The Instigator
Man-is-good
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points
The Contender
izbo10
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 9 votes the winner is...
Man-is-good
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,832 times Debate No: 17308
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (277)
Votes (9)

 

Man-is-good

Con

In his forum, "Christian Intellectual Dishonesty", Izbo10 commented, six days ago,"Sorry [,] grammar police, but if you don't like those words [,] don't believe in [C]hristianity. They are just saying the sy thing in a different way to show how stupid the belief really is. Sorry [if] it offends you, but I am not the one defending a zombie savior" [1]. Please note that the grammatical corrections, insertions of words, and punctation, are all absent from the original link, which can be found below.

I assume that, since the word "savior" is a "person who saves someone or something (esp. a country or cause) from danger, and who is regarded with the veneration of a religious figure" [2], that Izbo10 was obviously referring to Jesus Christ. Christ was born in the tribe of Judah, the son of Mary, a descendant in the genealogical line of David, and a carpenter known as Joseph. [3] His birth was heralded by: prophecies and miracles including: the coming of the angel Gabriel, the initiation of the Holy Spirit, the annunciation of a group of shepherds, the gifts of the Magi, and especially the presence of a star over Bethlehem. [4] He is, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, a part of the threesome: God the father, the son, and the holy Spirit. Considering this, I was curious to why Izbo10 used the word "zombie", and decided to challenge him to prove that one can characterize Jesus as a "zombie savior". Here are a few definitions of the word "zombie", from different websites.

Zombie: n. (in voodoo) a. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose b. the supernatural force itself. [5]

Zombie: n. 1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force 2. a god of voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in the West Indies 3. (voodo) a spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body [6]

Zombie: n. 1. Originally, a snake-deity of or deriving from West Africa and Haiti 2. A soulless corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, esp. in certain African and Caribbean religions [7]

Please note that my opponent was using a noun as an adjective to describe Jesus. The burden of proof is that Pro will have to show that Jesus is a “zombie savior”, and Con to refute it [and the resolution]. In the following debate, I urge my opponent not to: make any ad hominem attacks, whether by calling me names, insulting me, or trolling, criticize other arguments not related to this debate, or refer to irevelant sources. Otherwise, all seven points will be forfeited from him.

We will start debating in the second round. I am now waiting for my opponent’s acceptance. No members may present new arguments in the last round. Instead, they may summarize their own arguments and make one last effort to convince the voters to vote for them.

Works cited and used as sources:

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

[2]http://www.google.com...

[3] http://www.sacklunch.net...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[6]http://www.rhymezone.com...

[7]http://www.google.com...

izbo10

Pro

I would like to say right from the beginning my opponent is an idiot, so don't mind his lack of intelligence.

Zombie: n. 1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force

This is the definition I will use for zombie, now why I don't tend to agree that Jesus ever really existed as a historical character in any more the same way as leatherface from Texas Chainsaw Massacre existed in reality. Both, loosely based on real people but not real within themselves.


Here we go with the argument:

First we must prove that in Christian delusionalism, Jesus was dead, he died on the cross. This is clear. The different gospels confirm he gave up the ghost, which for my inferior minded opponent means he died. It is a figure of speech, I know you and reformedarsenal are coming up with alternate meanings to that phrase as we speak. Anyway, back to the discussion, he was resurrected, there is one key prerequisite for resurrection. Guess what that is? If my opponent wasn't aware of this, and he wasn't, it is being dead. How was Jesus resurrected, bodily of course, Doubting Thomas even, according to Christian delusion, touched the wounds. So to reassess at this moment we have Jesus being a dead body that was brought back to life. A third of the way done here. If we can get the third out of the way, we see he meets a full definiton. So what brought him back to life, well it was god. So what is god, well he is outside of nature, hence supernatural. In order for anything to act it must use a force, hence a force created by god is a supernatural force. Rut Roh, shaggy I think we have a problem for con as now we have Jesus being, get this wait for it, its coming, my opponent should be dumbfounded, a dead body brought back to life by a supernatural force. Since Zombie is defined as a supernatural force, and I can't leave anything to my dense opponents imagination, we can use zombie as a short hand for this since it is the definition of zombie. Lets see so Jesus was a zombie. Now according to Christian delusion, Jesus saved them from his father who is a part of him somehow, by allowing them to avoid eternal torment. So, he is somehow a savior. Hence, the conclusion is Jesus is a zombie savior.

Debate Round No. 1
Man-is-good

Con

Contention one: My opponent has already failed to follow my rules.

I stated, in my opening argument, that I would like Izbo10 "not to: make any ad hominem attacks, whether by calling me names, insulting me, or trolling, criticize other arguments not related to this debate, or refer to irevelant sources. Otherwise, all seven points will be forfeited from him." [1] He has done this by calling me "inferior-minded" and "dense", so therefore I urge voters to give me all the seven points by default. He also wrote, at the very top of his opening argument, "I would like to say right from the beginning my opponent is an idiot, so don't mind his lack of intelligence." This is an ad hominem attack since he is clearly referring me as an "idiot".

Contention two: There are incredible holes in Izbo10's arguments.

Resurrection is "the act of rising from the dead."[2] My opponent claims that Jesus was resurrected "bodily of course". Jesus was not only resurrected bodily, for otherwise he could not have rolled the stone back or ascend to heaven, but he also retained his faculties for speech and thought. This is seen when Jesus, before rising to the heavens, states, ""Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation…" [3]. Since both speech and thought are outside of what one would characterize as "bodily", it implies a spiritual rebirth, or rather, a cognitive one. The resurrection that my opponent is thinking of is a combination of both bodily and cognitive/spiritual. Therefore, his entire argument falls apart.

God is supernatural, but not necessary the "force" that Izbo10 states. A "force" is, among others, defined as a "mental or moral strength or power". [4] It is an abstract concept that does not indicate a sense of sentience or recognition of its existence. Izbo10 has deliberately provided his own definition, and failed to refute my own, to prove his point. God recognizes his sentience, and shows thought, recognition of his existence, and will, all of which are absent from a "force". To illustrate this, one may look at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, where God's spirit is described as stating, "Let there be light," and there was light." Again, the spirit of god, who has just created the "heavens and the earth", displays speech, and with the act of creation—and the separation of waters to form an expanse called the sky, will. "Will" is the "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action". God's specific actions of separating the waters, in order to create the sky for the heavens, and separating light from dark [because, "God saw the light, and saw that it was good"] shows both conscience and deliberate thought and reason that is responsible for God's decisions. [5] As a result, he is a "being", whose omnipresence, but sentience, makes him so.

This is the basic line of reasoning that my opponent has presented:

Premise One: A zombie is a "a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force." [The "supernatural force" does not refer to god, but more specifically withcraft. This is hinted by my original definitions.]

Premise Two: Jesus was resurrected. [This is supported by canon]

(Conclusion drawn from Premise: Jesus was a dead body. I have shown that this is not true, since Jesus was shown addressing and communicating to his disciples. If it was only bodily resurrection, then why does Jesus appear to have both facutlies of the mind and reasoning that are not consistent with merely "bodily resurrection"?)

Premise Three: Jesus was resurrected by God. (This is implied and inferred. It will be accepted, until I have evidnece from the Gospels that it was not so).

Premise Four: God is a supernatural "force". [God is not necessarily as a force but more of a being that has facutlies and powers of speech and will, which is demonstrated through his act of creation. Therefore, this premise is inaccurate.]

Conclusion: Jesus was a zombie savior. [This conclusion is not true since its premises have been shown to be false or inaccurate.]

Being vs. Force/Energy

A "being" is basically a "life form that has properties of mind…, which are deemed to be to constitute a more complex and evolved state…" [6] Since God's spirit exists, and was involved in the entire creation of the cosmos, he is "living", in the loosest terms. In addition, since the "properties of the mind" include reason, thought, emotion, and other characteristics. [7] If God speaks, and recognizes the light as good, then he should be considered to have thought, "mental activity" (i.e. seeing, naming, and characterizing the light, as "day", and the dark "as night [5]) and reason, "the mental powers of forming conclusions, judgements, and inferences" [8]. Again, one can say that God inferred that the light was good, after hovering near the waters, and decided to separate it and name it "day". He clearly shows "judgment" in assessing the goodness/badness of the two components, light and dark, and uses it to form the parts of the day: the evening, morning, and night [5] Therefore, God is a being.

A "force" is a much more abstract concept that unfortunately, for Pro, lacks the qualities of sentience. Many definitons of the word "force" define it as some sort of influence, exertion of power, or so on. It is basically immeasurable. "Energy" is merely the impetus for action [9] and is a rough equivalent for "force". An energy cannot recognize its own existence, nor does it exert any signs of reasoning that a being would have.

Take this hypothetical scenario to consider the properties of a "force", in modern life: There is a factory where turbines are grinded, due to the ocassional wind characteristic of the weather.

The wind is the force, since it is exerting influence on the turbines.

Compare this to a scenario where a man is turning the turbine. The man obviously has sentience and thought, unlike the wind. The man is the "being", while the wind is the "force".

I wait for my opponent's response to prove that his argument stands. I have shown that it has fallen.

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

[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[3] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...

[4]http://www.google.com...

[5] http://en.wikisource.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[9] http://en.wiktionary.org...

izbo10

Pro

My opponent is now discontent with one of his definitions. He is trying to add to the definition things that don't necessarily apply to make one a zombie. He has added the in ability to talk and lack of cognitive abilities and spirituality. Now since zombies don't actually exist, I would say it is fair to show what represents them by using examples of them from one of the only places they do exist the movies. I am going to give 3 examples of zombies that actually do this:

1 In Zombies Anonymous many zombies return talking, seeking pyschological help for their emotional problems from being dead. There is even a seen with zombies going to church. They are still accepted as zombies.




2. In Return of the Living Dead 3, a boyfriend and girlfriend go to see zombies resurrected. Later that night she dies in a accident and he has her resurrected. Once he does this they continue an awkward zombie-human love story with her helping him fight off other zombies while fighting other urges. She is still a zombie.



3. Since Scwary movies aren't allowed for my opponent since most are R rated and he is 14, I will go with a PG-13 movie. In the 80's movie house, the main character is Roger. Towards the end of the movie his old Army buddy, Ben Returns zombified. He talks chases down Roger and uses cognitive abilitities. Once again this character is still a zombie, here is a picture:

http://www.doncapone.org...

and video footage of zombie ben:



Sorry my opponent fails there, and none of these zombies involved witchcraft either. Im sorry mommy don't let you watch horror movies yet, but thats not my problem in this debate. As a matter of fact if you were to watch the all-time classic zombie movie, Night of the Living dead, you would recognize them as zombies before you knew whether they had cognitive or spiritualy or the ability to talk. Doing any of those things would not endanger their status as zombies. My opponent is clearly making things up to avoid that Jesus was a zombie.


Now onto the word force: Yes God would be a supernatural being, and as I said before in order for beings to act and cause something to physically happen then get this, wait for it, they must exert a force on it.

force (fôrs, frs)n.1. The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power:


To change Jesus from completely dead would be doing work to create or cause a physical change, hence god exerted a force which coming from him makes it supernatural.


Again I tell you, Jesus was a dead body brought back to life by a supernatural force, and by definition that is what you need to get a zombie.

I have clearly shown exceptions to his "rules" about zombies, therefore making them invalid in determining whether something is a zombie. Conclusion: 1 my opponent is a idiot, we already knew that going in. 2) Jesus was a zombie savior, as he did not attempt to refute the savior part, which right now is all he has. I make it clear when I talk about Jesus I am referring to the character, so the semantical route of now trying to place doubt on his existence would not work, especially after my opponent defined him.


Debate Round No. 2
Man-is-good

Con

Part one: Answering Izbo10’s accusations in his second argument

I have not changed any definitions about the word “zombie”, but rather used the words spiritual and cognitive to characterize Jesus’ resurrection. “Jesus was not only resurrected bodily, for otherwise he could not have rolled the stone back or ascend to heaven, but he also retained his faculties for speech and thought….Since both speech and thought are outside of what one would characterize as "bodily", it implies a spiritual rebirth, or rather, a cognitive one.” [1] There is no mention in the word zombie, and in fact, I was attacking one of Izbo10’s premises in getting his conclusion, “Jesus is a ‘zombie savior’. In addition, he has continued to neglect my rules by making ad hominem statements, especially when he writes “I[']m sorry [that] mommy don't let you watch horror movies yet, but that’s not my problem in this debate.” [1] But, as I would like to point out, this debate, like others, is technical, and by posting clips of movies, Izbo10 has wasted enough time to attack my fairly weak argument, the contention of a “force” vs. “being”.

Part two: None of the definitions can apply to the state of Jesus after his resurrection [Refer to first round]

The first definition states that a zombie, in the religion of voodo, which is practiced chiefly in and out of the Carribean [2], is "mute and will-less". This is contrary from how Jesus was depicted, for, again, after his grave was discovered undisturbed, he spoke, and instructed, "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation…" [3]. Here, he is not "mute", or "silent....incapable of speech" [4], for he has spoken and instructed his discples before ascending to heaven. Nor is he without will: the act of speech is accompanied by an intention, a deliberate decision, that characterizes the word "will". Second, if Jesus was resurrected (or, "raised from the dead; brought back to life [5]), then how can he still be characterized as "dead"? To say so is a contradiction to the very essence of the word "resurrrection" or "rebirth" that occurred to Jesus. Therefore, the only similiarity is that the zombie can be "brought back to lie by a supernatural force", which is in light of Jesus, similiar to how God, who can be characterized as a being and a force, because of his omnipresence, revived him. However, the zombie is a "dead body". A "body" is merely the "physical structure"; characterizations of the body, as I pointed out i my opening round, do not include concepts of mind, will (which is seen in his speech), or reasoning. So, therefore in this case, the word "zombie" only applies because both are raised by the so-called supernatural force.

In the second definition, Jesus is obviously not "a god of voodoo cults of Afrian origin worshipped especially in the West Indies". Jesus is not a god, nor is he entirely designated to aspects of human life that gods are entitled to. Because of the article "a", we know that this god is not the "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" [which is emphasized with the article, the], but merely one of several deities...presiding over some portion of worldly affairs". [6]This is not possible since Christianity is monotheistic, and emphasizes only one Deity; this implies that Jesus was one of several deities, as a part of a polythetistic religion.
In addition, I would like to re-assess Izbo10's own definition, "A dead body tht has been brought back to life by a supernatural force". Yes, God [I am recanting my previous discussion on "force" vs "being", where I stated that a being is marked by sentience, unlike the inanimate force], can be characterized, in the loosest sense of the word, as a "force". But the contention here is with the "dead body". There is a clear line between "body" and "soul", with the "soul" "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body" [7]. I can clearly emphasize that Jesus did have a soul, in following this definition:

1. Life: Jesus obviously was resurrected and managed to roll back the stone and ascend to heaven. He was given life. [3]

2. Feeling: There are subtle inferences to be drawn from what Jesus states. For example, when Jesus "rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart" [3], displaying the feeling of anger that is emphasized when someone rebukes, or scolds, someone else.


3. Action: Jesus obviously acts: he rebukes the disciples, instructs them, ascends to heaven, and approaches Mary Magdalene [3]. Action emphasizes will and deliberate intention and purpose for that action. It is different than, say, a dead body walking and doing so, which is not entirely out of its will or volition.

4. Thought: Since thought is the precedent of action (One thinks before acts, or decides whilethinking), and Jesus is shown perfoming deliberate action, then it should be reasonably inferred that Jesus had thought.


I will continue to rebuke the other definitions in the next round. But I do have to respond to Izbo10's own "convincing" argument:

1. Izbo10 is using "popular culture" to combat my definitions. But, "they are typically depicted as mindless, shambling, decaying corpses with a hunger for human flesh, and in some cases, human brains in particular" [8]. Notice the word "typically" that emphasizes a conventional image of the walking un-dead. Even the image of the zombie, as the "mindless" body cannot be applied to Jesus since he has spoken and instructed to his disciples, he must have the "mind", which hold the properties of reasoning and thought that Jesus has [see above]. But:

The Fallacy of Exceptions: that examples prove that a common/conventional image or defintion of a term or character. Izbo10 believes that by showing only three examples, he can prove that the conventional image of the zombie, as this mindless and "mute" corpse, to be untrue and therefore applies of Jesus. This is false. Izbo10 should show that in popular culture, that zombies do have speech and thought on a common basis. Otherwise, his argument is a bit useless for now.
Examples of the fallacy: Slasher films typically have their protagonist/some character surviving at the end. A Nightmare on Elm's Street has Freddy Krugger killing everyone, including the last surviving protangist at the end. A Nightmare on Elm Street is a slasher film [9]. Considering this, we can inferr that the first premise is false.

The common definition for slasher films is that they involve some sort of psychotic killer (Kruger in this case) on a spree of murders (in the victimns dreams). So, in spite of its differences, the film can still be considered a slasher film. [10]

All I can say, for the Zombies itself, is that they have been both resurrected bodily [partially] and in cognitiion [speech]. But, they are not analogous to Jesus who was characterized as having hair as white as wool, a voice like rushing waters, and feet like brass. All this, considering the fact that Jesus "came from the clouds", and thus heaven, how could a being of heaven, which has been symbollicaly linked to the concepts of perfection, beauty, and purity, can still be this decaying, dead corpse? The language used obviously emphasizes the heavenly nature of Jesus, a marked contrast to the decaying look of zombies (they are commonly depicted as decaying corpses, and are "dead bodies").

I will continue attacking the definitions later.

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

[2] http://en.wiktionary.org...

[3] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com......

[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[6] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[7] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[11] Revelations; Chapter 1, verses 4-20

izbo10

Pro

I again apologize I am debating a moron, not ad hom, but instead a fact. Lets look he continues to beat a dead horse, you cannot add to the definition you gave. I chose one of the definitions and argued it. I have shown the concept of zombies, showing emotions such as love, fear, anger, and dare I say the girl in return of the living dead 3 was 80s hot and more heavenly then Jesus. Dude with bright glowing white hair here:

http://images.wikia.com...

vs 80s hot zombie girl:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com...

What guy is going to argue which is more heavenly.

I would also point out that my opponent can't reference horror movies right, in Nightmare on Elm St, Nancy the main protagonist lives and actually returns as a pyschologist in N.O.E 3 Dream Warriors. Don't give me this new $hitty version nobody worth half a lick in horror movies even admits that exists. Anyway this arument proves my point if the slasher doesn't always lose you can't include it when determining whether it is a slasher film, hence since I have shown that other zombies have similar characteristics his arguments are irrelevant. When showing that something is by definition what you are claiming, you can't argue points that this being may or may not have, you must only argue the points that distinctively prove that the being is what you just argued. In this case you can only argue the attributes true of all zombies.

The retard debating me also doesn't get that to reference zombies we must reference fiction, as zombies only exist in fiction to reference. Therefore referencing pop culture movies is the only true way to show what is and isn't classified as a zombie. If the fact that these characters do exactly what he is claiming of Jesus, does not disqualify them from being a zombie, what makes my opponent think it disqualifies Jesus, thats right his mental incompetence.

My opponent fails to see, and 14 year olds generally aren't that bright in science do to lack of education in the field, but a being when acting on something is by definition creating or putting a force on that object.
Debate Round No. 3
Man-is-good

Con

Since my opponent failed to follow my rules, one of which stated that both parties start debating in the second round, I am forced to give both a summation and a bit of refutation of my opponent's charges. Since I did not write or specifically state that my opponent must forfeit points, then I shall have to present my counter-argument, or otherwise my case will be left incomplete.

My opponent did little to refute my claims other than just asking the reader, "What guy is going to argue which is more heavenly [?]" about two pictures. Nor does he have any effort to realize that my example of "A Nightmare on Elm's St" was an example of the fallacy of exceptions. Let us briefly review his counter-argument: he claims that in "Nightmare On Elm's Street 3: Dream Warriors", Nancy lives. This is true: Nancy is shown to be living at a medical intern after she is escorted into a car that is possessed by Krueger. [1] [2]However, while this seems like a victory for my opponent, this is also irrelevant because my opponent is addressing an example. This example only served to illustrate the fallacy of exceptions to the reader; that is, in itself, the purpose of an example. If my opponent wishes to prove that my argument is irrelevant, then please do not devote your time to attacking your example. I urge my readers to think how much space I would waste if I decided to attack Izbo10's irrelevant photograph comparison.

"Anyway this arument proves my point if the slasher doesn't always lose you can't include it when determining whether it is a slasher film, hence since I have shown that other zombies have similar characteristics his arguments are irrelevant."

First of all, the corrections, which are numerous, should be: "Anyway, this argument [you pointing out that I was incorrect is not an argument] proves my point [that] if the slasher doesn't always lose, you can't include it when determining whether it is a slasher film, hence since I have shown that other zombies have similar characteristics [that] his arguments are irrelevant."

There are problems with this statement. Again, I wrote, "Examples of the fallacy" before writing the entire premises about the slasher genre. An example is "an instance serving for illustration" [3] and serves to illustrate, only, the falsity of the logical fallacy. Attacking this serves no purpose, and has no relation to the main argument about "Jesus is a ‘zombie savior' ". Therefore, my opponent has not shown that my arguments are irrelevant by default, nor that the zombies have "similar characteristics". My opponent has made the erroneous supposition that the example of the slasher film is tied with the main argument.

"When showing that something is by definition what you are claiming, you can't argue points that this being may or may not have, you must only argue the points that distinctively prove that the being is what you just argued. In this case you can only argue the attributes true of all zombies."

I find this quote confusing. The "being vs. force" argument does deal with your definition, since you claim that God is designated as the "supernatural force". I do not know how this is linked with "the attributes true of all zombies". Nor can I understand how my opponent thinks that "zombies only exist in fiction to reference"…Clearly, even in my opening round, zombies are found in religion [voodo], film, and so forth. Zombies do not exist outside of the "pop culture"; they are found in literature and especially religion. Therefore, Pro's claims, "Therefore referencing pop culture is the only true way to show what is and isn't classified as a zombie" is false. And obviously, I encourage my opponent to re-read my logical fallacy law, since he thinks that only three exceptions will make a difference.

Summations:
God is a supernatural being, not necessarily force.
My opponent uses my own definition, that the word "force" literally means to exert influence on, to show that God, in the act of resurrecting Jesus, used his influence to do so. This is false. An "action" is the process of doing, a deed. "Influence" only means "the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc" [4]. If God was involved in the complete process of action, why must he have to do "influence" upon it? In addition, my opponent writes that this is a "physical change", which is hardly conceivable of the act of bringing a person back to life.
The main point is that zombification is merely bodily resurrection, whereas Jesus experienced both a bodily and spiritual/cognitive resurrection.
My own opponent's definition refers it to as a "dead body" only. I have shown, to a degree, that the soul, the principle that characterizes the reasoning, thought, will, and so on, is a separate entity from the body. Jesus, who exhibits these traits, experiences this resurrection of the soul and body. Zombification, which only revives the dead, in bodily form, is apparently a limited form of resurrection, because the concept of the body does not encompass that of the soul.
In addition, pop culture does not support/can be applied to Jesus. Since there are a wide range of zombie films, comics, and even video games, I cannot spend my time debating on specific examples, but rather the general image of the "zombie": "They are typically depicted as mindless, shambling, decaying corpses with a hunger for human flesh, and in some cases, human brains in particular."[5]

1. "Mindless" I have already shown that Jesus has spoken, instructed to his disciples, and approached Mary, he has will, reasoning, and apparently thought that accounts for his actions.
2. "Decaying": The aforementioned descriptions of Jesus in the Book of Revelations, in spite of my opponent's "counter argument", has the purpose of depicting him as "heavenly"; this should be obvious, especially to my opponent--who tries to attack that definition not by attack the hyperbolic language, but just posting a bunch of photos, and is a marked constrast to the stages of decay of the human body. This should be obvious considering the fact that since decomposition occurs after death, Jesus could not be decaying if he was resurrected fully.
3. "Hunger for human flesh...human brains in particular". This is obvious that Jesus does not engage in such. The consumption of flesh is condemned, as seen when God instructs Noah, during the creation of his ark, "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood". (Genesis 9:1-6). Blood is equated with life, for instance, it is stated, in the Book of Leviticus, that "...the life of a creature is in the blood" (Leviticus, 17:11). Therefore, it would be sacrilegous to consume "human flesh", much less "human brains". The fact that Jesus is part of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, would do such a thing is preposterous.

I advice my voters to at least give Izbo10 the benefit of a doubt here. This is one of my weaker debates, and I have made several errors here. But, and I am specifically addressing Izbo10, that does not mean that I am "an idiot" or "retard". In fact, it is ironic, since by default--the breach of the rules, and the fact that I have put effort into my work, Izbo10 has already forfeited. His arguments have no proof, therefore costing him points for sources, and are mixed in several ad hominem statements, costing him conduct points. He does not defend, and refutes rather poorly, though I will leave the voters with the consideration of whose argument is better. Clearly, while Izbo10 won with his own definition, I have won with others.

Thank you for reading this response. I hope to engage in further debates.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
izbo10

Pro

Before I start I would like to apologize once more for my opponent lacking intelligence.

My opponent presented different definitions throughout this debate he has shown no comprehension that when it comes to defitions the number indicates a start of a new definition. I chose this definition:


Zombie: n. 1. a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force


He conceded dead body, as well as being brought back to life. So we are left with only thing the supernatural force. My opponent has shown no understanding or refutation of my definition of force. He is incapable of understanding that when a being acts on something it is exerting a force on it. Therefore a supernatural being acting on something exerts a supernatural force on something.

He complains I only gave 3 examples, this is an unfair expectation, how many would suffice 5.....100 where do I stop. I showed three examples as 3 is a fair number of references, he wants more a couple more off the top of my head:

The zombie army and zombie ash from Army of Darkness talk and show emotion. In the Friday the 13th series, Jason is often referred to as zombie Jason starting at part 6 when he is clearly not living anymore. Zombie Jason shows cognotive ability he never was much of a talker though. They also talk in Return of the living Dead 2 and Zombie Strippers. How many more do you want? See how ridiculous he is? I can go on and on, the point is what makes a zombie is when they return to life from the dead by some external force. They may or may not have cognitive or spiritual feelings. They may be heavenly like Jesus or Zombie hot like the girl in Return of the Living Dead 3 but they are all zombies because they fit the definition I used.

The best part about this all is it goes way over my opponents and most chrisians heads that the ridiculous part about zombies is not the mindlessness or the flesh eating, it is the returning from the dead, which is why the reference is made in the first place. I didn't care about his idiotic rules, if he wins on a technicality it still doesn't change the fact that even retardedarsenal saw he couldn't touch this argument. Which may not actually be a point as he is usually very wrong.


Debate Round No. 4
277 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
I miss izbo :( <3
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
God is supreme, as by definition. Learn to deal with defeat.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
Gileandos, only if your god is a completely incompetent creator and not omnipotent, otherwise that argument is done.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
"I did not state that the Jews deserved the Holocaust. I stated that when it comes to eternal status, we all deserve worse than the Holocaust." a christian defending himself that he is not an ahole, keep in mind this statement was made while watching videos of starving children and holocaust victims. He is so devoid of humility from his religion he doesn't see how absolutely appalling this statement is.

My current facebook status for people to see how devoid of human emotion retarded arsenal is.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
How do you know he did not stop something worse?
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
Let me explain something to you an all knowing being knows all before it happens. So he would know what would happen if he stopped and then could stop something worse if that was going to happen as well. Stop limiting gods power.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
Izbo,
Let me show you the breakdown where you blame God for Satan's Action:
1. God kills Hitler as a baby or youth before he is born even, to ensure the atrocity never happens. He is called an unrepentant baby killer.
2. God allows the atrocity of WWII and he is blamed for the mass murders.

Simply put a person is not in a good position to know what is the best course of action for God. He is ominscient and in a better position to know. The atrocity of Hitler may have saved a greater atrocity.

The Angelic Conflict between Satan and God is for a greater enternal good rather than the momentary suffering in time. That is a logical reconciliation of the problem of evil from a Christian perspective.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I'm going to sleep now. I'll continue to run circles around Bozo in the morning.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Every single one of those children would lie, steal, and cheat. Many of them probably have. I deserve hell no less than they, and it is only by God's grace that any of us get less than what we deserve in terms of punishment.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
2 to 1 he either just leaves and pretend this hasn't happened or continues to show a lack of respect for humanity.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by aircraftmechgirl 6 years ago
aircraftmechgirl
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I think I lost IQ points reading the Pro side of this debate.
Vote Placed by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro couldn't get his first sentence in without violating the rule against personal attacks.
Vote Placed by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Violated rules, bad s
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: pro violated the rules
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: izbo, this was not even funny. I think you are losing your passion, even Corky looking down from Heaven is shaking his head.
Vote Placed by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Yep
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF via clear rule violation... and toolishness.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: once again izbo just doesn't listen and loses conduct points for his attacks.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 6 years ago
airmax1227
Man-is-goodizbo10Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought this was rather entertaining. Sorry not to give all 7 to con but I think the 'conduct vote' covers that issue.