The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Pick your own debate - 1A

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,604 times Debate No: 7305
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (11)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

In the true spirit of copying people, I have decided to start my own "pick your own" debate series. If you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't:

ROUND 1: This obviously includes my opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics he wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subject. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc.

ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three positions my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate.

*NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth.

*NOTE* - The "1A" notation is for purely for browsing purposes.

If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
rougeagent21

Con

-There is Biblical Evidence for Young Earth Creationism (YEC) ==PRO==

-The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC ==CON==

-Water boarding is a just method of gaining information from terrorists ==PRO==

Is that diverse enough?
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this open debate, and I hope we have a good one!

I will be targeting the first resolution, as I haven't really debated that in...well ever. I affirm the resolution, there ISN'T any Biblical evidence for YEC, but rather OEC (Old Earth Creationism).

=====
Arguments
=====

P1. The Bible is true.
P2. Thus, what it says about reality must be true.
P3. Scientific evidence points to Earth's age as being 4.54 billion years, and that evolution is true.
P4. Thus, the Bible agrees with these facts.
C1. Ergo, YEC has no Biblical Evidence.

=====
Conclusion
=====

This is all for now. I have spelled out my argument in a crappy syllogism, and it should allow my opponent to have many places to attack. I can't wait.
rougeagent21

Con

Well, I was hoping that my opponent would not attack himself, as that takes the fun away from me. I will now destroy his "crappy syllogism."

--HIS FIRST POINT--
This is irrelevant to the debate. We are not debating the truthfulness of the Bible, simply if there is or is not BIBLICAL evidence for YEC.

--HIS SECOND POINT--
Again, this is irrelevant. Please stay on-topic.

--HIS THIRD POINT--
IRRELEVANT! All evidence must be taken FROM THE BIBLE.

--HIS FOURTH POINT--
In this debate, we are only looking to what the Bible says. NOTHING ELSE.

--HIS CONCLUSION--
He only says here that the resolution is true.

{[==MY CASE==]}

-Observation 1-
I would first like to point my opponent back to the resolution. We are not debating the truth value of the Bible, but BIBLICAL EVIDENCE. ALL evidence MUST BE TAKEN FROM THE BIBLE.

-Evidence-
Man was created four days after the first day. The first day was roughly 4,000 years ago. "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." -Genesis 1:1, and 1:5.

How do we know the Earth has been around for about 4,000 years you ask? Simple. The Bible tells us. There are many genealogies throughout the Bible. Here are a few:
Genesis 5 Adam – Noah
Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham
Abraham to Moses is then counted
Moses to Judges then
Judges to Kings then
Historical timelines.

Here is a website that details it out for you if you want to read it:
http://www.abiblestudy.com...

So, if you count, this totals to be around 4,000 years, allowing for different calendar translations. With this evidence, we can clearly see that the Bible supports YEC. Please vote NEG. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

=====
Premise 1-4
=====

My opponent attempts to throw out my argument on the sole reason that this debate is concerned with Biblical evidence only. It is important to lay out the premises so they flow together logically. Since I am arguing the Bible is true, then it must be so that whatever it says inside of it must correlate accurately with reality. Since I am arguing that evidence shows the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, it must be true that the Bible says the Earth is 4.54 billion years old (OEC).

This is important, because there are varying interpretations of the Bible. However, only one of them can be right, so by what modicum do we choose? I argue that since the Bible needs to reflect reality, then what it says about it must be true. If reality says the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, then the correct interpretation of the Bible is OEC.

=====
Opponent's evidence of YEC
=====

The first verse can be interpreted metaphorically. My opponent sees it as 6 literal days. I see the term "days" as a metaphorical term. The reason my interpretation should be held over his is because REALITY shows that the Earth IS 4.54 BYA - therefore OEC is correct, and not YEC.

=====
Earth is 4000 years old
=====

The King Clone creosote bush is the oldest living Creosote bushy in existence[1]. Estimated to be 11,700 years old, it's one of the the oldest living thing in the world. If the world is only 4000 years old, how the heck did this bush survive?

Posidonia oceanica is a type of seagrass found in the Mediterranean. In 2006, a huge colonal colony was found, and was estimated to be 100,000 years old[2]. Again, how the heck is the world only 4000 years old?

There are many more examples, but these two will be enough to carry my argument.

=====
Conclusion
=====

My opponent and I have different interpretations of the Bible. The only way to find the correct one is to see which one is reconcilable with science. The science is behind OEC, not YEC. Therefore, vote PRO.

---References---
1. http://www.hcn.org...
2. http://www.ibiza-spotlight.com...
rougeagent21

Con

Well, this is turning into an enjoyable debate. Thank you opponent for keeping up with the postings. That is unfortunately becoming rare on this site. Lets begin. I will first address my opponent's evidence, and then my own.

His entire argument is based on the fact that the Bible reflects reality. Again, please stay true to the resolution. You are straying from it. He claims his evidence is so old. The debate of radiometric dating is for another round. We are debating on EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. NONE of my opponent's evidence is relevant. He says that the Bible reflects reality, but he does not show you where in the Bible it says it. He must do this in order for his evidence to become valid. On to my case.

His only attack is that my interpretation is faulty. His only defense of this is that "reality shows" the Earth to be 4.54 BYA. Again, please keep your evidence relevant. If you want to say that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. Where in the Bible does it specifically support OEC? My opponent claimed in the second round that the Bible is true. Why would it not be written with truth then? Why is THIS part of it not true? If anything else was meant, that is what it would have said. Please see specifically :"...there was day, and there was night, and that was the first day." This is explicit content from the Bible. Day, night, one day. What is confusing about this?

Having supported my side, I must demand this of my opponent: If you want to claim that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE. If you cannot cite your finding, then you are just making rash claims. You evidence only becomes valid in this debate if you can show me the verses IN THE BIBLE. Then, and only then, will I accept your claims.
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Pro

I applaud my opponent for his timely response - onto the debate!

=====
Where in the Bible does it say it is true?
=====

So my opponent's only rebuttal is to ask me one question: where in the Bible does it purport itself to say it's true? He demands that I must "show the claim [in the Bible] that the Bible reflect reality".

Really? Is this really one of your responses? So I simply have to a cite a verse declaring the accurate nature of the Bible's content? This basically entails that I find verses proclaiming the Bible is infallible and inerrant[1]. I'd think it be very troubling for Christians to find no verse affirming that what the Bible says is true.

It's obvious that the Bible says it reflects reality. It purports to be the "word of God", who is the divine creator of the universe. If there was a divine creator (according to Biblical evidence), then he would've created the universe and the world (according to Biblical evidence). If independent evidence from outside the Bible show the world is old, then the correct interpretation of the Bible is that it is OLD. Speaking strictly in biblical terms, this is easy to deduce.

=====
Usage of the word "day" in Genesis
=====

The Hebrew word "yom" was translated into day, as seen in Genesis. However, "yom" can also be interpreted as millions or billions of years - basically an indefinitley long period. How do we tell which one (translation is always tricky)? Simple - look at the context and meaning. My interpretation is supported by the fact that the Bible is infallible and inerrant and thus must reflect reality. Since reality says the Earth is old, the "yom" must mean the same.

For example, look at the genealogy my opponent uses in an earlier round. He cites this for the reason why the Earth is around 4000 years. However, the Hebrew words for father and son, 'ab and ben respectively, can also mean "forefather" or "descendant". So the chronology my opponent gives is most likely several "snapshots" of important figures to give a better image of the genealogy. It's liking going through your own family tree, and highlighting important people-events.

=====
Conclusion
=====

I have refuted my opponent's interpretation, which is itself baseless. We two have differing interpretations, but mine is backed up by reality. What is his?

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
rougeagent21

Con

OK, so this debate comes down to differing interpretations of the Bible. Both sides have been presented, and I will show you how only one can be correct. Due to this simple process, this round will be kept short, and to-the-point.

First off, my opponent misinterprets my request of him. I did not ask where in the Bible did it say that it was true, as he would have you believe. (Please see above rounds) I asked him a very blatant question, which I will address shortly.

My opponent is a very sly one. He uses a tricky sidestep maneuver that I see often when debating this topic. Please refer to my quote from round 3 :" I must demand this of my opponent: If you want to claim that the Bible reflects reality, SHOW ME WHERE. GIVE ME THE EVIDENCE. If you cannot cite your finding, then you are just making rash claims. You evidence only becomes valid in this debate if you can show me the verses IN THE BIBLE. Then, and only then, will I accept your claims."

This is EXTREMELY important to this debate. Again, please stay true to the resolution. We are not debating the validity of the Bible, but whether or not it supports YEC. I have presented my interpretation, and validated it with explicit verses from the Bible. My opponent only can say why he thinks that I mis-interpreted them. HE SHOWS NO EVIDENCE. He cites no verses, only claiming that the Bible reflects reality. While this may be the case, he must show where in the Bible it supports OEC. He cannot, as it does not. The debate for radiometric dating is for another time. This debate is purely based on evidence FOUND IN THE BIBLE.

There is Biblical Evidence for Young Earth Creationism.
Affirmed.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Almost everyone has a slightly different translation of the Bible. I was simply trying to show you why I think mine is correct. Btw Skeptic I thought you were atheist?

"P1. The Bible is true.
P2. Thus, what it says about reality must be true."

Hmmm, really?
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Perhaps your interpretation (no pun intended) of the resolution is literally correct (again, no pun intended), but I'm sure you know what he meant. He didn't mean to say he HAD an interpretation, but rather that he had the CORRECT interpretation.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
That's what I'm saying. You logically derived OEC by interpreting scripture as metaphor. He logically derived YEC by interpreting scripture literally. If the resolution was, "YEC is the only correct interpretation of Gensis," then Con would have had more burden.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"All Con has to do is show that YEC can be logically derived from scripture. That's all. Even if Pro was able to show that OEC can also be logically derived from scripture, it does not refute Con."

So you're saying YEC and OEC can be both logically derived from scripture? Um, Law of Non-Contradiction anyone?

That said, what's wrong with going outside? If I argued successfully that interpretations of scripture must reflect reality (which CON hasn't refuted), then my position is affirmed. As it stands, the texts could have been literal or metaphorical. PARTS of the Bible can be literal or metaphorical. By what ruling stick do we decide it's all metaphorical or all literal? CON hasn't shown a good reason for why the Bible must be solely interpreted as literal.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
It's coming from the standpoint of a high school debater. It does in fact destroy the educational value of a debate when one side chooses to be vague. Why? Because then the other side doesn't know what to attack! It's simple logic, and a common argument against rather abusive opponents in the world of debate. The resolution at hand was poorly worded, on purpose, in order to simply throw the "IRRELEVANT" argument out there, as opposed to actual argumentation.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Hmm, maybe you would like to debate this? You seem to think that this was not at all educational.

By the way, here is the actual definition of "DEBATE."

"A formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers."
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
No, no. Not a reason to continue doing it. The primary reason for debate's existence is education, and when you choose to vaguely define things for the sake of winning, you harm that key principle.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Thanks for the RFV. The would needs more people like you...
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Tie

Spelling and Grammar - Tie

Convincing Argument - Con - I think Pro may have chosen a loaded resolution. All Con has to do is show that YEC can be logically derived from scripture. That's all. Even if Pro was able to show that OEC can also be logically derived from scripture, it does not refute Con. Therefore, the resolution remained affirmed.

Reliable Sources - Tie
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
I did this in the first "debating" round ;)
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 8 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
TheSkepticrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05