The Instigator
LogicalLunatic
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Kc1999
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

RESOLVED: Christianity is Beneficial to the Individual Man

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Kc1999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,419 times Debate No: 59503
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (4)

 

LogicalLunatic

Pro

At the last second my opponent in the Tournament contacted me on DDO, with an idea for a topic. I would prefer to debate something else, but as this is pretty much the last second...okay. This is what we will debate. I'm assuming that since my opponent contacted me on this Site, he wants for the Debate to take place on this Site. I hope that this doesn't violate any rules.
So, without any further delay...

First Round is for Acceptance. Burden of Proof is on Pro, though I usually prefer to share the BoP with my opponent in my debates. In the last round no new arguments will be presented by either side; rebuttals only.
If these rules are satisfactory to my opponent, I wait for him to accept.
Kc1999

Con

My first debate compeitition. Good luck all. Have fun!
Debate Round No. 1
LogicalLunatic

Pro

Preamble:
Though I am aware that saying this will make me appear to be complaining and/or making excuses (which I apologize for), I feel the need to inform both my opponent and all spectators that I am typing my debate arguments (or at least the ones to this Round) on a Kindle Fire, which possesses tiny touch screen buttons, making it noticeably more difficult to type than if I were using a laptop with a proper keyboard. This factor may impose a limit on how much material I insert into this and probably all future rounds of this debate, possibly lowering the quality of the case which I am making or attempting to make for the duration of this debate. Expect some spelling errors as well, which probably would not be present were I able to use a laptop with a proper keyboard.
That having been said, I will dwell no further on this issue during this debate.

WHY CHRISTIANITY IS BENEFICIAL TO THE INDIVIDUAL MAN
By C. E. Turner, AKA "LogicalLunatic"

(0). Further Clarification on the Nature of this Debate:
The debate's title uses the word "Man". Unless my opponent objects, there will be a general consensus that "Man" (as it is used in this context) is a generic term for human beings, not exclusively adult males of the human species. Also, "Christianity" will be defined as "True Christianity", which includes the following characteristics:
1. Saving Knowledge of Jesus Christ, which causes a person to repent of their sins and accept the Biblical "gift of salvation", which saves a person from Help and allows them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (or at least according to generally accepted Christian Doctrine).
2. A "Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ". This involves Sanctification, regular prayer to God, reading the Bible in order to "Hear from God", and "meditating" on the Words of the Bible.

Here are some definitions of the terms described above:
A. Definition and Explanation of "Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ"
http://www.christinyou.net...
B. Definition and Explanation of "Sanctification" as the term is used in mainstream Christian Teachings http://www.gotquestions.org...

I thank my opponent for accepting these conditions. Even though he may disagree with these definitions, they are necessary to avoid "resolution sniping" and to make sure my opponent doesn't win automatically by pointing out one person who didn't benefit in any way from calling themselves a Christian.
All this having been stated, I will begin the Debate by posting my series of arguments in favor of the Debate Resolution at hand.

(1). Foundational Argument 1:
If Christianity is true, and receiving a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and accepting God's Gift of Salvation can allow a person to avoid Hell (a place of misery and despair) and enter and reside within Heaven (a place of joy and happiness), then Christianity is undoubtedly beneficial to all who are Christian.
This would cause me to win the Debate automatically...if Christianity was confirmed without a doubt to be the true religion. Then again, my opponent may quite possibly make the following set of arguments:
"There are countless religions out there. If Christianity is false and some other religion is true, then being Christian condemned that person's soul to that religion's equivalent to Hell, meaning that in this case Christianity would be infinitely unbeneficial to all who believe in it. If all religions are true and equal (an idea known as 'Religious Pluralism'), then Christianity is no more beneficial than any other religion. If all paths are equal, this means that atheists will also go to Heaven (though they would be wrong about not believing in God/gods), meaning that following a religion in general is not necessarily more beneficial than being atheistic, meaning that Christianity is no more beneficial than any other system of belief."

I will counter the above arguments now:

If another religion (besides Christianity, that is) is exclusively true, and those who don't accept this religion will go to Hell, then in this scenario Christians would be headed to Hell, or whatever that true religion would call it. This is true, but Christianity is probably more likely to be true than other religions. Allow me to explain:
-Muslims believe that in the End Times women will outnumber men 50 to 1. Now, there are more women in the world than there are men. I will concede this much. But a 50:1 sex ratio? We are nowhere near that! In fact, sex-selective abortion in Asia is closing the gap in the Gender Ratio, making the number of men and women more equal. In fact, soon there will be MORE men than women in certain East Asian nations, such as India and China. And since a large percentage of the World's population lives in India and China, these nations having more men than women would largely affect the worldwide sex ratio.
Sources:
http://www.ummah.com...
http://www.raptureforums.com...
(Yes, I am aware that this is a Christian source. However, I am fairly certain that they are not misrepresenting Islamic End Times Prophecies here.)
http://www.womensviewsonnews.org...
http://www.cnn.com...
Also prophesied by Islam is that the Jews will be defeated and exterminated. By Jesus (an ethnic Jew), of all people. Keep in mind that several Islamic nations working together have failed multiple times in the past to defeat that small nation which is Israel. Even if the Arabs did ultimately defeat the Jews, it would not be miraculous, as the worldwide Jewish population is tiny compared to the worldwide Islamic population.
I think that it's fair to conclude that Muslim end-time prophecies probably will not come to pass.

-The Jews believe in a Messiah. Why could this Messiah not be Jesus? He did, after all, fulfill every Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah.
Proof: http://christianity.about.com...

-Buddhism doesn't teach that non-Buddhists will necessarily go to Hell. Therefore, if Buddhism is true, then it still doesn't cause Christianity (which would be a lie in this case) to condemn its followers to Hell.

-Christian end times prophecies have been very accurate, even though they were penned nearly 2000 years ago! Allow me to explain. The Bible prophesies that:
A. The Nation of Israel will exist in the last days. After all, in reference to the events of the last days, the Book of Revelation talks about Israel. Keep in mind that Israel no longer existed when the Book of Revelation was written!
B. There will be a way for people all around the world to see the "Two Witnesses" lying dead. This was unthinkable in the era of the Roman Empire!
I would go on, but to save time I'll just post this link listing the Christian End-Time Prophecies.
http://www.raptureforums.com...
If you look through them, you'll find that many of them have been fulfilled, providing evidence in favor of Christianity.

-As Atheism is not a religion, it does not accept the concepts of Heaven or Hell. Therefore, if atheism is true, it still is not really unbeneficial to believe in Christianity.

I could go on, but it's fair to say that I've covered the religions which a very large percentage of the world's population follow. I think it is fair to say that (true) Christians won't be going to Hell anytime soon. Therefore, in this sense Christianity is not harmful.
But if all religions are true, then Christianity is not really beneficial either, is it? I will cover that question now.

(2). Foundational Argument 2:
Aside from questions of Heaven or Hell, is Christianity beneficial here on Earth? I would say...yes.
Before I continue, I would like to say that it is likely my opponent may use the following argument:
"Christianity beneficial? Are you for real? Christianity has caused the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Catholic-Protestant Wars, the destructive of non-Christian cultures, and on and on. Christianity is clearly unbeneficial to mankind!"
To this I would like to add that the brand of Christianity responsible for such historical atrocities is not the brand of Christianity that is included in this debate's definition of what constitutes Christianity. Thus, people who adhere to the barbaric Medieval "Christianity" are not true Christians. Anyway, I shall continue with my case.
How is Christianity beneficial to the common man? Well...

A. People have been delivered from personal problems through Christianity. Here are a few stories to demonstrate:
http://christianity.about.com...
http://www.christian-faith.com...
http://www.christian-faith.com...
These are just a handful of testimonies from people who have been delivered from alcohol and drugs. Had they never encountered Jesus they might've still been addicts until the day they died.
B. Christianity provides hope. This is undoubtedly true. Even if other religions also provide hope, this does not negate the fact that Christianity provides hope. Hope, even false hope, is beneficial when there is nothing you can do about your situation. Through Christianity people have hope that death is not the end. People have hope that there is something better waiting for them beyond this life. No one can live a happy life without hope; thus, by providing hope, Christianity is beneficial to the Individual man.

I have spent a very long time writing this, and I am happy to say that I have now finished writing this Round's arguments. I await my opponent's response. Thank you.
Kc1999

Con


I would like to thank the opponent for his response to this debate motion. As the Burden of Proof lies on the opponent, I would be presenting one arguments per round as insurance. As the opponent has failed to some other key terms, I would like to take this opportunity to do so.


Beneficial: The quality of having a good outcome from practicing said practices.


For the opponent to win this debate, he has to prove to us that Christianity is beneficial for all individuals that practice it, rather than most. For me to win this debate, I would have to state how many, but not all, practitioners of the Christian religion have detrimental results from practicing Christianity. Before we start to observe the disadvantages of the Christian faith and its morality, we must observe firstly that the opponent bases his arguments on the following postulates:


Postulate 1. That an afterlife exists.


In refuting his first “foundational argument” one would need to observe the following facts; the afterlife is based upon the existence of the soul, and if one can prove that the soul doesn’t exist, then one can prove that the afterlife doesn’t exist.


Firstly, the psychological theory that states that soul exists is called psychological dualism; the problem of the soul’s existence is called the mind-body problem. First elaborated, at least formally, by Descartes, this theory is still under intense debate from neurologists, psychologists and philosophers from all over the world.


Dualism is easily disproven by the mere fact that the brain, in its entirety, creates consciousness; neurons transmit electronic charges of a certain degree to allow the body to sense, feel, touch etc. This in turn creates consciousness; we are not here, however, to refute this postulate. If the opponent chooses to continue to assume, and possibly defend this postulate, then this case will be continued in the next rounds.


Postulate 2. That something being true means it’s more beneficial


This postulate is a very dangerous postulate; for example, “there is a mild economic regression in the United States, which goes in hand accordingly with Ron Paul’s predictions. Therefore, we should follow Ron Paul’s political philosophy” is the logic the opponent is trying to use here. And indeed, I do not deny the fact that some of the Bible’s prophecies were true, but the opponent does the classic correlation-causation mistake. If 1/20x of x is true, therefore x is true is an immediately fallacious argument. Apart from this, we are talking about Christianity’s effect on the mortal man, not the immortal, supernatural (possibly) non-existent world.


Nevertheless, the truth factor in Christianity does not contribute anything to this debate; a prophecy may be true, but that does not mean the faith supports and engages the mortal man.


These postulates establish the basis for a very fallacious argument on the opponent’s side. Indeed, since we are here to talk about Christianity’s benefits towards the individual man, we should not make so many assumptions; these postulates are left unsupported, like a weak pillar to support a very heavy building. Now, I move onto my rebuttal cases:


2R1NRC: On Deaths By Christianity


The opponent seems to sketch some arguments for me; “crusaders, Carlists, Catholics, and Christian Murderers” have killed millions of people. But he then states that these aren’t “true Christian” accordingly to the definition. However, this is a false claim. From the opponent’s two fundamental points of Christianity, he does not say anything about killing. In fact, the Crusaders had a more active spiritual life than many other Christians at the time; during a siege in the First Crusade, they charged into victory after seeing the armies of St. John riding and defeating the “Pagan Mob” They thoroughly believed that recapturing the Holy City was a ticket to heaven, and that God spoke to them. The Crusaders prayed more than an ordinary Cardinal, and the opponent seems to accept that a Cardinal is a “true Christian” in this sense. And yes, Christianity has killed millions of people; from the pogrom mobs of the 13th Century to the Rwandan Massacres, Christianity has been the covert cause of killing all over the world. [2]


Does adopting a murderous state of mind to respect an entirely peaceful prophet help the Christian cause at all? In its entirety, no; the Christian man, driven by faith to kill, is no safer than an Islamic Fundamentalist.


2R2NRC: Statistics, Probability and Miracles


The opponent uses the theory of miracles and cites four personal testimonies; firstly, we have to treat this as if it were a legal case. There are several things that influence a personal testimony. The most important factor effecting testimonial evidence is the memory loss theory; others may be confirmation bias and misattribution. But memory loss is a key intake; a study was done via testimonies of car crash. Studying them, subjects who used the words “crashed” were more likely to say that the windows broke than subjects who used the word “bumped” or “smashed” Take the memory curve theory into account:



From a legal perspective; the larger the phenomenon, the more testimonies is needed. Why is this? Say you flip a coin; theoretically, there should be a 50-50 balance between heads and tails. However, there are in some cases that one would get an imperfect balance; for example, when one flips the coin 24 times and receives 18 heads and 6 tails, this is called an outlier. But if we flip the coins 500 times, this would give us what we call “theoretical equilibrium” in which the theoretical expectation is reached.


Statistically, for Christianity to have delivered, in a divine manner, many from impending crises, millions of testimonies; valid, real, and confirmation bias free testimonies. In fact, take a look at this following picture:



This graph demonstrates a key thing; that people are leaving Christianity for the radical “a-word” alternative; atheism. 20% of the US public, a figure still growing, has become unsatisfied with religion and chose to say “I have no religion” Atheism is on the rise; atheism (including Buddhism, a non-theistic religion) is the 3rd highest religious identity in the world, with 1.15 billion “followers”! This is because Jesus has ceased to become the salvation; there has been a plethora of evidence suggesting the “no-God” theory rather than the “God exists” theory. [3]


Although we may see recurring testimonies about religion and its miracles; rational, theoretical, and empirical data is proving otherwise; not to mention the usage of anecdotal evidence fallacy.


With this said, I would like to move onto my only argument in this round; the on the Christian concepts of pity and how this weakens the man.


2R1NC: Pity and Christianity


To replace the virtues of tiger with a virtue of a sheep is definitely detrimental; for harmlessness and innocence is nothing in the face of pride and honor. Yet Christian ethics destroys the virtues of a lion, and replaces them with a virtue of a sheep. The human aims to be a better human being; the human aims to be more psychologically healthy; the human does not aim to be stuck in the chains of the past, under considerable weights of ignorance and backwardness. But yet this is what Christianity does; it snatches from the people the necessary aggressive virtues, and replaces these with the unbeneficial passive virtues.


This argument is mainly based on Nietzsche’s work, the Antichrist.


To disarm the people of the negative influencing aggressive virtues is one thing; but to steal the pride and joy away from the people is another. As Nietzsche writes; “Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness; it is a depressant” Nietzsche was not wrong to think this; when one feels sympathy, sadness is also present. When one feels pity, one feels the need to become more harmless, more innocent, and more helpful. Is this natural?


Nietzsche raises one example; perhaps the best. He raises the example of the growing secular-thinking scholars in the Renaissance; enlightened, prideful, and honorable. But he then raises other examples of thinkers who have “had their pride and honor disarmed from them” The Dark Ages was an example; the European of the Dark Ages lived in a period of depression and intellectual ignorance. During the Dark Ages, Christianity was often referred to as the “divine doctrine” and questioning it was unneeded. The Christian of the Dark Ages, disarmed of all “sinful” characters, is merely an innocent person who cannot defend himself.


How is this not beneficial to the individual person? It is because we have said that we humans have no chance of being good people due to the existence of this concept of original sin, and that we humans must be pitiful. There are two flaws with this; this concept of original sin is such an imaginary concept that the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems more viable. Secondly, pity is the destruction of human progress; psychologically it makes men depressed and guilty, physically it makes men lose their belongings for a purely imaginary ends.


Or in Nietzsche’s own words:


We have unlearned something. We have become more modest in every way. We no longer derive man from the “spirit,” from the “godhead”; we have dropped him back among the beasts. Pity thwarts the whole law of evolution, which is the law of natural selection. It preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a gloomy and dubious aspect. We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man[1]


Citations:


[1] the Antichrist, Nietzsche


[2] http://www.truthbeknown.com...


[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...



Debate Round No. 2
LogicalLunatic

Pro

"For the opponent to win this debate, he has to prove to us that Christianity is beneficial for all individuals that practice it, rather than most."
Are you SERIOUSLY going to do that?! Okay, but this will only be fair if you make a distinction between true Christianity and Pseudo-Christianity. My opponent has claimed that Pseudo-Christians are Christians, but this is not true.

Definition of Christian: Someone who has accepted the Biblical gift of Salvation in order to be saved from Hell, which is the penalty for Death.
Definition of Christianity: Christlikeness, including living according to the principles and commandments of Jesus Christ, and having a Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ.

So, I admit that the Crusaders may have accepted this Gift of Salvation. This makes them Christian. But they slaughtered men, women, and children. Thus, they did not practice Christianity. Since my opponent has resorted to the game of semantics, adding in the phrase "All" where it is not found in the debate title, I hope he doesn't mind if I do so as well.
The title of this debate is CHRISTIANITY is Beneficial to the Individual Man. Not "Being a Christian is Beneficial to the Common Man." Now, being Christian and accepting Salvation is super important, as it allows Christ to save your soul. Also, you cannot have Christianity unless you are a Christian. HOWEVER, being a Christian and practicing Christianity do not always go hand in hand. This is why the Crusaders being Christians does not negate this debate.
This having been said, I will move on to further rebuttals.

Postulate 1. That an Afterlife Exists

"Firstly, the psychological theory that states that soul exists is called psychological dualism; the problem of the soul"s existence is called the mind-body problem. First elaborated, at least formally, by Descartes, this theory is still under intense debate from neurologists, psychologists and philosophers from all over the world.
Dualism is easily disproven by the mere fact that the brain, in its entirety, creates consciousness; neurons transmit electronic charges of a certain degree to allow the body to sense, feel, touch etc. This in turn creates consciousness; we are not here, however, to refute this postulate. If the opponent chooses to continue to assume, and possibly defend this postulate, then this case will be continued in the next rounds."
Heh. My opponent makes the claim that the existence of the soul is "easily disproven" by the brain. But he's about to find that it's not quite that easy to disprove the soul's existence. The brain "creating consciousness" can be explained with the following theory:
Imagine that your soul exists in another reality. From that reality your soul is "connected" to the human brain in this dimension. The brain is the representative of the real you, in a sense. As long as this connection between the soul in another reality and the brain in this reality persists, your thoughts are in this dimension. To "represent" you, your brain here uses neurons. If something in your brain goes wrong, your brain cannot adequately represent your consciousness. When your brain ceases to function, the connection is broken and you exist in another life.
My opponent may object to this by pointing out that there is no evidence of such a "connection". However, if the connection is caused by something spiritual (not of this dimension), then it would go beyond the laws of this Universe to discover this connection.
I invented it (I think), and thus I get to name it. It shall henceforth be known as the "Connection Theory".

Now, what I just did is point out that the brain does not disprove the soul. HOWEVER, that does not prove the existence of the soul either, kind of like how God has been neither proven nor disproven.
But as further evidence for the soul we can look towards supernaturalism. Supernatural things that cannot be explained by science are quite possibly outside of the boundaries of this Universe. Let's take some supernatural things.
As I mentioned in the previous round, there is the Bible's track record for 100% accuracy in regards to prophecy. The only prophecies unfulfilled are those pertaining to the End of Days, which, if they'll happen in the End of Days, is understandable why they haven't come to pass yet.
Look back at my link on the list of End of Days Biblical Prophecies and you'll find that many of them have been fulfilled. Granted, there are ones talking about things which are basic to human nature (such as "there'll be wars and rumors of wars" and "there'll be increased sexual immorality"). However, there are also prophecies which are not stuff that would've come true regardless. IN FACT, what my opponent said about countless people abandoning Christianity was also prophesied, in the Book of 1st Timothy, Chapter 4, Verse 1.
http://biblia.com...
What does this prove? Well, it may not PROVE anything, but it shows that the Bible is very likely to be the True Word of God and that Christianity is the One True Religion. If Christianity is true, the soul must exist.
In his next round, I ask my opponent to mention one Biblical prophecy which has been proven false.

Postulate 2. That something being true means it"s more beneficial

So my opponent says that even if Christianity is true, it still isn't necessarily beneficial. Well, if Christianity is true, then what the Bible says about Salvation and Damnation, Heaven and Hell, and an All-Powerful, All-Knowing, Omnipresent, All-Loving, Completely Just God MUST be true. That means that if the Bible is true, then accepting the Gift of Salvation is 100% beneficial.

2R1NRC (What the Heck Does That Mean?): On Deaths By Chritianity

"The opponent seems to sketch some arguments for me; "crusaders, Carlists, Catholics, and Christian Murderers" have killed millions of people. But he then states that these aren"t "true Christian" accordingly to the definition. However, this is a false claim. From the opponent"s two fundamental points of Christianity, he does not say anything about killing. In fact, the Crusaders had a more active spiritual life than many other Christians at the time; during a siege in the First Crusade, they charged into victory after seeing the armies of St. John riding and defeating the "Pagan Mob" They thoroughly believed that recapturing the Holy City was a ticket to heaven, and that God spoke to them. The Crusaders prayed more than an ordinary Cardinal, and the opponent seems to accept that a Cardinal is a "true Christian" in this sense. And yes, Christianity has killed millions of people; from the pogrom mobs of the 13th Century to the Rwandan Massacres, Christianity has been the covert cause of killing all over the world. [2]"

Okay, I admit that the Crusaders may have been Christian (that is, they accepted the Gift of Salvation). However, it does not mean that they practiced Christianity, which makes all the difference. I am a Christian, but that does not mean that I always practice Christianity (sad, but true; I am very much so imperfect and sinful).
Had they practiced Christianity, they would not have killed civilians. Jesus said, "Blessed Are the Peacemakers, for they will be called Children of God." He also said "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
http://biblehub.com...
Now, if Christ said not to strike back in revenge, don't you think that He would object to killing innocent civilians for no reason whatsoever?

2R2NRC: Statistics, Probability and Miracles

"The opponent uses the theory of miracles and cites four personal testimonies; firstly, we have to treat this as if it were a legal case. There are several things that influence a personal testimony. The most important factor effecting testimonial evidence is the memory loss theory; others may be confirmation bias and misattribution. But memory loss is a key intake; a study was done via testimonies of car crash. Studying them, subjects who used the words "crashed" were more likely to say that the windows broke than subjects who used the word "bumped" or "smashed" Take the memory curve theory into account.
From a legal perspective; the larger the phenomenon, the more testimonies is needed. Why is this? Say you flip a coin; theoretically, there should be a 50-50 balance between heads and tails. However, there are in some cases that one would get an imperfect balance; for example, when one flips the coin 24 times and receives 18 heads and 6 tails, this is called an outlier. But if we flip the coins 500 times, this would give us what we call "theoretical equilibrium" in which the theoretical expectation is reached.
Statistically, for Christianity to have delivered, in a divine manner, many from impending crises, millions of testimonies; valid, real, and confirmation bias free testimonies."

Confirmation bias? You're telling me that people don't quite remember what happened when they became freed of a drug addiction?
I was hoping that my opponent would use an argument based on the "Placebo Effect." That is, their religion was just their motivator or just one motivator out of several, but it wasn't miraculous at all.
Even if this is so, Christianity serving as a motivator still helped them, meaning that it is beneficial.

Then, my opponent mentions increased apostasy. What I have to say is that these people became Christians (or maybe they didn't), but they never experienced Christianity.

My opponent went further, but frankly I am running short on characters. Therefore, I will stop here and hopefully I'll be able to get back on whatever I missed in my next round.
I give the podium back to my opponent. Good luck to you!
Kc1999

Con

I thank the opponent for his reply to the debate motion. The opponent is trying to change the definitions of this debate, and this concept of Christianity and what a Christian is.

When someone is Christian, especially by choice, they practice Christianity. Christianity has been defined by the opponent as having a personal relationship with the savior and God as well as having a desire to save knowledge of Jesus, as provided in R1.

However, the opponent in R2 redefines this as living within the accords of Christian morality. I have accepted the first R1 debate definitions; ergo his new definition will be ignored throughout my case.

Postulate #1: The Afterlife

The opponent makes two fundamental mistakes; he says that neurons are here to present you, and he says that the “in some parallel universe, the soul exists”

On Neurology

Neurologically speaking, consciousness, i.e the qualities of being to touch, feel, smell, sensory experiences etc. originate from the brain, and is sustained by the brain. Neurons are small orgasms in our body that creates the sensations of touching; henceforth, when I touch my computer, or my television, my neurons are sending a certain degree of electronic information (charge) for me to be able to interact, feel and think. Neurons originate from a tube in the nervous system called the neural plate; they, like every other cell, have a nucleus. However, taking insights from physiology, the neuron is made out of many other parts that are not present in other cells.

The myeline sheath protects the loss of electrolyte, the originators of NT. The axon contains the NT, and the dendrite detects stimuli. Enough neurology for now; we must understand that the brain and the cells in your brain were created to sustain consciousness, to sustain one’s mind. Henceforth, one cannot simply state that the “brain is the ship of the soul’s crew” because the “soul and its crew is created by the brain” The abilities of humans to touch, feel and sense creates an identity of perception, because whilst we live in an objective reality, we live in a subjective fantasy; we humans perceive many things differently. If the soul truly existed, then we would be living in an objective fantasy.

The opponent also makes the fundamental error; when something goes wrong in the brain, human consciousness and your “soul” is also affected. A person suffering from mental disorders, such as schizophrenia and schizoid, experience an interesting change in their identity, for a person with schizoid is most likely to have many social relationships. In fact, a case study of a man who accidentally had an iron rod through his prefrontal cortex showed that he was more grumpy and moody at times; the loss of motor skills in this case study was also present.

On Parallel Universes

“In some parallel universe, I’m a liberal” “In some parallel universe, I’m not ugly” “In some parallel universe, I believe in God” The analogical fallacies set out here is enormous; the opponent states that since not all things that exist can be proven, and when something that exists “in name” cannot be proven to not exist, ergo it exists.

However, this is purely and inductively negative proof fallacy; if we were to look into logic, we can see that:

Prop. 1 All things that exist are purely physical or if this doesn’t exist physically, then its existence is clear to us

Defense: For example, gravity’s existence is clear to us. So is oxygen; these things do not exist physically, but it existence is of no doubt to us as it is supported by empirical evidence. Other than that, all other substances either exist in physical shape.

Prop 2. The supernatural does not exist physically, and its existence is unclear to us

Defense: The supernatural’s existence is in question

Conclusion: The supernatural does not exist.

The opponent also commits another correlation-causation mistake; because of 1/20xis true does not necessarily means x is a true proposition.

Unless the opponent’s quasi metaphysical-based convictions are to be supported by a posteriori propositions, then his argument is wholly based upon more false prepositions. Apart from this, the truth-factor proves nothing in this debate on the benefits of Christianity to the common man.

REPLYING TO THE OPPONENT’S QUESTION ON FALSE BIBLICAL PROPHECIES:
Virgin Birth (here)
Israelite Will Be Unbeatable (here)
The Nile Draining Up (here)
Eziekel’s Destruction of Egypt:

Postulate #2: Truth Factor and Benefits

Please consider this following image, a criticism of Pascal’s Wager:

Challenge to Pascal's Wager

This visualized game theory matrix proves one thing; “it is more logical to abstain from the worship of God” Why?

The first assumption is based upon the Christian view of God; he is vengeful and wrathful. Henceforth, he damns you to hell for worshipping “fake” Gods. The second assumption is based on the atheist view; God does not exist. Then the notion of religious worship is a total waste of time. But the last assumption states that if a God exists and benevolent, then no worship would be the best time to use your time, as benevolent Gods do give a ticket to heaven for anyone who prays or does not.

The vertex will be looked upon first:

Looking into this in a more empirical manner, there are over 4,000 religions in the world, and in all of these religions, if we were to take the correlation-causation path, have a truth factor in them. Henceforth, if the first assumption is correct, then one of the 4,000 religions has to have a truth-factor. Which one is it? No one knows, because every end-time prophecy of every religion is more or less correlating with the known facts of the world (the prophecies fulfilled, however, are vague and could be attributed to anything).

In the second view, God does not exist, and when we die, it all ends there. We like to make myths to impose on what we do not know; this is inherently harmful. Nevertheless, God does not exist; worshipping him is therefore immoral and a waste of time. The Game Theory-alternative would be to choose no worship at all, or atheism.

The third assumption is based upon the view that a benevolent God exists. Henceforth, if a benevolent God exists, then all our sins will be forgiven and we will surely be damned for a certain period of time only, accordingly not to belief but merit. Therefore, if a Christian prays to this God but does something horribly wrong, he will go to hell.

Speaking from a game theoretical point of view, the worship of God is illogical as there is barely any chance that a God exists, and even if he exists, then he exists as either benevolent or authoritarian; if he existed as authoritarian, yet still we would not know the true God due to the many religions in this world in existence.

3R1NRC: Violent Christians

The opponent here tries to redefine Christian. However, as I have already stated, the first definition is the only definition that I will be taking. Apart from this the opponent admits to the fact that the Crusaders, Carlist et all. are Christian. Via definition, a Christian practices Christianity, and henceforth all Christians practices Christianity.

The opponent also seems to be ignoring the case where systematic racial genocide, where Jews upon the word of God exterminated desert tribes. Is filling the minds of a person with hatred a sign of Christianity’s beneficial substance? This I doubt.

Christianity has killed 3,000,000 people in the first few Crusades alone; in the name of God, 1,000,000 people were further killed in the Spanish Civil War, which is also commonly attributed by even the then pope as a “crusade” against Communism. The Taiping Rebellion, however, has been the bloodiest war that Christianity has caused; 20 million human beings died in the process of the usurping of power of the Qing dynasty by a man who has contacted God and fits the description of “Christian” in this sense. Many more can be named, but so far, Christianity has caused 24 million deaths in just three incidents; is this beneficial for the individual man?

3R2NRC: Memory and Benefits

The opponent brings up the question: are you saying that people do not remember a life changing moment? Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The memory curve theory, an empirically true theory, suggests that within 15 hours, only ~20% of the information from that memory may be considered definite and undoubtedly accurate. Let us take an example; psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus tested his memories from 20 minutes to 31 days. From one incident, he would only remember a few things of this incident, and these things were often subconscious. Ebbinghaus tried to memorize nonsensical syllables; within 3 days of no practice, the nonsensical syllable memory shortened highly; this goes for the same in all human memories. “A memory is often nothing more than a rumor”

With this said, the continuation of this argument shall be emplaced. The complete support of a system of worship promotes ignorance, and this ignorance cannot be harmful. Taking insights into the concept of Nietzsche’s philosophy in the Antichrist, Christianity is a depressant. It promotes pity; pity promotes negative emotions that lead to the brain entering a state of outright depression. It disarms the man of his most vital virtues, and arms him with the least preferred.

Keep in mind that the opponent has the burden of proving Christianity beneficial for all and every mortal being, yet has provided only four cases of Christianity being beneficial, and all of these cases are affected by many things, including memory.

With this said, we must take into account one last factor of this debate; if Christianity is beneficial, then many people would adhere it’s principles for a sustained period of time. However, people are turning from Christianity to Atheism; atheism provides more benefits than Christianity in that it embraces reality, and does not impose a sense of intuitive moral values upon a completely rational mind.

The resolution is therefore negated.

Sources from last round used.

Debate Round No. 3
LogicalLunatic

Pro

"The opponent is trying to change the definitions of this debate, and this concept of Christianity and what a Christian is.
When someone is Christian, especially by choice, they practice Christianity. Christianity has been defined by the opponent as having a personal relationship with the savior and God as well as having a desire to save knowledge of Jesus, as provided in R1."

I think my opponent is the one who misunderstands. Allow me to explain.
Let's say you are an orphan in China. Some Americans come visit you in China and then adopt you, taking you back to the United States with them. This adoption symbolizes becoming a Christian. Upon your adoption you are a member of that family. HOWEVER, just because you are related to someone doesn't mean that you have a relationship with them. I'm sure that I have cousins whom I've never heard of before.
Let's say that this adopted child does, upon reaching the age of 18, moves out and then cuts all ties to his family. He begins living a life that is completely contrary to the values of the household of his adopted family. In this sense, he is part of the family, but he is nothing like the family.
This is what Christianity is in contrast to just being a Christian. There are plenty of "spiritually immature" Christians. That is, they are Christians in the sense that they have received salvation. HOWEVER, they do not have a personal relationship with Christ. They do not spend time with their Heavenly Father, nor do they try to please Him with their lives. In this sense they do not practice Christianity, which is Christlikeness. They are saved, but they are nothing like Christ. Being Christian does not automatically mean that you practice Christianity, despite my opponent's claim.
This fact is attested to by the countless porn and drug addicts who are Christian. They do not practice Christianity, and thus they should not expect to benefit from it.
Since I am a Christian, while my opponent is Buddhist, it is more likely that I understand more about this concept than my opponent does. To be fair, if we were debating on a Buddhist concept, my opponent would known much more than I do. So let's cut the crap and stop saying that I'm changing definitions. This is a genuine principle which can be attested to by reading the Books of the New Testament, especially those written by the Apostle Paul.

Besides, my opponent should not object to me "changing definitions."
When he contacted me in a PM with his idea for what the Debate topic should be, I used his title for the debate almost word for word, which was "Christianity is Beneficial to the Individual Man." I did this knowing that I alone would carry the Burden of Proof, because the wording of the Debate describes Pro making a claim.
A common saying in Atheist Circles is "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." However, I provided evidence for my claim, so wasn't "asserted without evidence." Therefore, the opposite saying should also be true: "That which is asserted with evidence cannot be dismissed without evidence." If my claim involves the use of evidence, my opponent needs to use evidence to disprove it.
Now, I am fully aware that my opponent has made a fine case. However, trying to dismiss a claim asserted with evidence carries its own Burden of Proof. The BOP should've been shared, though I voluntarily accepted Burden of Proof at the beginning of this Debate.
I'm just saying; my opponent has nothing to complain about, as my carrying of the full BoP will likely cause me to lose this debate.

All that having been said, I will move on to rebuttals.

Postulate #1: The Afterlife
On Neurology

My opponent describes the system in which the brain creates consciousness. Or so it seems.
But let's look at it this way: whenever you are here on Earth you have no memories of your life before life. Therefore, your memories must be created here. All your thoughts are here and your only life is here, as long as you are connected to life here. To make memories and to operate here you require all those neurons. My opponent has not disproved this concept, despite his explanation of the way our brains work.
And no, your soul is not affected by changes to your brain. HOWEVER, the change in behavior caused by the brain is due to the fact that your vessel here on Earth is not able to represent you fully when its instruments of representation are not working properly.

On Parallel Universes
My opponent has stated that by mentioning Parallel Universes I am using a logical fallacy. He claims that I said that if something cannot be proven nor disproven, it must exists. I did not say this. In fact, I only brought up the "Connection Theory" to disprove my opponent's claim that the brain disproves the soul by suggesting a way how the soul and the brain can both exist within a person.
"All things that exist are purely physical or if this doesn’t exist physically, then its existence is clear to us".
My opponent is impying that nothing that is not physical can exist. This claim cannot be substantiated, as the only evidence he has is physical things. If Other Universes do in fact exist, then there is no physical way in this Universe to get there or to prove or disprove its existence. Once again, I only brought this up because my opponent claimed that it cannot exist.

Allegedly False Biblical Prophecies:
-Virgin Birth (He hasn't proven that it didn't happen, so calling it "false" is premature)
-Israel Will Be Unbeatable. This prophecy comes from Zechariah 12:1-5, which never explicitly states that Israel will never lose a battle. It says that the nations will try but fail to conquer/destroy Israel. The fact that this tiny nation surrounded by hostile neighbors devoted to its destruction testify to this fact.
Link to the Prophecy: http://biblehub.com...
-The Nile Will Dry Up. Now, this prophecy does not necessarily mean that the Nile will literally be dried up. Take this into context; the Nile was the pride and joy of Egypt, its source of life. Perhaps it just means that the pride, joy, and livelihood of Egypt will be taken away.
HOWEVER, because large modern dams exist today, it is possible that this is a literal prophecy that may come to pass in the future, by means of perhaps the Antichrist. Or, perhaps Christ will cause this to happen in the Last Days. This prophecy disproves nothing.
Link to the Prophecy: http://biblehub.com...
-Ezekiel's Destruction of Egypt. This is a reference to Ezekiel Chapter 30. It does not say that every thing or person in Egypt will be destroyed. It just mentions tons of people dying in Egypt when it is captured by King Nebuchadnezzar.
Link to the Prophecy: https://www.biblegateway.com... 30

My opponent has failed to mention a single Bible Prophecy which has been proven false. I am confident that my opponent can only provide a prophecy which has yet to be fulfilled at best.

Postulate #2: Truth Factor and Benefits

Assumption the Third: God(s) exist(s).
God(s) exist(s). This/these god(s) is/are benevolent god(s) of kindness.

First of all, this is flawed. God is not only merciful. He is also Just. But anyhow, my opponent states that if you become saved yet you abstain from worship, God will save you anyway. This is true, but...worshipping God and living your life to please Him is a large part of the joy of knowing Christ! It provides lasting joy and satisfaction. Those who abstain from worshipping God and living to please Him are missing out!
My opponent then claims that the God of the Bible will forgive those who worship false Gods. This simply is not true.
But if another god is the true god and he/she is benevolent, he/she may save you regardless of what god you did or didn't worship. This may be true, but:
A. I have shown through the prophecies that Christianity is most likely to be true.
B. Practicing Christianity will still provide joy here on Earth.

Assumption the Second: God does not exist.

Well, if this were the case, Christianity would still provide a hope of a life to come (though other religions would too, I admit). There would still be a benefit of hope to people.

Assumption the First:
God(s) exist(s).
This/these god(s) is/are vengeful god(s) of wrath.

First of all, allow me to say that God is both a Just God and Loving God. Therefore, a God who is only Just but not Loving cannot be the God of the Bible. Anyway...
My opponent says that if this is the case, worshipping the wrong god will cause you to end up in Hell. This is the case with the Christian God NOT because you worship the wrong God but because you refused to accept the Gift of Salvation. But:
A. The Christian God is most likely to be the true one, as I have shown through the prophecies.
B. If you cannot be sure, you'll have to guess, meaning that 99% of religions are wrong. In this case, Christianity still provides hope of a life to come and the joy of Practicing Christianity in your daily life. So even though you end up in Hell, you still benefitted slightly from it.

3R1NRC: Violent Christians
I have admitted that many violent "Christians" may have indeed been Christians. HOWEVER, I have stated repeatedly that they were not Practitioners of Christianity. I showed this in the earliest parts of this Round. Anyway, allow me to state that DIVERSITY causes conflict and death, not religion. Religion is just one factor that contributes to diversity, thus contributing to conflict.
If everyone were the same then there would be no conflict, but you cannot actually say that it is the Christendom itself which causes conflict. It is the fact that there is Christendom (or one branch of it) and then there are non-Christians (or other branches of Christendom). This is diversity, and the existence of the opposing religion or sect contributes just as much to the war/violence.

I said that I would rebut a contention from an earlier round, but...roc.*
Kc1999

Con


I would like to thank the opponent for his response to the debate motion.


4R1NRC: On Semantics: Christian, Christianity and Race


The opponent has provided an inadequate example of what justifies a Christian; if a Christian is someone who practices Christianity, both de facto and de jure, then the opponent’s case study falls under this category. For if the adopted boy chooses to renounce his faith, he is no longer a Christian; apart from this, this analogy/case study very is irreverent, for we are talking about the Christians who practice Christianity and have a “connection with Jesus Christ and God” not those who are in de jure Christian, but de facto irreligious.


The opponent makes a very harsh formal logical fallacy here; ad hominem. “Hence he is x and I am y, therefore he would know more about x than me” This is ad hominem, as me being Buddhist has nothing to do with this debate. Apart from this, the opponent is just complaining; note that this is a debate, not a complaint section. The opponent bears the full BoP voluntarily.


4R2NRC: On Neurology: A Reply


The opponent bases his fundamental arguments on the assumption; that there was “life before life” This is a circular argument; the opponent tries to support the afterlife by assuming that the afterlife already exists.


Nevertheless, when refuting this case, we must understand that the brain is the only source of consciousness; without the brain, the mind simply cannot exist. An example of this comes from the jellyfish; it is without a brain and a heart. Henceforth, it is commonly known to not have any consciousness at all. Then a dilemma arises; how do these jellyfishes move? Cellular memory; a memory that can exist without the need for the brain. The Jellyfish has a nerve net, which allows for the animal the jellyfish to move, but it does not feel when it moves; it is unconscious. [1] This can only prove one thing; the brain is the center of consciousness. Humans do not have cellular memories; our body does not memorize, but our brain does.


Henceforth, it is commonly known that for us to talk, touch, smell, eat, chew and for other sensory experiences to be possible, the brain needs to be intact. It is also commonly known that for us to have identity, differences, similarities of the mind, the brain has to be intact, for the mind cannot exist (in a human body), as explained via the Jellyfish analogy, without the brain.


4R3NRC: On Brain Damage: Psychiatry


The opponent makes a very fatal mistake here. “The soul is not damaged via damages to the brain” is a very fatal proposition. The opponent attempts to explain mental disorders via philosophy; “the vessel is unable to represent the mind fully” is vague. In fact, through research, the causes of mental disorders are becoming clearer and clearer; the increases in NT release in substances like serotonin and dopamine causes the changes in behavior and mood swings. Mood swing changes the mind and the soul; for example, when an excess of serotonin is released, the mind changes from being at a sad and depressed state to a happy and joyful state. [2]


If the soul is defined as something that the person has throughout his “life” and it can exist without the brain, then the brain shouldn’t be able to affect the state of the soul. Remember that the brain is not only the “ship” of the soul, it is the soul. The soul cannot exist with the soul as observed from Jellyfishes and mental disorders.


Henceforth, the opponent’s point goes void.


4R4NRC: On Parallel Universes


The opponent completely ignores the second part of Prop. 1, which states that “all things that do not exist physically make its existence clear to us” The existence of “other universes” outside this universe is still widely debated by cosmologists and astronomists. If the opponent considers my defense, then he is to see that physical substances exist and there is no doubt that it exists, and all non-physical substances that exist can be supported by a posteriori propositions!


For example, gravity exists because we cannot magically float up without the help of mechanical machinery; the opponent assumes that not everything can be proven by a priori or a posteriori propositions. He also assumes that not everything can be proven by physical and empirical evidence. This is false; even a priori propositions, like “1+1=2” can be supported by the fact that when we put one finger with another finger, we have two fingers. Everything correct must be able to be proven by an a priori and an a posteriori proposition; if not so, then “a statement stated without proof has a much worth as dirt in a market”


4R5NRC: On False Biblical Prophecies


“If something is true, therefore it is beneficial” is this logic. “The capitalist depression came as Marx predicted, therefore Marxism is the way to go!” Correlation is not causation, and just because something correlates, does not mean that it is beneficial.


Apart from this, Virgin birth is not possible, and that is an affirmed fact. Israel has indeed been driven out of Lebanon, and is being defeated in Gaza. The destruction of Egypt here is a literal; even the New International Version states that. However, using the Geneva version is clearer cut, as it is the original version of the Bible translated from Greek and Latin [4]. It states this:


Eziekel 30:


And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and fear shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, when they shall take away her multitude, and when her foundations shall be broken down.


It still exists. The opponent also states the probability factor of modern dams. However, Isaiah 19:1 mentions it draining up via natural causes [5]:


The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt


4R6NRC: Pascal’s Wager


In refuting the opponent’s reply to the critics of Pascal’s Wager, we must reply to the opponent’s replies to each assumption.


The Third Assumption:


The opponent says that if God is benevolent, henceforth he will be pleased via prayer. But if a “killer genuinely repents” and he goes to heaven, then God is not just. But assuming that God is just, then he would not accept the prayers of the religious immoral, as prayers in this case are just literal divine corruption (if they get you into heaven)..


The Second Assumption:


The opponent talks about hope and this concept that if this view were true, Christianity still gives hope. However, Christianity gives a false and ignorant hope, and this hope weakens the mind, the body and the soul. Henceforth, this concept of “Christian hope” is a hope for the weak, the botched and the destitute.


The First Assumption:


The opponent states that “Christianity” is the most likely true religion. However, this is false; if the divine cannot be proven by the mortal, then there is no real way to know what religion is real and true. In fact, in this case, Buddhism seems to be the most viable; scientists have discovered that a Buddhist’s mind is a lot different from a person who adhere a different faith. A brain belonging to the Zen Buddhist monk was proven to the hugely different from a normal brain. Lord Buddha did not make any prophecies; just theories about how to achieve Enlightenment, and these theories are proving true and beneficial.


4R7NRC: Violent Christians


The opponent accepts the definition of Christian as someone who practices Christianity, as he never provided an alternative definition to it. In this case, Christians have killed many millions; the world’s bloodiest epoch, the Taiping Rebellion, was caused by Christian Chinese citizens who attempted to usurp the Qing regime.


The opponent attempts to divide factions; “Protestants” are “Christians” whilst “Catholics” aren’t “Christians” However, they both follow the fundamental points of Christianity, and henceforth, they fit the definition of practitioners of the Christian faith.


If one had to compile a study of the deaths caused by the Christian faith, then the list would go on to the billions. Many conflicts have been said to have been caused, both directly and indirectly, by Christians and there destructive and violent doctrines. This was why the Shogun of Japan during the 17th Century ordered the hanging of many Christians; he feared that by their nature, they would cause the destruction of tranquility in Japan.


However, we may compile a brief list of wars caused by Christianity and deaths it caused:


Nigerian Civil War-3 million deaths


Cause: The adoption and imperialism of a Christian tribe.


Taiping Rebellion-100 million deaths


Cause: The usurping of the Qing throne by Christians


The Extermination of Natives by Christians-100 million deaths


Cause: “Civilizing” the natives by Darwinist Christians


Crusades-3 million deaths +


Cause: The need to reclaim the Holy City from the Infidels


Many more wars and incidents may be recorded throughout history, but it is clear; Christianity, in four war, has caused 200 million deaths. Is that figure reflective of Christianity’s benefits towards the individual man?


With this said, I would like to conclude the only argument I presented on the concept of Christian morality.


2R1NC: Christianity and Pity


This Christian concept of pity is simple; we are simply replacing the virtues of a lion with the virtues of sheep. We are disarming the man of his necessary aggressive virtues, and we are arming him with the passive unnecessary virtues. In Christianity, the concept of pity makes the man slow, depressive and unrational over his decisions. This is detrimental for the man; for he wishes to become a better human being psychologically, but yet he is deferred from doing so by showing pity.


Christianity is thus unbeneficial; the resolution is negated.


Citations:


[1] http://www.agenthuman.com...


[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...


[3] https://www.biblegateway.com...


[4] http://rationalwiki.org...





Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@telisw37: You've been on this site 7 months, how the heck do you think "Bop. Con wins." is a valid RFD?

It in no way suggests you read past the title. Regardless of if your assertion is true, how are you justifying S&G in there? What does BoP have to do with spelling and grammar, or sources for that matter? Even on arguments it is shows no sign of you understanding arguments presented by either side.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---RFD Continued---
"Rwandan Massacres" are something I've studied, this assertion that they were doing it for Christianity is simply stupid. Yes there were Christians who killed people, but the general population was neither Christian nor being lead by Christians; the genocide was in fact motivated by race not religion. That churches did not protect people would have been a decent point, as people tried to flee into churches and were cut down as they prayed "There is almost no church in Rwanda that has not seen refugees - women, children, old - being brutally butchered facing the crucifix."

That there are less Methodists in one population, does not bridge the leap of faith to the conclusion it's because they are all atheists now (likely some are, but seriously, normally graphs are there to do more than look pretty).

Nice piece of rhetoric at the end. "original sin is such an imaginary concept that the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster seems more viable." Please do not insult the FSM, he may become angry.

R3 pro (just the tip)
No True Scotsman.

R3 con (just the tip)
Moving the Goalpost

Sorry it's just getting too poorly done, and predictable in the fallacies. I can't get a full sentence in to either argument without cringing from the fallacies.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---RFD---
Pro R2
"True Christianity" sounds like a No True Scotsman fallacy coming. "If Christianity is true" is quite an irrelevant point, pretty much asking for a "prove it" counter. " is Christianity beneficial here on Earth" that on the other hand can be measured, and thus voted on objectively... "Christianity responsible for such historical atrocities is not the brand of Christianity that is included in this debate's definition" No True Scotsman fallacy, also definitions are normally set in the first round, thus trying to add new ones now are not binding. "People have been delivered from personal problems through Christianity," free floating sources is not the same as making an argument; plus a URL like Christian-Faith.com looks like something that will be full of propaganda (better to find the same stories from newspapers, or medical journals). "Christianity provides hope. This is undoubtedly true. Even if other religions also provide hope, this does not negate the fact that Christianity provides hope." Agreed. I suggest next time talking about the medical benefits (saying grace before eating, is very similar to the healthy practice of mindful eating).

R2 con
The definition of Beneficial falls into the same non-binding trap I listed above, however as it seems to be the English common usage form, I will accept it. "he has to prove to us that Christianity is beneficial for all individuals that practice it, rather than most." As a voter I disagree, as no absolute is stated in the resolution, trying to force one in now is heavily fallacious (if we accepted fallacies blindly, pro could just say that any Christian who suffered isn't a True Christian)... That said, a law of averages applies. The benefit must be greater than the suffering (heaven not being among said benefits unless such is proven to exist). "if one can prove that the soul doesn"t exist," I see why this pointless bit is there, but it's as useless to the resolution as the heaven claim.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
yup
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
The face-off between CJK and Kc would be epic :P
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I just noticed both were religious/political debaters.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
krit is an excellent debater, don't be too sad you lost to him. Krit is one of the best 14-y-o debaters, and he's possibly even better than CJKAllstar--if I had to say who was better I'd say Krit.
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Yes, I am aware of that fact. But to be fair, I am a Right-Brained individual whose strong points are not things like this.
Posted by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
Try again next year. Btw you just lost to a 14 y-o
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Crap. I didn't even make it past the first round of the Tournament...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by telisw37 2 years ago
telisw37
LogicalLunaticKc1999Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Bop. Con wins.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
LogicalLunaticKc1999Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This quickly degraded into a battle of fallacies. If we accept pro's fallacies as valid, any Christian who is not happy or harmed others was not Christian enough to count as Christian. If we accept con's fallacies Christianity is by definition is not beneficial, since at least one Christian suffered (Jesus indeed suffered a lot) and if every other one lived a perfect life it wouldn't matter since one did not. More in the comments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LogicalLunaticKc1999Tied
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 had a great opening, but resorted too much to attacking con's rebuttals rather than saying how his arguments worked, thus, we can only take that he dropped most of his original arguments. Good try.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
LogicalLunaticKc1999Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro you came out really strong in round 1, but you really let me down the rest of the rounds. You let your opponent take control of the debate and you focused more on knocking down his rebuttals than strengthening your own arguments. I think if you would have stayed on the prophecy arguments and strengthened them, you'd stand a great chance of winning this debate. As it is, arguments go to con. I will gave conduct to pro, because con should have worked with you more on the resolution before accepting this debate. He should help new and lesser skilled debaters along in a more positive way. Again, great job pro on your opening argument. I've seen a huge improvement for you, and I'm sure this is just the beginning.