The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Kirigaya-Kazuto
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The G-d of the Tanakh created the earth

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 95080
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

harrytruman

Pro

google docs are not a violation of conduct
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Con

I will take this time now to place a few more rules before I begin my arguments.


  • The posting of ANY link, whether it be of the Google Doc form or not, is in fact a rule violation.

  • Attempting to use "Faith" or any other non-factual source of information will be considered a rule violation.

  • Kritiks are a rule violation

  • Using more than the alloted number of characters set IN THE DEBATE set forth ON THIS SITE shall be considered a rule violation

  • The use of the word "The" in ANY FORM after round 1 shall be considered a rule violation

  • R2 Shall only be used for Opening Statements ONLY

  • R3 Shall be used for Arguements ONLY

  • R4 Shall be used for Rebuttals ONLY

  • R5 Shall be used for Closing Statements ONLY

  • ANY Violation of rules shall be considered a full forefeiture


That is all, thank you for instigating this debate.

Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro


Accept all of those terms except that Google docs are a violation of conduct and the debate structure that you established. Since I did not agree to those two rules they are void since they were not agreed upon, I say freestyle debate. I also want to point out to my opponent that I am a Karaite Jew, not a Christian, the idea of blind faith is not a part of Karaism so please don’t expect these nonsense.



THE TORAH CANNOT HAVE BEEN MADE UP


Unlike every other religion in the world, Judaism started with a national revelation, meaning that this revelation from G-d which started our sect was revealed to an entire nation. For example, if I came out of nowhere and said I am a prophet of the L-rd, and that G-d gave me this book, you would not believe me.


But if G-d descended upon the entire United States of America and told everyone that I was his prophet, you would probably accept my book. This is the reason why Jews believe in the Tanakh, it says why in Exodus 19:4:


“You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.”


This could not have been introduced in any other way, for example, say I came out of nowhere and tell a crowd of people that all Americans were once slaves in Mexico, and that G-d appointed me to be his prophet, so I parted the Mexican Gulf, and we all hat to fight off 10ft tall Chinese people, and I made it rain Big Macs to feed all of them, and that they all saw G-d give me this book publicly, they would say


“But we never lived in Mexico, and you never parted the Mexican Gulf or made it rain Big Macs, and we never saw G-d talk to you!”


That would be it for my book, no one would accept it.


Kirigaya-Kazuto

Con

Let us first point out blatant rule violations. My opponent first sets forth a rule that I do not agree with. Secondly after round one has ended tries to void three rules set in the first round. As is the debate standard any sort of attempt of changing of the rules is a full forfeiture.

Please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

Right, you just came along and created those rules, I never agreed to them, so they are void. My opponent has dropped my entire argument therefor I win.
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Con

My opponent has failed to realise the rules of debating. When instigating a debate it is common to put forth rules in round one. If it is not specified that rules shall be discussed or the opponent cannot make new ones. AS SUCH he loses the debate due to violations.

Please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

That's not a thing, you made it up, besides, I never agreed, you cannot arbitrarily enforce rules on people, if you didn't want the debate you should have not accepted.
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Con

My opponent has now taken on an unproffesional deminor and has started addressing me personally. All conduct violations.
PLEASE VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Pro

My opponent clearly does not want a debate, he made up absurd rules then said I had to follow them, then he forfeited this entire debate and never responded to my argument. Please note that Con never presented a case, therefor I win by default because I did.
Kirigaya-Kazuto

Con

I have made my point in this debate.

Please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
Hilarious (and sad). Credit to Whiteflame for being consistent, however.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Envisage// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were never addressed at all by Con, therefore arguments to Pro. I cannot credit Con's allegations of rule infractions since they clearly were not agreed upon by both parties before the debate, either in the comments or by Pro editing his opening round. Therefore Con doesn't have grounds to sensibly argue otherwise.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter's assessment of the rule infractions expressed by Con is sufficient to dismiss them, the voter is nonetheless required to assess Pro's argument, if only to the point that it's clear that they supported the resolution.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
You know, if you really care so much about people getting away with this, you'd vote again and take the time to add a single sentence. It seems like you're more interested in letting your displeasure with the decision prevent you from taking that basic action, but that's your choice.
Posted by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
The standard needs to be changed then. As for modifying my vote to meet the stupid standard, I'm not interested. As I said, let's just stop voting. Let's allow someone to get away with just saying "You broke the rules! Waaaah!" That's a much better outcome.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
The standards apply to every debate that includes arguments from both sides, even if those arguments never engage with the actual resolution. That's how this works, and frankly, it's not that difficult to change your vote to the point that it meets the standards.
Posted by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
Absolutely ridiculous removal. "You broke the rules" is not an argument that engages the resolution. I say let's stop voting altogether.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one who made an argument, so arguments to Pro by default. As for conduct, since Pro established the rules (albeit only one rule) before Con accepted the debate, Pro was under no obligation to follow Con's proposed additions. With this in mind, neither person violated any established rules, and as such, I vote conduct to be a tie.

[*Reason for removal*] While it is clear that only one side debated the resolution, the voter is nonetheless required to show how they met their burden of proof with their arguments. Con did not forfeit every round, as he clearly argued based on the rules, which the voter did not find convincing. Nonetheless, the voter must explain why Pro's arguments were sufficient to affirm.
************************************************************************
Posted by canis 8 months ago
canis
There never was a god...Well "in" some books..Maybe even "in" some google doc...
No votes have been placed for this debate.