The Instigator
Lupricona
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
imsmarterthanyou98
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

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 5 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,234 times Debate No: 44725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

Lupricona

Pro

Rules: Use Logic

R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals and Conclusion

I will be arguing that, not only was Jesus an historical person, but there is evidence that makes it probable that He was resurrected by God.

The burden of proof is on me.

If my opponent can prove that Jesus did not even exist, then that obviously refutes that Jesus was resurrected.

Good luck for the debate. Cheers!
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Lupricona

Pro

The Resurrection of Christ is More than Likely True.

1) There are 12 historical facts that secular (non-christian) critical scholars agree to. They are (1):

-Jesus died by crucifixion.

-He was buried.
-His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
-The tomb was empty (the most contested).
-The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus.
-The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
-The resurrection was the central message.
-They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
-The Church was born and grew.
-Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
-James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
-Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).



2) There are three possible scenarios: The early disciples all had hallucinations of Christ at different times and places and were convinced that it was real; The early disciples hid Christ's body from the tomb, spread the lie that he was resurrected, and were tortured and killed to protect that lie; or Christ was resurrected by God and this is what the apostle's saw and preached.


3) The apostles directly denied that what they saw were hallucinations. (2) This either leaves the apostles lying and then dying for that lie, or the resurrection actually happened. I argue that Christ was really resurrected by God, because it is not reasonable to believe that they lied. If anyone objects to this (like my opponent), then they must give a motive for why the apostles would be tortured and killed for the lie- what was their benefit? Also, examples must be given for people who died protecting something they knew to be a lie (not examples of people dying for what they believe to be true, but what they definitely knew was false). If these two problems are not refuted, one must conclude that Christ was resurrected by God.


(1) http://www3.telus.net...
(2) Luke Chapter 24
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

Thehistoricity of

Jesus Christ.

Every argument that attempts to show that Jesus existed, has logical or evidential fallacies. Anyone who says that Jesus definitely existed is merely giving their opinion, because the evidence clearly shows that Jesus is just a fictional character who never existed.

If you value evidence and logic you will accept the

non-existence of Jesus Christ.

The case supported by evidence
1. There is not one single writing from or about Jesus during his supposed lifetime

Like the supposed founders of other religions, Jesus left no personal writings of any kind, nor any trace of his existence. No writing, graffiti, or evidence of any kind has ever been found from the period in which he supposedly lived that establishes the existence of Jesus.

If we are to take the view that Jesus was actually the son of God, and god himself…Then it would be peculiar that he was unable to write and chose to write nothing himself. Of course the counter argument to this is that God wanted people to have faith so he intentionally didn't leave any evidence of himself.Absurd.

Even if we take the view of Jesus was just a person who was a teacher and the leader of a religious movement, then we could surely expect that this person would have produced his own writings, since others did.

Here are some of the persons who lived during the supposed lifetime of Jesus, whose works we have, and who we could reasonably expect would have mentioned Jesus had he existed, yet they do not

Justus of Tiberias, Philo of Alexandria , Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus. These were all historians that lived during the time of Jesus yet not one of them mentions him.

All of the mentioned above lived during the same time that Jesus supposedly lived and are prime candidates for being potential witnesses and documenters of the existence of Jesus.

The overwhelming lack of commentary about Jesus in the historical sources of his supposed time has troubled Christians from the very beginning.

2.Any evidence for Jesus is fabricated.

As early as the 2nd century this lack of acknowledgement was noticed. Indeed it was not long before forgeries attesting to the existence of Jesus were produced.

There are several false attestations to Jesus that are of note, among these are:

Letters of Pilate

Letter from Herod Antipas

Letter of Agbar

Letters of Caiaphas

Testimony of Thallus and Phlegon

All of these supposed evidences from the time of Jesus are universally accepted by scholars as fraudulent or corrupted.

Josephus Flavius was Fabricated.



A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his miracles.

Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of Christ.!

BUT it’s a FAKE!

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

The Church 'Father' Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively.

Yet even he makes not the slightest reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus. Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet existed just like Jesus it was fabricated.

Actually the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of

Constantine just when Christianity was made the religion of the holy roman empire isn’t that ironic?

Finding no references to Jesus anywhere in Josephus's genuine work because he did not exist they fabricated a brief but all-embracing reference based purely on Christian belief.

There is no real evidence for

Jesus.

This as many others was a forgery. A peer reviewed paper by Richard carrier proves exactly this.

http://muse.jhu.edu...

3.Christianity was plagiarized from other pagan gods and myths.

Jesus was merely derived from pagan gods.

Jesus a Copy of Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus and Other Pagan Gods.1.Horus born on December 25th Horus was born of a virgin three Wise Men Came to Adore the New Born Savior Horus was a child prodigy teacher at 12 Horus had 12 Disciples Horus was crucified. Dead for three days. And Resurrected2.Mithras.

Mithras was born of a virgin

Mithras was attended to by Shepherds

Mithras was born on December 25

Mithra had 12 disciples.Mithras was crucified. Dead for three days. And then resurrected Here are all of the Pagan “savior gods” that Jesus was derived from.

The "Parallel Pagan" Gods

  • Adonis
  • Attis (and Cybele)
  • Baal
  • Bacchus
  • Balder
  • Beddru
  • Devatat
  • Dionysis
  • Hermes
  • Horus
  • Krishna (or Krsna)
  • Mithras
  • Orpheus
  • Osiris
  • Tammuz (or Dumuzi)
  • Thor
  • Zoroaster
Absolutely everything in the Christian religion was derived from previous Pagan myths.First century critics of Christianity voiced accusations that Christianity was nothing but another copy of common religions.3.Jesus Christ was concocted from a conglomeration of these Gods.


Jesus was not really not new, he's just a new version of old ideas.

Jesus came from Heaven. To Earth Via a magical God-mortal birth. In fulfillment of prophesy. Heralded by magic God-sent dreams. He did miracles. He brought salvation.

Jesus was a new Pagan God.

To sum up.

Jesus was new—like the first Honda Civic was a new car and the first Pepsi was a new soda.

However we know that Honda didn't invent the car when they built the Civic and Pepsi didn't invent soda when they made Pepsi.

The Civic and Pepsi were new arrangements of old ideas. Some new stuff, but mostly old.

the gospels make claims that are against the known historical record

Here are a few examples of claims that are made in the Gospels.

  • Star of Bethlehem - No record of such a celestial event
  • Roman census in Jesus birth storyNo record of any census that matches this description.

Massacre of the Innocent - No record of this event

  • John the Baptist – Killed early in the Gospels, died in 36 CE according to Josephus.
  • Death of Jesus – Accompanied by blackout of sun, earthquakes, and raising of the dead
  • Absolutely not a shred of evidence of any of the above.

jesus' crucifixion on passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically

Jesus was crucified the first day of Passover.

This itself defies reason, as Passover is considered the holiest of Jewish holiday.

Jewish authorities would have never held a public execution of someone at this time is itself completely beyond belief.

But when you add to this the fact that in the story the members of the council slap Jesus and spit in his face the implausible borders on the impossible.

Here are rules of the Sanhedrin.

  • 1) No criminal session was allowed at night.
  • 3) No capital crime could be tried in a one-day sitting.
  • 4) No criminal trial could be held on the eve of a Sabbath or festival.

The Gospels violates all.

However considering the symbolism of the story it becomes apparent that the story is theological, not historical.

On Passover, at the time that this story is supposedly taking place, the Jews provided many sacrifices, most of them as burnt offerings, meaning animals that were slaughtered and then burned on a fire.

This special lamb is a sacrifice specifically for the forgiveness of sins…

The crucifixion of Jesus on Passover is a metaphor for this sacrificial lamb.

The idea of Jesus Christ as a sacrificial lamb is recorded in the letters of Paul from 1 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 5:
7 “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed

.”We can see that the symbolism of Christ as a sacrificial Passover lamb was a part of the Christian tradition prior to the writing of the Gospels.

Nazareth did not exist during the time of JesusTh

No source that confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament.

The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) records twelve towns and six villages and yet

NO Nazareth

Talmud, names 63 Galilean towns, never names Nazareth,

St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'.

Rabbi Solly's epistles mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not once.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth.

No ruins exist.

4th Century Map – NO NAZARETH!

4th century map

The whole world known to the Romans is represented

named more than 3000 places no Nazareth!

There where many belifes that jesusnever existed on earth in the flesh

During the first 300 years of Christian belief many held different views.

· Marcionism – Christ was a purely spiritual entity not a man

·

  • Nestorianism – Jesus and Christ were two different entities
  • Docetism – Jesus appeared physical, but he was really incorporeal
Conclusion .

Jesus Christ never existed and it relies on much more than simply stating that we don't have evidence for his existence or that the Gospels are unbelievable.

It rests upon mountains of evidence.

We have sources and traditions that not only provide all of the material for the Jesus story, but it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these sources, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events.

Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if

Jesus never existed .

IF you value evidence and logic

I urge you to vote Con.

Sources.

http://pastebin.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Lupricona

Pro

1. Not one single writing from or about Jesus during his lifetime

Agreed and irrelevant. We don't have any writings from many historical figures of the past. When dealing with people that are a few millenia old, we must understand the rarity of written documents and how quickly things were written down. This is key to understanding history.

2. False writings about Jesus.

Agreed and irrelevant. Again, we are dealing with ancient history, which is much different than modern times. There are also many other early christian writings that are false attestations, because there were many people wishing to distort truth. But this only attests to the hisoricity of Jesus; it does not lead away from it. Many people were writing about this person, which shows likeliness of his existence.

3. Josephus

Josephus' Testimonium is not a fabrication (1).

This testimony by Josephus is actually mostly authentic. Christian scholars concede that some words may have been an interpolation, but the basic testimony was still there.

Also, Origen does allude to this testimony, which is why he mentions that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.

4. Christianity borrowed from Pagan Myths

This is a tired and old argument that is, honestly, blatant lies that are used to attack Christianity. None of the claims of the similarities of the myths can be substantiated, and it is always found as the pagan myths borrowing from Christianity, not the other way aroung (2).


5. The Gospels Disagree with History

This is another blatant false statement. It is also an argument from ignorance. Just because we do not have an outside source corrborating these events does not mean that they are untrue. This is analogous to saying that a woman had a child, but it died before anyone else could see it. Then, a skeptic comes along and says the child never existed because there wasn't another person besides the mother to prove the child's existence. Yes, a third party helps corroborate the truth of the claim, but the lack of a third party does not deny it's validty.


CONCLUSION

None of the arguments that my opponent offered cast any serious doubt on the historicity of Jesus. As in my opening statements, I mentioned the near universal agreement of secular scholars on the historicity of Jesus. This is so because there aren't any convincing arguments against Jesus' historicity. It is more than likely that Jesus existed, and as my opening arguments showed, was that His resurrection provides the only possible explanation of the events.

(1) http://www.christiancadre.org...
(2) http://thedevineevidence.com...
imsmarterthanyou98

Con

First and foremost notice how PRO has failed to make any ACTUAL arguments to support his proposition.

He made a fallacious argument from authority in his first round and attempted to do the same in his second round.

Let’s merely review my points that PRO drops.

Each of these Points I backed with mountains of evidence.

MYPoints Pro never mentions.

1.”jesus' crucifixion on passover defies historical believability, yet makes perfect sense metaphorically”

2.”But when you add to this the fact that in the story the members of the council slap Jesus and spit in his face the implausible borders on the impossible.

3. “Nazareth did not exist during the time of Jesus”

4.There where many early beliefs that jesus never existed on earth in the flesh”

5. “Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if

Jesus never existed .”

Now that we got that out of the way unto my rebuttals.

“1. Not one single writing from or about Jesus during his lifetime

Agreed and irrelevant.”

Pro agrees that his supposed God was unable to write anything down himself!.WOW.

This merely corroborates to my case.

2.2. “False writings about Jesus. Agreed

PRO agrees that EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS WAS FABRICATED!

Lacking any real evidence Christians fabricated evidence.

Pro again has all but conceded.

This adds to my case.

3. Josephus”

Pro contradicts himself here first he says that the passage is mostly authentic.

Christian scholars concede that some words may have been an interpolation, but the basic testimony was still there.

I beg to differ and a peer-reviewed paper Proves my claim.

Richard carrier proves exactly this. http://muse.jhu.edu...

This is a peer-reviewed scholarly paper.

Let’s now compare this to Pros source which is a biased and untrustworthy source.

4. Christianity borrowed from Pagan Myths

it is always found as the pagan myths borrowing from Christianity

This is a blatant lie from pro.

Every figure I listed existed before Christianity.

The Gospels Disagree with History”

Just because we do not have an outside source corrborating these events does not mean that they are untrue.

I beg to differ.

Here are a few examples of claims that are made in the Gospels.

  • Star of Bethlehem - No record of such a celestial event
  • Roman census in Jesus birth storyNo record of any census that matches this description.

Massacre of the Innocent - No record of this event

  • John the Baptist – Killed early in the Gospels, died in 36 CE according to Josephus.
  • Death of Jesus – Accompanied by blackout of sun, earthquakes, and raising of the dead
  • Absolutely not a shred of evidence of any of the above.

An entire blackout of the sun earthquakes and raising of the dead.

Yet no outside evidence confirms one of these.

Conclusion .

Cons only argument is one from authority he has yet to provide a case for the existence of jesus. I can make one too.

The Resurrection of Christ by Noel Coypel(1700)—

myth theorists see this as a case of a dying-and-rising god.

Description

Jesus of Nazareth never existed as a flesh and blood historical figure, but is a mythical or fictional character created by the early Christian community.

Early proponents

Charles François Dupuis (1742–1809)
Constantin-François Volney(1757–1820)
David Strauss (1808–1874)
Bruno Bauer (1809–1882)
Edwin Johnson (1842-1901)
Dutch Radical School (1880-1950)
Albert Kalthoff (1850–1906)
W. B. Smith (1850–1934)
J. M. Robertson (1856–1933)
Thomas Whittaker (1856-1935)
Arthur Drews (1865–1935)
Paul-Louis Couchoud (1879-1959)

Modern proponents

G. A. Wells, Michael Martin, Alvar Ellegård, Thomas L. Thompson, Thomas L. Brodie, Robert M. Price, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty, D.M. Murdock, Richard dawkings.

It is more than likely that jesus

DID NOT EXIST.

It provides the only possible explanation of the events

I made convincing arguments against the historicity of Jesus PRO HAS YET TO MAKE ONE ARGUMENT.

Jesus Christ never existed and it relies on much more than simply stating that we don't have evidence for his existence or that the Gospels are unbelievable.

It rests upon mountains of evidence.

We have sources and traditions that not only provide all of the material for the Jesus story, but it is clear that the Jesus story is developed from these sources, and this fact undermines the possibility that the stories are based on observed historical events.

Not only can Christianity be explained without a real historical Jesus but the historical facts that we do have are best explained if

Jesus never existed .

IF you value evidence and logic

I urge you to vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
Lupricona

Pro

Con "He made a fallacious argument from authority.

The argument from authority is a fallacy when you say something is true merely because the authority says it is true. I showed the historical facts that secular historians agree to. These are people that have earned degrees in this specific area. So, yes, to argue that something is true merely because of an authority is a fallacy. But I'm not asserting that. I argued that the resurrection is more the likely true. When you have an initial movement that caused people to become martyred in your name, when you have billions of followers after you, and universal scholarly consensus, it becomes unlikely and improbable that this can all come from a mythical figure.

The scholarly consensus comes from looking at the four Gospels and acknowledging that certain historical events did occur. The other part is acknowledging that no one will die for a lie, which is why Jesus had to not only have existed but have been resurrected.

So, my argument is not, authority agrees to this, so it's true. My argument is that scholars recognize that no one will die for a lie. This means that it is impossible for someone to make up the story of Jesus and then did for that fake story. My opponent completely ignored this argument. I have rebutted all of his arguments, and frankly, most of them are irrelevant, as they argue for some inconsistencies in the Gospels or other such things, by they can be true and still not disprove that Jesus existed.

Again, I rebutted con's arguments; he ignored mine completely, and only restated his.

I will correct one of his arguments, because it is relevant, and universally misused. He argues that ancient myths predated Jesus. Yes, they did, but none of those mythical figures have any similarities with Jesus. This correlation with Pagan myths and Jesus is a complete fabrication made by lying atheists. I challenge my opponent to source ONE ANCIENT TEXT of another religion that predates the Bible that teaches a similar event to Jesus. He can't, because they don't exist.

CONCLUSION

People will not die for a lie. Unless my opponent addresses this argument, he has not refuted Christ's existence, because as of right now, he is claiming the absurd notion that the first apostles made of a Jesus myth and then were tortured for that lie with no benefit to them.
imsmarterthanyou98

Con


Voters notice how PRO HAS YET TO MAKE A SINGLE ARGUMENT!



Furthermore he has failed to even give a source of


“the majority of historians who agree that jesus existed.”



While I gave sources for the historians and scholars who know that Jesus didn’t exist.



Pro states that “People will not die for a lie.


Yes they will!! And furthermore he has



  • § ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.

  • §

  • § Some examples.



The premise that people would never "die for a lie" is absurdly fallacious.


People throughout history have, in fact, died for beliefs which turned out to be false


.For example, many thousands of Germans died during World War II based on the belief that they were the "master race" and were justified in conquering other nations for "living space".


Also during World War II, many Japanese civilians committed suicide rather than being captured by the Americans because of the false belief they would be mistreated.


In 1993, 76 people died at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas because they believed their leader, David Koresh was a prophet of god.


In 1997, 39 members of Heaven's Gate committed suicide in the belief that a UFO following the comet Hale-Bopp would transport them to "Their World".


This argument would imply that Heaven's Gate is just as true as Christianity because they died for it.



CONCLUSION


Unless my opponent makes an actual argument, He must accept that Jesus never existed.



Because as of right now, he is claiming the absurd notion that since people die for something it makes it true.



Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
@Ragnar: I can see what you are saying. But I would like to clear up my reasoning for my vote. Pro made a list of "possibilities for the events of crucifixion" He even listed the possibilities of the crucifixion being a lie held by the "witnesses"! I guess I was trying to show pro that it would take faith to believe the story from the bible or anyone who was not there! So it was more of an attack on his sources other than arguments! I do see how my wording shot me in the foot about previous arguments. I guess I just wanted to let pro know that I have heard most of his argument several times. So personally they did not compel me. So I was not just saying that this debate was doomed from the start for pro just that he has not said anything new that I personally see through. So con won for best arguments because he actually presented good arguments that was not refuted by con to my satisfaction. I do take your criticism of my vote seriously however and will be looking for those pitfalls in the future! I also don't want to make excuses so I hope my reasoning was acceptable. I did want con to dismantle pro's arguments better. But pro still failed to think outside of the box on this one!
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@Final: Not disagreeing with you vote, merely two points to strengthen your future votes...
1. "Pro failed to mention that the story of Jesus's Crucifixion/ resurrection could have been completely fabricated" not really pro's job to concede (I think you meant con?).
2. "Either way I had to go with Con in this debate, due to the tired arguments from pro that have been demolished countless times in past debates!" That reads dangerously close to voting against someone based on their previous debates; a habit best avoided. I've actually approached that line before, and had to cease voting on debates featuring certain users to avoid that pitfall.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
@Lupricona Have I managed to change your beliefs?
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
By historical legends I meant myths. I realize "The phoenix" is not a person. (correction in my reason for vote)
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
This debate leaves me wanting. Here's what I see by the end:

Pro is providing an argument from the outset that essentially states the only ways his opponent can win, and affords him opportunities to argue them. He doesn't actually provide any evidence supporting Jesus being a real life person, and attempts to prove by negatives that Jesus was resurrected from death. There are quite a few logical fallacies in his argumentation, and his limited evidence does nothing to prove either that Jesus was a real person, or that he was resurrected.

Con ignores Pro's argument entirely until the last round, and does a poor job addressing it there, falling into an argument that Pro said wasn't valid from the start. Con spends most of his time arguing that evidence that Pro doesn't provide isn't adequate proof (essentially forming a straw man), and that there are some reasons to believe that the story behind Jesus was simply stolen from previous myths. I sympathize with these arguments, and they hold some weight with me, but within the context of this round, it's difficult to find that weight. I don't see solid evidence anywhere in Con's arguments, and though proving a negative is impossible, reducing probability would have been enough, and that can be proven.

So really, Con's leaving it up to the judges to find holes in Pro's arguments, because if I buy everything Pro is saying, then Con automatically loses this debate. I'm tempted to do it, mainly because the assertions Pro makes are often nonsensical, providing warrants that often lack explanation or reasonability for that matter (their denial of hallucinations doesn't mean hallucinations go away as a possibility, nor is the possibility that they actually believed despite the story being untrue), and lacking any evidence whatsoever to support his stances. These all should have been simple points to use to Con's advantage.

But I can't follow that temptation without showing bias and being unfair. Hence my vote.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Sorry if I was too hard on you. I think very soon you will be a great debater, and seeing the underlying potential for quality, probably upped my annoyance level. It was a little odd, early on I liked the formatting, but by the end of a long debate it grated on my nerves.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Yes I apologize I ran out of room for the sources in my first round I didn't know that it would cost me points to put them on pastebin.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
----RFD concluded----
R4:
Pro acknowledges there may be validity to some of cons points, but reminds the audience the irrelevancy of most of it. Jesus being in a primarily illiterate culture, proves little else about the man other than facing a common problem to his people. Basically his case is that con has yet to properly refute his weak case.
Con claims "Voters notice how PRO HAS YET TO MAKE A SINGLE ARGUMENT!" Actually I noticed a few (claiming people died for Jesus, which is bloody flimsy since I've met people who have died for a lie, but pro offered to concede this whole point back in R2 if con would name even one person who died for a lie...). Weak ones, but misrepresenting the other case, rarely supports your own. "While I gave sources for the historians and scholars who know that Jesus didn"t exist." Except he did, R2S1. Con does however finially begin refuting that people have died for a lie, sadly new arguments in the final round after pro cannot respond to them; well conduct is now without a doubt out the window (plus more plagiarism http://wiki.ironchariots.org...).

Not to sound Christian, since I stopped believing in that Sky Bully awhile ago... but for the love of god, use spell check! "cONCLUSION," really?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
-----RFD-----
R2:
Pro does a decent job with the Liar/Madman/Savior bit from C.S. Lewis. Also next time be bloody careful to make it clear when you are using quoted material.
Con countered by denying Jesus existed. His over formatted argument looked great (could have been a little cleaner in the formatting, but still nice). Sadly he surrendered conduct and did nothing for his sources, via a massive source spam and posting a list (sources are worth almost as much as arguments, they intentionally take from the character limit... having a list of your sources elsewhere is no good, doubly so when the numbers are random instead of being directly tied to the argument presented).
Note: The Richard Carrier source looks like it would be great, but I am unable to verify it. Being unable to verify, I have no way to verify that the debater posting it has even read it (sorry, not accusing you; it's just a common annoying thing some people do of posting sources based on headings instead of content). I found most of it to be thought provoking, the "NO NAZARETH" 400 years later being an obvious exception (towns do come and go, and not all cultures even name them to the same... I mean look at Germany, people from there don't even have the round rights to say the English name).

R3:
Pro begins systematically countering the counters, with logical explanations. I found R3S2 to be a little weak, but well written all the same.
Con continues with the over formatting and random ALL CAPS MAKING IT hard TO read (seriously dude, this isn't an art class). Con insists "Richard carrier" (caps the C), someone whose testimony we still can't read, proves his points. Also gets lazy enough to cross the line into plagiarism (surrendering conduct). Con asks "IF you value evidence and logic" while having not submitted more than a single source yet. Challenging pro's source would have probably gained arguments, but no argument was made against it, merely an assertion against the title.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Had to be frank, Pope Frank, with my voting.
I agreed with Con and would have likely voted Con as having the most convincing arguments, but the Font Jungle kept me from following his line of reasoning.
I'd just start to follow it and suddenly my eyes are bombarded by another massive font heading which broke my concentration.
I disagreed with all of Pro's pretentious semantic, subjective drivel, but at least I could follow the line of reasoning better than Con's.
The sources from both sides did little, Pro's were just more semantic, subjective drivel, nothing tangible there and Con's were just highlighting points Pro had already responded to or a source of more sources which left me simply scratching my head.
It's like somebody giving you directions 'go through that door', only to find that once you get through that door there is thirty more doors to choose from, some help??
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Lupriconaimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to mention that the story of Jesus's Crucifixion/ resurrection could have been completely fabricated without needing to go through arguments against the people who claimed to see said event. It would take faith to even assume that these events had occured seeing as how no one wrote about it until 30- 200 years later. Seems like it would have been bigger news at the actual time of the crucifixion. I would have liked to see con back up his argument about Jesus being a mix of Pagan Gods (Or any other historical legends similar to Jesus like the Phoenix) Either way I had to go with Con in this debate, due to the tired arguments from pro that have been demolished countless times in past debates!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Lupriconaimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Both sides need to work on their arguments. Pro needs to spend more time supporting his position instead of making false assertions of what Con has to do in order to disprove his argument. Con has to spend more time engaging in the debate at hand and addressing the way that Pro has planned out the round. Pro only met his burden of proof because his arguments go cold dropped, and frankly, it shouldn't be that easy. At the very least, Con needs to dismantle Pro's R2 arguments about what suffices as proof. Since I don't see it, my vote goes to Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Lupriconaimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 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: FULL RFD in comments... Basically con would have easily taken argument If not FOR RANDOM all caps, and TRYING AS hard as possible to use lots of different random colors and fonts to distract from the quality of his argument itself; in addition to not backing up his case with evidence; which he ended up crossing the line into outright plagiarism on (was giving credit to who you copied material from, too many characters from the limit for you?). I however consider the arguments of neither side quite advanced enough to award for (probably voting my bias by not giving pro the point here). Sources strangely favor pro, but not by enough to claim the points.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
Lupriconaimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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: Spelling and Grammar goes to con because pro misspelled several words. Arguments go to con because pro never answered several of con's arguments against the historicity of Jesus. Sources go to con because con used several peer reviewed articles rather than biased site like pro used.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Lupriconaimsmarterthanyou98Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's crazy fonts are a little hard for the eyes to follow, clarity is lacking on both sides. Neither provided clear support for their cases with their sources, Pro's sources are highly subjective and thus suspect. Statements like "People will not die for a lie." is ludicrous, since millions of people are dying for lies and lies are taking numerous victims every single day. Likely Jesus was fed a lie "You are the son of God" when he was a child, because Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and if they suspected he was a Roman soldier's son, both Mary and Jesus would likely be stoned to death. So she fed Jesus a lie to protect him, a lie he died for! People die for lies, because they blindly think they are not lies. I cannot accept subjective evidence as useful for proving anything historical.