The Instigator
Calvincambridge
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tiscooler
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Some of the original new testament was written in Japanese

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 5 votes the winner is...
tiscooler
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,245 times Debate No: 17928
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Calvincambridge

Pro

In this debate I will try to prove the known fallacy that some of the new testament was written in Japanese.
Rules
1. This is literary this does not include anything about God inspiring the languauge or not.

You have the burden of proof.
tiscooler

Con

Alright, I accept your debate.

However, you are incorrect in stating that as con I have the burden of proof.

As a person making a claim, I.e, some of the New Testament was written in Japanese, you are responsible to provide evidence why your position merits being accepted as correct. Until proven otherwise, the negative position is assumed to be correct [1]. Thus, pro's claim I possess the burden of proof is a fallacious case of shifting the burden of proof, and should be rejected as a rule for this debate.

I assume this first round is for acceptance, and look forward to a good debate.

[1]: http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Calvincambridge

Pro

Thank you. First the name Yeasu is obviously Japanese. Why would the apostles write in a pagan language like koine Greek. Thomaspreached in China where there are many Japanese therefore the gospel of Thomas could have been written in Japanese.
tiscooler

Con

Thank you for your speedy reply. Before I continue though, I would like to point out a few observations about my opponent's last speech:

Observations

O1: My opponent provided no qualifications for any of his claims. Cross apply this for each of my opponent's points, his entire case is suspect without any qualifiers.

O2: My opponent has conceded my rules objection, the burden of proof thus lies on my opponent to show the new testament being partially written in Japanese.

Now, moving on.

Rebuttals

I will go through his points and address them as cleanly as I can.

"The Name Yeasu is obviously Japanese".

This is unrelated to the topic and is never linked to his case.

"Why would apostles write in Greek?"

Koine Greek was the common language of the eastern Mediterranean during the time period and is the language of the bible was written in. They were writing in a language of the area. [1]

"Thomas Preached in China, therefore the gospel of Thomas could have been written in Japanese"

There are two major problems with this argument:
First, it's a nonsequiter, it does not follow that because he visited China the book was written in Japanese.
Second, the gospel of Thomas is not part of the New Testament. [2]

Conclusion

My opponent's arguments do not meet the standard of proof to show that any of the New Testament was written in Japanese. None of his argument had qualifications, and the few examples and conjectures he has raised I have effectively negated with tangible evidence. Vote Con.


[1] Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland The text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical 1995 p52 "The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, the Greek of daily conversation. The fact that from the first all the New Testament writings were written in Greek is conclusively demonstrated by their citations from the Old Testament

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... This is a list of the books in the bible and New Testament, by searching using control+F it can be seen the gospel of Thomas is not even part of the bible.

Debate Round No. 2
Calvincambridge

Pro

The Burden of proof will be equally be shared. Iesous pronounced Yeasu is my key argument.

New testament- Any books based on Jesus christ written by 300 AD.

The Jewish people write in many languages including Aramaic, GREEK, Hebrew and JAPANESE. Polytheism was the common religious belief of the area the Jewish people blatently rejected it.

Here is a Japanese new testament.


http://www.biblejapanese.com...;

DONT VOTE PRO
tiscooler

Con

I don't feel I need to spend much time rebutting his claims, so I will keep this speech brief for the voter's sake

Observations and Burden of Proof

Extend my first observation, and cross apply it with this speech, he still hasn't provided any qualifications showing that any of the original new testament was written in Japanese, this is a reason to immediately vote for the con, he has failed to meet his burden of proof as the affirmative.

Extend my second observation, my opponent has already conceded the burden of proof does not lie on me by dropping my rules complaint in his second speech. I would also like to point out that even if you let him bring back this dropped rule, he still loses the debate on his rules interpretation- he has provided no warrants to defend his reasoning that we still both share the burden of proof, and with evidence showing this is a case of shifting the burden of proof, you should give this argument to con.

Rebuttals

His yeasu "argument" still isn't linked to any part of his case, it is not a key argument, let alone an argument, it is an unqualified claim, which should be rejected by the voters.

Your attempt to reinterpret New Testament, in the third round, should not be allowed for a few reasons. First, it is abusive to the con, it means that you can shift out of any argument, no matter how late in the debate, by redefining words in your resolution that are considered to have standard, set meanings. Secondly, it conflicts with the rest of your resolution. The word original, defined:

o·rig·i·nal
/əˈrijənl/
Adjective: Used or produced at the creation or earliest stage of something. [1]

This contradicts your usage of New Testament, books written 300 years after Jesus death were most certainly not produced at the creation or earliest stage of Christianity, rendering his semantic trickery useless.

My opponent then proceeds to repeat once again, without evidence, that the New Testament was written in Japanese. Cross apply Observation 1.

The Japanese New Testament you present, first, is a broken link, second, was not the original New Testament, it does not fulfill the resolution

Conclusion

My opponent has effectively given up making actual arguments and is now only repeating his unsourced claims. Since he cannot provide a single shred of evidence any of the original New Testament was written in Japanese, my opponent fails to meet his burden of proof and thus should lose this debate.

Vote Con.


[1]http://goo.gl... This qualification is linked to the definition provided by google dictionary when one googles original.
Debate Round No. 3
Calvincambridge

Pro

AAAAAAAAA! ah ah! um! The first new testament was written in Koine Greek but some of the orginal new testament was written in Japanese

DO NOT VOTE PRO


Japanese appers in the new testament in Matthew 13:2

And he said unto the people komichewa I Yeasu
tiscooler

Con

Debating an opponent who refuses to make an effort into his speech is tiresome. For the sake of the voters, I will keep his speech brief. I apologize for formatting errors, I am currently unable to fix them.

Extend all of my previous arguments and observations made in the last speech, he has not answered any of my objections, he has been shown no shreds of evidence stating the New Testament was even partially written in Japanese, he fails to meet his burden, and thus should lose the debate.

He has dropped his "key yeasu argument. He has conceded my definition of New Testament.

My opponent also shows a lack of integrity in the one piece of attempted evidence he brings up. The actual passage, from the NASB translation, of Mathew 13:2

13:2
And [a]large crowds gathered to Him, so (A)He got into a boat and sat down, and the whole crowd was standing on the beach.

Conclusion

Spending time writing elaborate speeches to be returned with the bilge my opponent calls a speech is quite disparaging. I have effecly shown that my opponent fails to meet his burden of proof in all of my previous speeches, so continuing to repeat myself is only prolonging the inevitable and wasting the voters' time. My opponent, as the pro, at the end of his third and fourth speech, urges you to not vote pro. I now ask you to respect his request.
Debate Round No. 4
Calvincambridge

Pro

OK the new testament wasnt written in Japanese.
tiscooler

Con

Pro concedes, vote con.

Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
how am I a troll this was a fun debate guess you dident have as much fun as I have this wasent serious if you thought it was i'm sorry
Posted by tiscooler 5 years ago
tiscooler
He's a "notorious" troll. I didn't expect much accepting this debate.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
For a debate, this seemed more like Pro repeating his arguments, than actually rebutting any of his opponent's case. Fail!
Posted by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
@Larz the rules were loaded to favor Pro's (incredibly weak) argument. To even accept to would make the debate even more ridiculous
Posted by tiscooler 5 years ago
tiscooler
God that was pointless.
Posted by tiscooler 5 years ago
tiscooler
It's not the rule itself, it's the context it is in, it comes off more as him shifting the burden of proof, saying I have to prove a negative. Besides, it's a bit of a moot point now, he conceded the rules complaint anyways.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
I think the 'you have burden of proof' rule wasn't unreasonable. Accepting a debate without accepting the rules is probably not a very nice thing to do.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
who really thinks any of the new testament was written in japanese?
Posted by tiscooler 5 years ago
tiscooler
As pro, demanding someone to prove a negative isn't really a fair debate.

http://www.nizkor.org...
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
You can't fool me. I'm wide awake.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
CalvincambridgetiscoolerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Worst debate I've seen in a long time.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
CalvincambridgetiscoolerTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a bad debate....Calvincambridge didn't prove the burden of proof. Calvin also tried to define terms late in the debate, and loses points for sources (for obvious reasons).
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
CalvincambridgetiscoolerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I think everyone is now dumber for having read this. Pro's arguments were entirely nonsensical. Oh yeah and forfeit
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 5 years ago
Rockylightning
CalvincambridgetiscoolerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a votebomb. Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
CalvincambridgetiscoolerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: VOOOOOOTE BOMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jk forfeit