossible should not exist." It is my hope that the audience will see that I am not mistaken in understanding this resolution.

I. Adam & Eve -> Jesus

My opponent fails to understand what a circular argument is. I will share briefly a quick example of a circular argument which will prove to the audience that I am not committing such logical fallacies.

"Circular argument: A sentence or argument that restates rather than proves. Thus, it goes in a circle: 'President Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively to the people.' The terms in the beginning of the sentence (great communicator) and the end of the sentence (talking effectively) are interchangeable." [1]

[1] http://grammar.about.com...

Aside from my opponent clearly creating false accusations, I have not avoided anything. My opponent attempted to make the point that if Adam & Eve never happened because it is a myth, then Jesus' death would have been for nothing. I showed how under the assumption that Adam & Eve are just a myth, it is equally probable that the story of Jesus' sacrifice is also a myth. This makes my opponents entire point null and void of any meaning or value to this debate. Just because my opponent is unable to see this, does not mean I have avoided anything. I have shown that my opponent committed a logical fallacy himself, and he has yet to justify his reasoning for doing so.

II. Virgin Birth

To be clear, the only person who has claimed something is a myth or not is my opponent. I have done no such thing. Whether I agree or disagree to the 'realness' of Jesus' miracles are irrelevant to the resolution which ultimately is asking for a valid basis for Christianity to exist. I have already provided that in the previous round under Argument II.

III. Resurrection

I was merely sharing verses that answered why his body did not decay. This is working under the premise that the Bible is accurate and not just a myth. If I am to work under the premise that the Bible IS a myth then it still does nothing to negate my argument that Christianity has a valid basis to exist. My opponent assumes that because the stories in the Bible are myth or false that Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

I have shown previously why that is a poor standard for judging the existence of something. My opponent continues to misunderstand my previous arguments. Regardless of the stories being false or not, the fact that they are even stories still being told or read, in itself, validates the basis for its existence. The only thing "falseness" is relevant to is if the stories are probable or not, the element of "falseness" in this context holds no ground on whether the stories exist or not or whether they have a valid basis to exist. Once again, the fact that the stories of Christianity told in the Bible are spoken or written down as meaningful information creates the valid basis for existence. I hope I have made this clear enough at this point.

IV. Miracles

I understand that we are focusing on Christianity. The point is that your resolution would affect much more than just Christianity if this House was to adopt your standards for judging what has a valid basis to exist or not exist. Furthermore, I have shown why your standards are inadequate, unjustified, and illogical and am still waiting for your justification for such a poor standard based solely on your misunderstanding of how the falseness of something does not deny nor rebut the existence of it. Nor have you shown why such existence wouldn't have a valid basis when I have shown that it does indeed have one by the very act of transferring the meaningful information to one another.

V. Responses to additional Statements made by my opponent.

"This is not what I'm saying. I am saying that if the claims for Jesus' existence and purpose are founded on myth, then there is no real basis for Christianity to exist either.

I have shown why Christianity has a basis to exist. The information that falls under the umbrella term of Christianity is meaningful, meaning that humans attach to the information. We continue to share that information with one another today. The fact that we are sharing such information in our own existence means that the information itself is also in existence, i.e., - it exists because we exist and continue to carry on the traditions and stories of Christianity. This is the basis for Christianity to exist. We are the basis. We keep it alive. To say there is no valid basis would be saying that there is no means for that to exist. But we are those means which keeps it in existence. Humans continuous practice of Christianity and the application of meaning to the information is the valid basis for the existence of Christianity.

"Other religions are irrelevant to this discussion. That said, any religion that requires impossible things to have happened are susceptible to this argument."

My opponent literally contradicts himself. Furthermore, my opponent is still operating under the assumption that "falseness or impossibility" holds any relevance to the Resolution, whereas I have shown that it does not. I ask that my opponent try to uphold his BOP as Pro.

"Greek, Roman and Nordic religions still enrich us but not as religions but as stories. It should be the same for Christianity - that it is the story of a culture that is waning in its influence."

The stories of the Bible are just that, stories. [2] [3] [4] Even Christians view them as stories, so once again, your point is null and void of any relevance to this debate. Whether someone perceives those stories as truth or not falls into an extremely subjective realm and ultimately holds no ground in this debate.

[2] http://greatstoriesofthebible.org...
[3] http://www.biblicaltraining.org...
[4] https://bible.org...

"But Christianity doesn't exist as a story though does it? It exists as a factual set of claims of miracles and impossible acts being the basis its religion."

No, but it is comprised of stories that can be found in Christianity's holy book known as the Bible as I have shown above. The claim of whether it is factual or not falls into the realm of subjectivity as I have also shown above. Once again, your point is null and void of any ground in this debate when attempting to determine a valid basis for Christianity to exist.

Additional Arguments

I. The 10 commandments found in the Bible also provides a valid basis for its existence

I have already shown that Christianity has a valid basis to exist. An additional justification would be the 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20:1-17. [5]

Some of these commandments are still in practice today as modern laws placed into effect by the American Government. Examples would be the illegal acts of committing murder, stealing, giving false testimony or even moral rules still accepted by today's standards including coveting a neighbors wife, using the Lord's name in vane, honoring your mother and father, and keeping the Sabbath holy. The mere fact that these commandments are still upheld today provides yet another example for the valid basis of the existence of Christianity. To claim otherwise would then say that such laws have no valid basis to exist which is a claim that has yet to be justified.

[5] http://www.biblegateway.com...

In Conclusion

I have shown why my opponents claims are poor standards, and ultimately remain unjustified. I've also countered each point and raised further arguments. I've also shown that I committed no circular arguments. I turn the floor back to my opponent. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
RandomTruth

Pro

> My opponent began round 2 by stating that: "Christianity is not based on any kind of truth but purely on myth." Which he claims is the entire foundation of his position. I covered that perfectly when I said that my opponents arguments can be boiled down to, "that which is seemingly impossible should not exist." It is my hope that the audience will see that I am not mistaken in understanding this resolution.

I think you have to use my own words what you're arguing against otherwise, this is just one huge strawman.

I showed how under the assumption that Adam & Eve are just a myth, it is equally probable that the story of Jesus' sacrifice is also a myth. This makes my opponents entire point null and void of any meaning or value to this debate.

OK - Jesus's sacrifice is a myth. Then Christianity has no basis to exist and we are done. The reason why is that Christians literally take his virgin birth, sacrifice and resurrection as literal. You make this mistake because you are not a Christian.

If I am to work under the premise that the Bible IS a myth then it still does nothing to negate my argument that Christianity has a valid basis to exist.

If Jesus did not resurrect then I have no idea what version of Christianity you are claiming to be defending!

Regardless of the stories being false or not, the fact that they are even stories still being told or read, in itself, validates the basis for its existence.

Yes, it can exist but certainly not as a religion, which is what Christianity is. So what form is this supposed 'Christianity' that takes everything as a myth supposed to take? And how is it related to the actual Christianity that we are arguing here?


Furthermore, I have shown why your standards are inadequate, unjustified, and illogical and am still waiting for your justification for such a poor standard based solely on your misunderstanding of how the falseness of something does not deny nor rebut the existence of it. Nor have you shown why such existence wouldn't have a valid basis when I have shown that it does indeed have one by the very act of transferring the meaningful information to one another.

I addressed in my previous post, and rebuted your point throughout this one, but let's repeat.

Firstly, if you hold that all the stories of miracles, etc. are a myth then there is actually no religion of Christianity. There would be no reason for people to kill or die for what they take to be a myth. It is exactly what I am arguing that then Christianity would not exist.

Now, the New Testament would continue to exist as a set of stories, which I believe is your central point, but there woud certainly be no religion and therefore no Christianity. As I pointed out earlier, you seem to be parsing out 'exist' from my arguments and forgetting the religious aspect of it, which is what Christianity actually is.


> This is the basis for Christianity to exist. We are the basis. We keep it alive.

Err, no! Discussing something doesn't mean it still exists in the real world! If you're saying that everything exists just because we talk about it then you're saying that Harry Potter's world exists too! Here you are being willful in creating a strawman and therefore your point falls apart.

I am not talking about Christianity as a 'collection of myths'. I am talking about Chrsitianity as a living religion with believers that take the myths to be true. Whatever, you are talking about is not Christianity but a discussion of Christian ideas; which of course only exists metaphysically.


My opponent literally contradicts himself. Furthermore, my opponent is still operating under the assumption that "falseness or impossibility" holds any relevance to the Resolution, whereas I have shown that it does not. I ask that my opponent try to uphold his BOP as Pro.

To repeat, my good opponent is arguing a strawman. On the one hand fully accepting the foundations of a Christianity being a myth, yet expecting Christians to also accept the same and continue to be Christians. Such non-believing Christians likely are not Christians and therefore do not practice Christianity.


"But Christianity doesn't exist as a story though does it? It exists as a factual set of claims of miracles and impossible acts being the basis its religion."

No, but it is comprised of stories that can be found in Christianity's holy book known as the Bible as I have shown above. The claim of whether it is factual or not falls into the realm of subjectivity as I have also shown above. Once again, your point is null and void of any ground in this debate when attempting to determine a valid basis for Christianity to exist.


Once again, you fail to understand that Christians believe the NT miracles to be actually true.


The mere fact that these commandments are still upheld today provides yet another example for the valid basis of the existence of Christianity. To claim otherwise would then say that such laws have no valid basis to exist which is a claim that has yet to be justified.

I believe that you are confusing common sense laws that also exist without Christianity with Christianity itself! The basis of Christianity is not the 10 commandments nor that they still seem to hold in the modern world. The basis of Christianity is his sacrifice as an innocent for our sins, and his resurrection and deification.

Until you understand what Christianity is, which is the belief that the miracles are literally true, then you are arguing against a weird strawman version of Christianity far removed from the religion we are debating.

Conclusion

My opponent has invented his own version of a religion that doesn't believe in its own miracles in order to make a point that it still exists. In order to continue please define 'exist' and describe what Christianity is.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has accused me of committing a Straw Man fallacy. I will gladly show the audience why my opponent is mistaken.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. [1]

Example of a Straw Man fallacy: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenseless by cutting military spending. [2]

My opponent says that I am not using 'his words' in this debate. What words are that? That Christianity has no valid basis to exist because the stories it shares in the Bible are not true and just myths? That's what your argument is! This entire debate, I have been responding accordingly by showing the audience the weaknesses of your arguments and the terrible standards you present for judging whether something should exist or not. I have shown how whether a story is true or not holds no ground for determining the existence of the story itself.

[1] http://www.nizkor.org...
[2] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

Rebuttals

I. "
OK - Jesus's sacrifice is a myth..."

My opponent is saying that because the sacrifice is a myth, and that it is presented as a truth, that Christianity shouldn't exist.

Assuming the story is a truth or is a myth is foolish because we honestly have no way of ever knowing if the story is true or not since we didn't witness the actions within the story ourselves. Christianity requires faith. Christians believe these stories to be true and present them as truth because they have faith that these stories are true. I was aware of the logical fallacy of making unprovable assumptions from the very start of this debate. That is why I transcended beyond such elementary arguments and began presenting arguments that show how Christianity has a valid basis to exist based on the fact that:

Humans exist -> Humans carry on the tradition of Christianity via oral and written language -> therefore Christianity has a valid basis to exist because humans exist and practice Christianity in their daily lives. **Humans, in this example, are acting as the valid basis for Christianity's existence.

Furthermore, just because I am not currently Christian doesn't mean that I never was or don't know what I'm talking about. Once again, my opponent is basing his arguments off of nothing but incorrect assumptions.

II. "If Jesus did not resurrect..."

I am defending my position that Christianity has a valid basis to exist with arguments that do not require me to have a "version" of Christianity. I am defending Christianity as a whole with the Bible as it's holy book. It seems my opponent is focusing solely on whether the stories in Christianity are myth or true once again. I have already shown several times that regardless of the subjective value we place on these stories, Christianity still has a valid basis to exist.

III. "Yes, it can exist but certainly not as a religion, which is what Christianity is..."

Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent agrees with me that my position is correct by saying, "Yes, it can exist"

My opponent goes on to counter-argue after agreeing with me on the validity of my position by saying "but certainly not as a religion..."

The Resolution of the debate IS: Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

The Resolution of the debate IS NOT: Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion.

My opponent tries to alter the resolution to include the words 'as a religion' which I've made clear just above. This inclusion and manipulation of additional words is NOT part of the original resolution and has no place in this debate.

There is no burden on me to prove that Christianity has a valid basis to exist as a religion.

The only burden I have is to prove that Christianity has a valid basis to exist.

MAJOR DIFFERENCE. Hopefully my opponent can see that difference and refrain from using such methods in the future as they hold no grounds nor place in debates.

**The additional questions in that response are answered by rebuttal #II.

IV. "I addressed in my previous post, and rebutted your point throughout this one, but let's repeat..."

First, I've addressed the myth/truth issue above and will not expand on it again here.

Second, My opponent makes another unprovable assumption that there would be no reason for people to kill or die for what they take to be a myth. This is invalid because there is no way of knowing if someone will never kill or die for something like a myth. There have also been recorded killings and deaths over myths in the past. Even if the biblical stories are considered myths, they would still conflict with other stories and cause fighting between those who believe in one myth over another which can easily lead to killing or death. This point is defeated based on the fact that it is an invalid claim on your part.

Lastly, my opponent claims I am not focusing enough on the religious aspect of Christianity. I've already explained above about the role faith and belief plays in the religion of Christianity. I am 'parsing' out exist because that is the term used in the Resolution, the term was and is 'exist' not 'religion'. I have made this point clear as well in rebuttal #3.

V. "Err, no! Discussing something doesn't mean it still exists in the real world..."

Another baseless accusation of me committing a straw man fallacy. Please refer to the beginning of this round to see the error of your ways in making such an accusation against me, as it is just as applicable in this case as well.

Please refer to the definition of the term 'exist' that I presented in Round 1. It exists in our reality as a spiritual concept and as material information that has meaning attached to it. The reason it exists as a spiritual concept is because we place that value on it. By discussing Christianity with one another, by encoding that information in oral and written language and by continuing to practice is as such to this day most certainly validates its existence. For something to not exist, it would have to void of a valid basis according to the resolution. Humans are that valid basis, we are the agents which keep that spiritual concept alive and ever-present in our own existence, thus it can exist.

Most importantly, my opponent ends by saying, "which of course only exists metaphysically." This is still 'existing', thus once again, my opponent is agreeing with my position on this resolution at hand.

VI. "Strawman... (3rd accusation) & Misunderstanding"

Another accusation, third time, again with no justification. I never expected anything from or about Christians. This entire point is illogical and is based on nothing but more assumptions on my position which are incorrect. I also understand that Christians believe the NT miracles to be true.

VII. "You are confusing common sense laws..."

My opponent is incorrect. The 10 commandments are an incredibly strong basis of Christianity and they most certainly still hold as much value in the modern world as evidenced by modern laws of the exact same nature such as murder or stealing being illegal. Christianity encompasses both old and new testament as evidenced by the inclusion of both testaments in the holy book known as the Bible.

Conclusion

My opponent has dropped several points I've made throughout my rebuttals in previous rounds, so I wish to extend all dropped points. I've also shown how I have committed no straw man fallacies. I have not invented my own version of religion and believe my opponent to be incapable of comprehending most, if not all, of my arguments. I ask the audience to please consider the fact that just because my opponent fails to comprehend my points, does not mean that I am failing at responding to them accordingly nor does it mean I am committing any fallacies.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
RandomTruth

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent continues to argue a strawman version of my argument from his atheist position. In failing to concede that Christianity requires that all the miracles to be true in order for it to be called Christianity, he is creating his own entity that he wants to call 'Christianity' that doesn't believe in the same things Christians believe in.

In doing so he has to make statements that Christianity exists because "because humans exist and practice Christianity in their daily lives", without realizing that this practice includes the recognizing the fact of the miracles: otherwise, there would literally be no point in the religion in the first place.

He admits this by confirming my original assement of his position that he doesn't recognize that Christianity is a religion! Hence he feels that he was won the debate because, as he says:


The Resolution of the debate IS: Christianity has no valid basis to exist.
The Resolution of the debate IS NOT: Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion.

In doing so, he has admited that his perception of Christianity is not a religion! One only needs to quickly refer to a dictionary to see:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Christianity: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture,
and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies


At this point, there is no reason to pursue this any further since my good opponent has admited to the mistake I originally pointed out: that the 'Christianity' he is arguing for is not only not a religion, but doesn't even exist in the real word. He is merely playing semantic games, which is not the purpose of this debate.

I accept my opponents graceful concession on the debate and trust that when we meet again, it will be to discuss things with more clarity.


Blade-of-Truth

Con

I have already shown the audience the proper time to accuse someone of making a straw man fallacy by sharing an example in the previous round. My opponent continues to accuse me of such things not because I commit them, but because he is unable to comprehend my arguments.

I have not committed any straw man fallacies.

My opponent argues that I am creating my own version of Christianity because I do not admit whether the miracles are true or not. My opponent also accuses me of having an atheist position.

Both charges are incorrect.

I have not nor will ever create my own version of Christianity. Christians believe through faith that the miracles presented in the Bible are true. My opponent argues that if the miracles are not true, then Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

This is an impossible position because there is no way of ever proving if these miracles are true or not.That is why everything my opponent argues is invalid and, at best, horribly poor standards for judging the basis of something to exist or not. My opponent continues to fail at upholding his BOP whereas I have upheld mine fully.

Because my opponent is unable to comprehend this, he insists that I am committing straw man fallacies.It is my only hope that the audience can see past his weak attempts to derail this debate. I also wish to stress the importance of making accusations only when they are valid. This is the fourth time now that my opponent has accused me of something I haven't done. I have proven my position several times now, and truly believe that I have committed no such fallacies. I will ask my opponent for a fourth time, to please stop harassing me with such baseless accusations and focus on the resolution at hand as I have been trying to do.

Furthermore, I have shared biblical verses to strengthen my claims in previous rounds and have also presented the ten commandments as another reason why Christianity has a valid basis to exist. To say that my arguments are atheistic is absurd and incorrect.

Rebuttals

I."In doing so he has to make statements that Christianity exists because "because humans exist and practice Christianity in their daily lives", without realizing that this practice includes the recognizing the fact of the miracles: otherwise, there would literally be no point in the religion in the first place."

Of course I realize that the practice of Christianity includes the recognition of miracles as fact! Once again, my opponent is making incorrect assumptions about my position without evidence to support his claims.

Furthermore, even IF the miracles weren't true, that doesn't mean that no-one would hold the Bible sacred or not want to still practice Christianity. My opponent continues to make assumptions that are impossible to prove!

II. "He admits this by confirming my original assement of his position that he doesn't recognize that Christianity is a religion! Hence he feels that he was won the debate because, as he says:..."

Please provide the exact quote of me saying that Christianity is not a religion. If you cannot do that, then this point is defeated and you are caught once again lying to the audience about my position. Anyone with half a brain can recognize that Christianity is a religion. In fact, it is one of the largest religions in the world! [1]

Furthermore, the point I was trying to make when sharing the resolution in the previous round was that my opponent was attempting to debate on whether Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion, but that isn't what the debate is about. I was showing what the resolution was because my opponent was attempting to change it. I was not sharing my beliefs on religions. Until my opponent shows the exact quote where I said Christianity is not a religion, this point is defeated.

[1] http://www.adherents.com...

III. "In doing so, he has admitted that his perception of Christianity is not a religion! One only needs to quickly refer to a dictionary to see:..."

I have not admitted that my perception of Christianity is that it is not a religion! Please provide the exact quote of me saying such things in my previous rounds or else stop, once and for all, with these horribly incorrect assumptions and allegations about my position! Prove it or this point is also defeated. **I am done with this nonsense and ask the judges to please reduce his conduct points if he cannot provide proof of me saying such things!** I've had it with these baseless accusations my opponent makes, especially when absolutely none of them are accurate. These methods of derailment are unacceptable in a debate.


IV. "At this point, there is no reason to pursue this any further since my good opponent has admited to the mistake I originally pointed out: that the 'Christianity' he is arguing for is not only not a religion, but doesn't even exist in the real word. He is merely playing semantic games, which is not the purpose of this debate."

I never admitted such things... Until my opponent can prove it, this point is defeated. I have shown that Christianity has a valid basis to exist several times throughout the debate. My opponent is now committing a straw man fallacy himself.

My opponent presents an invalid claim based on something I never said, and then twists the argument into his favor. If you will take a moment to look at the example of a straw man fallacy I shared in the previous round, and then scroll back down to this, you will see my opponent has committed such an act. There is no semantics game going on here. Furthermore, my opponent fails to show the audience how this could possibly be a semantics game.

The purpose of this debate was to debate the resolution: Christianity has no valid basis to exist. I am on the Con position meaning that I must show that Christianity DOES have a valid basis to exist. I have done this in previous rounds. My opponent was Pro, meaning that he had to show why Christianity has no valid basis to exist. My opponent attempted to do this by saying that because the miracles are not true -> that Christianity has no valid basis to exist. I have shown why that is a poor and invalid position to take and that it is impossible to prove.

Therefore, his position was defeated. Furthermore, I have provided the audience with what the valid basis is in all three previous rounds. My opponent has failed to rebut or defeat my position, and is now reverting to baseless claims and lying about what I have said throughout this debate.

Until my opponent can prove that I said such things, everything he has said regarding those lies are defeated and a reflection of his poor conduct.

V. "I accept my opponents graceful concession on the debate and trust that when we meet again, it will be to discuss things with more clarity."

I am not conceding. Repeat - not conceding. I have never said I was conceding nor am I doing so now. Once again, my opponent is creating a point based on absolutely nothing that I've said. My opponent is overstepping his boundaries by assuming I am conceding. Another assumption that is horribly mistaken. Furthermore, I have been perfectly clear throughout this entire debate when presenting my arguments and rebuttals.

Conclusion

I wish to extend all arguments and rebuttals which remain unchallenged by my opponent, as once again, several remained unanswered by my opponent.

I also wish to note how many times my opponent made incorrect assumptions throughout this round and expect my opponent to show the exact quotes where I said Christianity is not a religion, because I never said such things.

The bottom line is that I have completely upheld my BOP, in good taste with proper logic. I have committed no fallacies of any sort, and have not nor plan on conceding anything until this debate is properly finished at the end of Round 5.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
RandomTruth

Pro

I have not nor will ever create my own version of Christianity. Christians believe through faith that the miracles presented in the Bible are true. My opponent argues that if the miracles are not true, then Christianity has no valid basis to exist.

Again my opponent sees the need to tell Christians what they believe through faith and what they actually believe to be factually true. There is little to add here other than he continues to be wrong.

This is an impossible position because there is no way of ever proving if these miracles are true or not.That is why everything my opponent argues is invalid and, at best, horribly poor standards for judging the basis of something to exist or not. My opponent continues to fail at upholding his BOP whereas I have upheld mine fully.

It is very possible to prove that they are not true, as stated in my OP. If my opponent refuses to read the OP and create not only his own Christianity but also his own version of the OP to argue against, there is little I can do at this point.

_____________

I will not address any further points because my opponent is just repeating arguments based on his double strawman argument. As I pointed out earlier, he stated:

The Resolution of the debate IS: Christianity has no valid basis to exist.
The Resolution of the debate IS NOT: Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion.


And again, I point out that if my opponent sees that Christianity is not a religion, then he has to state what Christianity is in order to properly continue.


I also wish to note how many times my opponent made incorrect assumptions throughout this round and expect my opponent to show the exact quotes where I said Christianity is not a religion, because I never said such things.

Bizarrely, in the bolded quote above he claims that the debate is not about Christianity being a religion and at the beginning of the last round he admits that "Christians believe through faith that the miracles ..." which is pretty much what a religion is; and now claims never to have said otherwise. So at this point, my opponent seems to be arguing as much with himself as me (or rather a strawman version of me).

I think we have been talking at cross purposes, the same cross-purposes as I stated in the first round. We have spent the debate disagreeing what the debate is even about, nevermind the topic itself. And we have run out of time, so any voting on the matter isn't even about the debate but about the topic of the debate!

I thank my opponent for the time, I will endeavor to write a clearer, less ambiguous OP in future.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Rebuttals

I. "Again my opponent sees the need to tell Christians what they believe through faith and what they actually believe to be factually true. There is little to add here other than he continues to be wrong."

I haven't TOLD Christians anything. I explained how it is impossible to determine if the miracles and occurrences that take place in the stories of the Bible are true or not because we were not there to observe them happening. The reason Christians believe these stories to be true without themselves having been there is because they have faith that such stories are true and accurate.

My opponent has based his entire argument off of his belief that such stories are not true, and that therefore Christianity has no valid basis to exist. I have shown several times how this is both an impossible and poor standard because:

1) There is no way to validate whether those stories are true or not.

2) This would then mean no religion has a valid basis to exist.

3) This would mean that any and every - myth, story, tale, legend, belief, and ideology that isn't completely true in all its elements would then have no valid basis to exist. This would includes tales like the Epic of Gilgamesh, Romeo and Juliet, the roman/Greek/Egyptian mythologies etc., all of this would have no valid basis to exist according to my opponent.

4) Because of 2 & 3, we would stand to lose vast amounts of extremely rich history, cultural traditions, and knowledge that can be gained and applied in our own lives from studying such things.

II. "It is very possible to prove that they are not true, as stated in my OP. If my opponent refuses to read the OP and create not only his own Christianity but also his own version of the OP to argue against, there is little I can do at this point."

To be clear, I have read the OP several times. I have shown in my Round 1 response how your first point is invalid from the start based off of a false premise leading to an incorrect conclusion. I have shown how the assumption that serves as the foundation for your second point is also invalid since it is impossible for you to ever know what actually happened the night of Jesus' conception aside from having faith in the way the story is presented. I have shown Biblical verses to answer the question posed in the third point you raised. I also applied my reasoning for the second point to this third point in the sense that there is no way to ever know what actually happened during that span of time.

To say I refused to read the OP is another incorrect assumption based on the fact that I responded to the OP. I couldn't have known what I was responding too unless I read it first. I have created no "version" of Christianity nor have I created my own "version" of the OP. Literally every point you raised I responded too accordingly as evidenced in the previous rounds and right above.

III. "I will not address any further points because my opponent is just repeating arguments based on his double straw man argument. As I pointed out earlier, he stated:

The Resolution of the debate IS: Christianity has no valid basis to exist.
The Resolution of the debate IS NOT: Christianity has no valid basis to exist as a religion.


And again, I point out that if my opponent sees that Christianity is not a religion, then he has to state what Christianity is in order to properly continue."


My opponent has continuously accused me of committing fallacies throughout this debate. Every time he has done so I have presented my case and still remain standing unchallenged due to a lack of any evidence from my opponent. He accuses me, yet fails to provide evidence. I have shown the audience, every time, that I have committed no such things.

The reason I brought up what the resolution was and was not, was because my opponent claimed that if the miracles and stories aren't true, that everything the religion is based on is a lie and therefore has no valid basis to exist.

I have shown that the religion is based on faith and has a valid basis to exist because humans act as the agency which gives meaning to the teachings found within the stories of the Bible. I have also shown how Christianity has a valid basis to exist because it is meaningful information that is encoded by language in either oral or written traditions and kept in those forms by creatures (humans) who themselves exist. Christianity is a part of the very existence we have found ourselves in, and therefore, exists itself. I have also shown how it has a valid basis to exist due to its role in shaping our modern laws. This point was never counter-argued by my opponent after I rebutted his initial criticism, and still stands.

Of course Christianity is a religion, and therefore I can understand why my opponent would get so tied up in this particular point. But we were not debating whether Christianity should exist as a religion, just simply if Christianity should exist at all - no matter what title we wish to ascribe it be it religion, cult, ideology, etc... That was the biggest mistake my opponent committed and what he got stuck on for the majority of the debate.

IV. Bizarrely, in the bolded quote above he claims that the debate is not about Christianity being a religion and at the beginning of the last round he admits that "Christians believe through faith that the miracles ..." which is pretty much what a religion is; and now claims never to have said otherwise. So at this point, my opponent seems to be arguing as much with himself as me (or rather a strawman version of me).


I clarified in round 4 how I acknowledged that Christianity was a religion, and that regardless of it's standing or title it still has a valid basis to exist. So somehow, through this, my opponent gathered that I was saying that "Christianity is not a religion" but that is something I NEVER said in this debate. I said the resolution wasn't about it being a religion or not.

My opponent can view it in any manner he pleases, but the fact remains that I never committed a straw man fallacy and have proven myself every time I've had an accusation raised against me. The only thing I am arguing against is someone incapable of understanding my position due to getting caught up on one particular aspect about this debate while remaining incapable of seeing the true nature of his own resolution.

V. I think we have been talking at cross purposes, the same cross-purposes as I stated in the first round. We have spent the debate disagreeing what the debate is even about, nevermind the topic itself. And we have run out of time, so any voting on the matter isn't even about the debate but about the topic of the debate!

I have been debating this topic the entire time. The fact that my opponent failed to understand his own resolution is of no concern of mine. I believe I was clear enough for the audience to understand my position and feel that I have upheld my BOP to the fullest throughout this debate.

Also, the voting is most certainly about the debate. Please vote according to the information presented in the debate.

Conclusion

I defeated all of my opponents contentions, and have presented rebuttals to every point my opponent raised.

I have extended several arguments which remained unchallenged throughout the last two rounds and they remain standing. I have presented rebuttals which proved the inaccurate assumptions made by my opponent and have also shown that my opponent bases claims off of lies about things I have never said.

I have also used sources throughout this debate to provide strong evidence for any claims that needed it.

Most importantly, as Pro, my opponent failed to uphold his BOP. Whereas I have presented why Christianity has a valid basis to exist, as well as the potential harm of letting my opponents' standards be recognized or allowed for practice.

I want to thank my opponent for starting this topic and look forward to any and all challenges in the future.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Sore loser....
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
@RandomTruth:

If all he did was "repeat debunked arguments", he wouldn't be winning by 18 points.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
RandomTruth
No, I was thanking you for repeating your already debunked arguments.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Are you continuing the debate in the comment section after it has finished? Just can't seem to stop with the poor conduct I see. Next time, I suggest you understand the Resolution you wish to debate.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
RandomTruth
Hmm, looks like you keep on insisting on debating an OP that isn't being presented. Thanks for the time anyway, it was fun.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
I need to finish this debate before responding in the comments. What I will say is that you continuously failed to show why I was wrong, and instead just said I was wrong. Such accusations deserve direct examples of the mistake committed. Everything else I WISH I could say right now, will have to wait until after I post my round 5.
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
RandomTruth
When I am pointing out flaws in your argument, that is not being antagonistic. It is part of the debate to point out in the reasonings of your opponent - it's not meant to be an insult but to help you get back to what the debate was about.

It was clear when you did not accept that the OP was about the religion of Christianity that something terrible was wrong. It's not an insult to point out that you were wrong.

A double straw man is when you compound the original straw man with another straw man argument. Though technically, it's not a double-straw man, it's actually a straw man squared. Anyway, take it however you wish - it seems that you're more interested at being angry than really settling anything.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
You're calling me antagonistic when you are the one accusing me of committing logical fallacies, circular arguments, and now what a double straw man?! Please, define for me what a double-straw man is. I bet you don't even know, do you?
Posted by RandomTruth 2 years ago
RandomTruth
Everything I quoted are from your own responses which appear to be all over the place and exactly as I predicted in my first response to you. This is not the first time I have had this debate and I can already know most of the arguments.

I am trying to be polite here and assume that we are just talking about different things. Please do not be antagonistic when there is no need to be.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
You screwed yourself from the start with this ignorant resolution. Then you went and positioned yourself for Pro, which was even worse. Your main argument was defeated in rounds 1 & 2. You have so far failed to present anything else. You failed to rebut my arguments. Then you start accusing me once you realize you can't win this in rounds 2, 3, 4 while ironically committing the very fallacies you accuse me of doing LOL.

The last round was the funniest though because you started lying about things I never said in previous rounds, and somehow try to build arguments around those lies. Let's see if you can quote exactly where I said those things for your last round. Otherwise all of DDO will know how much of a liar you are. I suggest YOU concede this last round and deactivate your account because DDO should not have to be exposed to lying scum like you.

Your apologies mean nothing to me considering your word is nothing but lies and weak arguments that are easily defeated. I repeat the same points because you are too ignorant to comprehend the fact that you lost after round 1. When everyone in the comments is pointing out your flaws, you need to start looking in the mirror. Don't ever think that you have the right to concede for another debater. You suck at trolling, you suck at debating, you are not RandomTruth, you are RandomLies as evidenced by the laughable claims you made based on what? NOTHING BUT LIES.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
RandomTruthBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided many more sources than Pro and had much longer arguments, which made them convincing. Conduct is tied as well as spelling and grammar.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RandomTruthBlade-of-TruthTied
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 really didn't try to support his position
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
RandomTruthBlade-of-TruthTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I noticed that this debate is getting a little heated, especially in the comments. The topic would somewhat easy for con but a lot harder to work with. Con worked well with this and somewhat refuted many of Pros points. Interesting to read. I've noticed that Con has showed a lot more sources.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
RandomTruthBlade-of-TruthTied
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: The Argument points definitely go to Con. Pro's main argument was Christianity's stories are obviously false, so there is no reason for it to exist. Con correctly pointed out that 1) we cannot be so sure that those stories are false and 2) even if those stories are fictional, that does not mean that Christianity shouldn't exist, since those stories still form the basis of an ancient tradition of which billions are a part of and believe in, which on its own serves as a good reason for Christianity to continue existing. Pro never really counters these arguments effectively, instead resorting to accusing Con of strawmanning, when no such fallacy was committed, which is why I'm also giving Con the Conduct point.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
RandomTruthBlade-of-TruthTied
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 argued the resolution made by Pro, while Pro argued that the bible has flaws, Pro had good arguments but they were off-topic while Con debated the subject at hand. In truth the only way to view this is more or less a concession (since Pro didn't really debate the topic at hand) where Pro decided to have an off-topic rant.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
RandomTruthBlade-of-TruthTied
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 should have used a more appropriate Debate Topic, as Pro could never support such a statement and certainly failed here. Con had an easy task, since just believing Jesus was a great person is a valid basis for Christianity to exist. So Pro shot his own feet off with a badly conceived debate.