The Instigator
Noimfarticus
Pro (for)
Tied
8 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Tied
8 Points

Christianity is wrong

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 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,392 times Debate No: 8105
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

Noimfarticus

Pro

I believe christianity is wrong God is not real because he couldnt have created the world in seven days and how could dinosaurs have been created its just a bnch of morals and a big story to back it up. i hope a christian or expert will argue whith me and i will be as polite as i can be
InfraRedEd

Con

Well that's not very polite Farticus. Does my opponent have parental permission to be on this site as required by the Terms of Service?

What are the criteria that my opponent would apply to a religion in order to judge if it is wrong?

How does Christianity somehow meet these criteria that, by implication, all the other religions do not meet?

What are my opponent's values? Where are you going with this? So what? Who cares?

My opponent's opening arguments are not complete until this info has been supplied.

That is a forfeit since that all should be done in the first round.

Thank you for a very enjoyable debate
Debate Round No. 1
Noimfarticus

Pro

I am being rude? Well i am not trying to be so have the common sense not to be offended. does my parent give me permission. whats thats a bit stereotypical. I was looking for a person to have an intresting Debate whith not someone to moan about how Debate is rude well if it is dont join it.
InfraRedEd

Con

I will argue that Christianity is morally good.

Christianity teaches that it is a good thing to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is from The Sermon on the Mount:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Note in particular the Beatitudes:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The beatitudes present in Matthew and Luke are:

The poor (Matthew has "poor in spirit"). The text says that theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mourners (Luke has "those who are weeping"). The text says that they will be comforted (Luke has "will laugh").
The hungry (Matthew has "hunger and thirst after righteousness"). The text says that they will be filled (Luke has "be satisfied").
Those persecuted for seeking righteousness (rather than righteousness, Luke has "followers of the Son of Man"). The text says that theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
The beatitudes only present in Matthew are:

The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth".
The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy".
The pure of heart . The text says that they will "see God".
The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God".

This is a pretty powerful moral teaching.

Christ didn't say much about dinosaurs anyway or even about seven days.

My opponent will say that's not what I meant by "wrong."

So we have two definitions of "wrong." I will argue that my definition of "wrong" supports values which are superior to those of my opponent, if any.

My opponent will argue that it is not fair to let me take a stand just like the other guy.

I quote from

http://wiki.idebate.org...

Rules During Lincoln-Douglas Debate
1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative.

The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution.
The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement.
(1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life').

(2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution.

(3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety.

Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent.

2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so

Also note that my opponent should go first with a little bit more coherence and lucidity.

Quoting now from

http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us...

Criteria: There a several interpretations of criteria in LD. There is no definitive answer...

In any case, by definition, a criteria is a standard, the real question, and one that should be debated in every round, is what it is a standard for and of. It is also critical to know how the value and criteria are intended to relate.

Regarding my opponent's thesis:

One thing is lacking here, and it is a good point and one made frequently in debating: Who cares? So what?
What value do you attach to pursuing this matter? Why are you bringing this up anyway? What is your agenda? Put your cards on the table.
Any court of law is going to want to know where you are going with this, and it is important to know why. It is not because we don't want to waste the court's valuable time.
It is because the withholding of that information is not fair to your opponent. What you are doing is concealing an agenda. If your opponent does not know what you intend to prove down the road with this conclusion, in debating terms it is like posting an incomplete opening argument that does not attach any value to itself. It cannot be countered with opposing values because there are none to oppose. In layman's terms, so what?

Quoting now from

http://www.wcdebate.com...

There is no question that the way people perceive the world is very different. In many cases, people's refusal to attempt to understand these differences is the cause of much conflict. The kind of questions that I believe L.D. should address are the kinds of questions that everyone should think about because it is these questions that call into question the fundamental assumptions that make us see the world in the way that we do. By calling into question these assumptions, people are better equipped to understand that there are different ways of viewing the world, none of which is fundamentally more legitimate than another. By placing these issues into the framework of debate, L.D. forces young people to expand their own thought processes. This is the aspect of the event that I would like to see grow and in the end, I believe that if this type of L.D. debate becomes more common, people will begin to recognize the value inherent in the activity.
Debate Round No. 2
Noimfarticus

Pro

Noimfarticus forfeited this round.
InfraRedEd

Con

Today on the Hill:

House Energy and Commerce (10 a.m.): Communications, Technology, and the Internet Subcommittee holds a hearing on "An Examination of Competition in the Wireless Industry.". 2123 Rayburn.

Tim Geithner is up to no good again. He probably wants to shut down the Internet because it is too much competition for newspapers. This guy is just no good.

Online debating:

Currently serious debaters avoid online debating, and for good reason.

We need a set of rules, or a set of sets of rules, that can be specified and agreed to before beginning the debate, and scoring criteria that reflect those rules, and experienced moderators.

We need to give some thought as to how to adapt debating tournament rules to online debating.

The debaters have to have confidence that all will be able to vote, and will vote fairly.

Cell phones must not be used to verify identity.

There should be more flexibility in specifying the debate.

There should be voting after each round.

More statistics should be available.

It should be possible to display debates by category.

More participation, and proper debating technique learned by all should be encouraged.

Educators need to look more to the Internet for the delivery of "open courseware" utilizing "distance technology."

Debating has moved from the courts into the auditorium. Its next move is the big one.
Debate Round No. 3
Noimfarticus

Pro

Noimfarticus forfeited this round.
InfraRedEd

Con

My opponent is praying for Jesus to forgive him.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Don't play the wounded Chrisitan with me SAC8. If My argument is that full of holes I would like you to point them out, not just tell me I am wrong. I am not a hurtful person, which is why I am on this site expelling my ideas peacefully and leaving the Christians in my personal life alone. If I was hurtful, I would be espousing them on facebook, at social gatherings, and other places where people are not prepared to defend against me. On this site, people only come here to argue and there is never an excuse for a lack of an exchange; if someone is hurtful then it means they cannot defend themselves logically and you have won the exchange.

I am the one who is actually being hurt, anyway. I mean, how would you feel if some guy made up a story with talking animals and ridiculous feats that make The Lord of the Rings look tame, and then a bunch of people took that story and insisted it were true? Then another group of people did the same thing with Allah instead of God, and the two groups started killing each other over it. While the Christians weren't busy fighting Allah-people, forcefully converting tribes of native people over to their lies, and bullying around the scientific community, they were instilling fear and superstition into their own people. Fast forward to today, and we are just getting over the last crusade waged by George W. Bush. Of course I can't say that in public, because I will hurt a lot of people's feelings.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I forgive you for your hurting words rob1billion. I hope I shall not go to hell, it is up for the Lord to decide. Why must you personally attack my beliefs? The whole argument you presented has many faults in it, but you simply defend it because it is your belief. I respect that. I wish you could respect mine. One fundamental basis of Christianity is to show compassion and respect to all people (that's my interpretation) and I struggle to do that every now and again with people who greatly anger me (not pointing to rob1billion, hint hint) Thanks for your kind words, once again. Peace be with you
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Ah yes... The classic "the Bible really didn't mean it like THAT argument". So anytime the Bible agrees with you, it's divine scripture, but when it seems to be full of BS, it simply didn't mean it like that! So if we extrapolate that out completely, it basically means that the Bible is completely useless! And then, to make it even more entertaining, there are those who will insist it DID mean it literally. If there are a billion Christians in the world, then there are a billion different interpretations of the Bible. Assuming, of course, that all one billion of them took the time to actually read it instead of getting it interpreted for them. There are two measures for Christians: Authenticity and Reality. The more Authentic one is (Fundamentalist, completely literal interpretation of Bible), the less Real one is (actually can make observations fit with theories). You can't find me a Christian who is both consistent Biblically and consistent scientifically. Pick your side. SAC8 is obviously low on the Authentic side, but high on the real side. I know some fundamentalist Christians personally, that would view SAC8 no differently then they would view myself: GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL. I'll see you there SAC8.

What I find interesting is the direction Christianity is taking these days. Many churches now have Preachers in blue jeans, electric guitar players and rock music... Christianity, on average, keeps moving away from the fundamentalist style. Where is this trend heading, exactly? My grandchildren, if they go to church, will no doubt see an even more watered down version then I have. Perhaps atheists will even find a place in the church in the future. The church I am familiar with in town welcomes all sects of Christianity. Perhaps they, in the future, will accept all different faiths and atheists and just become a gathering of people looking for progress in morality... Although "who's" morality is obviously a big question.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Farticus is very uneducated. Just because God didn't created the world in seven days does not mean he does not exist. It is symbolic. The seven days symbolizes different time periods, not an actual seven days. That's how it goes with many stories in the Bible, like with the recurring theme of the perfect number (7) and other imp. numbers like 40 and 3. It amazes me how ignorant some people are.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
"Good point, Gus. It looks as if many are voting without reading the debate"

Hmmm...
"Tied: 1 point...."

Then I cast my vote:
B/A: CON
DEFAULT ALL TO: CON

Due to forfeits and PRO's dropping of CON's case.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Ed obviously won this one.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Yeah that was some hefty proof of God, Ed.
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
Good point, Gus. It looks as if many are voting without reading the debate.
Posted by InfraRedEd 7 years ago
InfraRedEd
I have already proven God exists http://www.debate.org... with the help of my opponent who posted no argument, forfeited two rounds out of three and still made it a close race right down to the wire. Only three people out of 6.5 billion voted so we can see it is a pressing issue.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
um... yeah. We can see air. Blow some smoke and watch the air blow it around. "Not seeing", in the way you are employing it, has two different meanings. There is the not seeing of air, which means transparency, and the not seeing of God, which means he was made up in a fairy tale by men who were trying to control the people. Keep using your opium, Christians.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
NoimfarticusInfraRedEdTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
NoimfarticusInfraRedEdTied
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 sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
NoimfarticusInfraRedEdTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11