The Instigator
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Composer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically valid event.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,583 times Debate No: 22873
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

KeytarHero

Pro

I wish to challenge Composer to a debate on this topic, since he indicated he would like to examine the evidence. If he accepts, I will present the case for the historicity of the Resurrection in the next round.

Round 1 -- acceptance.
Round 2 -- opening arguments/rebuttals.
Round 3 -- rebuttals.
Round 4 -- rebuttals/closing statements.
Composer

Con

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

&

ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

http://www.nobeliefs.com...

&

The legitimate evidence ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY god(s) given to men remains a constant zero!

||popcorn||
Debate Round No. 1
KeytarHero

Pro

I was hoping to use last round for acceptance only, but Con has jumped right in with an argument. So I will address that first before making my case for the historicity of the Resurrection.

Con has made quite a radical claim, that Jesus didn't even exist. The fact of the matter is that most critical and historical scholars concur that there was a literal Jesus who lived some 2,000 years ago.

First, regarding the alleged lack of evidence regarding Jesus. There are at least three points to consider:

1) There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus' death which mention his existence and record many events of his life, including nine traditional New Testament authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude), 20 early Christian writers (e.g. Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.), four heretical writings (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection), and nine secular sources (e.g. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon (a freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian, etc.). The claim from the website that these were not reliable accounts is simply false, and are used as historical records by historians. [1]

2) If one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus, one would also have to doubt the exist of Tiberius Caesar. There are over four times as many sources for the life and deeds of Jesus as there are for Tiberius Caesar. [2]

3) The fact is that few records survive for thousands of years. There are a number of ancient writings that have been lost, including 50% of the Roman historian Tacitus’ works, all of the writings of Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes. In fact, Herod the Great’s secretary named Nicolas of Damascus wrote a Universal History of Roman history which comprised nearly 144 books and none of them have survived. So there is no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. [3]

Now, regarding Con's second point, two of the Gospels definitely were not hearsay. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus during his ministry. The other two Gospels, Mark and Luke, were close associates of two of Jesus' other disciples.

However, if Con wishes to reject Jesus' existence on the grounds of hearsay, he must also reject the existence of Alexander the Great, as the only writings about his life was written 200 years later, yet it is used by historians as a reliable source of informtion. The fact is that it is not uncommon for other records from antiquity -- which critics accept -- to be written centuries after the events about which they speak. [4]

The existence of Jesus is uncontroversial. Also uncontroversial are most of the events that prove Jesus' resurrection. In fact, the resurrection can be proven as historically probable due to at least six reasons:

1. Jesus was actually dead. Jesus was crucified on the cross.

2. The empty tomb. The tomb that Jesus was laid in was empty on the third day.

3. Appearances. Post-resurrection Jesus appeared to many people. He appeared to the women at the tomb, to the aforementioned pair of men on the road to Emmaus, to the ten disciples (sans Thomas and Judas, who hanged himself after Jesus' crucifixion), to the eleven disciples (Thomas included), and even to 500 people all at once.

4. Testimonies. The disciples were cowards. Peter denied Jesus three times. They hid when he was captured. They were uneducated and had low social standing. Yet after Jesus rose, they were suddenly bold and empowered. They were willing to die for what they believed (and most of them did). This dramatic change in their character is only explained by the Resurrection.

5. Low status of women. If the disciples had wanted to make up the resurrection event, they wouldn't have used women (Mary, Mary Magdalen, Salome, and the other women with them) as the primary witnesses as the event due to the fact that women were not considered reliable witnesses. The best explanation is that they were actually the primary witnesses to this actual event.

6. Immediate proclamation. The Jews started proclaiming Jesus immediately, in the city in which He was said to have risen. They would not have done this if Jesus hadn't actually risen. If Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead, the body could have been produced and the new movement of believers would have been crushed right then and there.

Alternate theories have been produced to explain away some of these evidences, but I'll wait to see which line of reasoning Con intends to pursue before addressing them. I look forward to our next round.

[1] Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004, p. 233.
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid, p. 234.
[4] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p.389.
Composer

Con

Pro: Con has made quite a radical claim, that Jesus didn't even exist. The fact of the matter is that most critical and historical scholars concur that there was a literal Jesus who lived some 2,000 years ago.

Con responds: Where is the evidence? Let's see it, your ' saying so ' isn't evidence!

Pro: First, regarding the alleged lack of evidence regarding Jesus. There are at least three points to consider:

1) There are over 42 sources within 150 years after Jesus' death which mention his existence and record many events of his life,

Con responds: ALL based upon at best hearsay testimony especially from those that called themselves christians and what they ' claimed ' about this mythical historical person they chose to believe as literal based upon their hearsay beliefs!

Pro writes: including nine traditional New Testament authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude),

Con responds: ALL Story book characters!

You are making the typical mistake of assuming the bible is what you claim it to be and then using it as if it were when the facts only show that the words of ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY Supernatural god(s) given to men remains a total and constant zero!

Pro writes: 20 early Christian writers (e.g. Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.), four heretical writings (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection), and nine secular sources (e.g. Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon (a freed slave who wrote histories), Lucian, etc.). The claim from the website that these were not reliable accounts is simply false, and are used as historical records by historians. [1]

Con responds: Josephus was apparently so convinced forty or so years after the supposed rumours of a jesus circulated that when he wrote the hearsay testimony of those calling themselves christians and what they said that he remained a Jew and rejected christianities religion!

Some of the hearsay references recorded were exposed as ' fraudulent ' also -

A False Witness
Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

Conclusion: Josephus No Evidence of Jesus
Even if the Josephus passage were authentic, which we have essentially proved it not to be, it nevertheless would represent not an eyewitness account but rather a tradition passed along for at least six decades, long after the purported events. Hence, the TF would possess little if any value in establishing an "historical" Jesus. In any event, it is quite clear that the entire passage in Josephus regarding Christ, the Testimonium Flavianum, is spurious, false and a forgery. Regarding the TF, Remsburg summarizes:

"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.... (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

&

Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius:
No Proof of Jesus
by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S
(Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...)

Pro writes: 2) If one is going to doubt the existence of Jesus, one would also have to doubt the exist of Tiberius Caesar. There are over four times as many sources for the life and deeds of Jesus as there are for Tiberius Caesar. [2]

Con responds: Claims of Supernatural, extraordinary miracle working godpeople require extraordinary evidence, of which there is NONE!

Your preferred Story book bible and circular reasoning included!

Pro writes: 3) The fact is that few records survive for thousands of years. There are a number of ancient writings that have been lost, including 50% of the Roman historian Tacitus' works, all of the writings of Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes. In fact, Herod the Great's secretary named Nicolas of Damascus wrote a Universal History of Roman history which comprised nearly 144 books and none of them have survived. So there is no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. [3]

Con responds: That is irrationality at its finest!

I have exceeded 8000 characters and must stop here!
Debate Round No. 2
KeytarHero

Pro

I am not arguing based on my "say so." I have offered several pieces of evidence, which are historically valid. If Composer wishes to reject Jesus as historical, he must also reject Alexander the Great as myth, and not an actual historical person. I extend all of my arguments into the next round.

These books are not based on hearsay. These are con's own words: "Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge." I have already explained that two of the Gospel authors (Matthew and John) were Jesus' own disciples and witness to His life and ministry. By Con's own admission, this is not hearsay. Additionally, the two other Gospel writers (Mark and Luke) were close associates of one of Jesus' disciples (Luke was an associate of Peter), and one of the Apostles (Mark was an associate of Paul, who didn't walk with Jesus but was a witness to Jesus post-resurrection), and as such they had direct access to the eyewitnesses. Additionally, Con asserts these were all "story-book characters" with no evidence that they never actually existed. However, they are as historical as any other living person, including Alexander the Great, and other people from that time period that historians accept, such as Pontius Pilate.

Con has said I've made the "typical mistake" of believing the events in the Bible to be what I claim it to be. However, Con has no evidence that these events were not historical. The books contained in the Bible are all books of history. Historians even accept them as such to an extent (obviously they don't accept the miraculous portions). It is obvious that Con begins by begging the question, that the events of the Bible are not real, and likely would not believe with any evidence that is supplied. I dare say it's a good thing Composer is not a historian, otherwise we wouldn't know as much about the ancient world as we do now.

I never said anything about Josephus converting. In fact, historians don't doubt that Josephus mentioned Jesus, what they doubt is what Josephus wrote about Jesus. He was a Jewish historian, so it seems, to them, that Christians later embellished what Josephus wrote about Jesus. But Josephus did, in fact, mention Jesus in his writings. To doubt this is simply irrational, and Con has an obvious bias when he says it.

In fact, Con is simply wrong when he says that the majority of scholars reject Josephus' writings about Jesus as authentic. In fact, the overwhelming majority of modern scholars consider the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" to be authentic and have the highest level of authenticity among the references of Josephus to Christianity. [1] [2] Also, almost all modern scholars consider the reference in Book 18, Chapter 5, 2 of the Antiquities to the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist to be also authentic. [3] Perhaps Con should stop listening to random websites and see what the scholars actually have to say.

There have been many, many reputable works written and mentioning Jesus. Con's claim that they are not authentics is simply indefensible.

Now, Con repeats the atheist mantra that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is simply untrue. Consider this: If I tell you I have a brown dog with four legs and a long tail, you would have no trouble believing me. Why? You've seen many dogs and you would know this to be a common attribute of dogs.

However, if I told you I have a purple dog with six legs and two tails, you would rightly require evidence. What kind of evidence? You would merely need to see the dog. The extraordinary claim requires the same kind of evidence as the ordinary claim. The ordinary claim just seems more believable because of your prior experience with dogs.

The existence of Jesus Christ is not an extraordinary claim. You can believe Jesus was a historical person without believing the miraculous claims surrounding him. In fact, the vast majority of scholars and historians accept a historical Jesus. In light of this, Con not thinking the evidence is good enough is simply unconvincing. I think we can trust the historians. Additionally, all of the historical evidence points to the event of the resurrection actually happening. Con has not rebutted a single one of my arguments in support of the resurrection.

Con has spent this entire argument asserting things, calling my views irrational (all of which I have back up with evidence -- so who is really arguing irrationally here?), and not backing up any of his own claims. I think it's obvious which of us has the stonger argument.

Since Con has not rebutted a single one of my arguments in support of the resurrection, I extend all of my arguments into the next and final round.

[1] Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9.
[2] Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei, eds. (1987). Josephus, Judaism and Christianity. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-08554-1.
Composer

Con

Apart from a man made story book christianity's legitimate evidence for a literal biblical jesus = zero!

At least you acknowledge there is legitimate evidence for Alexander the Great!

I am no expert on Alexander the Great, however a quick Google proves your analogy is yet again spurious -

e.g. . . . . Alexander the Great and his conquests are well-documented. Documentation about him, from all over the ancient World, has been used in later biographies. Oxford's Bodleian Library Catalogue lists more than forty biographies and there are more than a hundred books, as far as I can judge, entirely about him, e.g. about his different campaigns. We even know about his sex life!

Had you phrased the query more even-handedly, you would have said 'We know as much about Jesus as about Alexander the Great', to which the simple answer would have been 'Rubbish!'

Wikipedia also appears to provide multiple evidences of a literal Alexander the Great - http://en.wikipedia.org...

If Alex was reputed to have walked on water or raised the dead and died for our sins, I can assure you that he would come under the same attacks as Story book jesus does and rightly so!

Meanwhile: The legitimate evidence for a jesus the literal son of a god, outside of the biblical story book, remains a constant zero and your efforts only reinforce that already known position!

Hence your ' claim ' there were ' eye-witnesses ' also remains and proven as spurious!

Further more -

Were the NT Gospels written by eye witnesses?
There is no evidence to suggest that any of the gospels were written by eye witnesses of the events described in them. Keep in mind that all the Gospel required apostolic authorship in order to be accepted into the Bible and this played a large role in how these Gospel came to be seen.

When you consider the Gospels, it is very important to understand how they were composed in the first place.

The Gospel of Mark was composed first between 65-80 CE. The church father Eusebius (late 3rd century CE) is the earliest surviving record in regards to the claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, a Greek translator and follower of Peter. He quotes from Papias who lived in the early 1st century BCE who said that the book was written after Peter had died and that Mark "wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered". It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him." Thus Eusebius himself quotes that Papias stated that this Mark had never met or seen Jesus himself, i.e. he was not eye witness.

What makes this claim more questionable is the fact that Papias himself was known to exaggerate when it came to his historical claims. When describing Judas' last days he says that Judas became so bloated that his head was wider than a wagon. We also have to remember that none of the gospels originally had any titles and titles such as "The Gospel of Mark" were only added by scribes much later on. For instance Papias mentions the Gospel of Matthew and only describes it as a collection of Jesus' sayings. The Gospel of Matthew contains much more than just the sayings of Jesus and it leaves one wondering if Papias might have been referring to a different gospel all together. You can find more information on the Gospel of Mark here.

The Gospel of Matthew came to us as being anonymous but through church tradition, the apostle Matthew became the recognised author. Later on the Gospel was edited with the text stating that this was the Gospel of Matthew. This however is only church legend and the author was not an eye witness himself.The Gospel was most probably written between 70 CE (after the fall of Jerusalem) and before 110 CE when Ignatius quotes from it.

Nowhere in the Gospel of Luke does it state that Luke the apostle was the author, however this had become accepted church tradition by the late 2nd century. The author is the same author as that of Acts. The author also never states that he is an eye witness at all but that he did a significant amount of research before writing his book (Luke 1:1-4). The Gospel itself is difficult to date but it was most probably written towards the end of the 1st century CE. If Luke relied on on the Jewish historian Josephus, then the gospel could have been written as late as 93CE.

Both Matthew and Luke used Mark as the source for their gospels in addition to another gospel called Q, which was essentially a collection of Jesus' sayings. Both Matthew and Luke used Mark as the source for their narrative and Q for their source for Jesus' sayings. Why would a real eye witness rely on Mark for most of his narrative? Mark was not even an eye witness himself? Why would they need to rely on a sayings gospel when they were there to hear the words for themselves? One could use the argument of old age but by this time your whole theory of the validity of eye witnesses is thrown out of the window.

So we now know that neither Matthew, Mark or Luke were eye witnesses but based their gospels on older sources. This then leads us to the Gospel of John.

John is unique in that it does not rely on Mark at all. It was written much later than the other gospels, probably around 90 AD, which would make any disciple at least 80 years old. What makes the dating for this gospel difficult is that it seems to have been heavily edited. The first chapter for instance uses a very different style of Greek than most of the rest. When some of Jesus' miracles are mentioned, the Greek once again reverts back to the style from the first chapter. This indicates that later additions were made to the text. The author once again does not claim to be an eye witness himself. Some evidence within the Gospel strongly suggest that the author was not an eye witness, for instance he keeps referring to Christians being expelled from the Jewish Synagogues. Any eye witness (or reader of the other gospels) would have known that Jesus himself often taught in the synagogues.

Thus we are left with virtually no evidence that any of the gospels' writers ever witnessed the life of Jesus and cannot be considered as eye witness accounts. (Source: http://atheisttoolbox.com...)

&

You are already thus proven incorrect and your legitimate evidence is in fact non-existent and sure you can illegitimately deny this ad infinitum but in reality to no legitimate avil for yourself. However I am also an extremely benevolent teacher of Truth and I am prepared to let YOU step-forward and show yourself as a genuine Story book jesus' disciple and should you pass ALL the requirements and manifestations ' already a given ' to ANY genuine Story book jesus' believer, then I will be prepared to again heed any other claims you want to try your luck with again and give you further opportunities to prove what you currently only ' claim to be? '.

I'll even give you a clue how to achieve this -

Engage say John 14:12-14, and that way you can be sure your jesus' will empower you to pass the tests you are required to achieve!

Step 1: Pre-requisite -

Do you still Sin since allegedly coming to know this Story book jesus?

Let's see how you go with that first and after that (should you pass?) we'll move on to -

These signs will accompany those who believe: . . . . . . . . 16:18 they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them;11 they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well. (Mark. 16:17-18) NET story book

Off ya go and no BS excuses like your entire predecessors for their abject failures, LOL!
Debate Round No. 3
KeytarHero

Pro

As this is our last round, I wish to once again thank Conductor for attempting to debate this with me. I will not present any new arguments. There is no need. He has not responded to a single one of my arguments, so I extend them all.

I will respond to some of Con's remaining points.

I would first like to point out that Con's entire arguments have been based on plagiarism. It is obvious he has copied and pasted his arguments from other sources and are not arguing on his own. The link he provided last round was broken, but it seems evident that he also copied and pasted his evidence from the website.

Secondly, Con has said this: "...I am also an extremely benevolent teacher of Truth...", and he has said this: "Off ya go and no BS excuses like your entire predecessors for their abject failures, LOL!" Your own words betray you, Con. I sincerely hope the readers of this debate are much more intellectually honest than Con is.

Con's assertions that the Bible is a made up story book are baseless.

Additionally, yes I admit that there is legitimate evidence for Alexander the Great, as does Con, apparently. This works against him. Con must either state that Alexander the Great was not a historical person or that Jesus was. Otherwise, Con's assertion that Alexander the Great was a real person but not Jesus is special pleading.

Jesus, His life and ministry are likewise well-documented, as I have already shown. Con's "quick google search" does nothing to counter the scholarly research I cited in the last two rounds.

Again, Con asserts there is no reason to suppose these events were recorded by actual eyewitnesses. Again, this is simply false.

First, there is more evidence fo the historicity of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ than for any other event from the ancient world. I have already shown the evidence for Jesus in round two.

Second, their authentic authorship is not in doubt. To prove this would be take up too much space, but suffice it to say there is overwhelming evidence that they were written by eyewitnesses, and written by whom they say they were. [1] I have already shown that even if they weren't written by the eyewitnesses, there is still overwhelming evidence that Jesus was historical (from round two), and even if they were written later Jesus would still be historically accepted as a real person, for the same reason that Alexander the Great is considered a real person historically. Con's arguments do nothing to challenge this.

Con has no idea what a disciple of Jesus is. A disciple is one who follows the teachings of another. I am a disciple in that I believe in the Truth that Jesus taught, and I am following His wishes by sharing that Truth with others. I believe that Jesus worked miracles. I believe what Jesus claimed about Himself. A disciple is not required to work miracles, nor do I believe are we supposed to now. Miracles were rare events that were meant as a sign in Old and New Testament times. For example, in Old Testament times, only prophets performed miracles. In the New Testament, only the Apostles and Jesus worked miracles, with only one or two exceptions.

Con's claim that I must "prove myself worthy" is a red herring and simply ridiculous.

I believe I have effectively proven my case in spades. Please vote Pro.

[1] Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, pp. 528-530.
Composer

Con

As this is our last round, I wish to once again thank Conductor for attempting to debate this with me.

Con: As I successfully predicted and successfully proved, your claims are all fraudulent and as a bonus you also exposed yourself as a malignant Sinner and hence a proven Story book jesus' reject and the combination of your lack of integrity and illegitimate claims and sins by resorting to personal name calling and Ad Hominem attacks against me (Conductor not Composer) only reinforces the illegitimacy of yourself, your preferred Story book and your arguments that ultimately rest upon insults in lieu of a shred of credibility for your ultimately defeated cause!

According to your preferred Story book, you remain a proven Sinner and hence a proven jesus' reject (cf. 1 John 3:6,8) KJV Story book ) and ultimately a most Unworthy adversary = dishonest Satan!

Conversely, you now have the excellent and successful examples of the extremely high standards I set of Truth, legitimate facts, high moral and intellectual integrity and no need to ever resort to personal attacks or insults or name calling as do you!
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
Although I agree with con, pro wins this debate. For conduct, con argued in the opening round and shown very poor conduct throughout the debate. For arguments, pro adequetly defended all of his arguments and con didn't even attempt to rebut. Pro gave a lot better and more accurate sources than con did giving him the source point.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Composer, do you even know what an ad hominem is? Getting your name wrong is not an ad hominem attack.
Posted by warpedfx 5 years ago
warpedfx
aw man this guy went for the jesus myth card. that's not historical.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
You can prove a negative, Owen.
Posted by owen99999 5 years ago
owen99999
The burden of proof is on pro because you can't prove a negative (eg Jesus didn't exist).
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
I think it isn't a red herring - if Jesus never existed then he couldn't resurrect. I agree it's probably an unwise move by con as it shifts the burden of proof on to him to show that Jesus didn't exist, but it's a valid argument. Pro does not get to determine what con is allowed to argue, and vice versa.

The problem is that these kinds of discussions get out of hand very quickly. Very few people are willing to accept con's viewpoint because few historians accept it (mostly because most historians don't actually care). Even if you were to concede almost all your points, pro, and ignore everything con said (like my opponent did in my debate) you'd probably still win, because voters rarely judge based on the content of the debate. That gives rise to all sorts of angry commenting. This holds true even if you don't do that.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Well, the thing is we're not even supposed to be debating whether or not Jesus existed. Con took the debate in a direction where it wasn't supposed to go. This entire debate is pretty much a red herring, which is why I keep emphasizing that he's not responding to any of my arguments so I extend them into the next round.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Last time I did a debate like this it went really out of hand ... http://www.debate.org...
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Oops. I forgot to list my third source. I'll do that if I remember in the next round.
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Composer, you might want to stop copy and pasting entire paragraphs from my argument into yours. You'll have more space to make a full argument that way.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
KeytarHeroComposerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
KeytarHeroComposerTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was generally poor but was more in pro's favor than con's, on balance. Pro met BOP with undisputed evidence for Resurrection, but con set out to prove a far greater claim - Jesus' nonexistence - and thus assumed BOP. Con generally used weaker sources at this. Key issue was whether gospels were hearsay. Con's key point is that there's no evidence for them not being hearsay, pro's key point is that there is no evidence for them being hearsay. No evidence = BOP not met. Very narrow aff win.