The Instigator
Diagoras
Con (against)
Winning
68 Points
The Contender
gordi9
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible is historically accurate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,961 times Debate No: 18784
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (14)

 

Diagoras

Con

Whoever my opponent is will need to prove that the bible, the word of "god," is non-fiction and historically accurate.
gordi9

Pro

The world is followed by one god in many forms. I am here to say that the bible is historically accurate. I have two reason, first god is the creator of our creations. Finally, god can be trusted. My first point God is the creator, he is the one that made the world. He controls our life. After this debate he might be made at you. You know what I am doing right now is history. God gave me the power to type. Thus, the disciples that made the bible are historically accurate. Finally, god can be trusted. I our bills and coins we have one slogan,"In god we trust or We trust in god." If we believe in him then we think the bible is accurate. Thus, I urge a pro ballot.
1st - cases
2nd- crossfire
3rd- rebuttals
Debate Round No. 1
Diagoras

Con

I'm not sure I can even follow the nonsense in this post. I'll try to break down the gibberish line by line.

1) god is the creator.

No evidence is given for this. Just mindless drivel. god did not create you. You were created in your mother's womb during the 9 months after prom, with probably some heavy binge drinking every now and again. You were created by the combination of a sperm and an egg and the process that they go through to grow into a person. unless you consider your dad's dong or your mother's hoohoo "god" then you weren't created by god. And the world was definately not created by either your dad's meat rocket, nor you mother's salami sheath. It was created from the dust of stars clustering together from the forces of gravity.

2) He controls our lives.

Smite me, oh mighty smiter! Obviously "god" is controlling me to rip his believers a new one, because he loves you soooooo much. That makes sense.

3) god can be trusted.

He can be trusted to do nothing and pretty much not exist. That is about it.

Nothing of your argument suggests anything along the lines of historical accuracy.

Now some basic examples of how it is not historically accurate.

1) god created the sun after making day and night, and the Earth. The Earth was created after the sun, because it was made from left over space dust. So it is historically and scientifically inaccurate to say the Earth was made first. It is also inaccurate to say that night and day could be made before the sun, since the sun is what makes the nights and days.

2) The bible gives a solid lineage back to the first humans. Which suggest that mankind is only 6,000 years old. Yet we've found numerous remains of humans older than that.

3) The bible claims that giants roamed the Earth, yet there is no fossile records of any giants roaming the earth.

4) The bible claims that the Earth was of one language, however, he was records that there were many different languages going back to when the earth supposedily was created.

5) The bible says that Abraham returned to the land of the philistines... 800 years before the philistines ever got there.

There are plenty more, but these are just some examples from a single book of the bible.

source - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
gordi9

Pro

If you are some atheist then I will forfeit this Debate because you sir are saying that god is fake. If I were him I would of whooped you. The Bible is historically accurate and that's that.
Debate Round No. 2
Diagoras

Con

My opponent apparently forfeits this debate. Yes god is fake. If he wants, he can come down and whoop me. Since none of my points were challenged, this debate is over.
gordi9

Pro

Sir could you please bring me evidence that is viable your source is a crappy conspiracy site please bring some viable evidence like this you source is just empty questions
http://www.forumterrace.com...

your source is science based and you cant prove that creation is biblical or evolutionary because the main part of science is observation and the only record of observation is the bible and as you can agree me and you were not there so we couldn't observe we cant prove that point. as my source points out people used to think that the bible was fake and now it has been proven right by many archeological finds and other discovery's. It take just as much faith to believe in the bible as to deny it

This is why I urge a pro ballot
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Diagoras 6 years ago
Diagoras
http://www.debate.org...

There you go.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Diogoras,

I will debate you on "The Bible is Historically Inaccurate" with you as pro, unless you don't feel confident in your ability to carry the burden of proof.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I don't debate religion, in fact, I rarely even vote on it.
Posted by Diagoras 6 years ago
Diagoras
Ore-ele, if you think that this debate "greatly leaned" for me in an unfair way, then I'll debate you on some religious topic of your choice.
Posted by gordi9 6 years ago
gordi9
apology accepted
and i was flustered by the rude comment in you speech so i'm sorry for breaking debate rules
Posted by Diagoras 6 years ago
Diagoras
I appologize for calling my opponent a douche bag.
Posted by Diagoras 6 years ago
Diagoras
You can't forfiet in the 2nd round then come back in the last round, post an argument, and urge a Pro vote, douche bag!
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
CON, the resolution should be, "The Bible Contains Historical Inaccuracies" that way PRO can't say that there are indeed historical accuracies so it is historically accurate.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Seriously, ReformedArsenal will dismantle you.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Con,

Have the courage to post this with you having burden of proof and I'll be glad to dismantle you.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 7 months ago
paintballvet18
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to think bare assertion would work. When he realised it wouldn't, he forfeited the debate and said God should whip Con's ass. So conduct goes to Con. Pro's grammar is poor.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: non debate.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
jm_notguilty
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: duh
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 6 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, Pro didn't actually debate or argue anything, so even though this could have been an interesting debate, Con obviously wins.
Vote Placed by waylon.fairbanks 6 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro essentially forfeited the debate and made arguments as silly as: using circular logic to show that the bible is historically accurate, accusing Con of biased sources, failing to rebut Con's list of biblical inaccuracies, equating scientific observation with direct observation, making baseless claims [ex. "it has been proven right by many archeological finds and other discovery's."] and so on. He made several spelling mistakes and had no sources to back up his claims.
Vote Placed by Spritle 6 years ago
Spritle
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't argue his points. Conduct was pretty bad between both.
Vote Placed by wiploc 6 years ago
wiploc
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Repeating the resolution, and adding, "That's that," is among the worst arguments I've ever heard. Troll quality. Forfeiting on the grounds that your opponent disagrees with you is also astoundingly bad behavior.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
Diagorasgordi9Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didnt even argue his position