The Instigator
kohai
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Contradiction
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

The Ressurection of Jesus

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  
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: 4/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,218 times Debate No: 16155
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)

 

kohai

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

In this debate I shall attempt to prove the ressurection of Jesus was fabricated amd that it has never even happened.

Rules:
1) We both have burden of proof.
2) My opponent must believe in the resurrection.
3) Voters, please read the entire debate before posting.
4) Voters, don't vote only on your opinions.

Round 1 is only for accepting
Round 2 is for opening arguments
Round 3 and 4rebuttals and strengthening your arguments
Round 5 is for closing arguments.

Good luck!
Contradiction

Pro

Since round one is only for accepting, per the terms, I hereby announce my intention to debate this topic. May he with the best arguments win. :)
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Con

Hello, contradiction, thanks for accepting this debate (just don't contradict yourself.)

Opening arguments:
1) The gospels were written long after the alleged ressurection happened, so therefore they can't be reliable. In fact, they were most likely forgeries.
2) They all contradict one another. You would think that a topic that makes or breaks a religion wouldn't have any contradictions, but the crucifixion/ressurection story is full of discrepancies between the four gospels.
3) "Why couldn't the Phairasees show the dead body of Christ to silence the believers?" Perhaps for the simple reason is that it was too badly decomposed that no-one could prove that it was Jesus. After all, if the gospels were true then why wait forty years after the events to write it down?
4) The gospels were most certainly not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know this since by the status of the deciples, they wouldn't have been able to read, let alone right. In addition, the gospels are written in Greek; however, the desiple's native tongue was Aramaic.

That's all for this round. I now turn it over to con!
Contradiction

Pro

My thanks go out to Kohai for initiating this debate. Hopefully I won't contradict myself.

My strategy in this debate will simply be both defensive and offensive. Consequently, I will argue both that my opponent's criticisms are mistaken and that the resurrection of Jesus did likely happen. First, I will lay out a general case for the resurrection of Jesus. I will use the minimal facts method as advanced by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona. [1] These facts are accepted by a majority of historical Jesus scholars. Due to space constraints, I will give each point a cursory treatment. So much more can be said on this issue. Finally, I wlll not give formal citations for all of my sources, as it would take up too much space.

Before Con responds to the coming argument, I would advise him to first look at my responses to his counter-arguments and shape his response around those, lest he repeat something that I already addressed.

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

Jesus' death by crucifixion is attested to by all four gospels. Moreover, various non-Christian sources also report on this fact. Josephus, for instance, writes "When Pilate, upon hearing them accused by men of the highst standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified...". [2] Tacitus writes, "Christus... suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontious Pilate." [3]

Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them

This was affirmed by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:3-7, considered by historical scholars to be an early Christian creedal statement. Sermon summaries, such as those found in Acts 2, also attest to this fact. The oral tradition which predates these creeds can be traced back to a date shortly after the resurrection was said to have happened. Moreover, all four gospels attest to this fact, and the writings of the church fathers Clement and Polycarp also confirm this.

Also important is the fact that the disciples were willing to suffer for their belief. Now, why would someone die for what they knew was a falsehood? The fact that they were willing to be put to death for this means that they couldn't have concocted the story. Attestation for the willingness of the disicples to suffer can be found in the writings of Polycarp, Ingatius, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement.

Fact 3: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed

Paul of Tarsus was an early persecutor of Christianity. However, history indicates that he suddenly experienced a transformation which turned him into one of the leading advocates for Christianity. This is documented in Paul's own writings, and in that of Clment, Polycarp, Tertullian, Origen, and the Gospel of Luke.

Now, why would Paul have converted? People usually convert to a religion because they affirm the message to be true. Considering the fact that Paul was a dogmatic opponent of Christianity, something miraculous must have happened which transformed his thinking. This is best explained by the resurrection of Jesus.

Fact 4: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed

Like Paul, James was an early skeptic of Christianity whose mindset was suddenly transformed. This is attested to in the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7,, in Acts 15:12-21, Galations 1:19, and in the writings of Josephus. The church historian Eusebius also provides quotations from Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria who also echo this sentiment.

Fact 5: The tomb was empty

In the gospel narratives, we see that the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. That is rather strange, considering that in the first century, the testimony of women were regarded as worthless. Why would someone who invented the story use women as the first witnesess? This lends credibility to the fact that the resurrection narratives were genuine. Moreover, the empty tomb is presupposed by the Jewish response to the early Christians. All that the Jewish leaders would have to do is present the body of Jesus, and Christianity would have collapsed.

At this point, let me respond to a criticism from Con. He argues that at this point, the body would have been badly decomposed and unrecognizable, and thus worthless in any polemic against Christianity. There are two problems with this view.

1) "In the arid climate of Jerusalem, a corpse's hair, stature, and distinctive wounds would have been identifiable, even after fifty days." [4]

2) "Regardless of the condition of the body, the enemies of Jesus would still haev found benefit in producing the corpse. Even a barely recognizable corpse could have dissuaded some believers, possible weaking and ultimately toppling the entire movement. Since that was the goal, Jesus' enemies had every reason to produce his body, regardless of its condition. [5]

Responding to Criticisms

Argument 1: The Gosels were written long after the resurrection happened.

Response: Long by what standards? By historical standards, a time frame of 50 years is considered top-notch. Many works were written hundreds of years after the events in question happened, yet we do not question their historicity. For example, the works of Livy, Josephus, and Tacitus were written long after the events in question happened, but historians usually trust their reliability.

The reason for such a gap is that in the first century, information was passed on primarily by means of oral tradition. In our predominantly written culture, our information is passed on by written means. It's tempting to dismiss ancient historical works if we forget about this fact. C. S. Lewis refers to this as chronological snobbery.

Argument 2: The Gospels contradict one another

Response: My argument does not assume infallibility to be true. Many reliable works of history have contradictions in them, yet that is no reason to toss out their information outright. The fact that they provide similar information gives us enough reason to think that something happened which was miraculous. Moreover, it's a stretch to say that the gospels contradict one another. A better explanation is that they were providing complementary explanations (Ie: ones from a different point of view).

For example, suppose that after interviewing eyewitnesses to a car accident, the police receive seemingly contradictory testimonies. May we throw all of them out simply because of that? No, not at all. The more likely explanation is that they each tell the same story, except from different perspectives. Thus, they are complementary, not contradictory.

Moreover, the historical method does not operate on the presumption of skepticism. Documents are assumed to be reliable until proven otherwise. If we viewed all seeming contradictions with as harsh a skepticism as Con's, then we'd barely know any history at all.

Argument 3: The gospels were not written by their authors.

Response: Papias and Irenaus report that Matthew wrote the gospel first, and that it was originally written in Aramaic. Matthew, moreover, likely possessed writing skills because he was a tax collector. Tax collectors were known for carrying around wooden tablets known as pinakes, on which they wrote notes. Luke, being an educated physician, also likely possesed the ability to write.

Both Papias and Polycarp also attest to the traditional authorship of the gospels [6]

But, more to the point, this is completely irrelevant to the truth of the information found within the gospels. So what if they were written by somebody else?

_________

[1]. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel. 2004)
[2]. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18.64
[3]. Tacitus, Annals 15.44
[4]. Habermas and Licona, TCFTROJ, pg. 70. They cite expert testimony from the Medical Examiner's Office for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
[5]. Ibid, pg. 70
[6]. See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:39 and Ireneaus, Against Heresies 3:1:1
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Con

Well, pro, what can I say? You have proved yourself of being a worthy opponent. Your points are strong and it was tough finding a way to refute them. I shall do my best to answer your claims.

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion.

I think that this is common ground for both of us. We really don't need to go into any more detail about this. The truth is there is adequate evidence to support this.

Fact 2:Jesus' desciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.
Remember: Just because you believe something DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS THE TRUTH!
You claim, "Now, why would someone die for what they knew was a falsehood?"

This argument is very common. However, I will start off by saying that people have died for lies before. People were put to death for the beliefe in Isalm, and even Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, was killed for his belief! Now, if Mormonism wasn't true, why would he be willing to face imprisonment for it and even be maryered for it.

Let me show you an examle in recent times, the Watchtower has produced 3 possible dates for the end of the world. All 3 of them dates came and went. However, there are still people who are Jehovah's wittnesses even though the Watchtower was wrong, which should have proved right then and there that their belief in the Watchtower was wrong.

Fact 3: The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed.

This does not mean that the ressurection occured, it just means that Paul believed it. And remember from my second rebuttle, just because you believe something does not mean it is the truth. Can Paul even be a good wittness? Let's look at a few verses.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law – though not being myself under the law – that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law – not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ – that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (I Corinthians. 9:19-25).

He openly acknowledged a practice that is utterly dishonest. To the Jews, he presented himself as a Jew. But to those outside the law, the Greeks and others, he presented himself as outside the law – as a Greek if we go by his Greek name. He became all things to all men! Whatever the occasion demands, that he is. Its begins more and more to appear as though the Ebionites may have been correct in their statements about Paul – that he was a Greek and never a Pharisee Jew. By his own firm statement, he was a human chameleon!

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? Romans 3:7

In this verse, Paul is basically asking this question, "If my lie is getting people to convert to Christianity, why am I being judged as a sinner?" You see that he admits to lying.

We also know that he admits to robbing other churches! "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." 2 Chorinthians 11:8 KJV

So, you can see that Paul is such a great wittness!

Fact 4: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

Again, what does this prove except the fact that he believed in the ressurection? Just because someone believed something, doesn't mean it actually happened.

Fact 5: The tomb was empty

Does an empty tomb mean that the person that was in there is now alive? No, it just means he is no longer in that tomb. Perhaps Joseph of Aramathia removed the body of Jesus and put him into a mass grave with other crucified victims?

Now, I also have other theories as to why they didn't produce the body of Jesus. The answer is perhaps they did! However, as stated before, no matter how much evidence against someone's beliefe is given to them, they still find ways to refute it. I'll go back to the Watchtower argument. There have been numerous dates set by the watch tower for the return of Christ, yet all those attempts failed. Rather than facing the facts that the watchtower is wrong, many Jehovah's wittnesses continue to support the watchtower. Interesting huh?

It is hard to believe that Joseph of Armathia provided the tomb for Jesus. After all, he was one of the people who voted for execution. Why provide his family tomb? That is sac-religious.

Another argument, why on Earth would the Phairasees be so concerned over a small little gentile cult? Christianity didn't catch on long after Jesus' death.

Also, we don't know what tomb Jesus was buried in? How can one say it was/is empty if we have no clue where it is at!

Critisism

1. Long by wat standard? Well, when you are a historian, you will realize that historians look at events and want CONTEMPORARY evidence, meaning something written shortly after the alleged event occured. Example, 2000 years from now, historians wouldn't credit a writing of the 1st moon-landing written in 2011, they would want something from that exact year--right? Unfortunatly, most of the gospels were written long after wards. As far as your oral-tradition theory, sure, but have you ever played telephone before? Imagine playing a game of telephone over several generations! How much difference would the story be from the person that 1st told the story to the person that wrote it down? Think about it.

2. You claim, "Many reliable works of history have contradictions in them, yet that is no reason to toss out their information outright. The fact that they provide similar information gives us enough reason to think something that happened which was miraculous. Moreover, it is a streach to say the gospels contradict one another. A better explanation is that they were providing complementary explanations." Just to shorten this down is that you claim that they were telling the story from their own viewpoint. That is fine, but what is the best way to discredit a story that has been fabricated? Well, you look for discripancies! If you read the gospels, they're full of them!

3. "So...what if they were written by somebody else?

Then whoever wrote it could have twisted the story? Plus they are not eye-witness accounts.

Now, as far as the creed in 1 Corinthians, there are issues:

1. There were only 11 disciples at that time. Judas was not replaced and Judas has hung himself.

I am going to recommend watching this video. Watch it and give me your opinions. it gives a lot of in-site.

Also, why are there no secular sources for the ressurection? There are tons for the crucifixion, not for the ressurection. The ones that are were written LONG after the supposed events.

More arguments, no more characters :(
Contradiction

Pro

I have a lot to say, so I'll order my responses in the form of general points. My thanks go out to kohai for his gracious reply.

Fact 1: Jesus died by crucifixion

Both myself and my opponent agree on fact 1, so no further mention of this will be required.

Fact 2: Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them

Con's first response is that believing something doesn't make it the truth. This, in fact, seems to be a common theme of his replies to be. I agree wholeheartedly with him, but notice that I never advanced such a claim. Rather, the point to be inferred from the disciples believing is that they regarded their beliefs as true, meaning that it couldn't have been something concoted by them a falsehood that they willingly believed. Licona writes,

"This does not prove their beliefs were true, since people of other faiths are likewise willing to die for their convictions. However, being willing to die for their convictions does indicate that they believed they knew the truth. Something happened to make them believe they had seen the risen Jesus -- and to believe it so strongly that they were willing to endure great suffering and even death for proclaming it. Liars make poor martyrs." [1]

Con then tries to draw a parallel between the disciples' experiences and of, say, Jehovah's witnesses. This too is a disnanology. "There is an important difference between the apostle martyrs and those who die for their beliefs today. Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The disciples of Jesus died for what they knew to be true." [2]

Fact 3: The Church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed

Part of my previous Response carries over, in regard to Con's first paragraph.

He also claims that on the basis of Corinthians. 9:19-25, Paul cannot be considered a good witness. However, the exegesis here is just downright confused. Paul was no chameleon, rather, his presentation of the Gospel message changed depending on his audience. The overall message, however, stayed the same. Imagine you're giving a lecture on physics to a crowd of professional academics. Such a setting allows you to use precise and technical language. However, if you're presenting the same lecture to students or layman, you have to taylor your presentation of the message to the specific audience. This is what Paul is doing here. He is presenting the same message using different techniques depending on the audience.

His exegesis of Romans 3:7 is likewise faulty. Read in context, what Paul is in fact doing is building a hypothetical argument for the purposes of refuting it. Note that the whole passage reads:

But if by my lie God's truth is amplified to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, just as some people slanderously claim we say, "Let us do evil so that good may come"? Their condemnation is deserved!


His exegesis of 2 Corinthians 11:8 is also problematic. "Robbed" is a figure of speech, referring to the fact that "[i]n Paul's day, professional philosophers and teachers in Greek society charged for teaching. Paul did not. He labored and received support from other churches, although he had the right to take money from the Corinhians, he chose not to do so in order to demonstrate his integrity."

Paul, therefore, was a credible witness. His conversion from skeptic to apostle thus needs to be explained.

Fact 4: The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

Not much here to respond to. The argument is virtually the same as that of fact 2, so I refer readers to my respons there.

Fact 5: The tomb was empty

Of course the empty tomb alone doesn't mean that the resurrection happened, but that was never the stated goal. Remember that fact 5 cannot be considered in isolation, it must be grouped together with the four previous facts. Together, they make the case that a resurrection is the best explanation for these facts.

He then advances a number of hypothetical scenarios to explain the empty tomb. Perhaps Joseph of Aramathia removed the body. Perhaps, and perhaps Jesus was also an alien. What's missing from this analysis is a plausible reason to suppose that he would do it. It's no use speculating if the speculations don't have an ounce of historical support behind them.

Remember that the Roman authorites stationed guards at the tomb -- how was Joseph of Aramathia to remove the body of Jesus without arousing their attention? This, moreover, does not explain facts (2), (3), and (4), thus making for an ad hoc explanation.

He also writes, "After all, he was one of the people who voted for execution. Why provide his family tomb? That is sac-religious."

On what historical basis is this claim made? I can find no support for this in any historical document, Christian or non-Christian.

He then levels two more arguments: "Another argument, why on Earth would the Phairasees be so concerned over a small little gentile cult? Christianity didn't catch on long after Jesus' death. Also, we don't know what tomb Jesus was buried in? How can one say it was/is empty if we have no clue where it is at!"

1) Throughout the Gospel and in the letters of the Paul, the Pharisees showed significant concern over Jesus, his teachings, and his follows. This is because Jesus was highly critical of both the Pharisees and the Saducees, which threatened their power over the people. They thus had every reason to be concerned -- why else did they have him killed? (A fact that Con concedes)

2) We might not know, but surely the authorities at the time did. After all, in order to have stationed guards at his tomb, the authorities would first have to know where the tomb is. In order for the women to have visited the tomb, they must know where it is. In order for the disciples to know the tomb was empty, they would have to know where it is. So this is rather contrived.

Now, I'm running out of characters, so this will unfortunately be brief.

Criticisms

1. This shows an utter misunderstanding of the historical method. If you applied that to first century events, then we wouldn't know anything at all. The reason that contemporary historians demand contemporary sources is that contemporary culture is based on written tradition. First century culture, however, was predominantly oral. Oral tradition would be passed down from generation to generation and then recorded on written works. By historical standards, a 50 year time gap in the first century between the first written work and the events in question is grade-A material.

The telephone analogy is completely off-point. Unfortunately I must touch on this in my next response, as I do not have enough characters to make my point.

2. Con has not shown that Gospel differences are not discrepancies. Because they were written by four different people, it is likely that each were giving an account for their own perspective. Absent any external reason to think that they are contradictory, the historical method tells us that we must presume them as reliable until proven otherwise.

3. Con has not addressed the historical support that I offered for the traditional authorship of the gospel. Moreover, even if it were not written by the traditional authors, it could still have been written by eyewitnesses, as the time frame certainly permits. But more to the point, the gospels were likely written by their traditional authors, as attested by Ireneaus and Papias.

Regarding the discripency in the Corinthian creed, an apostle was defined as someone who had been with Jesus during his entire time in ministry. The eleven there thus likely not alone when Jesus appeared to them, others were present as well. It was from these group of people whom the successor to Judas was chosen. [4]

I will respond to his last point in my next response, as space does not permit an adequate response here.

Sources:

See comments
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Con

Due to copyright violations and the lack of moderation to this site. I am closing my account perminatly. I appologize to my opponent.
Contradiction

Pro

Well, what can I say? I'm sorry it had to end this way. Good luck to my opponent in his future ventures. I extend my arguments.

God bless.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Con

kohai forfeited this round.
Contradiction

Pro

Con has not responded to the arguments presented. Arguments extended. I urge a vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 6 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
I'm not sure about the others, I'd have to read their stuff.. but Habermas is indeed a crank. He is not competent in the slightest. He is only competent to the ignorant who don't know any better.

Read "Historians' fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought" By David Hackett Fischer, a REAL historian.

After you do this, read Habermas. If you actually have even a surface understanding of the historical method, Habermas' entire position falls apart.

Whether or not the resurrection happened or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not such an event can be known with any degree of certainty. Due to the miraculous nature of the event, which is by definition implausible and improbable.. and do to the fact that it relies on ad-hoc explanations that are not currently known.. The resurrection can not be considered historical. It can only be classified as a myth.

This does not mean that it didn't happen, it just means that because the story violates so much of what we already know about how the natural world works, it would be foolish to classify it as being historical.

There is no shame for the religious to admit when their beliefs are rooted in things that can't be proven, and have to just be taken on faith.. There is however great shame in stretching and manipulating methodology in order to give credence to a completely unknowable thing. It is dishonest, and does nothing to further one in their pursuit of knowledge.

Miracles are by nature implausible. Anyone who believes in these things should expect that the people around them are not going to buy into it. To do so is unreasonable. People who dedicate their lives to stultifying minds through their intellectual dishonesty are the type of people that Jesus himself hated. They are like the pharisees who travel over land and sea to win converts, only to make them twice as much a son of hell as they are.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
I disagree. Though Habermas may not be a historian in terms of his degree (Actually, his PhDd dissertation was on the resurrection of Jesus), he's nevertheless competent.

Licona, on the other hand, has a PhD in the relevant area. His latest book (An edited version of his doctoral dissertation), has been endorsed by noteworthy historians. http://www.amazon.com...

Also worth mentioning is Tim McGrew, professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University. He provides a bayesian defense of the resurrection in his contribution for the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. http://www.lydiamcgrew.com...
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 6 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
Habermas' arguments suck, and he is not a respected historian. His PHD is in the History and Philosophy of religion. This is not a historian's degree, this is a religious degree.

http://religion.concordia.ca...

His book on the subject of Jesus' resurrection contains misleading citations and shows a remarkable ignorance of the historic method.

Basically, he is over hyped by apologists who pop a boner any time they see a guy with a doctorate who might possibly support their position.

Probably would have been better off making your own argument, but Con wasn't really doing too hot of a job debating against you on this.. Then dropped out. Ah well.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Sure thing! I sent you a message. I'll also post it for everyone else to see, come time for my final argument.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"The telephone analogy is completely off-point. Unfortunately I must touch on this in my next response, as I do not have enough characters to make my point."

I was so anxious to read this! Could you please expand on this?
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Please, let us not have a vulgar scene. This is a debate that is meant to be fun, not serious. I'm sorry if my opponent thinks that this is a serious debate--it's meant to be fun, but leave us thinking.
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 6 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
I never implied that your strategy implied solipsism. Something that makes me a little bit more confident in my assertion that you have poor comprehension skills..

If you think you can create a historical methodology for the argument to best explanation that surpasses McCullagh's method, I'd honestly be surprised. .
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Yes, there are varying methodologies. But obviously some are going to be right, and others are going to be wrong. On the methodology I defend, it's not arrogant at all to claim that a miracle happened. Perhaps we can debate on historical methodology in the future?

And to say that my particular strategy lends me into solipsism is laughable. There is no such connection.
Posted by CosmicAlfonzo 6 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
You do realize that these various methodologies exist out of an honest evaluation of epistemology right?

I'm telling you that you do not have a firm grasp of your own epistemological limitations. It is arrogant, and you are never going to learn anything until you can honestly say that you don't know jack sh!t.

These methodologies have attached to them the bare minimum of Ad-Hock support to avoid falling into outright solipsism.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Your beef seems to be over historical methodology. I have a battery of arguments in place should my opponent choose to go that route.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 5 years ago
jewgirl
kohaiContradictionTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: F.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
kohaiContradictionTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I guess copyright issues forced me to give con the win, oh well
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
kohaiContradictionTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con elegantly responded, refuted and established a solid case. Kohai failed to offer sound negations and construct his own case.
Vote Placed by CosmicAlfonzo 6 years ago
CosmicAlfonzo
kohaiContradictionTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
kohaiContradictionTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.