The Instigator
4chanforthewin
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
asyetundefined
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Raptor Jesus from 4chan is blasphemous.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,870 times Debate No: 7748
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (10)

 

4chanforthewin

Pro

Hello. I am Jordana Brewster. You may know me from such movies as Fast and Furious and TV shows such as Chuck.

I argue that Raptor Jesus is blasphemous.

I offer one reason why: his prayer.

Our Raptor,
Who art in /h/eaven,
shopped be Thy face;
Thy donations come,
Thy posts be done
in /b/ as it is in /h/eaven.
Give us this day our daily Bridget;
and forgive us our trolling
as we forgive those who troll against us,
and lead us not into f****try,
but deliver us from /fur/ry.
In the name of the Moot, the Raptor, and the Holy Server,
Amen.

My opponents burden is to prove that Raptor Jesus is somehow NOT blasphemous.

And by the way, a definition:

adj.
Impiously irreverent.
asyetundefined

Con

Firstly I mean no disrespect when I say that I have no clue who you -Jordanna Brewster- is; 'Teh Fast & Teh Furrious' is not overly conducive towards intellectualism... (in response to your 'Troy McLure' introduction).

Anyhow.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Blasphemousness of Raptor-Jesus.

Although the point of Raptor-Jesus is indeed Blasphemy, it is NOT the case that Raptor-Jesus is a legitimate instance of such.
Blasphemy is an "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things" [1]. Thus although we are free to use the word blasphemy in our common language, for an instance to actually be considered such requires two things:
(i) an 'impious utterance or action' towards: (ii) GOD - or a 'sacred thing' which is a manifestation of GOD.
Thus despite the clear mocking nature of Raptor-Jesus (and especially his delicious prayer) - for us to consider it to be LEGITIMATE blasphemy one would need to prove the existence of, or manifestation of, the entity which is to receive said Blasphemy - that is, you must prove the existence of GOD to prove an authentic instance of Blasphemy towards it.
Therefore the burden of proof is NOT on me to disprove Raptor-Jesus' Blasphemy...

[1] <http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
4chanforthewin

Pro

So the burden is then on me to prove that God is real, or a god which can be blasphemed to, is real. Fair enough.

If I can prove that there IS some sort of god to be blasphemed upon, then I win this debate, since my opponent offers no counterattack on how Raptor Jesus is NOT blasphemous. All he does is argue that Raptor Jesus is not a legit form of blasphemy.

God exists simply because of the way the Earth was formed to it's exact calculations, and it's unique way in supporting life. Although there is no actual, real, or tangible proof of God, the Earth is all the proof we need. It has the perfect temperature to support all beings on Earth, thus it is the perfect distance from the Sun, which is more than a complete coincidence. It would be implausible to think that a random series of incidents suddenly created the perfect planet to sustain life.

So with that, I find no argument on how Raptor Jesus is NOT spitting on God's name, so vote for Jordana.
asyetundefined

Con

Thank you for realizing the next phase in the debate! Makes things go much smoother!

your argument for the existence fails for two primary reasons:

(i) Was the temperature of the Earth set at where it is because God knew we would like it that way, or did we evolve to fit Earth's climate? The Universe is immense - there are literally thousands upon thousands of planets that the exact right distance from another star and are the right size and chemical composition to support life; Earth is no coincidence. to claim that this planet is the only planet that can potentially support life, or the best planet to support life is horribly Heliocentric. Going on too long about Earth in your manner reminds me greatly of Voltaire's 'Dr. Pangloss', with his infamous phrase:
"all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds".

(ii) Even if your Heliocentricity was correct, and this is the best of all possible worlds, there is still absolutely NO reason to think Earth is the product of the Judeo-Christian God, or even a supernatural power of any sort. If we apply the principle of Parsimony to a list of possible candidates (for 'creator') there is no clear winner. It could be equally likely to Be God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ra, Mithra, Vishnu, Aliens, a giant crustacean, a scientific explanation, what-have-you.

Thus it seems that since not only is our world not the perfect conception of what a life-bearing planet could be (think Tsunamis, earthquakes, ect...), and because there is NO reason to think that even if it was the case that the Earth was perfect, that a GOD, specifically Jesus, created or had a hand in its realization. Thus my position remains that without a GOD there is NOTHING for Raptor-Jesus to Blaspheme.
Debate Round No. 2
4chanforthewin

Pro

First of all, I would like to apologize for my approach on this debate. And second, I would like to offer a new stance.

Blasphemy- the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
Blasphemy- irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com......
There doesn't have to be a god to be blasphemed.

Although the point of Raptor-Jesus is indeed Blasphemy..."

My opponent stated this fact very clearly, and as I have shown that there does not have to be a god that has to be blasphemed upon (the def. states anything sacred or priceless), my opponent has essentially agreed that Raptor Jesus is indeed blasphemous.

Vote for Jordana.
asyetundefined

Con

I'm glad PRO has stayed positive and hasn't degraded into pointless ad hominens as they usually do! Its been a good debate!

Firstly I'd like to point out that my comment which you refer to has been taken out of context - what was said was actually substantially more:
"Although the point of Raptor-Jesus is indeed Blasphemy, it is NOT the case that Raptor-Jesus is a legitimate instance of such"
For example - one can write a test, thus the point is to pass the test. But you can fail to pass said test, therefore even though the point may have been to pass, it was not a legitimate instance of passing. However I do realize the potential confusion created by the comment so perhaps it would have been more sensible to offer the following comment in its place:

"the point of Raptor-Jesus is to belittle Jesus-Christ"

Continuing on - I am happy to see PRO's reformation of the term Blasphemy, although I still do not think her argument goes through. As PRO points out, when extended, blasphemy is also the "the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God", and possibly, "irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless"; to which PRO concluded:
"There doesn't have to be a god to be blasphemed".
This seems to me to be a misinterpretation on behalf of PRO. The first definition -the crime of assuming to be God- still clearly needs God to be a legitimate instance of Blasphemy. The second definition actually says the same thing - only discretely so. "Irreverent behavior towards anything sacred, priceless". As noted, Raptor-Jesus is an attempt to belittle a specific sacred or priceless thing - Jesus-Christ. Following from PRO's expanded definition, I could technically Blaspheme anything that has been established as sacred or priceless, and of this point I do not disagree. What I DO disagree with is the specific instance of what Raptor-Jesus Blasphemes. For Raptor-Jesus' irreverence to be complete, we would still need to establish that Jesus-Christ is a sacred or priceless thing - for which we still need God.
Thus its seems that the second definition, although it initially appears innocent, in reality discretely expresses a need for an established entity to which one Blasphemes; an entity called 'God'.

Consequently it seems that even though the definitions may have shed some additional light onto the concept of Blasphemy - it still remains the case that a great burden of proving God lies with those who wish to claim Raptor-Jesus of being a legitimate instance of Blasphemy.

Anyways - it was an orderly and good-natured debate!

Thanx;
Remi
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by animea 7 years ago
animea
I am voting con. Primarily because the pro tried to shift the goal post in her last round. She cleanly accepted the con burden in her first rebuttal, but completely dropped it once she realized she could not meet it. So I have to look toward the con burden for the round. Had she wanted to context definitions, she should have done so when they were brought up, not at the last round of the debate when she found out she could not meet them.
Posted by Biggbrother 7 years ago
Biggbrother
vampire bats exist and they hate garlic.
and people that consume great amounts of garlic are not fed upon by vampiristic mosquitos.
and if your eating garlic or smell like it those energy vampires tend to stay away from you.

i believe its the diallyl sulphides. but any hoot your resolution would not have failed.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
I said, "Suppose the resolution is "Garlic repels vampires." That resolution necessarily presumes that vampires exist, so it fails." That's exactly what you said, right?

However, "X cursed vampires" can be affirmed without vampires existing, because X's action can take place without vampires existing. In your analysis the premise is not that "vampires exists" but rather that "vampires exist as an X object."
Posted by asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
I think you somewhat grasp my point ROY but slightly misinterpret its meaning - have you read the philosophers of Language Strawson or Russell on 'reffering'? They would break the statement "Garlic repels Vampires" as a logical entailment as follows:
(1) There exists Vampires
(2) There exists Garlic
(3) Garlic repels Vampires
Thus although we may be capable of making sense of the statement, in reality it is false.
In truth schema: "Garlic repels vampires" if and only if Garlic repels vampires. The falsity become self-evident even if we understand the statement. This is why scientific language is so utterly dry - simply because it attempts only to make statements that are logically coherent and verifiable.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
asy, I'm not sure what you mean by "intrinsic." Words have meaning, and the meaning is defined by their context. If a resolution says, "Bill Graham led a prayer." and a "prayer" is defined as an "appeal to God," does the resolution depend upon proving the existence of God? I think not, because one can appeal to God whether or God exists. Similarly, one can be understood to blaspheme whether or not God exists; the action is understood regardless.

Now, I grant this is tricky. Suppose the resolution is "Garlic repels vampires." That resolution necessarily presumes that vampires exist, so it fails. However, "X cursed the vampires" remains valid, because the resolution only depends upon understanding what X did. (I hope I have not offended any vampires on the site ...)
Posted by asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
I must thank PRO for partaking in such a civil and constructive debate!
Posted by asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
WJMELEMTS - no the dictionary did not prove me wrong - are you sure you read the whole debate?
Posted by asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
ROY - for your position to be valid then words would need to somehow retain an intrinsic value. That words themselves have meaning and purpose and reference completely external to that of speakers and listeners! For a word to succeed in its intention in not only needs someone to speak it - but a listener to infer the meaning and an object or idea as to refer to (that is, if it has a referent). These are basic Axioms of any linguistic investigation. Words are not platonic ideals.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
I think that PRO clearly won this debate. CON's only argument against the resolution was that there wasn't a god to blaspheme, and the dictionary proved this argument irrelevant.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The definition of "blasphemy" does not depend upon whether God exists or not, it is the presumption of the blasphemy that counts. The word retains a clear meaning in its use. Pro makes the case.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by animea 7 years ago
animea
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
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 bizlaw 7 years ago
bizlaw
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sedylitz 7 years ago
Sedylitz
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
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 asyetundefined 7 years ago
asyetundefined
4chanforthewinasyetundefinedTied
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