Non-Christian philosophy vs Christian philosophy
Debate Rounds (4)
All rounds can be used for arguments, rebuttals, cross examination etc.
I will accept the debate. My opponent has stated that non-Christian philosophy is irrational. He therefore must prove that all forms of views, other than those of Christian, are inherently flawed and irrational, and inferior to Christian philosophy. I remind him that, for his premise to be true, all other thought must be proven faulty and inferior. Every. Last. One.
I grant my opponent the honour of first argument.
(I apologize for, at least in preview, what appears to be a dramatic change in taxt size. I am not sure how to correct this.)
Take note that, upon request, my opponent refused to back up their stance, and differed to me to make an argument disproving them, in effect, avoiding their burden of proof. At least for a round. As the Pro, it is my opponents duty to make an argument, and as Con, it is my duty to negate it. With no argument to build off of, there is not much I can do in the way of negation. Therefore, I would request that this round be viewed as one of refusal to argue on the part of my opponent.
My opponent has made requests of me that are irrelevant to the debate in it's current form. As it stands, the resolution is one of "Non-Christian philosophy is inferior". Proving or disproving the nature of reality and truth is, at this point in time, entirely irrelevant to confirming or denying the resolution. Rather than deal with irrelevancy, I will make my argument against the resolution. If my opponent feels their requests have relevancy, I invite them to explain in further detail the relevancy of their requests. Preferably in the form of an actual argument.
"Non-Christian philosophy is irrational. It reduces to skepticism and absurdity. It can't give a rational foundation for anything."
Since irrationality is merely the lack of rationality, let us examine the definition of what it is to be rational. Rationality is defined as follows:
1. The state or quality of being rational or logical.
2. The possession or utilization of reason or logic.
3. A reasonable or logical opinion.
Given then that being rational is a synonym for being logical, therefore any claim of "rationality" is an appeal to the system of logic. What is rational is what coincides with logical, or correct, reasoning.
Now, my opponent has yet to give any reason as to why Christian philosophy is superior (I can assume, but not conform, it is because they view it as being rational). Therefore, I have no real criteria for which I may debate other forms of thought.
In order to have a logical argument, one must be able to construct a both valid and sound argument. Validity being defined as when an argument's "...conclusion is entailed by its premises", and sound being defined as when "All of its premises are true." I would like to remind my opponent that these are the criteria by which he must judge differing belief systems.
As I said in the beginning, my opponent seems to be avoiding his burden of proof. Demonstrate how Christian philosophy is superior to everything else, and how every other form of belief is inferior and illogical, or you have no argument. It is not my job to construct your argument. Take ownership of your burden of proof.
Hezekiah_Ahaz forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeit the round. Vote Con.
Hezekiah_Ahaz forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeit the round. That is all there is to this debate. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never provided an argument in defense of the resolution (as was his burden as instigator AND Pro). Thus, arguments go to Con by default as the resolution has not been upheld. Sources to Con for using sources, though admittedly only for definitions, and conduct for Pro's refusal to advance an argument and forfeits.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.