The Instigator
Esiar
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Jesus Existed

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...
Esiar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,136 times Debate No: 69212
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (5)

 

Esiar

Pro

Put your rebuttal in Round 1.

https://www.youtube.com...
vi_spex

Con

i dont know is true as know is now and Jesus was, Jesus exist as a lie, and belief is false as i have to imagine it
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Pro

I don't understand what you're saying. Can you go more in depth, and answer the points in the video?
vi_spex

Con

i grant you that you can write the points you find countering my position from the video, im not going to Watch it, i didnt notice the link before i wrote

if you knew Jesus existed in reality at some point we wouldnt be having this debate, so you dont know is true, not Jesus existed, and it never will be, as only now is true

so really the debate is something like, should people believe in Jesus?
Debate Round No. 2
Esiar

Pro

"if you knew Jesus existed in reality at some point we wouldnt be having this debate, so you dont know is true, not Jesus existed, and it never will be, as only now is true"

I do know he existed. I only like the debate things I am certain of.

But, this debate is kind of a lost-cause if you're not going to watch the video. You can keep responding until the rounds are over
Debate Round No. 3
Esiar

Pro

Yup. I wonder who will win. You didn't refute my points but people don't understand how what I did was proper debating. Oh well.
vi_spex

Con

the points i recall is you know Jesus existed, but i need to argue against a christian video.. apparently not a video that informs you to the point where you are be able to argue from it...
Debate Round No. 4
Esiar

Pro

Well I thought it gave a point for debating on it: Like, whether the historians mentioned were accurate your not.
vi_spex

Con

define accurat
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
If you do not post your arguments, then you do not fulfill your BoP. You can keep claiming that you can't because it would go beyond the character limit, but that is just an excuse. Shorten your arguments. I could argue for Jesus' non-existence without complaining about the character limit (when you set it to 10,000, even 8,000 could work). If it takes longer to argue for the existence, then you are arguing for something more complex then minimal historicity, which is stupid to do.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
that Means its a lie, true is simple
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
@Esiar,
Then are they your arguments, or someone else's?
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
I do have arguments. If I didn't have any, I wouldn't have made this debate. I just cannot put the argument I have into good words, and the argument would probably pass the word limit.
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
Even if the video is the topic of the debate, you would have to defend it. You cannot simply post the video because then you have no arguments.
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
"If you are saying that you would type the video's words out, then that would be plagiarizing."
Did you read what I said? I said, that if I put it in text, I would put it into my own words.

But the solution is simple: Instead of using the video as an argument for the debate, the video can be the debate: I.e., it is discussed if the information presented is accurate or not.
Posted by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
I do not give a damn what your excuse is. I could post Richard Carrier videos and a link for you to buy his book off amazon and say that is an argument. That does not make it a real debate argument.

If you are saying that you would type the video's words out, then that would be plagiarizing.

When debating, use your own words, articulate arguments. Do not just post a source and say it is "good enough". It isn't.
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
@Esiar
That would be true iff the bias in votes was uniformly distributed. Is that what you're suggesting?
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
@UndeniableReality
The results are still pretty fair I'd say
Posted by UndeniableReality 1 year ago
UndeniableReality
Some BS RFDs for some of these votes. Do people not understand that we aren't voting for what we believe in, but the quality of the arguments and responses?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
Esiarvi_spexTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't make any arguments, and Con didn't refute any of the arguments Pro didn't make, so no points to either for arguments. But at least Pro was capable of writing a coherent sentence, so spelling and grammar to Pro.
Vote Placed by SNP1 1 year ago
SNP1
Esiarvi_spexTied
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 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: Pro, you need to actually MAKE an argument. You cannot just post a YouTube video and say that is your argument. Loss of conduct for that.
Vote Placed by Overkill 1 year ago
Overkill
Esiarvi_spexTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con de-railed the debate. Pro was he only one to provide sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Esiarvi_spexTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's s and g was atrocious. Only Pro had any sources.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
Esiarvi_spexTied
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: As incoherent as Con's arguments were, Pro loses the debate for not making any. Pro instead attempted to rely on a 35 minute long youtube video, presenting no argument of his own.