The Instigator
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
historybuff1861
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Pro should have won the following debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 18002
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

truthseeker613

Pro

Pro should have won the following debate:

http://www.debate.org...

No semantics arguments.

1st round for acceptance only.

My main argument (but not my only one) will be based on the last argument made. See end R4a.

My argument is simple, This last argument was 100% dropped by con.
historybuff1861

Con

I accept this strange argument but you never know how it will turn out good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Pro

I apologize to anyone who does not like this debate, I will stop posting such debates. But since this one has already been accepted I will precede.

I thank History buff for accepting this debate. Welcome to the site. I hope that we have an enlightening debate.

I would like to open with my main argument which is based on pros last argument, mid/end of pros turn in R4.

In this argument pro cited 3 prophesies that were fulfilled.

Con instead of arguing that these were not fulfilment of the prophesy, dropped the argument.

On the basis of this, I argue pro should have won the debate.

The voters as well as con apparently did not read the entire argument and thus it was ignored.

There by pro wrongfully losing.

One voter even seems to have admitted that he didn't read the whole thing. Why he voted is beyond me.

It is my purpose in this debate to show that pro should have won, and right that which is wrong.

I now turn the debate over to my opponent.
historybuff1861

Con

historybuff1861 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Pro

I didn't expect this debate to go so long so I don't know if I'll have a chance to finish before I get too busy.

Next, is the 2nd last argument, entitled revelation at Sinai:

I will past this part of the argument here:

Pro: R2:
"Evidence of "revelation at Sinai" is as following: hundreds of thousands observed it and communicated it to others. Through communication the story does not die with the death of the generation that observed it, rather it is trans generational it remains being passed down generation to generation by millions of people from millions of people to millions of people in a continuous chain for over 2000 years. The message has been that your ancestors experienced along with hundreds of thousands of other people the revelation of god, and the giving of the bible. (The Jews are not the only one with the tradition of the revelation, the Muslims and Christians have accepted the revelation at Sinai. So they have also been passing it down, making it billions.)."

con R2:
"My opponent's last piece of "evidence" is that a lot of people believe something is true. I will ask my opponent not to commit the fallacy of the argument from popularity and actually bring real evidence of his religion to this debate."

Pro R3 :
"I am afraid I have been misunderstood I am not stupid enough to use numbers as evidence if that were so Christianity and Islam would be much stronger than Judaism. The evidence is experiential the message being passed from, by, and to millions is not one of belief rather one of experience. I hope I have sufficiently clarified this point. I can elaborate in the next round if necessary."

Con R3:
"This is no different from claiming that a lot of people are Jews. All you are saying is that a lot of people believe that Judaism is the one true religion. Now on to my opponent's alleged examples of miracles performed by god."

Pro R4 :
Many beliefs are based on a few people making a claim and people believing them and more people believing them and so on and so forth. (This may or may not be valid evidence; it is irrelevant to this debate.) In contrast Revelation at Sinai was experienced by hundreds of thousands (perhaps even over one million) of people who told their children who told their children and so on and so forth. What was transmitted was not just belief of a few people's claims. Rather it was a mass testimony of over 600,000 people experiencing an event. Those hundreds of thousands of witnesses testified on a yearly basis what they experienced to their hundreds of thousands of children. What is being transmitted is not just a belief based on a claim by some people. But a national experience of god by hundreds of thousands of witness ancestors, those hundreds of thousands of witnesses themselves gave over testimony of the event that they themselves experienced.
They didn't simply believe it, the 1st generation experienced it. The next generation heard from those 600,000 witnesses who were their parents, ect. This testimony is based on a solid foundation. I apologize for repetition and length it is difficult for me to pinpoint exactly what is bothering my opponent.
Number of believers alone is not enough; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If a belief was started by a claim by a few witnesses that is how strong the claim is no matter how many people believe them. A national experience is not based on a claim by a few people; it is a testimony of a nation experience. I hope I have made myself clear, feedback is appreciated. To summarize the main difference of revelation at Sinai is at its base and beginning. Its base is over 600,000 witnesses, its transmission has been from those 600,000 witnesses to their children in the form of a yearly testimony, and the testimony has been passed down in that way ever since.

Con R4:
"After this my opponent moves on to his main argument, national revelation. My opponent brings no real argument but just makes a very weak argument from popularity. He tries to claim that it is not but this is my opponent's argument. "Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions."

This same argument can of course be made for any religion such as Christianity or Islam or any ideology really like libertarianism or liberalism. This is not new evidence to my opponent's case."

Pro R5:
"Going now to the topic of national revelation: 1st my opponent miss quotes me showing that I was not at all understood he quotes me as such ""Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions."" No. No. and No again I tried drilling this point in last round. It was not "few" people it started with hundreds of thousands (if not over 1,000,000) of witnesses this is what makes Judaism diff. from all other beliefs, all other beliefs fit my opponents quote. My point is that this national revelation was witnessed by hundreds of thousands which is what gives it its credibility this is a main point I've been making."

Con clearly did not read pros argument properly, as evidenced by his complete misrepresentation of it in the form misquoting pro in R4.

Con keeps making the same point over and over ignoring pros attempts to correct his misunderstanding.
historybuff1861

Con

First of all can you please get into specifics in this debate of the prophesies I do not want to have to keep flipping back and forth between the two page.

You yourself said that the revelation at Sinai was accepted by all three major monotheistic religions. So how exactly does this strengthen your point and what con was trying to say(I think) was that just because something is passed on does not mean that it is true. Now I do not support this claim but your evidence is still not valid because stories are over exaggerated every time someone tells them so a 2000 year old story does not escape that.

(Not part of Debate)
I am just wondering why do you even bother to debate about religion it is called faith in my opinion there is no physical proof but there does not need to be.
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Pro

truthseeker613 forfeited this round.
historybuff1861

Con

historybuff1861 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
truthseeker613

Pro

truthseeker613 forfeited this round.
historybuff1861

Con

I really do not know what else I can say. I said already that things that get passed on from generation to generation can be exagerated extremely. Also the con was acurate in saying that just because a bunch of people say that there ancestors saw something or that there ancestors said they saw something does not make it true.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by historybuff1861 5 years ago
historybuff1861
I am really sorry I was out of town with no internet and I just got back I would still like to do this debate I just thought I would have time friday night before we left but we left right after school so I had no such time.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
historybuff1861. 2 hours left.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
@ Double R

Your arguments were very helpful. I learned a ton about the importance of clarity. Thank you.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Or Pro was just obstinate in thinking that he should have won. Vanity is not a sign of victory...
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I guess my arguments weren't good enough for him.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Pro, you're willing to bring the quality of this site down just because of a few losses?
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
This debate should be removed. You lost; it happens. Sometimes members who judge things are weird about how they do it. This has happened to me as well. Please abstain from posting debates of this nature in the future, it is unbecoming.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
truthseeker613historybuff1861Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's counters were exceptionally weak. Pro provided an argument, and while it wasn't tremendous, it was by far superior to Con's.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
truthseeker613historybuff1861Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ibbi
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
truthseeker613historybuff1861Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb Microsuck. They FF'd the same amount and PRO actually gave an argument, and should win this debate. Pro obviously tried in this debate, hence conduct.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
truthseeker613historybuff1861Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited