The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Resolved: Christianity is negative for society.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,762 times Debate No: 17985
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




This round is only for acceptance of the debate, whereas the next 3 rounds will be for the actual argumentation.


I accept. Let's do this.
Debate Round No. 1


Based on the evidence that I have found with regard to the topic at hand, I must affirm the essential question asked of this debate and argue that Christianity is indeed a poison to our society. Before continuing, I would like to define the following key terms:

Christianity: The religion basd on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. Christianity is today the world's most widespread religion, mainly divided among the Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
(The Oxford American College Dictionary)

Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another; a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

With these definitions, we can place the following paramaters on the resolution of this debate:

Observation 1: The debates must analyze both the doctrine of Christianity itself based on its core protocol: The Bible. In addition, the debates must also analyze the general beliefs of the people practicing the protocol as well as their practice of Christianity and how it has affected society.
Observation 2: The resolution does not specify a specific society to analyze with regard to the debate at hand. However, because a society can be a broad grouping of people at a global scale and the definition of Christianity also mentions that it is the world's most widespread religion, this thus implies that the debate must analyze the effect of Christianity at a global scale.
Observation 3: The winner of this debate is the one that shows that the amount of advantages of Christianity's effects outweigh their disadvantages.

And now, to my argument:

Contention 1: Christianity's protocol is inherently flawed
As we must analyze Christianity at its protocol, this contention will show us how the main protocol for the religion in question is inherently flawed. The Bible is the central guide for the practice of the religion, and it is notoriously known to be promotional of immoral actions, contradictory in reasoning and idealisms, and possibly illegitimate with objective analysis on the documentation and traslations thereof. With such a flawed document, we realize that this such doctrine is not optimal or even suboptimal for society, but dangerous for the society.
Sub 1a: Christian doctrine promotes immoral actions
From condemnation of homosexuals to sexism to genocide, the Bible has been a staunch promoter of inherently immoral actions that are poisonous to the society. These actions have resulted in negative effects whether subtle or extreme, and there mere quality of the protocol being immoral shows that it prompts for an immoral society and ought not be considered a doctrine worthy of creating a social structure. Such immoral actions promoted in the Bible are shown below:
Biblical Promotion of Sexism
Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:16
Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuals
Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:18-32
Biblical Condemnation of Other Religions
Deuteronomy 13:13-19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12
Sub 1b: The Bible may not be totally legitimate in documentation
In addition to the Biblical text being thousands of years old, translated countless times, and having a possibility of being misinterpreted through the entire course of its existence, but new research shows us that the Bible's authors may not have been qualified for interpretations because of their lack of connections to temples, as shown in the following article:
"Special Software Sheds Light on Who Really Wrote the Bible."--30 June 2011;

Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.

Read more:

Contention 2: Christianity has been detrimental to society
Not only shall we look at the actual religious doctrine itself, but analyze the effect that Christianity has had on the society through history, and we will notice that Christianity has been a poison in not only text, but effects of the text.

Sub 1a: Christianity has inhibited science
Science is required in order for society to better itself by enhancing knowledge about the natural world. However, more often than once has Christianity prevented science from developing properly and quickly. The best examples could be the treatment of Galileo Galilei after his proposal on the idea of heliocentrism or the infamous Scopes Trial in Tennessee 1925.
Sub 1b: Christianity has prompted for bigotry and inequality
The teachings of Christianity have prompted general hatred against groups of people in the country, leading many minorities including gays, Muslims, atheists, and others to be subjected to inequality and hatred by the community. The examples are endless as to how Christianity has done this. An excellent example would be Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments after 9/11.
Sub 1c: Christianity has caused genocide
The genocide of peoples have been caused by Christianity, including The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, and others.
Sub 1d: Christianity has attempted to take over government with relative success.

Contention 3: The good things from Christianity are irrelevant
When we analyze what Christianity really has done and what kind of idealism and doctrine it tries to place over society, we notice that Christianity is essentially attempting to make as many people in the society adhere to their doctrine. People are pretty much condemned if they deviate from the doctrine in any way, and because the good things aren't totally genuine if they're trying to better the all of society just to install this doctrine and condemn anyone if they deviate from it, we can argue that the good things from Christianity are pretty much irrelevant.



My opponent's first contention is that Christianity's protocol is flawed, namely, in it's doctrine that promotes "immoral action." Now my opponent is saying the doctrine promotes immoral action, but on what moral basis? Here is the crux of the matter: If Christianity is true, then its moral system is correct. Places where homosexuality is condemned as immoral would be justified and thus homosexuality would be immoral if Christianity gives us an accurate and true representation of reality. I'll take the time to respond to my opponent's very interesting opening statement.

sub 1a
My opponent cites 3 primary "immoral" actions that Christianity condemns or promotes: Sexism, condemnation of homosexuals and condemnation of other religions.


How exactly are these scriptures sexist? Just because one is to submit to their husband doesn't make the female inferior in any way. The oxford dictionary defines sexism as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." [1] Genesis 3:16 cites God's punishment to women, but continuing the scripture from verses 17-19, God also punishes man and curses his work and efforts. There is no prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination here.

Theologian John MacArthur comments on 1 corinthians 11:3-15. He observes, "There is no distinction between men and women as far as personal worth, intellect, or spirituality are concerned. That women function uniquely in God's order, hover, submitting, to men's authority, Paul affirms several points: 1) the pattern in the Godhead (v.3) 2) the divine design of male and female (v.7) 3) the order of creation (v.8) 4) the purpose of women in regard to man." [2]

Paul, in another letter, clarifies the stance of the worth and equality of men and women in Galatians 3:28 (ESV): "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"

Condemnation of Homosexuals and Other Religions
It seems my opponent presupposes a moral standard outside and above Christianity in order to judge its condemnation of homosexuals as immoral. However, if the Christian religion is true, then what is says about homosexuality would be true and therefor homosexuality would be immoral. However, in this debate we are not proving whether or not Christianity is true. This is somewhat the same with the condemnation of other religions. There are theological reasons for the actions taken in the scriptures against other religions in the OT. Now the way God acted in these scriptures are warranted because of sin. God's judgement on individuals who sin, such as turn away to false Gods or other practices, is warranted. However, today such "condemnations" or disputes are warranted since Christianity makes a truth claim about reality. Other religions are bound to be labeled as false or wrong as with any other truth claim, since truth claims are intrinsically exclusive. If 2+2=4 and that's the truth, then anyone who differs is wrong. However, in the case of worshipping a different God or practicing differently, this would be a sin and hence has theological implications.

sub 1b:
because of time restraints and character space I will jump into this issue the next round.

sub 1a:
Christianity did not inhibit science. Quite the opposite, science was pushed forward thanks to natural theology and Christian thinkers. First, the first universities were born out of theological and religious reasons.The university was the primary scientific institution of the middle ages and these were "primarily intended to educate prospective members of the higher clergy" and they "provided a home for natural philosophers." These universities were protected by both Church and state and gave students and professors intellectual freedom to explore any and all ideas, as long as it God wasn't left out. Hannam observes the following about Science and the church, "Closely coupled to the myth… is the belief that the Church held back what meager advances made…During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church actively supported a great deal of science, but it also decided that philosophical speculation should not impinge on theology.[3]

Joahannes Kepler, a fervent religious man, "was convinced that the structure of the heavens had to reflect the perfection of its creator. This perfection, he thought, would reveal itself best through the precision of geometry."[4] Using Tycho Brahe's data and observations, Kepler was able to test his model of the universe and he was able to "[publish] the new astronomical tables of planetary positions that he had promised Tycho he would complete." [5]

My opponent names Galileo's trial after his proposal of heliocentrism. It was actually Copernicus who proposed a heliocentric universe in his Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and Kepler who proved it[6]. Galileo is responsible for being the first to "mould them into a coherent whole and the first to show how they could be experimentally demonstrated."[7] So the idea of heliocentrism was already in play. Secondly, in regard to the trial of Galileo, a majority of the issue had to do with politics with the pope rather than science. What happened was Galileo was finishing his book called Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems where he argued for and defended heliocentrism. Towards the end of the book Galileo "put the pope's argument about how God could engineer circumstances to produce any end result into the mouth of Simplicio. The pope's argument was weak and inimical to natural philosophy. By slotting it in at the end, Galileo showed what he thought of it and thereby ensured that His Holiness would take umbrage."[8] It's noted that the pope took offense at this and ordered "the book to be withdrawn and appointed a special commission to examine it."[9] From there Galileo was then tried for heresy, which he fought against.


The issue of the scopes trial was basically a theological issue between individuals who believed Christianity and evolution is compatible and those who don't believe Christianity and evolution are incompatible. So at best, we have a divide on the issue that comes from the Christian tradition. So how does this show that Christianity impedes science? At best all that would follow from this scenario is that dogmatic, fundamentalists may impede science, but even then we must take a look at the merits of their argument.

Sub 1b:
I agree that over the history of Christianity, there have been "Christians" who have acted in ways that are not in accordance with a proper Christian Ethic. My opponent listed Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments about 9/11 as an example and I'll even present the Westboro Baptist Church as another example. The Westboro Church claims that they are following scripture and "spreading the news" of the gospel to others about the truth of homosexuality and other issues. So the question that is raised is are these individuals truly representative of orthodox Christianity?

For people to act in hatred towards Muslims, atheists, and gays is simply wrong (Philippians 2:3-4). Yes, Christians disagree with these groups and Christians stand for what they believe is true, but their approach is to be one of Christ. To count these individuals, who have said harsh things, as representatives of orthodox Christianity would be wrong.

Sub 1c:
Listing the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and the the witch trials is nothing but a shotgun approach. No references, evidence, or reason is presented to support your contention. What about the crusades, the spanish inquisition and the witch trials?

sub 1d:
This is completely unsubstantiated. My opponent not only gives no evidence for this, but he gives no reason to think why this is true.

I will address this further in the next round since I ran out of characters and I will attempt to provide some positive contributions from Christianity.

Debate Round No. 2


Contention 1: As the judges will clearly see from the Biblical clauses that I've claimed to contain messages that promote immorality, the main two things that I focus on are murder and discrimination. My opponent brings up the question about the moral standard that I'm trying to place here in replacement of Christianity in order to evaluate the immorality of the situation, but as far as the concept of justice is concerned (which is what I'm trying to provide here through the examination of the immorality of the Bible), discrimination and the murder of another human being are inherently immoral against any moral standard, even Christianity (which I will address also in order to substantiate my case). That is, of course, unless my opponent disagrees and states that discrimination and murder are completely moral; then, this is a different scenario that I must address. Before moving on to the specific things that my opponent has made about my case, we should look at some primary definitions to consider within the rebuttal:

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)

Prejudice: an irrational attitude of
hostilitydirected against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Submit: Yielding to governance or authority. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Inferior: Of low or lower degree or rank. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

When we look at these definitions, we will realize that my opponent really has no arguement against me, especially in his case against sexism in the Bible. His stance against discrimination when it comes to his rebuttal against my case would imply that he stands against discrimination, unless my opponent says otherwise. As I have shown you from my evidence, we can clearly see that the clauses in question in this contention all promote some kind of prejudice against a group of people, which includes hostility considering that the quotes promote the use of harm against these people simply because of their inclusion within a particular group of people, which is essentially the epitome of what encompasses prejudice and discrimination. As I said, the moral standard that I'm trying to place here is justice, and we can compare the morality of these actions to the clauses stated within the Bible against discrimination. Unless my opponent says otherwise, discrimiantion and prejudice are inherently unjust in all cases including to one of the clauses of the Bible. At the point where the Bible is promoting what it condemns, it shows us that the Bible possesses contradictions therein, only further proving my point that the Bible is not an optimal doctrine of choice for the determination of morality. Within the rebuttal against this contention, that leaves only the argument against the claims of sexism. At the point where women are supposed to allow husbands to govern over them simply because of their status of being the wife, that already tells us that women are considered to be inferior in the eyes of the Bible, according to the definitions of the two words thereof. In case if my opponent requires more evidence, I would advice also checking out 1: Timothy 2:9-15. It'll say the exact same thing a bit more directly.

Sub 2b: When it comes down to the representations of Christianity and the idealism therein, the main point isn't how the message is displayed, but what message they are trying to get across at all. Take for instance if I were a racist, and I am trying to promote the message that black people are lower than any other race. I could tell it to you in a nice way or have it screamed in your face, but either way, it doesn't change the content of the message. The same goes for these representations of Christianity I have mentioned. Regardless of whether it is Westboro Baptist Church or the kindest, gentlest priest known to mankind; the message is all the same: Groups A, B, and C do not go in accord with God and will be damned to Hell with murderers and rapists. That's still bigotry. That's still hate no matter how you try to flower it up. Not to mention that this kind of message has prompted for countless hate crimes and acts of discrimination. Christianity is responsible for this.

Sub 2c: My opponent obviously doesn't understand the point I'm trying to get across in this subpoint because I listed the events in question as examples for the underlying point I'm trying to argue: that Christianity and the practice thereof has prompted for genocides and murders, and the events that I have listed in this sub-point are examples of the point.

Sub 2d: I had thought my computer had placed this before it went on the fritz. It was actually supposed to list the actions of the Republican Party.

Sub 2a: When we closely analyze the rebuttal that my opponent has made against this point, we realize that it actually substantiates my case with regard to the third contention. What we realize is that religion only prompts science as long as it substantiates the agenda they're trying to promote. My opponent says so himself in his rebuttal against this point when he states that these colleges in question actually prompted for science as long as they kept God in it. Science is the discovery of truth and knowledge, and at the point where religion tries to inhibit it and go against it when it contradicts their doctrine, that is still inhibitting science because Christianity is refusing to allow knowledge to expand when it contradict their idealisms. The perfect example for this scenario would be the attitudes on the theory of evolution and the prevention of its inclusion into a biology curriculum. At the base of all of this is the idea that the theory of evolution is wrong because of the solid accord with creationism, and when they try to teach it in schools, fundementalists try to keep it out of the curriculum. We are preventing the spread of knowledge about current ideas within science, and that would still count as inhibitting science. My opponent states that it was the actions of fundementalists alone, but as I have clearly defined Christianity, it includes the practices and actions of Christianity, so the example of the Scopes trial still counts.

As for the things that my opponent didn't address, extend them across the flow until further notice.



To briefly focus on this debate’s resolution, note that I need only refute any argument that affirms the resolution. I could establish the positive effects of Christianity but it is not required here. Pro, however, must first establish how Christianity as an orthodox body of doctrine is negative in nature before it can be determined whether a negative act by a purported Christians is an actual negative effect of Christianity itself. Please note that distinction between Christianity vs a Christian. I need not refute an argument that solely relies on the acts of Christians as that is not the resolution of this debate. Any argument that affirms this will need to do proper biblical exegesis and cite good sources to support these claims since a majority of Pro's arguments are bare assertions.

Sub 1a
Pro continues to beg the question in assuming that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. If Christianity is true, then its moral system is correct. Places where homosexuality is condemned as immoral would be justified and thus homosexuality would be immoral if Christianity gives us a true representation of reality. Pro needs to explain why homosexuality is "ok" for this argument to work. Yet, that issue is an entirely different debate. He continues to presuppose that homosexuality is ok and Christianity is wrong in condemning it as sin. If it's discrimination to judge something that is wrong, then I guess it's prejudice and discriminatory to judge pedophiles and rapists. Homosexuals are not condemned because of any inherent characteristics, but because of their immoral behavior.[1]

I'd like to note that Pro has failed to address any of my arguments and I wish to extend them. Furthermore, Pro failed to even substantiate his claims other than mere assertion such as when he says "At the point where the Bible is promoting what it condemns, it shows us that the Bible possesses contradictions therein." Can you explain this or give a clear example other than just making assertions?

Pro notes, "At the point where women are supposed to allow husbands to govern over them simply because of their status of being the wife, that already tells us that women are considered to be inferior in the eyes of the Bible" This is completely false. This does NOT mean women are viewed as inferior; I dealt with this last round. Moreover, the scripture Ephesians 5:22-29 demonstrates the type of relationship husbands and wives ought to have where respect and care from the husband towards the wife is likened to one who loves his own body: One who loves himself takes care to maintain and nourish their body and thats how a husband must care for his wife.

Pro brings up 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Dorothy Patterson from The Center for Theological Research writes: "To equate feminine submission with slavery or racial injustice is to grasp at an emotional red herring at best and to embrace blatant distortion at worst. There is no theological or exegetical requirement in the text of Scripture for the establishment or continuation of slavery or racial discrimination. However, the Scriptures declare that women are to be submissive because of the order of Creation" [2]

Other Religions
Here, God is punishing a city who is "revolting from its allegiance to the God of Israel, and serving other gods." Matthew Henry's commentary notes how this process occurred: "thou shalt enquire and make search. They must not proceed upon common fame, or take the information by hearsay, but must examine the proofs, and not give judgment against them unless the evidence was clear and the charge fully made out…If the crime were proved, and the criminals were incorrigible, the city was to be wholly destroyed." Here, it's not so much "condemnation" of other religions, but judgment for abandoning and breaking God's law. Even in the execution of judgement, God gave multiple chances for repentance. [4]

sub 1b
What does the authors "qualified interpretations" have to do with anything? This is incredibly vague. What exactly needs interpreting? The gist of the article cited is about a system that seeks to show that the Bible was written by many different authors. In the same article it's noted that "there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices." This doesn't affect the Bible at all or damage the doctrine of inerrancy, which presumes that different authors wrote the bible.

sub 2a:
It was legitimate to do science in the realm of a creator since Christians believed that they can "learn about [God] in two ways- by reading either the book of nature or the book of scripture." The book of nature corresponds to the fact that Christians "believed that God is loving and consistent rather than capricious and arbitrary. This meant that [Christians] could expect natural laws to remain the same forever," [5] thus giving natural philosophers the incentive to seek knowledge and truth of the world. Historian of Science James Hannam sums up the point about science and the church perfectly. Reflecting on the implications of the Condemnations of 1277 he writes: "It would be a mistake to see the restrictions that the 1277 condemnations placed on natural philosophers as evidence that the Church was anti-science. True, there was no such thing as completely free inquiry, but placing limits around a subject is not the same thing as being against it. The limits imposed on natural philosophy served a dual purpose. While they did prevent it from impinging on theology, they also protected natural philosophers from those who wanted to see their activities further curtailed." [6]

Pro argues that Christianity still inhibits science since "Christianity is refusing to allow knowledge to expand when it contradict their idealisms." However, If Christianity is true and if Christianity makes claims about the nature of the world, then it is not inhibiting science at all and it would be right to refuse anything that contradicts their ideals, since by definition those ideals would be false if Christianity is true. This is not about science vs religion. This is a philosophical battle between the presumptions of naturalism and theism. If Christianity is true and science is being held by a naturalistic philosophical foundation, it's the naturalists that are inhibiting knowledge and truth--christianity being truth--NOT the religion. J.P. Moreland sums it up: "God could exist and he could have created life in general and man in particular. But if science cannot in principle recognize this possibility because of its naturalistic assumptions, then science would be necessarily false if creationism is true." [7]

How does it follow that this is hate? How is it bigotry to believe someone doing something wrong is going to hell for it? This gets into the doctrine of sin, justice, and punishment. It's not bigotry for God to punish sin, whether it's murder or adultery. Where is there hate in punishment? We return to the distinction of Christianity vs the Christian. The orthodox doctrine and the person who claims to be a Christian carrying it out. The original Christian doctrine of sin, which covers many areas does not encourage hate. For Christians to take these doctrines as a justification for hate is wrong for that particular Christian, not the doctrine. There are numerous places where Jesus taught that we ought to not be hateful towards sinners and he condemned the religious leaders of his day for their hypocrisy[8].

sub 2c:
I understand my opponent's point entirely. But all my opponent did was throw around a bunch of assertions without any reasoning, support, or evidence. Please explain what it is about these issues that show that Christians were in the wrong or that it occurred as commonly depicted.

sub 2d:
This is extremely vague; What about their actions?

Contention 3:
This entire statement is vacuous. If Christianity is true, then you SHOULD conform to it's doctrines. If it's true that Christianity is false, then everyone should conform to that doctrine.

Debate Round No. 3


ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.


First I want to note that in this debate I just had to balance the scales, so to speak. By giving arguments to support his resolution, my opponent places a weight on his side of the balance. All I have to do is remove that weight (rebut or refute his arguments) so that the balance is back to neutral. As an added bonus, I can post a positive argument to push the balance to my side, however, I need not do that since all I have to do is negate the resolution by showing Christianity is either neutral or positive to society.

For Contention 1, I've argued that If Christianity is true, then its moral system is correct. Places where homosexuality is condemned as immoral would be justified and thus homosexuality would be immoral if Christianity gives us a true representation of reality. I've shown the charge of sexism in the Bible to be false, since the Bible promotes equality under Christ (see scriptures during the rounds) and that the Bible has a healthy view of the way Husbands ought to treat their wives. I'm dealt with 1 Timothy 2:9-15, showing the theological and cultural ramifications of the scripture that my opponent seemed to miss.

Regarding God "condemning other religions," I've demonstrated how God gave these people many times to repent and turn away from their wrong doing, namely, breaking the law the God had set. God was exercising righteous judgment over people who broke the law, even after giving them numerous chances to change.

My opponent forfeited and never had the opportunity to respond to my charge against sub 1b.

For Contention 2, I've shown that science was not inhibited by Christianity, but the contrary was true. I've provided a number of scholars and respectable sources to back up my claim, and I've responded to the charges that my opponent brought forth about Christianity inhibiting knowledge. I argued that if Christianity is true and if Christianity makes claims about the nature of the world, then it is not inhibiting science at all and it would be right to refuse anything that contradicts their ideals.

With the bigotry and inequality issue, I've argued that it simply does not follow that because people believe someone doing something wrong is going to hell that this constitutes as hate. I've noted that there is a distinction between Christianity and a person who claims to be a Christian. My opponent needed to show how the doctrine is inherently hateful for his argument to work. However, it won't work either way since it's not hate to believe someone who is wrong will be punished for doing what is wrong. Furthermore, Jesus was actually against bigotry and that is seen in the scriptures where he condemned the religious leaders for being hypocrites. He wasn't only focused with the right and wrong of actions and fulfilling duty, but Jesus was also focused on virtues.

With regard to the crusades, inquisition, and the witch trials, my opponent provides no sources, data, or evidence to support his position. While I'm aware of these historical occurrences, my opponent cites nothing to show that "the genocides of people have been caused" by Christianity.

Finally, my opponent's last 2 contentions were unwarranted or vague. I've given my reasons and provided the sources to show that Christianity is not negative for society. Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited the last round and lost the opportunity to respond to my arguments. I urge votes to consider the content of the arguments presented and the resolution of this particular debate before arriving at a decision.

It was a pleasure debating this topic, and I look forward to hopefully debating my opponent again.

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by awatkins69 6 years ago
Hey ScarleyGhost, want to debate the Goedelian ontological argument for God's existence?
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
Note that my previous sources were for ROUND 2 (not Round 1 since that was for acceptance)

Here are my sources for ROUND 3

[1] Formulation and idea credited to awatkins69
[3]Moreland, James Porter. Scaling the secular city: a defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987. Print.
[4]"Deuteronomy 13:7-19 NASB - of the gods of the peoples who are - Bible Gateway." A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Sept. 2011. <;.
[5] Hannam, James. The genesis of science: how the Christian Middle Ages launched the scientific revolution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub., 2011. pg. 57-58 Print.
[6] ibid., pg. 97
[7] Moreland, James Porter. Scaling the secular city: a defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1987. pg. 210 Print.
[8](Matthew 7:3; Mark 2:15-17; Matthew 23:1-12)
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
Sources for round 1
[2] MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Bible commentary: unleashing God's truth, one verse at a time. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005. Print.
[3]Hannam, James. "Humanist Astronomy and Nicolaus Copernicus." The genesis of science: how the Christian Middle Ages launched the scientific revolution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub., 2011. Print.
[4]ibid., 267-281
[5]ibid., 297.
[6] Hannam, James. "Humanist Astronomy and Nicolaus Copernicus." The genesis of science: how the Christian Middle Ages launched the scientific revolution. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Pub., 2011. 267-281. Print.
[7] ibid.
[8] ibid., 331-332
[9] ibid.
Posted by Davididit 6 years ago
If I accept, you understand the B.O.P is on you to show how and why Christianity is negative for society right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Xenith967 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: im not sure if scarlet ghost coppied this or not so ill just vote davididit
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit for conduct and con answered the objections well.