The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Judaism Is The Best Religion

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 679 times Debate No: 93010
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Informal style debate. Judaism is older, better, wiser, and is better overall. Jews on average are smarter than others, this likely has a link to religion.


"Judaism is older"

"Although Hinduism is touted the world's oldest religion, there are others that have been around a long time as well. Judaism, Taoism Buddhism, and Jainism are religions that are still being practiced today. A few older style religions are Zorastrianism, Confucianism, and Pantheism." By pro's logic, Hinduism is actually better than Judaism based on the fact that it's older.

Then he says Judaism is better by saying that it's better. Which is begging the question.

Later he also says that Judaism is better because it's better overall, which is also begging the question.

Then he says Judaism is wiser without bringing up anything to support it.

Then my opponent says " Jews on average are smarter than others, this likely has a link to religion." Yet the fact that members of a religion are smarter, does not make the religion itself better than others. My opponent has no evidence for every single one of these assertions.
Debate Round No. 1


I should have refrased my argument, I mean't better than other abrahmaic religions, so Christianity and Islam. Let's debate that instead of the others as my original intention was just western/abrahamic religions.

Jews on average are smarter. Despite making up less than 1% of the world population throughout history, 20% of nobel prize winners are Jewish. According to many studies the average iq of Askenazi Jews is 107-115 (such a large range as I used a source that looked at many studies). The average IQ of any given person is 95-100.

Did Discrimination Enhance Intelligence of Jews?, National Geographic
"Are Jews Smarter?: What Genetic Science Tell Us", New York Magazine
"The evolution of intelligence: The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past", The Economist
Murray, Charles. Jewish Genius, Commentary
Saletan, William. Jewgenics: Jewish intelligence, Jewish genes, and Jewish values, Slate
Haslinger, Kiryn. "A Jewish Gene for Intelligence?", Scientific American, 21 September 2005.
JINFO " The Jewish Contribution to World Civilization
"Evolution's Deadly Tradeoffs? Diseases That Can Kill Us May Also Save Lives And Increase IQ", Huffington Post, 24 March 2015.

Judaism has only led to a couple genocides, which is very bad, as we all know, but compared to Islam and Christianity that is a tiny number. I don't mean members of a religion commiting genocide, but genocide commited under the order or consent of religious leaders and religious heirarchy such as the church.

Christianity-multiple inquisitiants all across Europe, that is already many; Roman, Papal, Italian, Portugese, Spanish.... (just to name a few, all being created at different times, by monarchs in each nation, yes with influence from each other even sometimes pressure, but still independently). When Christianity became logal in Rome, it destroyed many pagan temples and killed many pagans, based on their religious beleifs. This pagan genocide pretty much lasted until most if not all major pagan relgions were forced out of europe, killed, or absorbed. Christian emperors such as Theodosius even executed non christian children. The church (not genocide, but still bad) also killed many philosiphers, painters, inventors, scientists.... just as Sopratos and Gallileo who are likely the two most famous. I'm not even naming the crusaders who committed countless genocides, the missionarries who killed counless not willing to convert (still genocide), many largely christian kingdoms that executed non christians, other hetericts, witches who were often just killed because of rumors about their religion, then theirs Jews, so many natives in lands christians came to. Another unkown fact about christian genocide is that in Croatia during WWII their dictator with the consent of the pope built concentration camps, not for jews, but basically just for anyone in Coation not willing to convert, they even had 1 concentration camp for children only. The list is endless.

In the past they committed genocide of christians and Jews with consent of high religious leaders (they still commit genocide just not with the support of high religious leaders anymore). A number of Islamic empires executed non Muslims like Christian empired did.


My opponent"s first point is that Jews are smarter because 20% of the nobel prize winners are Jewish. But the problem with this is that someone could be smarter than the nobel prize winners, but be too lazy to strive for a nobel peace prize. Therefore nobel peace prize winning is not a good indicator of whether someone is smart or not. Someone for example could be really hard working to the point that by chance they achieve something, while someone else could have gotten it on his second try, but didn"t have the motive to do it. Hardworking and intelligent is not the same thing. To the point about the iq"s, it"s pretty much an axiom that iqs also don"t mean really anything, since iq"s only test for certain knowledge. And it may so happen that the certain knowledge in iq tests are most likely known by Jews. "Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid".

Now my opponent claims that a religion is better than another because it has committed less genocides, but pro makes a contradiction. The reason my opponent chooses not to count genocides caused by members of a religion, is because they are inputting something that really isn"t from the fundamentals of the religion. But then pro says that he counts the genocides that were consented by religious leaders and religious hierarchy, in other words people of the church. Just because someone high up on the ladder in a religion says something, doesn"t mean it"s part of the fundamentals of a religion. Religious leaders aren"t infallible, and in fact they may even say heresy because they are corrupt. Therefore my opponent"s point about the genocides is refuted.

Christianity, unlike Islam and Judaism, believe in the idea of original sin which makes the most sense because without sin, we are born perfect, and in that case how would we sin if we were perfect. Therefore Christianity is better due to the fact that it makes more sense and has a valid idea about our birth.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has stated that if you are smarter than a nobel prize winner, but are just "too lazy to strive" to win one, you are just as good as a nobel prize winner. I was bringing up both the point of intelligence and world impact (positive obviously) and my opponent decided that being smart is just as important if not more important than making an impact. They are wrong. If you were the smartest person in the world, but all you did was compete in competitions of intelligence would you be as important if not more important as a doctor bringing new technology to the feild saving lives and winning a nobel prize (my example would of course be out of the 55 Jewish nobel prize winners in medecine, be Ralph Steinmen who researched the immune system and roles of certain cells. His research has and will be used to create groundbreaking medical treatments).

IQ is one part of intelligence that Jews happen to be better at as you said. I agree it not a "genius" scale as it doesn't factor in many things like creativity and such, but it tests a large part of intelligance: short-term memory, analytical thinking, mathematical ability and spatial recognition. Being better at these things does not neccisarily make you smarter than someone else that is worse than you at it, but in many cases it does, and the gap between the world average and the Ashkenazi Jew (Eastern European Jew, Majority Of Jews) is large.

My point about genocides is not refuted. The examples I have mentioned (well the majority) were carried out with the concent of more than just a single or a small group of religious leaders, but with many involved. The inquisitian was first created by the church, by pope Lucius III, in 1184, with a little disagreement. Different inquisitions continued throughout Europe for 650 years, until it finally ended in 1850, the last execution being in 1826. Not a single pope condemned or even tried to stop this massive 6 and a half century long genocide. There was barely any resistance anywhere in the church until the late 1600s, almost 500 years after the inquisition started. This genocide cannot be blamed as a single or few, corrupt or sinful popes or centures of the church. It literally stretched almost half of the churches existence (at 1850 when it ended)

Christianity, unlike Islam and Judaism, believe in the idea of original sin which makes the most sense because without sin, we are born perfect, and in that case how would we sin if we were perfect. Therefore Christianity is better due to the fact that it makes more sense and has a valid idea about our birth.

Your idea about Christianity being better because of original sin is false. Judaism does not beleive that act of not sinning is perfection like Islam and Christianity, which proves your statment false, first off. Judaism believes that for the first month of life a baby is pure, free of sin. This is realistic as a child cannot commit a sin before being born unless you consider that in of itself being one, and that a child cannot commit a sin until one month of age. A child cannot sin until it learns of sin, meaning a child has not commited a crime until it learns of crimes. In Judaism 1 month old is that point. You stated that Jews and Muslims think that free from sin is perfect. That is not beleived in Judaism. Free of sin is pure, pure does not mean perfect. You can still commit sin, it would just be for the first time (if you are pure, like babies 1 month old and younger). Judaism has a more valid idea of birth, it does not beleive that babies are responsible for the sin of Adom and Eve, like Christianity, it beleives babys are pure, never having sinned. Not meaning they won't, but meaning they haven't sinned. Christianity beleives children sin before birth which cannot be true unless being conceived is sin.


My opponent starts off by basically saying that nobel prize winners are the only ones who have made an impact, but this is not true. Just because there are more jews who have been recognized for impacting the world with a nobel prize, doesn"t mean there are more jews that have impacted the world. What about the people who have changed the world before the nobel prizes have even been invented? For example Johannes Kepler. Not only that, but the nobel prizes only encompass certain fields, and doesn"t include fields such as philosophy. Therefore my opponent can not say Jews have impacted the world positively more than any other religion, based on Nobel prizes especially when the judges have a subjective vote on who impacted more. Also my opponent pretends like he had brought up the positive impacts jews have made when in reality all he said was "20% of nobel prize winners are Jewish.", while talking about how Jews are on average smarter. Nothing about positive impact was mentioned.

I did not concede that Jews won the intelligence part, since the original purpose of the Iq test was "The first standardized attempt to measure the human"s mental capacity was courtesy of Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, who formulated a test to measure verbal ability. Binet and Simon only wanted to use the test to find those children who suffered from mental retardation." And, "Once an average person reaches the age of 15 or so, the IQ test is no longer important, since the mental age has reached maturity.", so these test are not accurate at all to claim that since Jews score a higher Iq, they are smarter due to the information I provided, and since it only test for certain knowledge. Even if it does cover those areas, the questions that are asked contain some things that people do not know.

Later my opponent goes on to say that I didn"t refute his genocide argument, but neglects the point that I was making. My point was that just because every member of a religion does something, that does not mean that what they did is part of the fundamentals of a religion. And your problem with not including genocides where it was the members that committed them, is because that"s human input which may be different from what the religion fundamentally proposes. So what I"m saying is that even if it was all the leaders and members in agreement, that doesn"t mean that what they did wasn"t human input. Therefore it has been refuted.

Now, my opponent then actually helps my point even more by saying that Jews don"t think that people who are born without sin aren"t perfect because that makes no sense. If someone is born without sin, then they are born with nothing wrong, therefore they are perfect. He says that "for the first month of life a baby is pure, free of sin", and my point is that if someone is free of sin, then they have nothing wrong, therefore they are born perfect. But pro says that no they aren"t born perfect, even though they have nothing wrong with them. And the reason this makes no sense is because if someone is flawless, then they have no flaw, therefore they are perfect, but my opponent says someone can have no flaw, and not be perfect. Even though someone not being perfect, is a flaw, therefore that person is not perfect. And to even add more to the nonsense, Jews believe they know the age when someone can learn of sin. I would like my opponent any reason or evidence that says someone can not learn what sin is before and at the age of 1 month. So my point basically is, a baby is born perfect if he/she is born without sin, because sin is any flaw, but my opponent says a baby is born pure, which means without flaw, therefore someone without flaw, can not have the flaw of the ability to sin.

Debate Round No. 3


Judaism is the best religion as the other religions we are debating with (Western Religions) both stem from Judaism, both Islam comes from Asof son of the first Jew, Christianity comes from Jesus, a Jew, in fact a Rabbi.

My openant things that lacking wrong doing means perfect, he beleives he is speaking for the Jewish relgion. That is false, the Jewish religion does not beleive in perfection in anyone other than God, unlike Christianity, atleast according to my opponent, who is bringing Christian funtamentals against Judaism. Free of sin in Judaism, like I have stated does not mean perfect, therefore it does not mean that babies can't do any wrong later on (which doesn't make sense), that was my opponents original point. He made this point without any research into Judaism other than on whether or not they beleived in sin before birth. Babies are not perfect, mearily they are a clean slate, they just haven't done anything wrong yet, they aren't perfect, they arent sinful. My oponent is trying to argue against the Talmud (equivalent to Sharia Law, it's the commentary that is viewed as law, right under the Torah) he is saying that lacking sin is flawless, therfore perfect, he is arguing that that is what Judaism beleives, but he cannot simply do that, he is not a famous rabbi, he does not have control over Jewish beleif like he thinks he does. Jews, simply beleive babies are born free of sin. In the modern english sense they are flawless (technically), but they are not flawless in a Jewish sense. Flawless in Judaism (ancient hebrew is part of judaism the religion) is never giving in to mistakes, to sin, to issue, in order for that to happen you must have the ability to not give in to mistakes, sin, and issue, babies have not done that and will not do that for alteast a month of their life, if not much longer.

My opennant thinks that Judaism has decided when babies can learn of sin, this is not just true. Rabbis debated for hundreds of years over young children (babies) and how they should be judged. They argued over how the torah viewed them, they did this as because you probably know ancient texts aren't very specific. They decided that one month of age was when a child would be able to commit sin, they still would not be punished in the same way as an older child, but they would be able to commit sin. They decided upon 1 month not because they thought all babies, if any, could actually knolodebly sin at that point, but because they wanted to be safe and make sure that all children were judged correctly. A child would be sin free until the age of one month, then if they commit a sin it goes against them, they will not be punished by a rabbi or anyone like that yet though.

I am done with this argument now, my openent thinks he can decide what Judaism does and doesn't beleive, I find that quite discraceful. I see the issue with me bringing that up as this debate is quite bigoted, but I was trying to make a joke, I know it was a very bland, unfunny, quite disrespectful one, but I was not serious about my beleif of Judaism being better than other religions. As I am a Jew I beleive my religion has the best beleifs, which is why I am a Jew, that is quite normal, most people think their rleigion has the best beleifs (hopefully), but I do not beleive Jews are outright better than others of any given religion!

Opponent I am sorry for this un-saterical "joke" but please rethink your debating style when it comes to religion if you were being serious. Do not judge one religion with your own religions funtamentals and beleifs.


My opponent first starts off by saying Judaism is the best religion because the other religions stem off it, but what exactly of that makes it better? The fact that it started off the same? The point that they started in the same place is irrelevant, but instead what the fundamentals have become now. These religions have different ideas, therefore whether they started at the same place is irrelevant. For example, twins came out of the mother, but one can be a murderer and the other a hero.

The problem with my opponent"s second paragraph is that he says I"m bringing Christian fundamentals into Jewish fundamentals, but that"s not what I"m saying. I"m not saying that Judaism believes this or that because this is what Christians believe. I"m criticizing Judaism by talking about its nonsense, since that is one way to determine whether something is better. What I"m saying is separated from all religions. This is purely me saying what things mean, and since my opponent has conceded that Jews don"t believe that, their belief is nonsensical. I"m not trying to implement anything into Judaism, but simply saying this part doesn"t make sense. So this basically means that pro has misinterpreted my whole point, and therefore his second paragraph is meaningless. It doesn"t matter what Jews believe, but what makes logical sense.

My opponent then says that Rabbis have debated over when people can submit sin, and I"m asking why can"t babies commit sins earlier? I"m questioning why they chose that number. I"m trying to find the logic behind saying the it"s safe to say 1 month olds can commit sin, but someone a day before 1 month old can"t. If they wanted to be safe I would question their decision as to why not pick 2 months old. This baby idea is again, another nonsensical idea since it"s rather safer to judge the babies for themselves to say if they are able to sin or not, rather than just pick a number.

My opponent has forfeited, and I will accept it.

I also hope my opponent understands where his logic was flawed and also where he misinterpreted.
Debate Round No. 4


I would like to say good job to my opponent for winning. It was a really stupid joke that got out of hand, lel. My opponent won as I was arguing something that was not true.

To my opponnant:
What I mean't about Christian funtamentals was that you were saying Jews think babies are born sinless therefore perfect therefore they cannot commit sin. That was the flawed idea of yours. To clarify Jews think babies are born sinless yes, but they DO NOT beleive that sinless is perfect therefore your idea is flawed, the christian idea (I think, or you just have that idea form somewhere else) you were using was the idea that sinless is perfect. Like I have said you are simply wrong about the Jewish beleif of babies, they do not beleive that they are perfect.


To put it simply, I know Jews believe this, but this belief is nonsensical. I don't think Christian's belief is nonsensical, therefore Christians are more logical. SO I was criticizing the Judaism belief and using that as an argument for why it's not better.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sanders2k16 2 years ago
This is kinda a joke debate by the way im not really serious about this sh-t, if I was I would be fu-cking crazy!
Posted by TheWORDisLIFE 2 years ago

"Jews on average are smarter than others,..."

If the fake Jews were smarter than others, they would have been able to hide their lies a whole lot better, LOL....
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
invisible foot ball match
Posted by SJM 2 years ago
I know, but I'm prepared for that.
Posted by Masonh928 2 years ago
This is not voicing my opinion on such matters, as I'm a Christian, but using the rationale of Pro, his religion could be considered oldest as God is from everlasting to everlasting and I quote from scripture verbatim.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 2 years ago
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 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: Pro conceded
Vote Placed by David_Debates 2 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded to Con, so arguments to Con. Also, Pro states that this is a joke debate, giving Con points for conduct. If this is intended to be a joke, put it in the humor section.