The Instigator
prof.1234
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
airmax1227
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

How an accurance happenes in a religon to where it can change the face of that religon.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,007 times Debate No: 18262
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

prof.1234

Con

When an accurance happens in a religon does it or does it not change the face or " profile " of that religon ?
airmax1227

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Definitions:
Accurance – Common misspelling of ‘occurrence': an incident or event.
Religion – Details of belief as taught or discussed
Change – Make or become different

Face – The front of a person's head
Profile – An outline of something

For the final two definitions I will assume my opponent is ascribing less literal meanings and refers to them in the more generalized and contextual concepts of generally accepted practice, belief structure and perception.

Therefore, as Pro, it will be my responsibility to prove that events affecting a religion do indeed change the religion's profile, or "the way in which it is perceived and/or practiced."

If my opponent believes I am mistaken in any of my definitions or the way I have summarized this debate he should correct me wherever necessary.

I will now give a few quick examples of where an occurrence changed the profile of a religion, whereby ‘these occurrences' changed the way in which the specific religion was perceived and/or practiced.

Christianity:

The fundamental belief structure of Christianity finds its origins within Judaism. The occurrence of Paul's revelation or even simply the existence of Jesus changed many of the beliefs of its original Jewish adherents.
While this occurrence did not change the profile of Judaism (though it did change perceptions of it), it did change religion forever, spawning one of the most widely practiced belief systems in the world today. [2]

Judaism:

Many of Judaism's practices are entirely dependent on the existence of the Jewish temple. When the final destruction of the temple occurred, many of the important rituals practiced in Judaism ceased, entirely changing its profile into much of what is considered modern Judaism. [3]

Islam

The occurrence within Islam that perpetrated the split between the beliefs of Sunni and Shia Muslims has had the effect of changing the profile of Islam at large. While those perceptions may all be external, it leads to a perception of disunity, whereas prior, the cultural differences may have been less pronounced, or avoided further inevitability.
Non-the-less, this occurrence has had a fundamental impact on the profile of the religion due partly to perception, but may also include practice and certainly includes belief. [4]

I would like to thank my opponent and look forward to his response.

[1] Dictionary.com
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.islamfortoday.com...
Debate Round No. 1
prof.1234

Con

But You see that's not what I meant ! I mean horrible diocesans made buy a head / representative of such religion ! The biggest example is 9/11 it is one of the worlds most known events to happen. Because of that Muslims world wide are known as ' Terrorist's " which in my opinion is being a hypocrite ! Most of the % of the non Muslim world do not know the first thing about Islam ! All they Know is that they believe in Allah ( S.W.T ) and Allah means God ! It is just the Arabic language name for God !
airmax1227

Pro

I would once again like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent opens the second round by pointing out that I misunderstood what he is arguing. I will now do my best to frame his new argument and reply as best I can.

My opponent rephrases his initial contention:
"I mean horrible diocesans made buy a head / representative of such religion !"

To rephrase this as best I can, I believe my opponent is saying the following:

The ‘horrible' bishop of a diocese (diocesan) [1] could potentially purchase an authority of a particular religion.

I accept my opponent's rephrasing of his resolution and will attempt to offer a point of view countering his arguments.

My opponent begins his arguments in support of his resolution:
"The biggest example is 9/11 it is one of the worlds most known events to happen"

I'll concede that 9/11 is one of ‘the most known events to happen'. My opponent will still have to show how it is an example supporting his resolution that bishops may purchase religious authorities.

"Because of that Muslims world wide are known as ' Terrorist's " which in my opinion is being a hypocrite !"

My opponents has the burden of proof to show that Muslims world wide are known as terrorists, as opposed to terrorists being known as Muslims, and further how this affects his resolution, and who is being hypocritical in the formation of any such opinion.

Further, should my opponent's resolution ultimately be that Islam at large should not be misperceived as ‘sympathetic to any terrorist entity', he must show public perception to Islam before and after 9/11 to use this argument.

My opponent continues:

"Most of the % of the non Muslim world do not know the first thing about Islam !"
This may be true. How it affects the resolution depends on how my opponent expands upon it.

He expands upon it:
"All they Know is that they believe in Allah ( S.W.T ) and Allah means God ! It is just the Arabic language name for God !"

This would seem to contradict my opponent's previous statement that most non-Muslims don't know the first thing about Islam. The first thing being, in my opinion, that Muslims believe in Allah, and Allah means god in Arabic, which my opponent believes is all that non-Muslims know.

I have seen no example or evidence of a bishop purchasing any religious authorities. All contentions have therefore been resolved and the resolution in negated.
Vote Pro.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 2
prof.1234

Con

prof.1234 forfeited this round.
airmax1227

Pro

My opponent has failed to prove whatever it was he was attempting to prove.

Vote Pro, and have a nice day.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Is it me, or does this debater seem familiar?
http://www.debate.org...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
prof.1234airmax1227Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
prof.1234airmax1227Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: con posted rubbish
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
prof.1234airmax1227Tied
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: Con's intentions were unclear, and so were his arguments (as exacerbated by the lack of sources on his side), his position, and even his resolution.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
prof.1234airmax1227Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: :I
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
prof.1234airmax1227Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Exactly what C_N said. I am not sure why Pro even bothered, but clearly wins.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
prof.1234airmax1227Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: At no point did I have the slightest inclination of what this debate was about, PRO was far too generous in dignifying this crap.