The Instigator
snelld7
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The historical Jesus of Nazareth most likely looked like this =======> (Go to the arguments)

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 4 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,021 times Debate No: 8089
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

mongeese

Con

My opponent says that Jesus of Nazareth most likely looked like the picture he posted.
"Though depictions of Jesus are culturally important, no undisputed record of Jesus' appearance is known to exist."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thus, there is no reason to believe that my opponent's picture is accurate at all. Sure, he might have looked like that. He also might have parted his hair differently, or had bright blue eyes. The picture posted doesn't even come from a horribly reliable source, either.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
snelld7

Pro

"Sure, he might have looked like that. "~You
This was all I needed to win, thank you. =)

Most likely is best described as (basically)-the best chance of happening

Take this into consideration, Jesus was Jewish and lived in the middle east (Born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city). He would have, most likely, looked like many Israeli men do today. In other words, tanned skin, brown or black wavy hair, blue or brown eyes. Which is exactly the picture, is it not?

If I say "Chong Lee" was born by chinese people, in China [...] is it unlikely to believe that "Chong Lee" will look like chinese people? Of course not! In fact, he MOST LIKELY will look like Chinese people.

Your argument of "Though depictions of Jesus are culturally important, no undisputed record of Jesus' appearance is known to exist" is irrelivant because i didn't state, "JESUS DEFINATELY LOOK LIKE THIS"... Just that he MOST LIKELY did.

>>>>"The picture posted doesn't even come from a horribly reliable source"~You

.........SO? What's your point? Because my picture doesn't come from CNN.com that it can't be used? Riiiiiiiight.....
mongeese

Con

"This was all I needed to win, thank you. =)"
Just because something might be true doesn't mean that it most likely is true. O. J. Simpson might have actually been guilty. He might have actually been innocent. These can't both be the most likely event.

"Take this into consideration, Jesus was Jewish and lived in the middle east (Born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city). He would have, most likely, looked like many Israeli men do today. In other words, tanned skin, brown or black wavy hair, blue or brown eyes. Which is exactly the picture, is it not?"
Don't forget that Jesus also came from divine descent, as God is his father, so he might not look entirely Israeli.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Many people shown to be Israeli have blond hair, green eyes, and/or white skin. Hmm. You lack a source to support your idea of Israeli men fitting your description.
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
Here is a man born in Tel Aviv with white hair, pale skin, and LIGHT brown eyes.
You provide no examples of any Israeli men that share any characteristics with your image of Jesus.'

My opponent provides no statistics or sources to back up his claim. If he could have sourced anything that talked about hair color, eye color, and skin color in Israel, and had statistics showing that a large enough majority of Israeli men in Israel had these characteristics, he may have won this debate. However, due to his lack of sources, one really has no reason to believe his claims.

".........SO? What's your point? Because my picture doesn't come from CNN.com that it can't be used? Riiiiiiiight....."
I'm just saying that it isn't as reliable as one could hope. It's just a fact for the voters to consider.

In conclusion, Jesus may have looked exactly like the picture shown, but then again, he may have looked completely different. We don't know, and my opponent has not backed up his claims very well. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Once grammar and spelling are ignored, it goes down the drain. A vote encourages people to be more readable.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
"CON used Wikipedia, which is more reliable"

You don't hear that every day
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
>>>"And grammar and spelling are very important; or shud I jist tak liek thes teh entier tim?"

I said it's COMPLETELY irrelevant if my typing is understandable and sensable... ^^^^ That isn't!
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
That was a statement that should have been backed up with sources. I need proof to accept it.

My sources were relevant to the debate; a picture of an Israeli man for comparison, and an example of how we really don't know how Jesus looked.

And grammar and spelling are very important; or shud I jist tak liek thes teh entier tim?
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
""(Born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city). He would have, most likely, looked like many Israeli men do today. In other words, tanned skin, brown or black wavy hair, blue or brown eyes.""~Me

I didn't say that in the debate round......?
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
>>Sources: CON (PRO's source was the picture in question; CON used Wikipedia, which is more reliable)

You didn't use wiki for anything of relevance! if I was to randomly quote CNN for saying "Football is fun" would that in-turn give me this vote in this category?

Being that nobody has a picture of Jesus, what source would you have suggested I use to say he looked like what I said?
The debate was based off of speculation and chance, no source was necessary so it should have been a tie (especially because wiki has proven to be unreliable) in this category.

Do you believe my statements of how MOST middle eastern people have black wavy hair, bronish tanned pigmented skin, and brown eyes....to be false?

If not, then what does it matter if i don't quote fox news, cnn, C-Span, or any other famous source for saying it?

I'll give you the grammar voting category (which I feel to be COMPLETELY irrelevant if my typing is understandable and sensable)
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
"The very fact that you have pointed them out and said they are a slight posibilty means it was a slim chance. The arguments were based off of chance."
"Most likely" and "possibly" are not synonyms.

"This is true, however the HIGH AND VAST majority of them DO LOOK LIKE THE PICTURE SHOWN (color skin, texture hair, and color eyes). This being a true statement...it's most likely"
It would have helped your case if, DURING THE DEBATE, you managed to prove that this was, indeed a true statement.
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Lol I hope he doesn't kill america!

>>>Convincing Arguments: CON (PRO's argument was refuted, and lacked any statistical backing, and was only pure speculation)

hmmmm...

Category was not "were all argguments refuted" (If I argued my side, and you said, it's not true because God talked to you and told you I was lying... that would have refuted my point..but wouldn't have been the more convincing argument)
And 2ndly...all you basically said was ya it might be true, or it might not be true, go on about blonde haired middle easterns, then you stated that he was half God and half human so he might not have looked like the rest. problems with this are: (A) You surely don't think God has sperm and a genetic make up do u? If not, his only genetic make-up would have been from his mother (the middle eastern...which is why he'd most likely look MIDDLE EASTERN) (B) I said Jesus of Nazareth... not Jesus the Christ (can't actually be proved he was born from God so I avoided that and focused on the actual historical jesus) and (C) Even if you do see some middle easterns with blonde hair. The very fact that you have pointed them out and said they are a slight posibilty means it was a slim chance. The arguments were based off of chance. Knowing this, what are the chances that you see a middle eastern (born from to other middle eastern citizens) with blonde hair and blue eyes? Slim, right? meaning that it most-likely isn' true that this would happen, right? Then, finally meaning that Jesus has the highest chance of coming out like the most popular featured middle eastern, right? Being that the arguments and resolution are chance, "pure speculation" is not a valid reason for me to be voted down. You're focusing on the fact that not all middle eastern citizens look alike. This is true, however the HIGH AND VAST majority of them DO LOOK LIKE THE PICTURE SHOWN (color skin, texture hair, and color eyes). This being a true statement...it's most likely
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Time to pull a Kleptin:

Conduct: TIE (no problems)
Spelling and Grammar: CON (PRO had capitalization issues and sentence structure issues)
Convincing Arguments: CON (PRO's argument was refuted, and lacked any statistical backing, and was only pure speculation)
Sources: CON (PRO's source was the picture in question; CON used Wikipedia, which is more reliable)

Vote bomber, go ahead and try to pull a Kleptin.
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Perhaps Osama really is the second coming of Jesus, and he will destroy America.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Molokoplus 8 years ago
Molokoplus
snelld7mongeeseTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
snelld7mongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
snelld7mongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
snelld7mongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70