The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Petfish
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Jonah never 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 283 times Debate No: 94559
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Who is this Jonah character anyways? The only reference I can find is within the Bible. A book that has been translated a bunch of times. Not only that but the entire story seems incredibly preposterous. Swallowed by a great fish? Survived 3 days and 3 nights? Possibly resurrected, this is crazy talk.

Even if say a great white shark bothered Jonah, it probably just took a sample bite and swam away.

"However, most of these are not fatal, and new research finds that great whites, who are naturally curious, are "sample biting" then releasing their victims rather than preying on humans." [0]

I for one state Jonah never existed. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate.

Sources.

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...
Petfish

Con

Thank you, Pro, for instigating this debate!

When we look at Pro"s claim, we see that Pro is trying to disprove a historical figure by discrediting legendary stories that surround that character. Simply put, this is as weak as saying George Washington never existed because he never cut down a cherry tree.

Pro also discredits the Bible, the only available source on this character. But if we are to discredit the only source on a historical person, how can one reasonably prove this character never existed? The answer is that you can"t.

In short, Pro is trying to argue that Russell"s teapot doesn"t exist. The problem is that the burden of proof is squarely fixed on the instigator, who (in my opinion) will have an impossible time vainly trying to prove this assertion correct or even likely.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

"In short, Pro is trying to argue that Russell"s teapot doesn"t exist. The problem is that the burden of proof is squarely fixed on the instigator, who (in my opinion) will have an impossible time vainly trying to prove this assertion correct or even likely." petfish

Nope, the burden of proof is on you. This is due to the difficulty of disproving negatives, I can't disprove unicorns. My opponent must have the burden of proof.
Petfish

Con

My opponent has unfairly placed the burden of proof (BoP) on me. Generally, it is automatically assumed that the BoP is on the instigator, unless otherwise specified in the first post.

According to James Cargile:
"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim."[1]

According to Christopher Hitchens:
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."[2]

Universally held debate ethics and regulations should not be changed just because an assertion is hard to prove. If Pro wished for the BoP to be shared, he/she might have worded the debate into a question. If Pro wanted me to have the sole BoP, he/she should have clearly stated that in the opening post. Anything outside of this is unethically shifting the BoP.

A short example: if I were to make a debate called 'Adolf Hitler is NOT dead', the BoP would be on me because I'm making a claim. And the fact that this claim is negative does not change the fact that I have the BoP.

Sources:
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

In other words my opponent is playing around with the burden of proof. Yes, I should have stated the burden of proof was on my opponent the first round, due to the difficulty of proving a negative. Yet, this is obvious and I didn't think it needed to be stated. My opponent literally provides no evidence. Instead focusing almost exclusively on the burden of proof.

I don't see the instigator automatically assuming the burden of proof.

As for the George Washington and the Cherry tree, we have many pictures of George Washington that stand up to scrutiny. The same can't be said for Jonah. Also, cutting down a cherry tree is much more likely than resurrection.
Petfish

Con

My opponent has again unfairly shifted the BoP over to my side, even though I demonstrated that the BoP is normally on the instigator.

My opponent has presented no alternative philosophy or reason for the BoP to be on me, except that it is hard to prove a negative. But this is hardly an adequate reason. So I find it insulting when he/she implies that the BoP is obviously on me.

Alternativatively, I did provide a rational framework where the BoP fits on my opponent. This isn't 'playing around'; this is providing actual quotes from actual debaters and philosophers on the subject.

Finally, my opponent's whole stance on the BoP is unreferenced, which makes his position on this matter a bare assertion.[3]

"...we have many pictures of George Washington that stand up to scrutiny. The same can't be said for Jonah."

This argument also carries no citations with it, making it another bare assertion. Also, this counter argument seems to be misrepresenting my first argument which was that you cannot say someone did not exist simply because there are false legends about that person.

Sources:
[3]https://logfall.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.