The Instigator
hayhen13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JayConar
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The Bible is Brainwash

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 1 vote the winner is...
JayConar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,040 times Debate No: 65956
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

hayhen13

Pro

1st round is accceptance, anyone that wants to seriously defend the Bible should accept.
JayConar

Con

Excellent choice of topic for a debate, I feel I will enjoy this.

My opponent has the burden of proof in this debate.

My opponent has to prove that the bible is brainwashing people to win this debate.

For those interested, brainwashing is defined as: 'pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.'

Pro, I look forward to your explanation of how the bible is actively pressurising people into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Pro


Okay so my job is to prove that the Bible is used to brainwash. You so excellent defined brainwashing for me as, pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.” So now I have to show and convince you that the bible fits these definitions.


So the bible can “pressurize” people by “forcible means” by threatening them. If had to choose to “adopt radically different beliefs” you would be pressured into doing this by being informed that if you didn’t, you would be tortured (in intolerable pain) for the rest of eternity. Now my proof of this to show it is real is, And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” So it is impossible to go to heaven (not go to hell and be tortured) without believing in God and accepting his beliefs.


With that I mostly proved how the Bible brainwashes except for the “radical” part of the beliefs. I have already shown how they pressurize (someone)” into excepting beliefs now the only other part I have to prove is that it is radical.


This extremely difficult since something being radical is of an opinion. But at least for me, it seems crazy that an invisible man in the sky writes a book (which is impossible since he is not physical matter and can’t even think at all) that denies everything that we know for sure of the world and shuns truth, then threatens people for infinite torture if they don’t believe in him.


JayConar

Con

My opponent has failed to fulfill his burden of proof.

My opponent asserts thus:

'So the bible can "pressurize" people by "forcible means" by threatening them.'

However, this is untrue as the bible, not being animated or having the ability to make decisions or have conscious thought, cannot actually force people to read it. Thus if you do not wish to read the bible, then the bible is unable to force you to. I find it difficult to understand how this detail has escaped Pro's attention, perhaps he can enlighten us about the matter in the next round.

As the bible is unable to communicate with people without their choosing to do so then this eradicates any doubts that anyone may have had about the bible's ability to use 'forcible means.' What I mean by this, to make it clear, is that the bible is unable to use any sort of 'forcible means.'

Of course, although the bible is unable to use forcible means, there are still people who would still choose to read it. These people are called 'Christians' and tend to have beliefs that are incredibly similar to the beliefs inscribed into the bible. Thus, if the bible does change their beliefs in any sort of way, the change may not be defined as a 'radical' one.

Even if Pro had proved that the bible is somehow able to force people to read it, which he has not, then the question would be where is there any evidence of threats of violence?

Pro has sourced this for us:

'"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."'

This is Christian talk for 'no we don't need to provide proof because faith yay.' However, despite its obvious flaws, this statement contains no obvious or implied threats of violence or torture. It does not, actually, say that those who do not 'draw near to God' can not go to heaven either.

Pro's entire last paragraph is irrelevant as the definition of brainwash is that the person being brainwashed has to adopt 'radically different' beliefs. Not 'radical' beliefs. If I went from believing that cheese was the ruler of the universe to believing that cheese and potatos ruled the universe jointly, both beliefs would be somewhat radical, but they would not be radically different from each other.

In other words, the bible is unable to force people to read it so it cannot change peoples beliefs by forcible means. Thank you and back over to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Pro


I would like to thank my opponent on an excellent response, for you have raised excellent points.


Rebuttal:


“However, this is untrue as the bible, not being animated or having the ability to make decisions or have conscious thought, cannot actually force people to read it”


To respond to this I shall say that the contents of the Bible encourage its followers to spread the word of the Lord and to tell otheres that they will be punished if they do not convert. I believe this defeats your argument of, “Thus if you do not wish to read the bible, then the bible is unable to force you to.” Since the Bible is able to force you to, through its followers. I guess you are correct in that the Bible cannot directly tie someone to a chair and physically force them to read it but it very obviously, indirectly of course does, “pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”


Now for my evidence of how the Bible does this. I would have liked to show more proof, but I thought this was enough.


“And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.’”


“And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”


“Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people.


”In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”


Another point of evidence is; the crusades. These were believed to have started at 1095 A.D. These were started to convert others (by: “pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”) and to win back the “Holy Land.” This is yet another piece of evidence showing that the Bible brainwashes people. The Bible does not directly, physically force people to read it, but, as I have made abundantly clear, the Bible does brainwash.


“unable to use any sort of 'forcible means.'” I have now made clear that the Bible is able to use forcible means, therefore fits the exact definition of brainwashing. With that I have proven my point in the Bible is Brainwash.


If you have any objections, I have evidence, as above, that the Bible uses people to force them to adopt the Bible. I look forward to your response and wish you the best of luck!



(I hope I have fulfilled the “burden of proof” that I lacked in the first round)


JayConar

Con

Thank you for that argument, Pro, on to mine.

My opponent's entire argument is irrelevant.

The object of this debate is to discover whether or not 'the bible is brainwash.' My opponent concedes that the bible does not brainwash people: 'I guess you are correct in that the Bible cannot directly tie someone to a chair and physically force them to read it.'

He then attempts to change the resolution of this debate to 'followers of the bible attempt to brainwash people.' This is not the original resolution, but it is what my opponent is attempting to now make the resolution after he realised that the bible is, in fact, unable to do any actual 'brainwashing.'

Thus, everything that my opponent said in that previous round is irrelevant.

Thank you, over to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Pro


Thank you for that valid response con, for it has raised many interesting topics.


Rebuttal:


You open your response with, “My opponent's entire argument is irrelevant.”And end your argument this same way.


I don’t know how my last argument was irrelevant, since I proved that the Bible brainwashes people abundantly clear through four different lines of evidence from the Bible, which I could post more if you prefer, if that wasn’t enough, I also even connected it to the crusades. I don’t know how this is considered ‘irrelevant’ since I never specified that the Bible has to directly brainwash, and that is what your entire last argument was about.


“My opponent concedes that the bible does not brainwash people: 'I guess you are correct in that the Bible cannot directly tie someone to a chair and physically force them to read it.'”


I never conceded that the bible doesn’t brainwash people, if I did, I would lose the whole debate. You incorrectly assume this. I simply stated that, physically, the Bible cannot force people to read it, which is correct since a bible is not alive. I have proven that the Bible indirectly does this, and therefore, proven my point.


“He then attempts to change the resolution of this debate to 'followers of the bible attempt to brainwash people.' This is not the original resolution, but it is what my opponent is attempting to now make the resolution after he realised that the bible is, in fact, unable to do any actual 'brainwashing.'”


I did not attempt to change the entire debate at all, I was proving how the Bible brainwashes people through indirect means. And since you have not defeated these at all, it still stands.


But the Bible, in fact, is, able to do actual ‘brainwashing.’


Argument:


As I have made abundantly clear in my last response, that once someone reads the Bible, they are in fact ‘brainwashed’ to“pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.” by literal definition. I have proven that this is true through my evidence of the crusades, and other mass conversions where people threaten others to adopt their religion, or die, as seen in the crusades. Therefore, the bible does brainwash people by definition, proving my entire side of the debate.


Now in my opponent’s response, I suggest that you respond to my claim of, proving that the Bible indirectly brainwashes people, for I never specified in the debate; that the Bible has to directly do this, which therefore defeats your entire previous argument.


I would like to make clear to the audience that my opponent has never defeated any of my arguments, as I have abundantly shown previously, and his only response to my argument was stating repeatedly that a Bible can’t physically move and force things, which I hope everyone believes too. But my opponent has never defeated my proof and evidence that the Bible brainwashes, and I suggest, as advice, in the next round that you do so.


Thanks and back to you Con!




JayConar

Con

My opponent constantly states that the bible brainwashes people who read it, yet he appears to have no understanding of what the word brainwash actually means. He does, however, repeat the definition of it many times, let's remind ourselves of what that is:

Brainwash: 'To pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.'

In order for the bible to be considered to 'brainwash' people, they would have to read it against their will as, if they do not read it against their will, it cannot be considered 'forcible.' My opponent has, still, failed to fulfill his burden of proof by proving how the bible forces people to read it.' Saying that other people whom have already read the bible will force them to read it is both nonsense (people are not forced to read the bible on pain of death in this day and age) and, even if it were true, it would not prove that the bible 'brainwashes' people, it would only prove that the people whom are forcing them to read it are attempting to brainwash them, not the bible itself, which is what this debate is about.

My opponent has conceded this debate many times by stating, in various ways, that the bible is not a living thing, so is unable to use forcible means. Therefore, I do not have to rebut my opponents other arguments as they are all irrelevant in light of the fact that my opponent is unable to, or at least has so far been unable to, provide any evidence that the bible itself can force people to read it, thus fulfilling the 'forcible' requirement of the definition of 'brainwash.' I will remind my opponent one more time that other people not only do not force others to read the bible, but even if they were to do so, that would be irrelevant to this discussion as other people attempting to brainwash you is not the same as the bible attempting to brainwash you.

Back over to you, Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
hayhen13

Pro


Thank you con for that response, I look forward to the results.


Rebuttal:


Your response had two main parts, so I will address them accordingly.


Part 1:


You restate the definition directly before you say this yet you contradict it. It saddens me that we have to argue about the definition of brainwash so much.


The definition is: “To pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.”


“In order for the bible to be considered to 'brainwash' people, they would have to read it against their will as, if they do not read it against their will, it cannot be considered 'forcible.'”


So you say that in order for the Bible to brainwash, it has to force people to read it. But the definition of ‘brainwash’ is “adopting radically different beliefs” so therefore for the Bible to brainwash, it has to force people to adopt different beliefs, not read force people to read the Bible, therefore obviously defeats this argument.


“My opponent has, still, failed to fulfill his burden of proof by proving how the bible forces people to read it.”


As we have already obviously established that the Bible doesn’t force people to read it, merely adopt different beliefs which the Bible does, and therefore proves my whole side in this debate. My opponent goes on to say that I have not fulfilled my burden of proof, I will then make clear to the audience that my opponent has not once given any proof or evidence to back up his argument besides the of brainwash, or cited any sources, while I have sourced 5 passages from the Bible, giving proof that the Bible forces people to adopt different beliefs. I told my opponent to show proof in the last round but he still refuses not to. This therefore defeats this argument by proving all of it incorrect.


“Saying that other people whom have already read the bible will force them to read it is both nonsense (people are not forced to read the bible on pain of death in this day and age) and, even if it were true, it would not prove that the bible 'brainwashes' people, it would only prove that the people whom are forcing them to read it are attempting to brainwash them, not the bible itself, which is what this debate is about.”


My opponent continually states that the Bible doesn’t force people to read, and therefore doesn’t brainwash. I actually never said that it did, and it is strange that my opponent based half of their argument on this, which therefore proves it all incorrect. Very incorrect and invalid. I have therefore defeated your entire first argument.


Part 2:


“My opponent has conceded this debate many times by stating, in various ways, that the bible is not a living thing, so is unable to use forcible means. Therefore, I do not have to rebut my opponents other arguments as they are all irrelevant in light of the fact that my opponent is unable to, or at least has so far been unable to, provide any evidence that the bible itself can force people to read it, thus fulfilling the 'forcible' requirement of the definition of 'brainwash.'”


Did you really think that this whole debate was going to be about whether a Bible can move or not? You say that I have lost since I haven’t been able to prove a Bible can move and base your entire second argument on it. And I have adequately and frequently shown that by definition the Bible does brainwash. This thus defeats this argument.


“I will remind my opponent one more time that other people not only do not force others to read the bible, but even if they were to do so, that would be irrelevant to this discussion as other people attempting to brainwash you is not the same as the bible attempting to brainwash you.”


You restate what you have said in your first argument, which I have undoubtedly defeated. So the first part has been defeated, now the second part. You say that, “other people attempting to brainwash you is not the same as the bible attempting to brainwash you.” Well hitting a switch on a wall doesn’t actually turn a light on then. It only conducts a flow of electricity to the light bulb, doesn’t actually turn it on. Under your theory, then instead of being called ‘turning on the light’ it should be called ‘conducting a flow of electricity to the bulb’ because according to you it “is not the same.” Okay I have defeated your argument, but I shall continue because I want to defeat it again. In the beginning of the debate I never specified whether the Bible had to brainwash directly or indirectly, therefore my argument is still valid. I stated this in the last argument but you ignored it in this one and continued with your already defeated arguments.


Conclusion:


I have literally cited every single word you said in the last round and defeated it in this argument. You have ignored all of my other arguments and never defeated any of them. Your only two arguments in last round were; that a Bible cannot move, therefore cannot directly brainwash and that the Bible can’t force people to read it. I have repeatedly and successfully defeated all of your arguments while you have defeated none of mine. Thank you and I wish you the best of luck!



JayConar

Con

My opponent states thus:

'In the beginning of the debate I never specified whether the Bible had to brainwash directly or indirectly.' This is inherently untrue, as when he made the debate he called it: 'The Bible is Brainwash.' This is obviously incredibly broken English, but the clearest meaning that we can get out of this is that the bible is 'literally' brainwash. This would require the bible to be directly responsible for brainwashing people when, as my opponent has pointed out several times, the bible cannot be directly responsible for brainwashing people as it is unable to force anybody to read it.

My opponent is wrong to state that I have dropped his arguments as I have not dropped them, I have simply announced that all of them are irrelevant due to the fact that none of them explain how the bible can be directly responsible for 'brainwashing' somebody. As I have subsequently proved, the bible does have to be directly responsible for brainwashing as it is unable to 'forcibly' make anybody read it. If you read something, it is your choice, the book cannot force you to read it.

My opponent asserts this:

'So you say that in order for the Bible to brainwash, it has to force people to read it. But the definition of ‘brainwash’ is “adopting radically different beliefs” so therefore for the Bible to brainwash, it has to force people to adopt different beliefs, not read force people to read the Bible, therefore obviously defeats this argument.'

Here, my opponent attempts to completely cut off the end of a definition that we've been using since the start of this debate. The definition in full is thus: 'To pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means.' Just the fact that he cut off the end of the definition in order to attempt to deceive the reader into forgetting that the bible would have to use 'forcible means' to acheive it's supposed aim of getting somebody to adopt 'radically different' beliefs is suspect. This argument does not defeat my argument as, in the case of the bible, to get somebody to adopt radically different beliefs would require it to also use forcible means to get people to read it. It cannot do this, as I have stated many times and my opponent has conceded totally.

My opponent has spent this entire debate attempting to argue that Christians attempt to use the bible to brainwash others. However, the title of this debate does not allude to that being the subject of debate at all. The title of this debate is centered around whether or not the bible is literally brainwash. As it cannot fulfill part of the definition of brainwashing, that is to forcibly make people read it (which would be a requirement of its changing anybody's beliefs), it cannot be said to be brainwash.

My opponent has proved that there are certain passages in the bible which incite violence towards people who don't believe, however this is not brainwashing as it is not forcing these beliefs upon anybody as it is unable to force anybody to 'listen' to it, as it were. Therefore, despite my opponent sourcing the bible multiple times, that does not matter as it's irrelevant to the debate at hand. My opponent's statement that the fact that I haven't used sources to show why he is arguing the wrong topic in this debate makes everything I've said invalid is laughable at best. My opponent has not produced any relevant facts that I've been able to use sources to refute. The only way I was able to get any sources into this debate was through the definition [1] of brainwash which I realise now I forgot to source, so I have sourced it here.

My opponent's entire argument was irrelevant from start to finish as he was arguing a completely different topic to that which the debate is actually about. That is, whilst the debate is about whether the bible is literally forcing its views upon people (which requires it to force people to read it) my opponent has been arguing that Christians attempt to force their views upon people by forcing them to read the bible, which would be invalid even if it was the debate topic as Christians, by and large, do not force people to read the bible. If you do not wish to read something, then you do not have to.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Then think about Paganism and how the Christians did 'Religious cleansing' they used forcible means to have Pagans adopt different beliefs because of the Bible.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
hayhen13, the crusades were not as you imagine them. The vast majority of people did not do it for the glory of religion or whatever. The fact is that the Muslims were incredibly aggressive back in those times, so the Christians met force with force. Your point about the crusades is irrelevant due simply to the fact that you have no idea what they were about. It had very little to do with the bible.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
Why do you continually say that you can choose what you want to read and therefore the bible isn't brainwash? The definition is adopt different beliefs and the crusades went and forced people to become Christian or death and therefore is proof that the Bible brainwashes. I made this abundantly clear but you refuse to acknowledge it and continue with your argument that the Bible can't force people to read it. Please explain.
Posted by Broleys1 2 years ago
Broleys1
The bible is like a hand guide to getting into heaven. If youre reading a manuel on placing a boiler together and it says " put cap on hole so you dont burn your face when you turn it on." You would say to yourself, wow thanks guide for saving my face" and not "stupid guide forcing me to believe this cap serves a function when it probably doesnt."
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
jay............ Your problem is you are telling us what you think the bible says, instead of reading it for yourself.Jesus said, I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.The bible says, " and if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the same promises.The first covenant is what brought Jesus and the new covenant. One could not have existed without the other. Without covenants Jesus could not get here.God creates by speaking faith-filled words.All those covenants before Jesus, God was painting a picture of Jesus with words. He started in the garden of Eden. When he told satan that he would send one to put his foot on his head. For 4000 years God spoke and created. He was sewing up an earth suit for Jesus.This body. And when he was finished Jesus put it on. 1st chapter of John. The word became flesh and dwelt among men.

I have heard people say that if God wanted to prove himself then why did he not walk up to them. He did. Jesus told those folks he was God's son. He said, " before Abraham was . I AM. And they wanted to throw him off a cliff for that.They never considered the healings and the other miracles. Just like today. I have heard people say " why doesn't God walk up to me and tap me on the shoulder to prove he is real.

First. If God was to do that, it would blow your body apart. That absolute life coming into contact with this body full of death would not end well .Why not just take him at his word. That is what a mature person does. When I make a contract with a person from another state, I do not have to feel that person to accept his word.Neither does he have to " feel" me to accept my word.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
outdated*
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
I thought Christians didn't follow the old testament because Jesus said something along the lines of it was oudated?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
What makes you say that?Please elaborate.
Posted by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
So cheyenne you're not a Christian then?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I am not going to go into the why's and wherefores of the old testament.Someday you may see things differently . You may even be thankful God did things the way he did then.

I do not believe all that crap either about floating around on some cloud playing a harp.Or crawling to god in some kind of stupid worship. He said come BOLDLY to me. Heaven is a real place. But it is not our home. The earth is. We are eternal beings.And eternity is each of our destinies. Now , whether you want to believe it or not, if God had done nothing, then at the end of the age all of us would be taken to the destiny of satan.And that is not a place where things end well.

But he did something. He made a way out of the mess Adam put man in.He did it in such degree that man had the right to refuse it.And God will protect your right to stay on the road Adam put you on.The law of sin and death will be anyone's judgment if they stay on that road. It will be lodged in their spirit man forever.He gave us a higher law. The law of the spirit of life in Jesus, the Messiah.That is the alternative destiny God made for the believer in His word.

It has been said, " the earth is the only heaven the unbeliever will ever experience. And the earth is the only hell the believer will ever experience.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
hayhen13JayConarTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Personally I think the point about the Crusades should have been contested, but Pro should have worded their premise better to avoid moving the goalposts further in the debate. Pro's verses did not even show the Bible requiring the use of force.