The Instigator
pivot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
UchihaMadara
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says

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...
UchihaMadara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 457 times Debate No: 60467
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

pivot

Pro

Yes I am Pro. My only source for this debate will be the New Testament. Good luck Con. You will need it.
UchihaMadara

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
pivot

Pro

Point 1:

The Roman army under Titus destroyed Jerusalem, the temple and either killed or enslaved most all the people living there. The defeat of the High Priest and the Levites was completely catastrophic. And guess what? The Priest and the Levites were very well versed in the Old Testament. So much so that they pretty much had it memorized from cover to cover. Of course I don't have to tell anyone here at debate.org that there is no High Priest and there are no Levites. And even if there are some left it does not matter since they can't prove their ancestry. They can't prove their ancestry because in the fight for Jerusalem all the records were destroyed along with the priesthood.

Think about it. The destruction of the High Priest, the priesthood, all the Levites and the Temple. Do you understand? The complete destruction of the High Priest, the priesthood, all the Levites and the Temple. And all those learned students and masters didn't have so much as a clue as to what was to happen to them all. And do you know why they didn't have a clue?

Because all those Levites, all those priests including the High Priest didn't know that the Old Testament predicted their fall.

Point 2:

The Rabbis were completely taken by surprise by Nazism.

Point 3:

The United States Constitution will not protect American Jewry.
UchihaMadara

Con

I am not sure what to say this round other than that NONE of what my opponent has said so far shows that only Christians know what the Old Testament says.
The only possible reason I can think of for why Pro's arguments seem so non-topical is that Pro is arguing in favor of a totally different interpretation of the resolution than I am, in which case the winner of the debate should come down to whose interpretation is more reasonable. I believe that, given the total lack of clarifications offered by Pro, my interpretation is more reasonable than whatever his interpretation is; the resolution clearly states that "Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says".
This implies that all I have to do to negate the resolution is show that non-Christians are also capable of knowing what the Old Testament says. But this seems to almost be a truism... anyone who possesses literacy in a major language and basic resources, which includes a large population of non-Christians, can obtain a copy of the Bible in their respective language and read it, thereby "knowing what the Old Testament says".
The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
pivot

Pro

Point 1:

There were no Christians killed by the Roman legions during the destruction of Jerusalem. Not even one.

Point 2:

Nazism could only operate in Germany if the Christians let it.

Point 3:

"Honor your mother and father." This is a saying like-
"Not one stone left on another."
The 'stone' saying is not about the 'wailing wall' left by Titus. It is about the High Priest and his breastplate. There is no breastplate. There is no High Priest. There is no stone left upon another.
The 'honor' verse applies to the U.S. Constitution whose mother and father are the Old Testament and New Testament respectively. The U.S. Constitution is going to honor its mother and father.
UchihaMadara

Con

My opponent has ignored everything I said, instead just re-iterating his three non-topical contentions from last round.
I can just copy-paste what I wrote last round...

NONE of what my opponent has said so far shows that only Christians know what the Old Testament says.
The only possible reason I can think of for why Pro's arguments seem so non-topical is that Pro is arguing in favor of a totally different interpretation of the resolution than I am, in which case the winner of the debate should come down to whose interpretation is more reasonable. I believe that, given the total lack of clarifications offered by Pro, my interpretation is more reasonable than whatever his interpretation is; the resolution clearly states that "Christians are the only ones who know what the Old Testament says".
This implies that all I have to do to negate the resolution is show that non-Christians are also capable of knowing what the Old Testament says. But this seems to almost be a truism... anyone who possesses literacy in a major language and basic resources, which includes a large population of non-Christians, can obtain a copy of the Bible in their respective language and read it, thereby "knowing what the Old Testament says".
The resolution is negated.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
I would change the resolution, I would snipe this if I had the time. The resolution entails that only christians know what is says, not that they are the only ones who follow it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
pivotUchihaMadaraTied
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 didn't contest con at all.
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
ldow2000
pivotUchihaMadaraTied
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 didn't support his case. Simple.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
pivotUchihaMadaraTied
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 failed to make any arguments that supported the resolution. I'm baffled at what the hell he was even talking about. Please try to stay on topic pro, and put more thought into your resolution.