The Instigator
oliverpuck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheOrator
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Christians our illogical

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 4 votes the winner is...
TheOrator
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,108 times Debate No: 23947
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

oliverpuck

Pro

Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up.
TheOrator

Con

I'll assume this is an acceptance round, so I'll accept and clarify with the fact that I am actually an athiest, but I find this statement false.

Since no definitions were offered from the instigator, I'll provide my own. I don't think my opponent should find anything wrong with these as they are very simple, but if he does he's more than free to dispute them.

Christian: One who follows the teachings of a Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text.

Illogical: Does not follow logical processes
Debate Round No. 1
oliverpuck

Pro

Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up. For example Christians use the bible and it states that black people were cursed because they sinned. And were not aloud in the in Christian churches. but after the civil war black people were aloud in the Christian churches. But the bible it also states that god has seen the past and the future. so if he could see that black people weren't bad why did he write it in his bible.
TheOrator

Con

As none of my definitions have been disputed, I'll assume they are accepted by the pro.

MY CONSTRUCTIVE CASE:

I negate the resolution because of the following contentions

Contention1: Christians are not all inherently illogical.
Inherently - Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic. [1]

Subpoint A: The affirmative cannot prove that Christians are illogical
The resolution operates around the fact that all Christians are somehow illogical. Now, if the resolution stated "Christianity is illogical", then I may agree, however this resolution is a direct insult to all Christians. The main reason the resolution should be negated is that believing in the Christian text does not lead to a direct loss in IQ, rationality, or any other reason that may imply that all those who accept God into their lives lose their ability to make logical decisions, let alone prove that all Christians are all illogical. Because of this, the pro cannot uphold his burden of proof, and so the resolution is negated.

Subpoint B: There have been logical Christians in the past.
In order for the resolution to be proven true, the Pro must prove that all Christians who have existed, currently exist, and those who will exist are illlogical. However, this is proven false simply because there have been logical Christians in the past. Famous scientists such as Pascal, Newton, Planck, and several more [2] all made huge contributions to science by using the logical process (and so by it's own definition they cannot be proven illogical), while still believing in the Christian God. Because the Pro's statement that "Christians our illogical" cannot be upheld, the resolution is negated.

Contention 2: The resolution doesn't actually mean anything.
For my first contention, I assumed that the resolution mean "are", however the resolution as it reads is "Christians our illogical", and as my opponent has restated this phrase twice, we can see that it is not a typo. Unfortunately, "Christians our illogical" isn't even a proper sentence, let alone have an actual meaning. Because the resolution cannot actually logically have a meaning, and because even the closest decipherable meaning cannot be proven true, the resolution is negated.

MY REBUTTAL
The Pro's case is wrong for the following reasons.

"Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up."
Oh? And what do you back your beliefs up with? I noticed that your profile states that you are an athiest, but as athiests, what do we really have to back up our beliefs? We have idle speculation, sure, but no real, cemented evidence that no gods exist. Because we don't have any cemented evidence to back up our arguments, does that make us illogical? If not, how can we call Christians illogical for the same thing?

"Christians use the bible and it states that black people were cursed because they sinned. And were not aloud in the in Christian churches. but after the civil war black people were aloud in the Christian churches. But the bible it also states that god has seen the past and the future. so if he could see that black people weren't bad why did he write it in his bible"
Two points on this one:
1.) Sources, please. I cannot properly negate your argument without sources from where in the Bible that came from, nor can you properly prove your argument without it.
2.) Even if this was found in the Bible, and even if God did somehow materialize a hand and write it in himself, this argument does not in itself prove Christians illogical. It simply shows that there is a discrepency in the Bible, but as I have proven in my case, not all Christians are illogical.

Because the resolution is fundamentally flawed in its reasoning, and because my opponent's case cannot be upheld, I urge a negative vote, thank you.

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2.) http://www.godandscience.org...
Debate Round No. 2
oliverpuck

Pro

first off I said that the Christian churches our illogical not that the people of the Christian churches. But it would affect your scientific abblility for example if you were studying the theory of evolution. And your church is against it you would not be able to except many of the facts. My argument is that there is no way to prove that there is a god or most of Christian doctrine. But atheism can be proved because it goes with facts and real proven things. now my opponent has a
weak point because he has not decided if he is pro or con., He will not get to the facts of why he doesn't like my argument. However I am not stating that I do not like Christians just the fact that they our illogical. And my second point illogical means non fact
and Christians however do not have facts to build on therefore making them illogical.
my sites were webster diconary online and google
TheOrator

Con

Since my opponent did not break down his argument into contentions for easy debating, I'll go line-by-line.

"first off I said that the Christian churches our illogical not that the people of the Christian churches"
- "Christians our illogical" - topic of the debate
- "Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up" - Round 1
- "Christians our illogical because most of there beliefs have nothing to back it up" - Round 2
- " Christians use the bible and it states" - Round 2
Those are all the quotes including Christians so far, the only time you mentioned Christian churches at all was when you were referring to the physical buildings that African Americans were not allowed into, not the organization of The Church. So no, not only did the resolution refer to Christians quite clearly, they are all you referred to in the round.

"But it would affect your scientific abblility for example if you were studying the theory of evolution."
Why? Do you actually have a reason for this? Albert Einstein hypothesized that nothing could go faster than the speed of light, but CERN broke that theory when they shot a particle that broke the speed of light. [1] Because Einstein believed in a flawed rule, did that make him any less able to use his logical processes even though he continued to benefit the world of science? No, just because you hold a false belief it doesn't mean it impacts your rational ability, and so according to the accepted definition of illogical, it does not make them illogical.

"My argument is that there is no way to prove that there is a god or most of Christian doctrine. But atheism can be proved because it goes with facts and real proven things."
And you have refused to list any of them. The reason there is still such a divide betwen theists and athiests is because neither side can be definately proven one way or the other, and so when you don't actually say why what you believe in is right there is no way that statement can be considered true.

"now my opponent has a weak point because he has not decided if he is pro or con."
You know a good way to tell what I've decided is? There's a little box in the corner of the screen which says I'm arguing the con ^-^

"He will not get to the facts of why he doesn't like my argument. "
-"I negate the resolution because of the following contentions" - Round 2
I say why your argument is wrong several times, you just don't negate it :)

"However I am not stating that I do not like Christians just the fact that they our illogical."
I don't believe that I called you biased in any way, I simply said that this resolution is an insult to christians everywhere.

"And my second point illogical means non fact"
Three things:
1.) You didn't number your points at all, so I have no clue if this is your second point in your constructive, the second point your making now, etc. etc. However, considering you have one sentence in your constructive and this isn't the second point you've made, I don't think there's any way for me to figure out.
2.) We've already agreed to an accepted definition for the round. "not fact" is not the accepted definition, nor would I agree to it if it were proposed as that's not what illogical means at all.
3.) ... I don't even know what that's supposed to mean though. It isn't a proper definition. Is my thinking Micheal Jackson made good music illogical because it's opinion rather than fact?

"and Christians however do not have facts to build on therefore making them illogical."
Fact - Something believed to be true or real [2]
They do actually. they base their logic on the Bible, which to them was written by those inspired by God. these are facts that they base their beliefs on.

"my sites were webster diconary online and google"
Two things:
1.) Which went to what information.
2.) One of those is a dictionary, and another of those is a search engine, which don't list information about the Bible on the web page. And neither of those tell me where specifically you find the bible quotes I disputed, so as far as I'm concerned those quotes are still disputed.

I have negated everything my opponent said word for word, however he did not do the same. Here is a list of the items he dropped, and so according to the rules of every form of debate I've run across, are now considered true as you didn't rebut them:

- My SpB, which stated there were famous Christians in teh past, proving the resolution wrong.
- My entire second contention, which states that the resolution cannot be true because it isn't even a valid sentence.
- The fact taht a discrepency in the Bible doesn't prove every Christian illogical (which I used against his segregation argument).

MAIN VOTERS IN THE ROUND:
- The fact that the Pro dropped my contention proves the entire resolution false.
- My opponent dropped the entire SpB of my contention, which proposes that my opponent must prove all Christians in the past, present, and future to be illogical. Because he did not rebut or meet this burden of proof, the resolution fails.
- His main point against my argument was that I didn't know whether to argue the pro or con... which is completely false.
- At no point in his argument could my opponent successfully prove that All christians are illogical as defined by our Round 1 Terms. Because he didn't meet this burden of proof, the resolution fails.

Because of the many reasons why the resolution has failed, I have successfully negated the resolution, and so I respectfully urge a negative ballot.

Works Cited:
1.) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Where on earth does it say "Black people are cursed"?
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
No! How could I have overlooked such a thing :P

Although I did see that Pro took the time to start another debate while this one was waitin...
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
You should have defined "our", Con. That's going to be the critical part of this debate, I can already tell.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CakeIsTruth 4 years ago
CakeIsTruth
oliverpuckTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not the best speller, but the dude can't even spell "are!" Con gave many good points and Pro gave very few.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
oliverpuckTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 didn't even have to read this argument to know that this was false...but I did anyway. I also respect how Con defended a religion that con does not personally believe in. Con's argument definitely held more water.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
oliverpuckTheOratorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling "are" incorrectly seems more illogical than any example Pro gave throughout the debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
oliverpuckTheOratorTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: S/G goes to Con because Pro had terrible grammar throughout the debate. Con gets convincing arguments because Pro never made a substantial claim and all of the claims he did make were thoroughly refuted by Con. Con also gets sources because he used a total of four while Pro used none.