The Instigator
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

No true Christian can support the death penalty

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...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 834 times Debate No: 58311
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro

In this debate as Pro, I will be arguing that "No true Christian can support the death penalty".

As you can see the debate fits the form of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. However, that is the point as in this debate it is the purpose of the debaters to see who can best assert their position using the Holy Bible. So please don't argue that this is the No True Scotsman Fallacy I am well aware of that and it would be out of order in a debate of this nature.

Ideally I would like to debate a theist, but anyone can accept.

Important: BOP is shared. This is something I say for all debates I instigate (as of 6/27/2014). It makes voters vote on what is presented and not look for a semantic reason to vote against or for someone.

Ideally, the BOP is on Pro, but its not possible to prove anything beyond doubt. So in effect if we are to apply BOP to any debate then Con automatically wins.
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro


Thanks to my opponent CJKAllstar for accepting this debate. Looking at your debate record, I am sure it will be a worthy battle.



Initially when I started this debate, I thought I would rely solely on the teachings of Jesus, as a belief in the truths of Jesus is necessary to be a Christian. However, it is always a good idea to start with the basics and then work up to the greater questions so I decided to start in the old testament.



When we look at the book of Exodus it seems pretty obvious to me that the death penalty should not be supported by an true Christian. This is exemplified in the most important laws given to Moses by God being the Ten Commandments. In Exodus 20:13 it is very specific when it says “You shall not commit murder”.(1)



The Death Penalty (capital punishment) is defined as “the decision by a court of law that the punishment for someone's crime will be death”.(2)


Murder is defined as “the crime of deliberately killing a person”.(3)


As we can see then from these definitions that the death penalty is the deliberate killing of a person and as such is murder. This is explicitly prohibited by God in the old testament.



Now, I am sure my opponent will point to other versus in the old testament which advocate the death penalty for a murderer. However, we need to remember that belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings are an integral part of being a Christian. In fact you have to believe that Jesus was the son of god to classify as a Christian. This means that Jesus's interpretation is what we should follow when we consider if it is acceptable to apply capital punishment. Jesus was the true Christian in a sense and so Jesus will show us the way forward as to what a True Christian would do.



I have a question for my opponent, “would Jesus kill you?” Honest question whose answer you should keep in your mind when you think about what he said in John13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”(4) Jesus said we should love one another and so if Jesus would not kill you (because he loves you) then we should never be killing someone else.



This is especially true when you consider that Jesus said in John 8:7 “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”(5) This important saying was during a case when a person was meant to be put to death for committing adultery. This punishment was a punishment dealt out in the old testament for adultery. Here Jesus said this is wrong and was condemning the act of capital punishment.



Additionally, let me point out the obvious hypocrisy of the death penalty. The death penalty is essentially legalized murder, but in gods eyes murder is murder whether it be legal or not. In gods eyes any sin is the same as another sin. James 2:10 “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.”(6) For this reason by condoning the death sentence you are becoming a murderer and you need to suffer the same consequence a murderer would suffer if you reject Jesus's message. That consequence is the punishment dealt by God for murder and it is the same if you are a participant in capital punishment or if you are the accused murderer.



Now with these arguments intact I hand the debate over to my opponent.



(1) https://www.biblegateway.com...


(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...


(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...


(4) http://biblehub.com...


(5) http://biblehub.com...


(6) https://www.biblegateway.com...

CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

Pro provided a reasonable explanation of his case, but one that is inherently flawed. Here is why.

If I was to accept Pro's definition, then killing someone is murder. Murder is against Christian law, therefore killing someone is against Christian law.

The problem with this is that therefore God is fallible.

Genesis 7:23, Genesis 19:24, Exodus 12:29-30, Numbers 11:1, 2 Kings 19:37 are only a few of an estimated 158[1] times God had killed people. By your definition, God predetermining Jesus' death is the act of killing someone, after all- he caused his death by the definition of "to kill"[2]. Syllogistically, we in turn get this.

P1: A perfect being breaks no laws.
P2: God has broken laws.
C1: Therefore God is not perfect.

But seeing as for debate's sake, especially as we are focusing on the perspective of the Christian, God must be perfect. Therefore one way or another, your logic is flawed. Well, it is; with the minor premise.

Murder is not as you defined. Murder is commonly defined as unlawfully killing someone[3][4], which even your source shows. Killing, can be defined as you said[5] however and to murder is not to kill. The former is unlawful, the latter is lawful and is where war serves under, and this is where the justification of the death penalty starts to be pieced together.

In the hebrew for Exodus 20:13, the word "ratsakh" is used, which translates more than not to "murder"[6]. The Old Testament strictly prohibits murder, but not killing. If it did, then the whole of Deuteronomy when God had armies killing people, would prove God as imperfect. But they did not commit murder, for what they were doing was ordered by God and therefore lawful.

This means that although I concede about James 2:10 being valid, but killing was not in the law and therefore the majority of your argument is void.

You also stated:

"This is especially true when you consider that Jesus said in John 8:7 “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”(5) This important saying was during a case when a person was meant to be put to death for committing adultery. This punishment was a punishment dealt out in the old testament for adultery. Here Jesus said this is wrong and was condemning the act of capital punishment."

The issue is, this can be used to justify having no forms of punishment whatsoever. You have asserted that this condemns the act of the death penalty with the same logic one can use to condemn a telling off, a detention or any minor punishment. You can argue that all forms of punishments are wrong, in which case I will tackle that next round, but what we do know is that Jesus said this in the context of adultery and did not refer to anything else, so to do so is condemning all forms of punishment, and as God has punished people, he therefore went against what Jesus said. So either God is at fault, or Jesus is, which both cannot be so. Therefore we do not even need an explanation to say that this argument is not valid.


Your final argument standing for the death penalty is:

I have a question for my opponent, “would Jesus kill you?” Honest question whose answer you should keep in your mind when you think about what he said in John13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”(4) Jesus said we should love one another and so if Jesus would not kill you (because he loves you) then we should never be killing someone else.

Well, with that logic:


If you love somebody then you do not kill them.
God has killed people.
Therefore he does not love them.

The problem is, God is said to be omnibenevolent, and you cannot be omnibenevolent and both not love people, that is contradictory. Seeing as the logic is incorrect, your premise therefore is somehow flawed, not to mention, completely asserted without even biblical evidence. One can kill and still love or else God would not be omnibenevolent.

Also, what Jesus would do cannot be applied to the death penalty. Jesus rebuked murder, but did not speak of killing. he did not speak of the death penalty therefore any answer we give for his response to the death penalty is an assertion without evidence. Legally, the death penalty is not murder and is done for purely benefit. The Old Testament has a variety of actions punishible by death actually; it has a death penalty.[7] Seeing as I have proven it doesn't impede upon Jesus' talks, as he doesn't reference murder, we can assume that therefore it is morally permissible.

Now that all of Pro's point has been refuted, I will go onto my main argument.

Contention

A true Christian can support the death penalty. For this to be true, God must be able to accept it, Jesus must, and the Bible must. Now, all of them are the same, for Jesus=God who wrote the Bible. Now, God if he is omnipotent and perfect, will always have been, and at the time of the Old Testament there was a death penalty, and there were no rules against killing, as God had killed people before. As killing can be lawful. Therefore, it can be assumed that God is for or at least not against the death penalty.


My argument truly is this simple. A Christian therefore can, is able to, be for the death penalty. If God is not against it, a Christian is able to do it semantically and literally speaking. Therefore, my position is to withhold what exists in the status quo that God is not against the death penalty, and Pro has the position to challenge it. I have proven God is not against it, therefore now there is a burden on Pro to negate my claims and prove that God is against the death penalty.

Sources:

[1] http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.uk...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[6] http://www.levitt.com...
[7] http://rationalwiki.org...


Debate Round No. 2
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro


Thanks to my opponent for an interesting argument. However, my arguments stand undefeated.



First let me deal with the what is murder question. My opponent says “Murder is not as you defined. Murder is commonly defined as unlawfully killing someone” my opponent uses unlawfully I used deliberately. If this is important please explain further, I would think the killing part is more important as killing actually refers to the death of someone.



As such I am not sure what my opponent means when he says “Killing, can be defined as you said[5] however and to murder is not to kill. The former is unlawful, the latter is lawful and is where war serves under, and this is where the justification of the death penalty starts to be pieced together. ” This is killing and killing is murder. I think I am not understanding your point, but as it stands it is exactly what I was saying in round 2. In fact as it stands it supports my position as you contradict your self by saying “to murder is not to kill” but "Murder is commonly defined as unlawfully killing". Killing after all is the progressive form of kill.(1) To the voters; please realize I am not playing semantics here. As it stands, either my opponent agrees with my argument or he has made a massive error.



This also why I intend to disregard my opponent comments on Exodus 20:13 “You shall not murder” as he he says it talks about murder but not killing. However, as I have shown above killing is in fact the same thing as murder.


Let me now dive into the other arguments made by my opponent, with which I can rebut his entire argument.



Firstly my opponent says God is perfect “as we are focusing on the perspective of the Christian, God must be perfect.” This is only true in my opponents opinion about Christianity. However, this statement is wrong, and as I will show below the Bible demonstrates this. Then later in the arguments my opponent says God is equal to Jesus. “Now, all of them are the same, for Jesus=God who wrote the Bible.” I have not contention with this. However, I do have a problem with the first statement about infallibility. If this is true my opponent arguments hold, however this is demonstrably false.



At this point lets return to my example of Jesus not casting the first stone. If we follow my opponents logic we see that we do not reach the same conclusion that God is perfect if Jesus is equal to God. Jesus would not cast the stone. However, if Jesus is equal to God then he would have followed the laws of the old testament. As God is Jesus then God made a mistake and my opponents arguments is defeated.



This proves the premise that God is flawed, if God is Jesus.



Importantly, as I said before, I agree with my opponent that God and Jesus are the same entity. However, I make a distinction between God and Jesus in so much that, yes they are the same entity but at different times. Old Testament God versus New Testament God (call this God Jesus). As my arguments do not require an infallible God my contentions hold. This means that No True Christian would support the death penalty as explained in round 2.



An additional point I would like to bring up.


When my opponent says “So either God is at fault, or Jesus is, which both cannot be so. Therefore we do not even need an explanation to say that this argument is not valid.” This argument is very valid, as we know a Christian is someone that adheres first to Christs teachings. As Christs teachings are what is contained in the new testament, we should adhere to these. And as I have pointed out above, God can make mistakes viz. Jesus did not cast the first stone and in fact cast no stones.


May I add here that the idea of a fallible God is not weird in any sense as can be seen in Acts 13:39 “Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.”(2) and Mark 3:29 “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”(3) Its very clear that God is saying two different things here through the messengers and Jesus/God himself. As such my point that God is fallible stands and my arguments hold.


This fallibility is further evident when we consider that God changed his mind. If you are perfect you have no reason to change your mind. However, Numbers 23:19 “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?”(4) and Exodus 32:14 “So the LORD changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on his people.”(5) reveal a God that contradicts himself and did change his mind. These versus again show that God is clearly fallible.


In this round I have shown that my arguments are not flawed as God is in fact fallible. This supports my round two argument which as such remain unchallenged despite my opponents best efforts. Additionally, I have shown my opponents argument to be flawed as they are not biblically sound in that they rely on the Old Testament and not the teachings of Jesus given in the New Testament.


I now hand the debate back to my opponent.


(1) http://www.verbix.com...


(2) http://biblehub.com...


(3) http://biblehub.com...


(4) http://biblehub.com...


(5) http://biblehub.com...

CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

First let me deal with the what is murder question. My opponent says “Murder is not as you defined. Murder is commonly defined as unlawfully killing someone” my opponent usesunlawfully I used deliberately. If this is important please explain further, I would think the killing part is more important as killing actually refers to the death of someone.

An assertion. This isn't intrinsically true and you have not proved anything here.

Your second paragraph is nonsensical. Killing =/= murder, let me clarify this;

Killing is the act of taking a life. Murder is the act of unlawfully taking a life. The difference is that one is permitted, the former. For example, whenever a soldier kills somebody in a warzone, he not arrested in his country of origin. He is permitted to do so, therefore taking the definition of murder, which according to the Crown Prosecution Service as including[1]:


  • "unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing)"
It is why self-defence isn't legally redarded as murder, but you have still taken a life. The point in regards to this debate was that Exodus 20:3, is that whether you agree with this or not, Hebrews thought the same thing, and had the same idea. The word for killing, as I said beforehand is "ratsakh" with "mut" for murder[2]. Clearly, whether you are in agreement does not matter. What does is that Hebrew has this idea, and in Exodus 20:3, it explicitly translates to "thou shalt not commit murder".

The KJV translation is incorrect. The original Hebrew does translate to "murder", not "kill". They are different things, as one is done outside of the law and consists of war, self-defence, etc. The other is unlawful, malevolent, and outlawed by God.

Or, if they were the same, this is a point you did not adress, then God would be infallible. God has caused deaths, therefore he has killed. You have asserted that because thou shalt not kill, killing is wrong. Therefore, God has wronged. But if God is omnipotent, then he cannot, therefore the only reasonable explanation was that God somehow took a life without going against is morality.

And your arguments to not fit into this, whereas what I have argued thoroughly does. God did not commit the act of "mut", the Hebrew for murder, but rather "ratsakh", killing. Because he took a life lawfully, and all the men he made kill others did it lawfully too. Therefore, if it is in accordance with God's law, which only argues against murder, then one is able to kill lawfully, under the right circumstane

At this point lets return to my example of Jesus not casting the first stone. If we follow my opponents logic we see that we do not reach the same conclusion that God is perfect if Jesus is equal to God. Jesus would not cast the stone. However, if Jesus is equal to God then he would have followed the laws of the old testament. As God is Jesus then God made a mistake and my opponents arguments is defeated.

This is a large assertion, which is a direct challenge on the status quo. This is a bold statement, in short. Firstly, you just asserted what God and Jesus would do, as your premises, without syllogistic proof. John 8:58, states:

"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."

John 10:30-31:


"I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."

John 1-:38-39:


"The Father is in me, and I in him. Therefore they sought again to take him."

1 Timothy 3:16:


"God was made manifest in the flesh."

As I said earlier, you just challenged the status quo. There is biblical evidence that God=/=Jesus. Your BOP if you wan to withhold this, is to disprove the Bible, and that you are right. After all, you did just assert what God and Jesus would do. To say Jesus wouldn't cast stones, but imply God would, and to say God is flawed is also a challenge of the status quo. God's omnipotence is something that is obviously in the status quo, and biblical proof will be given if you do request it, so to say he is not once again is challenging what is commonly accepted.


Your BOP is to prove that God would stone her, God is flawed, Jesus is higher than God and Jesus is not God. Until you meet this BOP, we can only accept what is in the status quo and your arguments are automatically negated.

Jesus not actually casting stones does not mean anything. I can just now say, let he who is 14 kill iamanatheistandthisiswhy, and because I wouldn't, it doesn't mean I am not 14.

Jesus, as he commonly did, used this as a metaphor for the idea of judgdement. You inferred this in your first round. To now say he actually meant this not only generates a burden for you to prove this statement, but how it does not contradict what was already written.

Frankly, it is ludicrous to make any conclusions because Jesus didn't throw the stone. Maybe he didn't want to, maybe it was a metaphor, maybe he didn't include himself, but any conclusions need to be sourced and if not any conclusion once again is a naive assertion.

You then go on to state that because God made a contradiction he is flawed. Once again, you have to realise that an omnipotent God is nto bound by the laws of logic. Without going into the omnipotence paradox see it simply as that a God who is truly transcendent an omnipotent can contradict himself and it is still viable. He can both be and not be, and do and not do synchronosly. To challenge this, you need to prove that omnipotence does not mean that he can break the laws of logic. Which is impossible, as by definition it does. God is omnipotent in the status quo, and you have to prove that he is not or else he cannot be at a flaw.

I do not need to do much. My arguments and rebuttal based on the killing/murder dispute is on my side, therefore as it was not disputed, I hold the victory here. Therefore, if it is not illegal, it can theoretically be done. The issue with God/Jesus was not a fulfilled BOP by iamanatheist and therefore needs to be met or else the status quo, as happens in formal debate, must stand.

iamanatheist has relied on assertion, upon asserion, upon assumption, upon assertion about the nature of God, Jesus, omnipotence, murder and killing and I urge the floor to vote on the side of the opposition.

Thank you.

Sources:

[1] http://www.cps.gov.uk...
[2] http://www.levitt.com...

Debate Round No. 3
iamanatheistandthisiswhy

Pro


Thanks to my opponent for a fun debate.


Additionally, I would like to thank you for elaborating on the murder versus killing confusion in the previous round. You are right I did make a grounded assertion (it was not unfounded), it was based on simple definitions which I mentioned in round 2 and your definitions in round 3. Thats is it is killing.


Now I believe I understand your concept of the difference between murder and killing now. Although It still does not help you case. As when your source cited states "Since man is made in the image of God, his life is infinitely precious — only God Himself has the right to give and take life." That means only God has the right to apply the death penalty or kill or murder. All of these involve the simple concept of taking a life, which according to your source only God should be able to do. As such your argument stands defeated using your own source.


This means all my arguments remain uncontested yet again.



Further I do not think my opponent understand my arguments, as large swaths of it have been dropped.


I have stated this before and I will reiterate it here my arguments do not require omnipotence. Additionally, I have shown God can be fallible using verses from the Bible.

Additionally, my opponent makes the following false statements.



My opponent says "There is biblical evidence that God=/=Jesus." This disregards the biblical evidence of the trinity in Matthew 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”, which is a central tenant of Christianity. Additionally, it disregards Jesus own words in John 8:58 ““Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”” which show Jesus is equal to God.



Another fallacious statement my opponent made was that "You then go on to state that because God made a contradiction he is flawed. Once again, you have to realise that an omnipotent God is nto bound by the laws of logic." What? If God is not bound by logic, then God is bound by the fact that god is not bound by logic and you have a paradox. So your assumption is fallacious as it is a paradox and is unable to help you argument.



Remember, as I have stated before in my arguments I do not require a omnipotent God and have shown that a fallible God is rational according to the Bible. This remember is an argument you have failed to negate.



In this debate I have shown that my opponent has to disregard Christianity for his arguments to work in so much that he has to ignore the trinity and that god and Jesus are one and the same. Additionally, my opponents sources actually prove my case and as such all my arguments stand unscathed.


Lastly, my opponent says my arguments rest on assertions that are baseless. If you read through the debate you will see all my so called “baseless” assertions are backed by Biblical evidence. As such I am not sure why opponent is saying this when clearly these are very well grounded assertions.



I hope the voters on this debate can follow the rational conclusions and vote Pro on this resolution.

CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

Now I believe I understand your concept of the difference between murder and killing now. Although It still does not help you case. As when your source cited states "Since man is made in the image of God, his life is infinitely precious — only God Himself has the right to give and take life." That means only God has the right to apply the death penalty or kill or murder. All of these involve the simple concept of taking a life, which according to your source only God should be able to do. As such your argument stands defeated using your own source.

Well, no. The source was for the Hebrew, in which I had two and had verfied the correctness. What you underlined is once again just an assrtion. Man being made in the image of God does nothing to instrinsically mean his life is infinitely precious. This needs to by syllogistically or factually proved, or else it is a non sequitur. After all, image of God could be interpreted as a lesser form of God, and if God is infinitely precious therefore humans must be less.


And even so, an infinitely precious life has no inherent connotation to therefore cannot have his life taken from. After all, if God's value = infinite, man's value = infinite then you have to fulfill the BOP to say somehow God only has this right, because syllogistically your case is the opposite.

The Bible states, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." - Isiah 64:6

We are all, biblically flawed and therefore cannot be on the same terms of God. My point is that my source did absolutely nothing to damage my stance as the Hebrew was the focus, my other source affirmed this and this statement is false. To say that because it is false, my whole source is, is the fallacy of the composition.

And I made a semantic error when I wrote, there is evidence God =/= Jesus. I meant to infer that God = Jesus, but the context should have made that obvious. After all, it was a rebuttal, I had evidence about God = Jesus and it was semantically phrased to show antipathy against the said point. Jesus is equal to God, which is a direct contradiction of your argument, as you claimed the opposite.

What? If God is not bound by logic, then God is bound by the fact that god is not bound by logic and you have a paradox. So your assumption is fallacious as it is a paradox and is unable to help you argument.

The fact that God is unbound from logic is a paradox? In what way? I mean, until this is met it is a non sequitur. And if you accept the biblical evidence I provided above of God's omnipotence, therefore whether we understand it or not, God must be omnipotent, simply because omnipotent requires the ability to do everything.


Omnipotence includes the ability to be paradoxical and not paradoxical. Omnipotence, by very definition includes the ability to be paradoxical yet still all-powerful. By definition it includes the ability to be outside of any known or unknown paradigm. You argument was a repetition of your previous argument, and in order for my position to be negated, the idea of omnipotence must be challenged, which you did not.

Remember, as I have stated before in my arguments I do not require a omnipotent God and have shown that a fallible God is rational according to the Bible. This remember is an argument you have failed to negate.

If God is fallible, his rules and laws can be, therefre he does not hold any objective authority which means that a Christian who accepts this can fully believe in the death penalty. To say God can be flawed is to degrade your entire argument, and truly brings out the effect that the No True Scotsman fallacy has. I am not debating with that in mind, but if God is flawed, therefore there is a chance not following him is actually the right thing to do. Once this chance exists, bu the definition of "can", a Christian "is able to" believe in the death penalty, especially if he thinks God is wrong about it and he is right.


If God can be wrong, then a Christian could think God is wrong, as it is a likelihood, then believe in the death penalty. Nothing is stopping this from being the case which is the issue of placing fallibility on God.

I urge the voters to side with the opposition. The opposition has left my points standing strongly about how the Bible does not refer to killing, but murder and by affirming the fallibility of God he has failed. He himself argued against his own stance by saying God = Jesus, as if this is the case then what would Jesus do is irrelevant, as well as in regards to that, asserting what God and Jesus would do, and fallaciously appealing to the authority of my source by asserting something without biblical evidence.

I ask the floor to think carefully, vote responsibly, vote fairly, i.e, side with Con.

I thank iamatheistandthisiswhy for this engaging debate however.

Sources:

As before.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
This one's next on my list, guys. I'll have a vote up before the deadline.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
You come up,with sme pretty interesting resolutions IAAA!
*reading*
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@CJKAllstar: Thanks for a great debate. I truly enjoyed doing something counter to what I would normally debate. You are a formidable opponent and it was a great challenge.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@ Logical_Thinker: The point of the debate is to be able to use this fallacy. In fact the title is set up indicating this. You can read that in the first round where I explicitly state that I will be using it.
Posted by Logical_Thinker 2 years ago
Logical_Thinker
Pro is using the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Posted by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
Considering the number of times that the Bible advocates the death penalty, this should be an easy one for Con.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
hmmm....interesting.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
@Rangar: Glad you agree. Its something that I keep noticing as well and its really a weak argument.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
I agree with the shared BoP rule. I've seen too many missing RFD votes citing "BOP!" instead of a reason for why the BoP was not hit.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
iamanatheistandthisiswhyCJKAllstar
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: There were a lot of arguments that kept getting tossed back and forth in this debate that either had little relevance to the debate or were interpreted so differently by the two debaters that I can't help but be confused as to their meaning within the debate. The one thing I have to solidly grab onto is the semantic question of murder versus killing, which I don't think Pro effectively tackles. Just by saying that there is to believe that that right is only afforded to God doesn't mean that that's the case, nor does it mean that a reasonable interpretation of the Bible couldn't support killing. So long as I don't see a definitive reason why all killing should be equated with murder, or why the Bible reveals an obvious problem with killing, I can't help but side with Con. I think there's reason to view the death penalty is a form of murder, but that's never argued effectively.
Vote Placed by Burncastle 2 years ago
Burncastle
iamanatheistandthisiswhyCJKAllstar
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: The fact that the Bible explicitly sanctions the death penalty is pretty much a knock out against Pro. I would agree that there are many things in the Bible that are prone to interpretation, but the death penalty is not one of them. I was curious as to how the "murder vs killing" aspect was going to be discussed, and I believe that Con clearly demonstrated that "murder" does not include the death penalty. Pro lost when he brought up Exodus; he could have argued that a true Christian is someone who ONLY follows the teachings of Jesus (NT), but instead decided to include the OT.