The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

I(Mikal) am a Christian

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: 2/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,606 times Debate No: 46821
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (6)

 

Mikal

Pro

Calling this dude out on his claim
TN05

Con

I'll assume first round is for acceptance. Since my opponent has not offered any rules, I'll propose some; my opponent can contest these if he likes but they should be acceptable:

Definitions:
*Christian - A person who adheres to Chrisitanity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.[1]

Rules:
1. Burden of proof is shared (Pro must prove he is a Christian, Con must prove Pro is not a Christian).
2. Forfeiture from either side results in an instant win for their opponent, and all votes should be awarded accordingly.

References:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

I accept most of these terms, but would like to address what a Christian is

How do you become a Christian

Romans 10:13 - For whosoever calls upon the name of the lord shall be saved [1]

This does not necessarily mean living a perfect life , at the moment you call upon Christ and accept him into your heart you are saved. We know this by the thief on the cross. He called upon the name of Jesus, and Jesus accepted him into heaven in his last few moments alive.

My adversary must acknowledge this as well. Even in the bible it is reprehensible to question someones faith.


Romans 14 verse 1 "As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." [2]

It is almost impossible to say someone is not a Christian because it is a personal faith between you and God. There are countless secs in Christianity that all have different beliefs, but they all have one thing in common. All you must do is accept Christ and love him to be saved.



Myself

I am a 25 year old guy who loves Jesus. I was raised in a Pentecostal church and eventually turned over to baptist. After many years in a baptist church, I converted to the reformed faith due to my Pastor Todd and Chris having long discussions with me about it. My best friend Derek eventually went into college to become a pastor and after that I felt motivated to do the same, but with an angle on apologetics and mission work. I was planning on finishing up my four year degree and transferring to south eastern bible seminary to obtain a degree in mission work along with another degree in apologetics. Some of my favorite authors are John Piper and Mark Driscol. Both of whom hold to the reformed faith and have put out amazing books. I also like reading ST Augustines early works since it had a strong influence on Calvinism. I decided not to dump near 100 grand into getting a doctorate in apologetics and went back to college for accounting because it was cheaper. I still have a deep passion for studying the bible and looking into all types of religion.

I believe studying the bible should be done with hermeneutics[3]. This is the art of text interpretation. This is basically saying the bible should be read in the context in which it was meant to be read. The author had a set meaning for what he wanted to say in the text, and we should read it with that in mind

and example of this is a letter Paul wrote to the church in corinth.

Paul tells the women in the church to be quiet and not speak in church and most people read this literally and assume paul is telling all women not to speak in church or to have no roll in church. This is not he case, he was just telling the women in that church to be quiet because of the issues they were causing in the church.




I am a Calvinist

I hold the doctrine of the elect or reformed theology. Meaning I believe one does not have a choice in whether they are saved. I have tried to run away from Christ before but have been dragged back to him countless times.





I hold to the fact the Tulip Is accurate [4]

T - Total depravity
U - Unconditional election
L - limited atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the saints.

These five points break down to the fact that God calls you to be saved, and once he calls you there is no saying no. Once you are saved your are his forever and you can not be unsaved. I originally had no desire to be saved, but God gave me a beat down and I finally conceded to him. I opened my heart and mind and accepted him as my Lord and Savior






Praise Jesus.

Can I get an Amen?


Being a Christian is completely dependent of you

Something we must all admit is that this is a personal relationship between you and God. My adversary does not know me personally or know my heart. My relationship with God is my own, and there is no way for him to show that I do not love or believe in God.


My Profile

My profile verifies this.











I have also taken a numerous amount of debates for God. My adversary assumes because I take up debates that try to disprove God that I am not saved. This is quite simply Called playing devils advocate. Here are some of my debates in favor of God and show my reformed faith as well.

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


Conclusion

I am a Calvinist and a Christian. My adversary has no right to claim otherwise , my faith is my own.
TN05

Con

Being a Christian vs. being saved

My opponent opens with an interesting argument - rather than accepting the standard definition of 'Christian', which basically amounts to 'follower of Christ', he instead bases his version on salvation. That is, if you believe in God and that Jesus was sent to die for your sins, are saved, you are a Christian forever. At the heart of it, this seems right - however, this is actually the wrong way about it. My opponent and I are both in agreement salvation is eternal - I am not a Calvinist, but I agree on that point. Under my opponent's definition, famous nontheists like Fidel Castro, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, and Josef Stalin would all be considered Christians, despite rejecting the faith.[1] They may all indeed have been saved, but are they Christians? Hardly. Salvation is the pathway to heaven - Christianity is living as a follower of Christ through your life. If you aren't actively following Christ, you aren't a Christian.

Being a Christian is completely dependent on you
Like previously, my opponent presents a favorable argument - Christianity is a relationship between you and God, and nobody else can declare whether or not you are a 'Christian'. However, this falls into the same trap as before - salvation is not equal to being a Christian. The second chapter, verses 14 to 26 of the Book of James (NIV) notes this difference in an excellent was. James, the book's author, says:

"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead... Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Issac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did... you see a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them in a different direction? As the body without spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."[2]

In other words, faith in Christ (Christianity) is not truly there unless one is doing good deeds. Unfortunately, my opponent has not been doing good deeds, at least as far as we on DDO can know. Contrary to my opponent's statements, it is well-documented that he has denied the name of Jesus among men. In an archive of his home page, from July 25, 2013, he says "I am an atheist and in some ways have a vendetta against the church. I believe how most people view Christianity is wrong and is poisoning America. While I have a few friends who are fine examples of Christians and whom I respect, I believe Christianity causes more harm than good." He lists his favorite books as being God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins as well as The End of Faith by Sam Harris.[3] Both of these authors are adherents of the New Atheist movement, which is openly hostile to belief in god, adherence to religion, and the religious: they are well known as two of the five most prominent authors of books supporting that view.[4]

While a religious conversion in the last half-year is certainly possible, it simply isn't supported by the facts - three hours ago at the time of writing this, in the comments section of another debate, DDO user Geogeer noted this still remained on his profile.[5] This is supported by his profile page stating that, at time of writing, he had updated his page just three hours ago.[6] This does not mesh with the time period when he declared himself as a Christian, during the CCM debate, which was two days ago from the time of writing.[7] Since the end of that debate, he has been involved in two more debates relating to Christianity:[8] one in which he argues that God does not exist and the Bible is not accurate,[9] and another where he argues the Bible is not accurate and Jesus did not exist.[10] My opponent can argue that he has been arguing devil's advocate all along, but he has been involved in over a dozen debates regarding Christianity, and in most of these he argues against Christianity. Even in the ones where he supports it, he states himself as an atheist playing devil's advocate on the topic.[11][12] His cited crucifixion argument[13] was within the same couple of weeks as arguing God doesn't exist.[14][15] Which side is he playing devil's advocate on? Clearly, he is an atheist who likes to argue from both angles for fun. Simply put, by his actions - even after a claimed conversion - my opponent simply is not a Christian by his actions. And even if he was lying about being an atheist, that's hardly something a ture Christ-follower would do.

Given the facts I have shown, we must ask ourselves - is Mikal really telling the truth? Has he abandoned his years upon years of atheism? Are his attacks on God, the Bible and Jesus, even after his 'conversion', compatable with being Christian? The answer, my friends, is simply 'no. The timing of his 'conversion' is no coincidence - he did so to claim eligiblity to participate in the CCM debate,[5] which I would wager is to give him an easier likelihood of maintaining his near-perfect win total. It's a good play, but the internet is forever and, based on actions both past and present, we can safely say Mikal is not a Christian. Even if we assume he is saved, do his actions match his faith? No, and that means his claiming faith - Christianity - is dead, and he is not a Christian. Thank you, and I look forward to the next round.

References:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
2. James 2:14-26
3. http://web.archive.org...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://www.debate.org...
6. http://www.webcitation.org...
7. http://www.webcitation.org...
8. http://www.webcitation.org...
9. http://www.debate.org...
10. http://www.debate.org...
11. http://www.debate.org...
12. http://www.debate.org...
13. http://www.debate.org...
14. http://www.debate.org...
15. http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Christian -
(a) of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings.[1]

As I have stated, I do not accept my adversaries definition of what being a Christian is. If I let him play semantics with what being a follower of Christ entails, he himself would be God.


Under my adversaries definition of being Christian, whatever he deems as "following Christ" would be acceptable. God is the author of our fate, not my opponent. I will not give him the authority to deem whom can follow Christ.



The moment you accept Christ you are following him

When you accept Christ as your lord and savior, at that very moment you become a Christian. Regardless of the semantics my adversary is trying to play, when you acknowledge Christ as your lord and savior you are following his commands. You are taking up your cross and turning your heart around.

Matthew 16:24-25 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 25"For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it[2]

Contrary to what my adversary believes, being a Christian and being saved go hand in hand. This verse is a direct correlation to that point. If we even take this far back as the Greek and Hebrew Translations we can see that "deny yourself" is the act of offering your soul to Christ. At the very moment you deny yourself you are a Christian by its very definition. You have made and effort and by acknowledging your sins you are choosing to follow the commands of Christ. You are taking up your cross and following after him.

This is the very definition of what being a Christian is. It is acceptance that Christ is lord and savior and asking him to come into your heart(salvation), and at that very moment you are following the commands of Christ and seeking to follow his commandments (Christian). The moment in which you are saved , you are following his commands and are on path to uphold the teachings of our lord and savior.

So yes Salvation and Christianity do go hand in hand. Especially when salvation is referring to accepting Christ as your savior. My adversary also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the bible

Good deeds or fruits as my adversary is referring to are things that are shown and come over time. Once you accept Christ ,you start to develop these. This is a long process and for some can take ages.

Matthew 7:16-18

16"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17"So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit [3]

The thing with fruit is that it takes time for it to grow. Once you accept Christ the seeds of the fruits are inside you and as you continue to foster and grow in him they continue to grow. You don't magically just poof the fruit into existence. The moment you accept Christ and become a Christian not much changes. You are a Christian the moment you accept him and from that point on it is a struggle and a fight to uphold the laws of Christ. Over time as you grow in the spirit and your devotion to the lord you manifest the fruits of the spirit which are Joy, happiness, and love.

Even if my adversary is referring to the fact that fruit = works. This is the same principle. Not all Christians are required to do great deeds, but you will be more inclined to do them. Even if you are required, it does not magically come from nothing. It is a gradual process as well.

He also claims that Christians cannot play devils advocate. I do not need to address this in full detail because it is not really a contention, but just merely a blind assertion and a horrible point.

My adversary is also trying to define what following Christ means. The very essence of the definition of Christian hinges on the fact that you are a follower of Christ, not my adversaries subjective conclussion.

One can be a Christian and not believe the bible, one can be a Christian and be Catholic, one can be a Christian and be protestant. The very essence of what it means to be a Christian is found in salvation. It is turning your life around and following him.

Christian - follower of Christ (in short)


The best verse to explain this is Galatians 2:20

Galatians 2 19-20 "For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 20"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. [4]

This at its core is the very essence of Christianity. The moment we turn to God we are crucified ourselves. Christ was a metaphorical bridge to salvation. Without his death, we had no way to God. Christ came to die for us to fill that gap. That through his sacrifice we may be saved.

The moment we accept him, the person we are starts to die and a new person is born. The old you dies and Christ starts to live in you. At that moment all these things that my adversary quoted out of context start to come into fruition. The works, the fruits, all of these things follow once you become a Christian. This is not a magical thing that just happens with new Christians but a process. As the verse says, the life that I now live is by faith in the Son of God whom loved me and died for me. All it takes to be a Christian is just accepting Christ and being willing to follow him which I have. That at its core is what being a Christian is all about.




Salvation can happen anytime.

Hypothetically if my profile did label me as an atheist. There are a few things key contentions my adversary must acknowledge

(a) I can accept Christ and choose to follow him at any time, so even if it I was not saved 3 hours ago he would have to show that I am not sincere in my effort to follow him at this present moment
(b) My profile is not a reflection of who I am as a person. I can type anything I want, that does not make it accurate. According to my adversary I am a really hot red head who happens to be a guy.
(c) If you are recently saved, you are not a Christian nor do you show the fruits of the spirit or any good works.

according to my adversary I am not allowed to be saved in the last few hours (because he can determine whom follows Christ and whom can not), and I also am a reflection of my profile. So if I updated it and said I made 250,000 dollars per year I would be a very happy individual. I think my adversary is mistaking the fact that a profile is not a person. My name may not even be Mikal. He is arguing the fact that everything my profile says is an objective truth about me. That logic is infallible.

What my adversary is essentially saying is that I cannot be saved. That is a bold claim. Even if during the process of sending him this challenge, I found it in my heart to accept Christ and follow him I have won. Granted this is not the case as I do love Christ and God and acknowledge them as my lord and savior.


Conclusion

By awarding my adversary a win you are admitting to a few things

(a) He can decide whom is a Christian because he has the right to say whom is following Christ subjectively
(b) Being saved =/= you are following Christ (Definition of a Christian)
(c) That I am not allowed to have accepted Christ and chose to follow him in the past few hours (Meaning you are awarding him the right to be the judge and jury)
(d) That by professing salvation , you are not taking up a cross and following Christ and doing his works
(e) That by being a young Christian, you are not truly a Christian at all
(f) That you have to believe the bible to be a Christian

My argument has presented and entire case that is quite disturbing. He has essentially deemed himself the Pope but even has taken it a step further. He has the right to judge whom can be saved and at what time they can be saved. This is a very disturbing stance. I would highly advise you to read over what you are voting for, because he is flat telling me that I am not genuine in my effort in the past few hours to accept Christ as my Lord and Savior and that I am not a Christian

This is entirely his opinion and is subjective because of his own thoughts. By awarding him this win you are giving him the absolute right to determine what good works are and whom can be saved


It is almost offensive to think that he can judge me and say I am not a Christian because he has misread and misinterpreted what the bible means by being a follower of Christ

I have and always will love Christ and God. That is an objective truth in my heart and in my reality. My adversary bears no right to judge me nor has the right to say I am not a follower of Christ.


Ending Point

My adversary has not even considered the fact that I may have recently been saved which is the fact and also claims the right to say I cannot or have not been saved. By giving him this win we are admitting to all the things I mentioned. That when you accept Christ you are not following him, that by being a young Christian you are not saved, and we are adhering to his own dictatorial stance on what being a Christian is

God really does love me and I am a follower of Christ. regardless of what my opponent may think







[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://biblehub.com...
[4] http://biblehub.com...
TN05

Con

Before I begin, I would like to note the following arguments which my opponent has not responded to.

*That, under my opponent's first definition of 'Christian', many famous nontheists would be considered to be 'Christian' when they clearly are not.
*That faith without good deeds is dead.
*That my opponent has mostly argued against Christianity, with the occasional devil's advocate in favor of it.
*That, since finishing the CCM debate, where he claimed to be Christian, my opponent has participated in two debates on the subject of Christianity: one in which he argues against the existence of God and the accuracy of the Bible, and one in which he argues against the reliability of the Bible and the existence of Jesus.
*That my opponent's touted argument supporting the crucifixion of Jesus was within two weeks of debates denying the existence of God.
*That he 'converted' just in time to accept the CCM debate, but didn't edit his profile to match until a few days later.

Because this is the final round of the debate, my opponent has effectively ceded these arguments.

Definition of Christian

My opponent, evidently noting the absurdity of his first definition, has given a second one from The Free Dictionary. So even though he accuses me of playing semantics with a definition, he is in fact doing what he accuses me of. In fact, he is arguably the one playing God here - my opponent cherry-picked his definition one of four definitions from the Collins English Dictionary and from eleven definitions on the page in total.[1] The one he chose is in fact an adjective,[1] which is not suitable but would not be suitable to meet the debate resolution (that my opponent, I will add, created), where the word 'Christian' is used as a noun. Because my opponent's definition is not a noun, it is unsuitable for this debate - thus, the definition must default to the one I offered.

Additionally, I would like to note the Bible never actually defines the word 'Christian', aside from noting the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.[2]

The moment you accept Christ you are following him

Apparently not having read my previous round, my opponent continues to insist that if you are saved, you are Christian forever. This clearly clashes with the only acceptable definition that has been provided in this debate,[3] as well as the Bible itself where it requires faith be followed up by action.[4] Oddly enough, after criticizing me for defining 'Christian' as 'follower of Christ', my opponent quotes from Matthew 16:24-25, where it says "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me".[5] In other words, my opponent directly supported my definition with a Biblical quote that says if you want to be Christian, you need to follow Christ.

Further, my opponent looks directly into the meaning of 'deny yourself', which my opponent asserts means to offer your soul to Christ. I agree with this, and I appreciate my opponent proving my point: if you wish to become a Christian, you must first offer your soul to Christ and secondly follow him. This directly debunks my opponent's claim that salvation equals being a Christian, and directly supports my arguments and definition.

After this, my opponent equates Fruits of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control) with the good deeds needed for faith to not be considered dead. While I do indeed agree that these fruits do not appear immediately, they are no excuse for bad deeds. Simply put, as soon as you accept Christ, God sends you the Holy Spirit,[6] which essentially functions as a helper in times of weakness.[7]

Next my opponent claims I said that Christians cannot play devil's advocate. This is a lie. Never once in my debate do I say that you cannot play devil's advocate if you are Christian - go back and check it yourself! Instead, I simply noted that when my opponent has played devil's advocate, it has always been from the perspective of an atheist. Whereas my opponent often specifically notes this in debates he's played devil's advocate as an atheist on,[8][9] he never once mentions this in the two debates he claims to have taken devil's advocate on since his supposed conversion.[10][11] In fact, in one of these he repeatedly refers to 'Christians' in the third person.[10]

After this, my opponent returns to reinforcing his definition of Christianity. Because I have already debunked it, I'm not going to respond further - it would just be repeating myself.

Salvation can happen anytime

First off, my opponent denies his profile labeled himself as an atheist. I do not understand why he won't fess up when insurmountable evidence has been provided he did[12] and circumstantial evidence offers that he did so as recently as yesterday (at the time of writing this).[13] My opponent against makes his bizarre argument that 'follower of Christ' is not a legitimate definition, despite proving this argument himself. He argues that I have to acknowledge several things: that he can convert at any time, that his profile isn't a reflection of who he is, and that if you are recently saved you aren't Christian. I don't acknowledge these and instead raise the following:
*You can indeed convert at any time, but if you did you have to have noticed your profile says otherwise. It's one thing to leave it up for, say, and hour - it's another to not even edit it for a couple days after a professed 'conversion'! If I was an atheist converting to Christianity, I would change my profile - especially to avoid a spat with another user on whether or not I am Christian.
*If you profile is not adequate evidence to reflect who you are, why did you admit your profile as evidence of who you are in round 2?
*If you are saved, you are a Christian until you stop following Christ. There is no evidence you've actually followed Christ in the first place aside from your word - which you actually argued against the accuracy of!

I am not saying you cannot be saved - instead, I am saying that the evidence does not corroborate a claim of being saved.

Conclusionon/ending point

Once again, my opponent returns to the same recycled points I have disproved repeatedly. This includes attacking my 'follower of Christ' definition (despite the fact my opponent himself has proven it) and accusing me of judging salvation (using his disproven claim salvation and Christianity are the same thing). The fact he must resort to ad homenim attacks shows how weak his arguments are.

Now, in conclusion, I have established my opponent does not meet the definition of 'Christian'. His actions in the wake of his 'conversion' simply do not add up to his claim - he has not changed the ways he had when he claimed to be an atheist. Actions are required to complete faith, and thus my opponent has not demonstrated through his life and actions he is indeed Christian. In fact, there is reason to believe my opponent has simply claimed this to get an easy win in the CCM debate to bolster his win total. Because my opponent has failed to prove the debate resolution, and I have disproven it, a vote for Con is warranted.

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting, thought-provoking debate.

References:
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.biblegateway.com...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org...
4. James 2:14-26
5. Matthew 16:24-25
6. John 14:26
7. Romans 8:26
8. http://www.debate.org...
9. http://www.debate.org...
10. http://www.debate.org...
11. http://www.debate.org...
12. http://web.archive.org...
13. http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
When you state someone is a Christian you have to acknowledge that there is no objective measure for what defines a christian. Each person interprets it differently and there is no way to objectively prove that they are right or wrong. There is nothing to weigh it against. So your stance was almost impossible.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
I don't think it was impossible; the BOP generally lies with the one making the positive claim. People just need an open mind. I wouldn't have accepted if I felt otherwise.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Gosh Mikal, I see why your taking a break on debating for a while LOL
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Votes* Bombs are when they explode.

You can take it up with airmax about the RFDS if you have an issue with them lol. The entire burden you had was impossible to defend, don't feel to bad.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
You are no more a Christian than I am a cheetah, and both could be disproven. If a couple votebombs are removed this debate turns out differently.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Of course i am a Christian. Shame on you. The point to the debate was to show that it is impossible to claim someone is not a christian, because it is not objective.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
He claimed to be an atheist for years before this debate too, so it's not like he just suddenly 'converted' back to nontheism.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Yeah, he was basically trolling even though he said this wasn't a troll debate. I think it's pretty clear he wasn't and is not a Christian, but what's done is done.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
I don't think he copied it; but, it is very strange that he was such a devote Christian and now claims to be an agnostic/atheist, whatever that is.

And, somehow I just can't correlate a big rap music fan with God and being Con on on drugs.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Who'd he copy it from? I don't see anything from a google search.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 3 years ago
Jonbonbon
MikalTN05Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: In the end Con dropped the most important argument: God is the judge of who is a Christian and not man. Since it's not man's place to judge another believer's heart before God, ultimately that point won the arguments for pro. Due to that fact, Pro also had the better sources as he used the most important one and most relevant.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
MikalTN05Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: Even. Conduct: Even. Spelling and Grammar: Even. Everything in this debate rides on Arguments. While Pro has done many anti-religion debates in the past, arguing that he isn't Christian requires evidence personal to his life. Without that, it's almost impossible for TN05 to meet his BOP. He had a bad habit of dropping points and never brought up a case related to Mikal's own personal life. Without that evidence, Con simply has no case. I don't know Mikal's personal life, if he is a true Christian or a pretend, but I can say that after reading this debate, I know Con doesn't know either.
Vote Placed by Taylur 3 years ago
Taylur
MikalTN05Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The religion you follow can only be defined by yourself. Mikal has the best source because he is debating his own beliefs and therefore makes the most convincing argument as well.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
MikalTN05Tied
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: Mikhal this is my honest opinion on this debate, You are wrong and Tno5 is correct in saying it takes more than faith to become a Christian, I do not consider Mikha'sl claim that you are saved regardless of your choices and therefore automatically become a Christian weather you like it or not, Pro refuted this adequately by comparing Richard Dawkins being a Christian when in fact he is an atheist, but Pro claims he will be saved regardless, and not only saved but also as a Christian, although he wants to be an atheist, but according to Pro God has the last word. which can never be true, Seeing as Richard Dawkins is a self professed atheist, I see no reason to regard him as Christian Based on Mikhal claims. Also I agree with Con that to be a Christian does not simply require faith, you must also adere to the Christian regulations and follow them. Faith without works is dead.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
MikalTN05Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO claims to be a christian, and CON doesn't really seem to have any way to meaningfully refute that. PRO had the burden to prove that he believed, and CON only argued that PRO's actions are inconstant with his words -which is true of every Christian. This was a pretty stupid debate for CON to accept.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
MikalTN05Tied
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: It's pretty Obvious that TN05 Crushed Mikal on Argumentation IMO, the profile evidence clearly swinging tin TN05's favor. Ultimatly, the authority on who a christian is lies in the bible, and the bible was best supported by TN05, and even "Mikal" brought supporting evidence to the table. TN05 had the proof, and the proof has set these points free.