The Instigator
DoctrinallyCorrect
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

RESOLVED: Scripture Alone Is Sufficient To Determine Faith

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/10/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 5345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

DoctrinallyCorrect

Pro

I set forth that Scripture alone is sufficient to determine faith and morals. My proof text will be 2 Timothy 3:14-17. Should anyone decide to challenge this proposition I will further elaborate and argue.
CiRrO

Con

I negate: Scripture Alone Is Sufficient To Determine Faith

[Definition]

Scripture: The old and new testaments, i.e. the Bible
Alone: standing by itself
Sufficient: equal to the end proposed
Faith: the belief of

[Topical Negations]

1. For the resolution to be proven true, my opponent has made the assumption that the christian God exists and is the ruling deity. Since 100% proving of God cannot be done, you cannot affirm.

2. Faith is subjective. Why would scripture be the source of faith for a Buddhist? My opponent has made the resolution absolute since he did not specify faith to Christians. He just stated faith in general, meaning it must apply to all people. Therfore, since faith is subjective, you cannot affirm.

[Contentions]

Contention I: The Bible contradicts morality, and thus cannot be the sole authority on faith.

Morality is defined as, conforming to a standard of good and right behavior.Throughout the bible, most clearly in the Old Testament, immoral acts were committed on the side of God. E.g. The destruction of entire populations, old people, adults, kids, etc. A specific example is the destruction of the Midianites. Killing is clearly an immoral action. Therefore, by affirming you are condoning the action of killing people and entire populations. If this is the morality being shown through the Bible, should that be the basis of people's faith.

*I reserve the right to make any new contentions within the next 2 rounds.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
DoctrinallyCorrect

Pro

My opponent is right in that my proposition assumes the Christian God exist. That was the intent of the debate. It was designed to be a debate between sola scriptura and someone who would argue for the traditional view of the Catholic church. This does seem to be a strange rebuttal on the part of one who claims to be a conservative Catholic. Again this was designed to be a debate between two people who accepts and does not challenge the existance of God. Which my oppennt does accept, being a Catholic, but is denying.

His contention is really strange when he argues that God and the Bible are immoral, and then as a catholic believes in that same God and Bible. That in turn would make him immoral to place his faith in an immoral God and Book.

He says and I quote, "Killing is clearly an immoral action. Therefore, by affirming you are condoning the action of killing people and entire populations. If this is the morality being shown through the Bible, should that be the basis of people's faith."

His base premise is that Killing is immoral and the Bible records God killing and if the bible is the rule of faith then I am condoning killing. Again this is very strange argumentation foming from a guy who votes "pro" on all four war questions in his profile. He is pro war to the highest degree so far as the current political issues are concerned. He asks, if this is the morality being shown through the bible, should that be the basis of peoples faith. As a believer in the bible, and a pro war advocate, maybe this should be the question that he ask himself and his own conscience. I will have more to say as me go along.

It appears to me that my opponent's argumentations places him at odds with his own Catholic faith and therefore makes him a hypocrite! If God and the bible promotes so much immorality, it makes you equally as immoral if not more to continue to believe in him knowing that.
CiRrO

Con

"My opponent is right in that my proposition assumes the Christian God exist. That was the intent of the debate. It was designed to be a debate between sola scriptura and someone who would argue for the traditional view of the Catholic church. This does seem to be a strange rebuttal on the part of one who claims to be a conservative Catholic. Again this was designed to be a debate between two people who accepts and does not challenge the existance of God. Which my oppennt does accept, being a Catholic, but is denying."

--> Um, well. To become a better debater, I believe it is necessary to debate both sides. Furthermore, you never claimed an opening assumption that "God exists." Thus, you have the burden to prove he does, because if you can't, then the resolution means nothing. My 1st topical negation stands for the remaining rounds.

--> He drops my 2nd topical negation. Thus, it stands for the remaining rounds.

"His base premise is that Killing is immoral and the Bible records God killing and if the bible is the rule of faith then I am condoning killing. Again this is very strange argumentation foming from a guy who votes "pro" on all four war questions in his profile. He is pro war to the highest degree so far as the current political issues are concerned. He asks, if this is the morality being shown through the bible, should that be the basis of peoples faith. As a believer in the bible, and a pro war advocate, maybe this should be the question that he ask himself and his own conscience. I will have more to say as me go along."

--> lol, he drops my contention. Extend this. Furthermore, he keeps on saying I'm Catholic. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROUND. My faith is my own, and separate from this site. However, I will explain one thing. I am still against the resolution because "Sola Scriptura" is a logical fallacy because of my contention I. Since the Bible is flawed in a literal sense, then a contextual meaning must be embraced. That's the meaning behind my contention I. By reading the Bible literally, you have opened up a can of immorality and destruction. This is obviously contradictory to my opponents beliefs. Therefor, scripture alone CANNOT be the basis of faith.

[Extentions]

1. 1st and 2nd Topical Negations
2. My contention I

Extend these for the remaining rounds. Since my opponent dropped them, my opponent cannot respond to them in any other rounds.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
DoctrinallyCorrect

Pro

I am going to conced this debate since this is not what I wanted the debate to be about. I have learned and will better define my proposition the next time.
CiRrO

Con

Ok, then. GL in your other debates. ^^
Debate Round No. 3
DoctrinallyCorrect

Pro

DoctrinallyCorrect forfeited this round.
CiRrO

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
DoctrinallyCorrect

Pro

I am simply making this post so that that the debate can conclude
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DoctrinallyCorrect 9 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
I would like that
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
lol, its ok, No harm done. Maybe we will debate each other again in the future.
Posted by DoctrinallyCorrect 9 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
ciro sorry about the mistake on my part in no defining my intention by the propostion.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
That, Logical Master, depends upon the type of debate.

Of course, starting a debate with the word "RESOLVED" like that should be an indication that such formalities will likely be observed :D
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
DoctrinallyCorrect, many times in debate, debaters will argue in favor of positions they don't personally believe. I believe this is the case with CiRro. Furthermore, in debate, your opponent does not exist and is therefore irrelevant. It is his/her ideas which he/she presents that you are obligated to engage.
Posted by sgtsledge 9 years ago
sgtsledge
Lol I am kind of new to debating but I think that this one has already been decided
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 9 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Imba
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
lol, thx. ^^
Posted by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
Inb4 Cirro wins.
Posted by PoeJoe 9 years ago
PoeJoe
Great opening argument CiRrO!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 9 years ago
InquireTruth
DoctrinallyCorrectCiRrOTied
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 Robert_Santurri 9 years ago
Robert_Santurri
DoctrinallyCorrectCiRrOTied
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 Zero 9 years ago
Zero
DoctrinallyCorrectCiRrOTied
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:43 
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 9 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
DoctrinallyCorrectCiRrOTied
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 sdcharger 9 years ago
sdcharger
DoctrinallyCorrectCiRrOTied
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 Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
DoctrinallyCorrectCiRrOTied
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