The Instigator
Labrat228
Pro (for)
Tied
20 Points
The Contender
scissorhands7
Con (against)
Tied
20 Points

The Bible states that their is "a time to kill"

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 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,391 times Debate No: 5817
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (35)
Votes (6)

 

Labrat228

Pro

Hello whoever takes this debate, good luck!
I'll post my argument in the next round.
scissorhands7

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for such an interesting topic. However as I'm not sure as to what this debate is entirely about, so I'll allow my opponent to post an arguable resolution in R3 of this debate. I would like to send my opponent my regards and I hope this will prove to be an interesting debate for voters to read.
Debate Round No. 1
Labrat228

Pro

Hello Scissorhands, our last debate seemed to get the attention of debate.org users, but I doubt this one will.
This shall be as simple as it gets...
The debate name was The Bible states that their is "a time to kill"
My defense of this is simply this:

ECC 3 v 1-3 reads:
1There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a (A)time for every event under heaven--
2A time to give birth and a (B)time to die;
A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
3A (C)time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.

This can be read in its full form at:
http://www.biblegateway.com...;

Even if kill in this context isn't referring to a physical form, "there is an appointed time for everything"
Now, lets see the scissorhand magic.
scissorhands7

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his interesting and intelligently structured resolution. I will in compliance with his implied wish (to make this one of the fastest debates ever attempted on debate.org), post a speedy resolution. I would like to thank him for being one of the most skilled debaters on this site.

[Definitions]

Free will - the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Appointed - chosen by one person or a small group of people.
www.historycentral.com/Civics/a.html

Now I will get to the rebuttal. My opponent has posted a resolution however I don't see a clear line of the resolution he is attempting to prove. I'd like to offer my apologies to my opponent as well as to the voters of this debate if I mistake his resolution.

I am unsure of whether my opponent is attempting to resolve that:

1. There is indeed a time for everything
2. The printed Bible states that: "there is a time to kill"
3. The Bible advocates the killing of other human beings or things.

Since my opponent indeed has the burden of proof for all three of his implied resolutions, I will attempt to refute all the supporting arguments my opponent has made regarding the topic.

1. My opponent has stated that there is an appointed time for everything.

I'd like to start off by noting that my opponent has provided no proof that there is an appointed time for everything. Furthermore the Bible contradicts this claim when it states: "Envy thou not the oppressor, and choose none of his ways." (Proverbs 3:31)

The word "choose" gives man the choice of what to do.
Therefore it implies that man has free will. Since the bible denotes that man has free will, since man has free will it is impossible that he can be "appointed' (see definition above) to do anything. Therefore this disproves my opponent's resolution that there is an appointed time for everything.

2. My opponent states that the printed Bible states that "there is a time to kill" however

However these two printed bibles state:

Young's Literal Translation
A time to slay, And a time to heal, A time to break down, And a time to build up.

Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex
http://wlc.hebrewtanakh.com...

http://scripturetext.com...

It's quite obvious that these two bibles do not exactly state that there is a time to kill. Since my opponent has stated that "the Bible states" and not "such and such a version of the bible states there is a time to kill"
Therefore this resolution is disproved.

3. The sixth commandment is Thou shalt not kill." ~Exodus 20:13 Authorized version of King James
The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack which accurately translates as "any kind of killing whatsoever."

Therefore God is not advocating that humans kill each other, but that He is responsible for vengeance. This is implicit when He states in Romans 12:19-21

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Therefore I have accurately and to the best of my ability refuted all my opponent's resolutions. I would like to thank my opponent for this enthralling debate and would wish that voters post reasons for their votes. I will only count votes that have reasons posted next to them. The rest is meaningless to me.
Debate Round No. 2
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Attacking different verses would have made little sense to me seeing as how we were focusing on a particular verse.

Additionally by making the argument that "the bible states nothing" would have made my argument purely semantic.

I highly doubt that anyone who reads the statement: "The Bible states nothing" is going to agree and put their vote my way. Many would decry (as they have done in the past) this act by posting a forum topic dedicated to my actions.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
He is trying to point out how flawed my resolution was. You could have attacked the fact that different verses use different words. Or you could even argue that the bible states nothing, Solomon stated it.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Thanks so much for explaining

1. I completely get your side of the argument, and it is an excellent argument. I just don't see where my argument is false in anyway? Could you go into detail about where I made an incorrect argument? There is more than one argument to every point made.

2. Again another excellent argument, however I really don't see another way someone could possibly refute "the bible states: ____" It either does or it doesnt. Semantics was really the only possible way to argue this point.

3. I do completely agree with you. This essentially was my argument. My opponent was stating (or may have been stating) that Ecclesiaties advocates killing. I was using references in the Bible that show that this is false notion. I believe you think I stated that "there is an appointed time for everything". However this was my opponents point.

Its obvious what the word "appointed" means additionally I also provided a dictionary definition. Had the word been a broad word I can see where you could point to this and say I was twisting his words, however I don't see how there could be any other definition of appointed.

Therefore I do not see how any of my arguments were wrong?
And especially how my opponents arguments were better than mine seeing as how he had the burden of proof (proving his resolution - the point he was trying to make)
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
What I meant by "all your arguments" is the 3 different possibilities of meaning for your opponents resolution. I will explain.

1."Therefore this disproves my opponent's resolution that there is an appointed time for everything."
-This is why I explained Solomon's point of view. Under your assumption that your opponent was saying what Solomon says here is true, you misunderstand Solomon's point. He was not saying there is an "appointed" time for everything that is against our free will, rather that as surely as the sun will rise the next day, everything that "can" happen at any given moment "will" happen. He was basically saying "take one thing at a time, because there is a time for everything". War is a time to kill. Peace is a time to mend. Etc.

2."Since my opponent has stated that "the Bible states" and not "such and such a version of the bible states there is a time to kill" Therfore this resolution is disproved."
-Synonymously, to "slay", or any other word substituted in various versions of the bible, the same thing is being said. In short- "there is a time to take life". The same way as each version of the bible has a translator, and semantics can be "spun"- logic and common sense agree the words are synonymous, and the statement in context is equal through and through.

3. "Therefore God is not advocating that humans kill each other, but that He is responsible for vengeance."
-The context of Ecclesiastes is not whether or not actions are advocated by God, rather that they "will" happen. The first verse states "To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven". If you read verses 15-20 you will see the point he is trying to make. Judgement will befall the righteous, as well as the wicked because everything done under heaven has it's time.

Neither of you addressed the philosophical context of Ecclesiastes, but especially on a literal level you are wrong- let alone a philosophical one.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
In all my arguments? Do explain further. All I got out of your explanation is that I did not state that it does not mean this literally because Solomon wrote it. However my opponent's main resolution wasn't whether this passage was literal or not, but whether it was stated. My opponent set this argument up to be argued semantically.

If you can make any statement showing me that there was another resolution that I was missing or that one of my points had facts that simply were not true, then by all means I'll be pleased to hear you.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Either way, I believe you were wrong on the debate in all your arguments. Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon. It should be read in context, and in the context when he stated "there is a time for everything, a time to kill, etc." he was speaking philosophically of how time is indiscriminate of the good and bad. He says the sun shines on the backs of the good as well as the bad, and that there are corrupt men who die happy, etc. It is a philosophical statement from his point of view as a man who was just at times, and at times corrupt, and a man who was believed to be the wisest man to ever live. Neither addressed the context, but con was way off in the semantics, ie. slay=kill in context, and in the original text the word has one meaning.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
sure thing
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Again Labrat, I'm not trying to say your opinion is crap or anything. You can think whatever you want. I just wanted everyone to know my opinion on the matter and what I was thinking at the time. So there it is if it counts for anything. I can see you're determined to find fault with me Labrat, which is cool. I mean everyone has there own crap that they feel.
Anyways thats pretty much all I'm saying on the topic, I wont go line by line and get into crap.

Peace bro,

hey also on a side note I sent you my email on your website (which is pretty cool by the way)

You should email me sometime and we can shoot the sh*t about retirement and so on.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
insult in a beating behind the bush kind of way. I'd do it explicitly if I would venture to insult Phil, however I did not mean to insult him. Simply to affirm that I dont think it was a ban-able offense.

I think we can disagree without insulting.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
No, stating that I will simply make another account as I have done here. I really dont
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Labrat228scissorhands7Tied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Labrat228scissorhands7Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Labrat228scissorhands7Tied
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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Labrat228scissorhands7Tied
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:16 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Labrat228scissorhands7Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Labrat228scissorhands7Tied
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