The Instigator
Ignopius
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
debatemaster10
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Bible should not be a source of truth

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 583 times Debate No: 39270
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Ignopius

Pro

The first round is just an acceptance round.
Both sides carry the burden of proof. The pro must prove why the Bible should not be a source of truth and the con must prove why the Bible should be a source of truth.

The debate should not be about the existence of God or the validity of Jesus, but objectively looking at the Bible for what it is. Our personal positions may not reflect what this debate conveys.
debatemaster10

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Ignopius

Pro

Ignopius forfeited this round.
debatemaster10

Con

debatemaster10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ignopius

Pro

Ignopius forfeited this round.
debatemaster10

Con

debatemaster10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ignopius

Pro

Ignopius forfeited this round.
debatemaster10

Con

debatemaster10 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ignopius 4 years ago
Ignopius
May not have time to make arguments.
Posted by alina3017 4 years ago
alina3017
The Bible should not be regarded as truth. The English King James version (and whatever other versions there are) is not the original version. Passages have been translated and re-translated over time. Some parts could have been omitted entirely or heavily amended. It is a book with stories in it dating two thousand-ish years. How is that a basis for truth? Believing something does not make it true. Besides, the only part that makes extraordinary claims is the Old Testament, if you do not count Jesus' miracles. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Religion is subjective. There are thousands of religions in this world, both ancient and contemporary. Just the fact that there are extinct religions should say something. We call it Greek *mythology* today, but at some point, it was not *mythology.* Why do Bible stories have more credibility than ancient religions? Exactly, they do not. A virgin birth is not unique to Christianity. Nothing is unique to Christianity.
Posted by mzoldos 4 years ago
mzoldos
I guess it does then. Now that I read it again.
Posted by Ignopius 4 years ago
Ignopius
My question makes perfect sense. Pro means your for the resolution. Earlier I saw someone take con instead of pro on a similar wording to this by accident.
Posted by mzoldos 4 years ago
mzoldos
Why don't you write your question weirdly? What you said is Pro means NO and Con means YES. Did you realize that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
Ignopiusdebatemaster10Tied
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: Epic fail.