The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Bible teaches that certain dances are sinful.

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...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,254 times Debate No: 82585
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (56)
Votes (1)




Hello. Below are the rules for this debate.

1. By "The Bible," I refer to the 39 Old Testament books Genesis–Malachi (the books of the Apocrypha, for example, are excluded) and the 27 New Testament books Matthew–Revelation.

2. It will be assumed by both myself and Con that the books mentioned above cannot contradict each other in teaching.

3. By "teaches" I'm saying that the Bible's teachings indicate in some way "that modern dancing is sinful." It, of course, does not need to explicitly indicate such.

4. The term "dancing" is very general; therefore, I will narrow it down to the following dances:
I. The Argentine tango, "A dance on which the ballroom tango is based, with slow intricate footwork"[1]
II. Caramelldansen (Swedish for "The Caramell Dance"), a type of dancing that became a meme and is associated primarily with internet culture. "The meme started as a fifteen frame Flash animation loop showing Mai and Mii, characters of the Japanese visual novel Popotan, doing a hip swing dance with their hands over their heads to imitate rabbit ears ..."[2]
III. Belly dancing, "a type of Middle Eastern dance done by a woman who makes rhythmic movements with her hips and belly"[3]
IV. The bump, "a primarily 1970s fad dance introduced by Johnny Spruce in which the main move is to lightly 'bump' hips on every other beat of the music. As the dance (and the evening) progressed, the bumping could become more intimate, bumping hip to backside, low bending, etc."[2]
V. Booty dancing, a dance that can be read about here:

5. By "sinful," I mean that the Bible prohibits it.

6. The dances listed above are assumed to be performed the way they usually are performed with the typical type of person(s) involved, etc. (E.g., It is assumed that mixed audiences are watching the dances and that the dances that are done with partners are between a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female.) The use of rare situations (e.g., a husband and wife doing the tango alone at home on a rainy day) are outside the scope of the debate.

7. In order for the proposition to be correct, at least three of the five dances listed must be sinful according to the Bible.

8. Con shall make his first argument in this round, Round 1, getting the first word; Con is not permitted to make any arguments against the proposition in Round 4, the last round, but may make a comment in order to avoid a forfeiture—giving me the last word.

9. The burden of proof is shared. I will argue that the proposition is correct, and Con will argue that it is incorrect.

10. All extrabiblical sources must be freely accessable via the Internet.

11. These rules (including this one) will be based upon my interpretation of them, which shall be enforced by the judges. If you have any questions about the rules, please message me before accepting the debate.

Thank you, and may the right man win!

[1] Definition taken from
[2] Definition taken from
[3] Definition taken from


I accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting. (As Con broke Rule 8, I will amend it—giving him the last word.)

Lewdness is sinful

To begin, let us consider the fourth chapter of 1st Peter. It reads, “… [W]e have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries. In regard to these, they think it strange that you do not run with them in the same flood of dissipation, speaking evil of you” (vv. 3–4).[1] People “think it strange” that Christians refuse to take part in such things, so they “speak[] evil of them” (e.g., by calling them “dull,” “out of touch,” “legalists,” etc.) for doing such. “They will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead” (v. 5). The first two sins mentioned here are 1) lewdness and 2) lusts. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, so the words translated “lewdness” and “lust” were aselgeia and epithumia, respectively. The first word, aselgeia, is also translated “lust” in Romans 13:13: “Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy.” According to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, it refers to “‘wanton’ (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc.”[2] Note that this does not require “going all the way” (having sexual intercourse) but can refer even to an indecent movement of the body or an unchaste handing of someone. Obviously, what this word entails is sinful, based on the verses given, so if I can show the five dances we’re debating over to be included in the definition of lewd (aselgeia), then it will be clear that they are sinful.

Determining what is lewd

Body appearance

To begin determining how to define what is lewd, or lust-inducing, let us read the third chapter of the Book of Genesis. We read that Adam and Eve “were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (v. 7). But these “coverings” did not truly cover, and they knew it. Once “they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day … Adam and his wife hid themselves …” (vv. 8–10) because the “coverings” weren’t enough. As a result, God made “tunics of skin” for Adam and Eve (v. 21). Genesis, a book of the Old Testament, was written in Hebrew. The word translated “tunic” referred to “A tunic… generally with sleeves, coming down to the knees, rarely to the ankles.”[3] We read here that this tunic would go from the shoulders to at least the knees. Is it a coincidence that God made their tunics this way? I think not! Research has attempted to establish how objectively the parts of a woman’s body are sexually attractive to a man by using research from different people of different times: “For every century, three body parts - breasts, waist and thighs - are more often referred to as beautiful than other body parts.”[4] The tunic we just previously discussed, going from the shoulders to the knees, basically covered from the breasts down to the thighs, interestingly. From the foregoing, we can conclude that flaunting this region of the body (e.g., through revealing clothing or in this case, through dancing) quite objectively qualifies as lewd.


We have discussed how “indecent bodily movements” are lewd. This did not discuss in detail, however, the “unchaste handling of males and females.” Sensuality is also a factor that can affect lewdness. Certain areas of the body, known as erogenous zones, are sexually stimulating when pressed. Even the waltz involves embraces of the breasts, etc. that are sexually inappropriate. T. A. Faulkner, former dancing master and proprietor of the Los Angeles Dancing Academy and president of Dancing Masters’ Association of the Pacific Coast, eventually forsook his career upon realizing the “iniquity and the enormity of the hideous business I … had been following for years, which was not only destroying the bodies and souls of the girls and women who were caught in my net, but my own body and soul, and thru my influence, those of thousands of others following my foot steps.”[5] In this book, The Lure of the Dance with Christ at the Ball, he warns dancers and their parents of the dangers of dancing: “After [a young man] has attended his first ball, whirled thru the mazes of the waltz and round dances with [a] sweet, young, beautiful girl, pressed closely to his bosom—her partially nude breasts exposed to his view, and his very heart beats running wild with the ecstasy of the moment, his nerves tingling and rioting with the delicious sensations which such a contact engenders—he has tasted to the full the rarest attraction that the Devil has to offer him. From this time on, alas! his descent in the downward path is very rapid …”[6] This definition fits what the “unchaste handling of males and females” entails and is thus lewd.

The five dances

Let us now consider the five dances, keeping in mind the foregoing.

The Argentine tango

This dance involves dancing in close contact, embracing in a manner similar to what we have already discussed. Therefore, it is lewd.


The flaunting done via the flamboyant swinging of the hips, the rabbit ears, the origin involving an adult visual novel—this is not something a Christian should be doing.

Belly dancing

This dance involves the shaking of the belly and hips in such a way that the “Stigma attached to … the art of [the] Belly Dance may be one of the reasons why the dance appears to have little history documented and appears to have been 'underground' for many years.”[7]

The bump

The intimate bumping of the hips and “backside” (buttocks) is, in a way, a combination of both “indecent bodily movements” and the “unchaste handling of males and females.”

Booty dancing

Booty dancing, as the name suggests, involves lewd shaking of the buttocks. In the Comments section, Con agrees that twerking is inappropriate. However, twerking and booty dancing are basically the same thing.[8] What is lewd about twerking that is not done in booty dancing?

I shall now turn the debate back to Con.


[1] Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. This applies for all other Scriptures used in this debate by myself.


[3] Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon (pg. 509), quoted from


[5] pg. 10 (or pg. 2, if Google’s bar at the bottom of the screen is used)

[6] Ibid, pg. 24 (or 16)





Thank you. What the instigator here is living in a world of Happy Feet [1][3], if anyone have watched the movie, where dancing is forbidden and what people are commanded to do (like the penguins in the movie) is sing just as according to Ephesians:

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; - Ephesians 5:19 [1][2]

In his own teaching, he saying that we must not dance to this music, athough dancing in church is forbidden. He still thinks we are still under the law which Jesus Christ has done away with by His own Death on the Cross. This is considered a form of legalism.

Definition of Lewdness

Lewd (adj) - Obscene or Indecent , as language or songs; salacious. [7]

I will reexamine that five dances he claims that are lewd.

The Argentine Tango

I don't see anything wrong with it. It only shows expression for love.


Nothing wrong with it either. It shows a bunch of happy and silliness from Japanese Anime characters.

Belly Dancing

Okay. He's right on that.

The Bump

Also known as Happy Happy Joy Joy, if I know from Ren and Stimpy[3]. It's not lewdness, although you can injure your friend or yourself by performing this dance.

Booty Dancing

Both the Pro and I agree also known as twerking. Twerking is very lewd because people see this on ABC's Dancing with the Stars [6], people also have done this on Youtube [5] and was reported by the UK's DailyMail.[4]

While 2 of the 5 dances Pro has listed, 3 of them I see nothing wrong. As I said, Pro is living in a world of Happy Feet. Funny how he quotes from verses 3-5 of 1 Peter 4 he's going to give himself an account to God.

As I say to him as quoted from this scripture:

Judge not that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? - Matthew 7:1-3 (KJV) [1][2]

Pro needs to take the beam out of his own eye. Christians are not perfect as non-Christians are according to Romans:

As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one. - Romans 3:10 (KJV) [1][2]

We have free will to do whatever we want although that we must judge the sins of people for the right reasons, like drugs, alcohol or marriage. But remember we are not to judge for the wrong reasons.

So thank you and I will turn this back to Pro.


[1] Scriptures come from the King James Version. public domain. Sources from Happy Feet and Ren and Stimpy can be found on IMDb.






Debate Round No. 2


Below are the points Con has made in his last post:

1. Pro (myself) “is living in a world of Happy Feet.”
2. Pro (myself) legalistically believes that Christians are under the Old Testament, which has been made obsolete by Jesus’ death on the cross.
3. The Argentine tango is not wrong but merely an expression of love.
4. Caramelldansen is not wrong but involves just happiness and silliness from Japanese anime characters.
5. The bump is “not lewdness, although you can injure your friend or yourself by performing this dance.”
6. Pro (myself) quotes from verses 3–5 of 1st Peter, which shows that “he's going to give himself an account to God.”
7. “Judge not that ye be not judged.” However, we do need to judge things like “drugs, alcohol or marriage.”
8. “Christians are not perfect as non-Christians are according to Romans.”

If I have left out any points of yours, Con, please notify me in the next post.

Pro (myself) “is living in a world of Happy Feet.”

Maybe, maybe not. If the proposition were, “Happy Feet teaches that certain dances are sinful,” then you’d have a good point showing the proposition to be false, assuming “Dancing is good” to be a moral of its story. But the proposition is, “The Bible teaches that certain dances are sinful.”

And not only did Con get the subject (Happy Feet vs. the Bible) wrong, but even the object is outside the scope of the debate. This debate is over whether “certain dances [i.e., the Argentine Tango, Caramelldansen, belly dancing, the bump, and booty dancing] are sinful.” None of the dances in this debate are endorsed by or performed in Happy Feet; rather, tap dancing (which neither I nor Con believe to be wrong) is what’s done.

However, I doubt this was really intended to be a serious point of Con's.

I do find it interesting that Con sourced Ephesians 5:19 to show singing authorized but did not source any verses for dancing.

Pro (myself) legalistically believes that Christians are under the Old Testament, which has been made obsolete by Jesus’ death on the cross.

You did not give a Scripture to convince me otherwise. However, I will do it for you:

And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements [i.e., the Old Testament] that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. … So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:13–17

I don’t understand what made you think I believed the Old Testament was binding on people living today. You also said this in the “Comments” section, where you assumed that I was “a Church of Christ minister.” Whether I am or not, I have never heard “a Church of Christ minister” say that we today are under the Old Testament.

However, as a balance, we should also consider that “whatever things were written before [i.e., in the Old Testament] were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). Another thing in which the Old Testament can be used “for our learning” is that we through the standards given in the Book of Genesis (e.g., Adam and Eve, still unclothed despite their “coverings,” being given tunics that went from the shoulders down to the knees) may have the knowledge of what is inappropriate and what is not. After all, the sex appeal of this region of the body hasn’t changed significantly since the writing of the Old Testament,[1] and Jesus’ standard for lust hasn’t become any less strict: “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27–28).

The Argentine tango is not wrong but merely an expression of love.

Mere assertions will not convince anyone in a debate; you need to explain why this is the case. You did not attempt to debunk what I have said. When T. A. Faulkner realized “the iniquity and the enormity of the hideous business” which he “had been following for years”—talking about things such as the waltz!—even he knew he had to stop, forsaking his entire career.[2] “The dance is indulged in by many of our so-called ‘first families,’ and yet, it is one of the most dangerous of social pleasures because of the fact that it arouses, to an alarming degree, the demons of lust with which humanity is inoculated.”[3] If it happens with the waltz, it happens with the seductive[7] Argentine tango. If not, explain why not.

Caramelldansen is not wrong but involves just happiness and silliness from Japanese anime characters.

You do not appear to have considered what I have said. Not only does this dance involve the flaunting of the hips, but the rabbit ears are also to be taken in consideration. This anime is not Pokémon, by any means. It is an adult visual novel.[4] If you still don’t get the rabbit ears, rabbits are known for multiplying and have thus become a symbol of sexual reproduction.[5][6]

The bump is “not lewdness, although you can injure your friend or yourself by performing this dance.”

Again, mere assertions will not work. Explain why this is the case, using references. Even by the definition given, “bumping hip to backside” is “intimate”—not referring to being “friendly,” of course, but to being lustful—lewd. Is this not the case?

Pro (myself) quotes from verses 3–5 of 1st Peter, which shows that “he's going to give himself an account to God.”

No, it refers to worldly people who “run … in the … flood of dissipation, speaking evil of” those who do not, such as by calling them out of touch or legalists.

“Judge not that ye be not judged.” However, we do need to judge things like “drugs, alcohol or marriage.” Similar to what you said, we are to “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). But you must show that judging these dances is not “righteous judgement” for your point to be valid. Interestingly enough, modern dancing (e.g., the Argentine Tango) can seduce people[7] into committing adultery (violating marriage) and typically can involve wine (alcohol).

“Christians are not perfect as non-Christians are according to Romans.”

No one’s perfect, I agree. But are you saying that this means we all can just sin? “Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Romans 6:2).

And now I’ll turn the debate back to you, Con.

Extrabiblical references

[1] Note 4 from my last argument

[2] Note 5 from my last argument






I am sorry that Pro feels that way.

While Pro thinks that dancing is sinful, the Bible doesn't give clear specific instructions whether it's sinful or not [1}

"No one’s perfect, I agree. But are you saying that this means we all can just sin? “Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Romans 6:2)"

Now I never implied that we should continue sinning.

While he points to Colossians, it is true that we are no longer under the law, including the Sabbath, we may eat things like pork or lobster that may offend other people, and yes we shouldn't be judged for what we eat.

But the one thing we never do is dance in worship including clapping.[2]

We look in Exodus 32:19 (KJV) [3]:

And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

Moses was angry that the Israelites were dancing in worship to a golden calf.

Let me explain to the movie Happy Feet. This is where the main character Mumble who cannot sing but could dance which was offensive to his kind, was banished, meet televangelistic-like penguin, but then return. Turned out dancing was a form of communication. I know that Happy Feet offends other Christians.

This movie isn't an attack on Christianity, though we are not to dance in worship.

As for Charamellden, why does Pro think it's an adult visual novel? If anime is an adult visual novel, then no one should read it. Some anime are dirty and some are family oriented like Flying House and Superbook.

So I apologize that Pro feels if dancing is sinful, then no christian should dance. Again, as I said in Round 2 we have free will, we are not perfect as those who are not christian? Does it mean we can continue sinning? Like he quoted in Colossians, of course not.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9 (KJV)

Christians will admit and correct their wrongdoings. God chastens (corrects) us from our wrongdoings.

For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Hebrews 12:6 (KJV)

Time to rap this up, back to Pro.



Debate Round No. 3


The off-pointedness of the last argument

Con made a number of points in his last argument; however, most of them had nothing to do with showing the proposition to be false. Below is a chart examining how much emphasis (by number of sentences used) Con put to each point (in no particular order):

1) Dancing in general is outside the scope of this debate. 2) Regardless of how much my views fit or don’t fit that of the world of Happy Feet’s, it does not in any way indicate that the proposition is true or false. 3) We both agree that religious dancing is wrong; also, it is outside the scope of this debate. 4) We agree not to continue in sin. 5) We agree that Christians are not under the Old Testament. 6) There is nothing for me to rebut in regards to Con’s closing sentences, obviously. 7) I need not rebut Con’s apologies that I feel the way I do about dancing. All of the following in consideration, Caramelldansen is really the only thing pertaining to falsifying the proposition. While there clearly could be a small margin of error (e.g., what qualifies as a “sentence” or measurement errors), this would mean that less than 10% of what Con said (measuring by sentence) even attempts debunk the proposition! On a pie chart, it looks like this:

Debunking the 8%

To debunk the 8%, let me bring it up:

As for Charamellden, why does Pro think it's an adult visual novel? If anime is an adult visual novel, then no one should read it. Some anime are dirty and some are family oriented like Flying House and Superbook.

The answer to your question (i.e., “… [W]hy does Pro think it's an adult visual novel?”) is that the source I gave directly says it’s an adult visual novel. Let me bring it up:

According to Ruakuu’s Blog, The origin of Caramelldansen was the flash loop composed by Sven from Sweden at the first half on 2006, and it was originally posted on his personal website.

Its visual source is an animated gif taken from an opening movie of the Japanese adult visual novel Popotan released in 2002. This animated gif of bunny dance was entitled “Popotan dance” and had existed on the web since before 2005.[1]

Even a simple lookup of Popotan on Wikipedia will demonstrate this:

Popotan (|13;|13;{83;|35;?) is a Japanese adult visual novel developed by Petit Ferret with character designs by Akio Watanabe under the alias Poyoyon Rock. …

Gameplay in Popotan follows a semi-predetermined plot; major events remain the same, but personal storylines can diverge from the player's choices. The game focuses on protagonist Chris, a drifter who meets three girls and their maid in a mansion near the ruins of Tokyo in the distant future. The player's goal is to make available sexual scenes and images that the player can view or replay at any time depicting the protagonist having sexual intercourse with one of the girls. The player can pursue other girls once they have finished one of the sisters' storylines.[2]

There you have it. The mature background of the dance (mature being a euphemism for immature and lewd, of course), the bunny ears (the sexual connotation of which has already been discussed), the flamboyant hip swings (a part of the body that should not be flaunted, as discussed earlier)—this is not a dance that a Christian should be partaking in.

The Argentine tango

What happened to the Argentine tango? Con did not say a single word on it in the last argument. In the entire debate so far, the only thing he said about it was, “I don't see anything wrong with it. It only shows expression for love.” He had plenty of characters remaining in his previous argument, so he certainly could have attempted to answer what I have said in regards to it. While I have exposed the Argentine tango indirectly—dealing much with the waltz and concluding that the Argentine tango is no better—I have not thoroughly dealt with it directly. Consider this text:

I came up with the "Permission Seduction™" concept because I discovered that so many people are yearning for satisfying intimacy with the opposite sex, but are unconsciously held back by decades of political correctness, professionalism, and family responsibility. When I returned to the U.S. after many years in Italy, I heard so many sighs and complaints here from both singles and married people about their frustrations with their intimate or romantic lives. (Today Italians, like other Europeans, are not very different in this way from North Americans.)[3]

In other words, the author is discussing the sexual desire “that so many people are yearning for.” The author is saying that they need a way to satisfy their sexual cravings (i.e., get close to having sex without actually “going all the way”—a subject that has already been shown to be what the Greek word aselgeia, a word listed among various sins, refers to). Below is the author’s solution:

I thought, "IF ONLY THEY KNEW what was in store for them the moment they cross that threshold into a room filled with tango music! If only they knew that in that room, the woman who ignored you at Starbucks (or even your wife with whom you may have settled into a routine) is going to stand tall like a queen before you when you approach her to dance, wrap herself around you and snuggle up to your cheek and your chest - but this will happen only IF you've earned her confidence in your skill at the language of tango." I thought, "It's a kind of seduction, isn't it? Seduction in a safe context, seduction where the boundaries are clear for your 12 minute 'date' on the dance floor."[3]

The author “developed a highly effective series of learning modules that get excellent results for people who want to learn to dance well from the start.” Because the purpose is seductive, the system was aptly named the “Permission Seduction™ Tango Learning System.”[3] Clearly, the dance involves sexual pleasure and is thus (unless it’s a husband and wife at home or something, of course) against the teachings of the Bible.

The bump

Like with the Argentine tango, Con said nothing about the bump in his last argument. I will again acknowledge that even the definition in given in Round 1 acknowledges that “bumping hip to backside” is “intimate” (who wouldn’t think that?)—not referring to being “friendly,” of course, but to being lustful—lewd. Again, is this not the case?


Using the principles of “indecent bodily movements” and the “unchaste handling of males and females” will show that many of the dances of today—almost all of them—“are primarily designed … for the express purpose of arousing the passions and destroying the purity of both sexes. The different suggestive movements of each new dance are thoroly studied, and their effects well known, before they are introduced to the public by these wretches who wield such a deadly in@258;uence on the youth of our land.”[4]

Extrabiblical references

[1] Reference 4 from my last argument


[3] Reference 7 from my last argument

[4] Reference 3 from my last argument



I would like to thank Pro for letting me debate with him on this topic.

Happy Feet taught me that judging people's differences is wrong, though we cannot continue sinning.

I gave Pro scriptures but doesn't seem to bother.

When I say I didn't see anything wrong with it. Supposedly it started to feel like when you go to a dance school for dancing lessons, then a preacher goes and tells, say you have a wife, that you were cheating on her by dancing. Does dancing make you a whoremonger? Married or not, Pro implies it does.

And now this is where he gives us the origin of Caramelldansen,

Maybe I should've have explain to him more what lewd is.

Lewdness has nothing to do with dancing though we both agreed it's forbidden in worship. Lewd has something to do with profanity.

So there is nothing else left. He still has not learned the importance of Happy Feet or Jesus telling us not to judge.

If you think that dancing is sinful, vote for Pro.

If you agree from the summary of Happy Feet, vote for me, Con.


There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28(KJV) [1]

So thank you all and godspeed.



Debate Round No. 4
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by matt8800 7 months ago
From a technical standpoint, I think Pro has won this debate.
Posted by matt8800 7 months ago
I'm pro "grinding" in case anybody cares lol
Posted by Kilk1 7 months ago
@Emmarie I'm basically trying to find a point of agreement from which we can reason.
Posted by Kilk1 7 months ago
@Emmarie Okay. What about grinding, "A type of slow dance where two or more dancers [male and female] rub or bump their bodies against each other; especially the male dancer rubbing his frontal lower area against a female dancer's buttocks; imitating doggie-style intercourse" (
Posted by Kilk1 7 months ago
@matt8800 Well, I guess I'm not the only one who has bias, then. Lol!
Posted by Emmarie 7 months ago
I would prefer if you do not post comments on my debates that have nothing to do with the debate, but thanks for the greeting.
twerking? isn't as liberating as dances that require more body movement, like my specialty, Latin style dances that involve the hips but do not require as ample of a derrierer to make the dance look good like twerking requires. These dances are liberating to females, by giving us control over our hips so that we can derive more pleasure when having sex. I think that sex should occur inside of a committed relationship, but there is nothing wrong with dancing in any style.

Do I have a problem with teens posting videos of themselves twerking? YES - I think that they are exploiting themselves, and should twerk with others of their own age groups privately and clothed.

Lap dancing - is not dancing and should not be called dancing. Dancing can be done individually - or with a partner - but lap dancing isn't dancing since one person remains static.
Posted by matt8800 7 months ago
I am so grateful I am no longer a Christian....
Posted by Kilk1 7 months ago
@Emmarie Yes, the proposition is not that dancing in and of itself is sinful. It's that LEWD dancing is sinful. Do you agree that twerking--"to dance to hip-hop or pop music in a very sensual way typically by thrusting or shaking the buttocks and hips while in a squatting or bent-over position" ( lap dancing--"an activity in which a usually seminude performer sits and gyrates on the lap of a customer" ( you agree that these dances are sinful?
Posted by Emmarie 7 months ago
Thou shalt not dance - I don't recall that ever being a commandment.
Matthew 11:16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows,

17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not DANCED; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented.
Posted by Kilk1 10 months ago
@preachertaylor (and anyone else who read this debate for that matter) Ethan14 just made an opinion that's obviously from this debate. Vote below:
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 10 months ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never really argued the resolution. This wasn't a debate about Pro's views or forcing others to adhere to the Bible. This was a fact debate: what does the Bible say, and how does what it says apply to certain dances? Con immediately concedes that 2 of the 5 dances Pro discusses meet the resolution, and fails to explain why the other 3 don't, ignoring Pro's warrants that explain why that's the case. References to Happy Feet and Ren and Stimpy, not to mention every single source Con presents, are off topic, an attempt to treat the resolution as something it is not. As only Pro presents relevant arguments, and as Con basically concedes the relevant outcome, I vote Pro. I also afford Pro sources because none of Con's sources affected the debate in the slightest, whereas Pro's were carefully used to tell the story he needed to affirm.