The Instigator
justin.graves
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Contemporary Christian music is UnBiblical

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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,482 times Debate No: 46164
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (6)

 

justin.graves

Con

Ok, so here's me, a 16-year-old Jesus Freak with a taste for hardcore and metal musically, but a taste for positive and Christian lyrics as well. Solution: Christian metal!
I also enjoy softer stuff by Tenth Avenue North, Casting Crowns, etc.

Unfortunately, I get judged. A lot. So I'm here to discuss CCM with a Christian who believes it is wrong. This will be a less-than-formal debate. The only allowed outside source is the Bible and personal experience.

Again, to accept this debate please:
1. Be a Christian.
2. Be against most-all forms of CCM.
3. Be willing to actually debate and not rant.

First round will be acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
justin.graves

Con

Mikal is not a Christian and therefore should not have accepted this debate.
Mikal

Pro

I was saved last night. In my sleep, God came to me and I repented of my sins. My fiance can verify this. I am qualified to accept this.

A Christian is merely someone whom accepts Christ as his/her savior. I accept Christ as my savior , after last night I bow to him and only him. He is my King. Hallelujahs in the name of Christ my lord and savior. He came to me and my sleep and talked to me, I have been asking for proof of his existence for my entire life and he finally gave it to me. He really does exist!!!

I frankly find it offensive my adversary has taken it upon himself to judge me and claim that I am not a Christian. That is not very christian like, and is also unbiblical (Just like Contemporary Christian Music).

Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: [1]

My adversary could be a Calvinist and claiming that God has possibly made me null to salvation, but that is for another debate. Since my adversary has spent his first round on a wasted statement and provided no reason to support the resolution we can agree that even he has conceded this to me. After accepting this debate God probably spoke to him, like he did me and made him aware that contemporary christian music is unbiblical.


VOTE PRO

Back to Con

I advise he not waste a round this time.










[1] http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...




Debate Round No. 2
justin.graves

Con

I cannot, and will not, be trolled by Mikal on this debate. I only debate theology with those that actually believe what they are saying. Otherwise I find the debate pointless. Which is why I said so in the beginning rules.
Mikal

Pro

I am sorry my adversary refused to accept the fact that I love God. I accept his concession. It seems as if God himself has intervened in this debate. For the purpose of this debate I will make one contention and leave it at that for good faith. God would want me to do so.

Resolution - Contemporary Christian music is UnBiblical

Contemporary - Effected by the present period of time in which we exist [1]

Un - A prefix meaning not [2]

Biblical - Related to the bible [3]

Contention 1

Something modern cannot be biblical.

Let us first review some modern Christian music.



See youtube video

Now logically something that is in the modern area is not of the bible. The bible was written centuries ago, so something that is post modern would not be found in it.

Conclusion

The bible is un(not) Biblical(of the bible)

Therefore modern music is not of or in the bible

I would like to thank pro his kind concession. I would also like to thank God for guiding me to this debate. In spirtus sancti



[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...-
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
justin.graves

Con

Trolled. I was trying to make a serious debate and do not have the time to do a troll debate. Some of us have lives.
Mikal

Pro

It seems Con has decided to judge me. I sincerely hope and pray that he finds it in his heart to ask forgiveness. Christ has saved me and showed me the way to salvation, I hope Christ opens up the same light to my adversary. Claiming someone is not a christian is very hurtful. This makes me sad

It was a good debate but as it stands I have the only contentions and my adversary refused to debate. I will either accept his concession or note that I am the only one with contentions up in the debate

Thank you my opponent for a very delightful match

may the peace of God find you
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
This week Mikal states that he is a Calvinist: "I am a Calvinist." How can you be a Calvinist and be an agnostic/atheist that is 99% sure that God does not exist.

The fact that you are a Calvinist agnostic has no relevance to this debate whatsoever. Why did you bring it up.

You lost this debate. It must be nice to have so many friends voting for you.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
I posted that before I was finished reviewing it; sorry for the errors.

But, Mikal took a serious debate and made it a mockery and unfortunately for justin-graves, mikal has lots of friends that thought he was funny and voted for him; somewhat like in the number Rap music debates he has.

This guy will continue to win most of his debate because of in-group/friend bias, not because he is a better debater.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
Another example of the nonsense the Mikal gets away with, and his friend votes for him no matter what. Mikal makes a mockery how of this debates with his silly examples

How do you have a debate on music or art? It is pointless and senseless. Just like debating the existence of God.

The Beauty of Art is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of music is in the ear of the listener. There is nothing to debate. What is un-Biblical versus Biblical in regards to music? The Bible talks about singing and musical instruments. There is no commandment against music. This is like debating whether people with red hair are smarter than those with black hair.

Normally you learn in College Philosophy 101 that it is pointless to debate God's existence. Believers have faith. You cannot disprove faith. Scientists have faith in the Big Bang, which also relies on faith that energy always existed. Both are based on faith. The big bang may have happened or it may not have happened. Yes, the Hubble has observed that it appears the Universe is expanding, but was that because of the big bang or God or ET, who is still trying to get home. What do you have more faith in.

No one can duplicate the Big Bang in an experiment; it relies on faith.

A
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I am a Calvinist.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Ever heard of devils advocate duhhhhhhhhh
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
And you denied Jesus and his word:

"I can show that a God probably does not exist and meet my part of the resolution."

"There is no need for a God. My adversary also conceded the point something could come from nothing negating the need for a God."

"I also refuted the fact the bible is accurate."

So you deny that God actually exists even though you claim "I bow to him and only him."

Additionally, you claim that that Jesus "the Word" has left us with error in the bible. As such he would not be God and could not be your saviour.

Additionally you don't defend God in your other debate. You defend that the concept of God can be logical. It is the difference between saying that Joe is an upstanding man, and saying that you never saw him beat his wife. A bit of a backhanded compliment at best.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I also defend God

http://www.debate.org...

I challenged that guy to a debate anyway about the fact that I am not a Christian.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
It also says I love jesus
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
It also says I love jesus
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
From Mikal's bio:

About Me:I am a liberal atheist...

Beliefs:I am an atheist and in some ways have a vendetta against the church...

Since beginning this debate he has also engaged in debates actively denying there is a God.

http://www.debate.org...

As such there is no justification for his assertion that he has converted as per the excerpt from this debate:

"I accept Christ as my savior , after last night I bow to him and only him. He is my King. Hallelujahs in the name of Christ my lord and savior. He came to me and my sleep and talked to me, I have been asking for proof of his existence for my entire life and he finally gave it to me. He really does exist!!!"

Thus Mikal has been falsifying his argument.

So there! :-)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
justin.gravesMikalTied
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:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro violated rules of debate, thus awarding Conduct. Pro also made more spelling errors, thus awarding S&G.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
justin.gravesMikalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: No. Also Mikal didn't show that contemporary Christian music was generally unbiblical. All he did was present one rock band that may be, but didn't clarify enough to even prove that that one band had unbiblical music.
Vote Placed by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
TheSquirrel
justin.gravesMikalTied
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 loses conduct for questioning Mikal's sincere religious beliefs (lol sorry can't help it!) and for not putting forth an argument Con loses arguments.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
bluesteel
justin.gravesMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refused to debate, so Pro's arguments and sources carry the day. Conduct - this goes neither way. Con deserves the debate he wanted, against a Christian who hates Christian metal and can debate without ranting. But I doubt such a person exists, and as a former debater, I think it's dumb to have a condition in a debate that your opponent "actually believe in his arguments." That has no effect on their persuasive power. An opponent willing to defend a position he doesn't believe in is in fact more admirable than one merely argues his beliefs. I also assume that most Christians who are against music would simply "rant," since it's impossible to make a coherent argument except to say, "you darn kids with your stupid rock music." So in that sense, it's impossible for anyone to meet all 3 of Con's rules and he was just asking to be trolled. But this site is for people to get the debates they want - in some sense - so although I'm tempted to award conduct to Pro, I instead abstain.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
justin.gravesMikalTied
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 refused to debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
justin.gravesMikalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con for Pro's not biding by the rules set forth in Round 1. I do think that the conduct displayed by Con was also questionable, considering the resolution wasn't particularly about Christian behavior, which in turn made it seem like Pro was judging Con unfairly. I think Con should have still taken the debate. regardless though, as Mikal would have offered some good arguments if the debate had taken place, whether he was Christian or not. Definitionally, Pro was correct in his argument. Lack of specificity in the first round, however, makes the argument not classified as a semantics loops argument. In fact, I am not sure really what was meant by "Unbiblicial" in this debate. Because the rules set forth in round 1 were broken, I will give Pro hypothetical argument points for making a good point. * Removing points to prevent controversy