The Instigator
Hezekiah_Ahaz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The_Chaos_Heart
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Non-Christian philosophy vs Christian philosophy

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 1 vote the winner is...
The_Chaos_Heart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,711 times Debate No: 23981
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

Non-Christian philosophy is irrational. It reduces to skepticism and absurdity. It can't give a rational foundation for anything.

All rounds can be used for arguments, rebuttals, cross examination etc.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

Quite simple. I'll let my opponent expose himself. I would like know to what my opponent thinks truth is. if he says truth is whatever reflects reality, then I would to know how he knows reality is real. My objection is that he won't be able to. We will see that best he will be able to come with is circular answers and maybe even circular non-answers. I'm challenge my opponent to give a rational foundation for knowledge. For example, one that's not based on speculation or his imagination.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

(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]:

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[2] is a synonym for being logical[3], 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"[4], and sound being defined as when "All of its premises are true."[5] 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.
Debate Round No. 2
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

Hezekiah_Ahaz forfeited this round.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

My opponent has forfeit the round. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Hezekiah_Ahaz

Pro

Hezekiah_Ahaz forfeited this round.
The_Chaos_Heart

Con

My opponent has forfeit the round. That is all there is to this debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
My opponent's account is no longer active. Therefore they are no longer capable of completing this debate. I would request this be viewed as an auto-loss for them. Vote Con (when the time comes).
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
I apologize for my misspelling of the word "text" in my opening sentence. It was a last minute addition, and I did not check for spelling errors. Forgive me.
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 4 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
See what's out there.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
Then.....why are you making them?
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 4 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
I'm not here to win debates. In fact, I don't even like these kinds of debates.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
You my friend suck at debating and are a jerk.

Argument for suckiness

P1: All those who lose 6 debates in a row suck at debating.
P2: Hezekiah_Ahaz lost 6 debates in a row.
C: Therefore: Hezekiah_Ahaz sucks a debating.

Argument for being a Jerk

P1: All those who discriminate against people of lower age are jerks.
P2: Hezekiah_Ahaz did just that.
C: Therefore: Hezekiah_Ahaz is a jerk.

You sir are owned!

(If this is considered trolling then someone of high credibility on this site tell me so and I will stop. However, if not then this still stands!)
Posted by Hezekiah_Ahaz 4 years ago
Hezekiah_Ahaz
No, 21.
Posted by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
Forgive me, I am still new to this site. If I take time figuring some things out, my apologies. That said, I accept.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
He's probably got the age limit at 18. Blahh Whata kill-joy. :/
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Damn...I really wanted to debate this one. Oh well, I guess you can't accept them all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Hezekiah_AhazThe_Chaos_HeartTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
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.