The Instigator
izbo10
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

This statement shows a lacking in character of a person.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 7/5/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,439 times Debate No: 17417
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (72)
Votes (6)

 

izbo10

Pro

"The fact is, none of us deserve anything, including the children in Africa or the Jews in the Holocaust."

My opponent will defend this statement as something that a person who has a good character would say. I will say someone who says this shows a lack of character. First round accepts.
MrCarroll

Con

Then I accept.

Definitions:
Character – The mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

Let us begin.
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Pro

The first thing to say is I am not going to explain why the holocaust and child starvation are wrong. If you don't grasp that concept please don't vote as you are too ignorant to vote.

Now lets begin by going over what this statement entails:

If everyone is deserving of everything.

Then every crime is deserved.

Deserved means : to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Then it is morally right to kill someone as they were fit to be murdered. There is no way to differentiate between right and wrong because every action is right. Now if I really have to explain why these things are wrong, my opponent can take the debate because I don't want idiots to vote for me anyway.
MrCarroll

Con

I am left unsure of my opponent's position in this debate. My opponent mus show that by stating, "The fact is, none of us deserve anything, including the children in Africa or the Jews in the Holocaust," a person shows a lack of character. My opponent argues that the previously mentioned statement entails that "everyone is deserving of everything" yet he has failed to show why. In fact, the statement suggests the opposite, that no one is deserving of anything. Either my opponent has derived his argument from a extreme use of semantics or we are both unsure of our positions in this debate. I will accept his assumptions on morality; I wouldn't have said it like he did, but I agree with him more or less. Right and wrong are concepts understood by generally everyone. However, my opponent's argument fails as far as I can tell, unless I am missing some key point. The statement never insisted that everyone is deserving of everything. Also, he never developed the argument so much to say, "thus, this person shows a lack of character." That is what Pro's argument must achieve, and it failed to do so. Given that Pro has the Burden of Proof, I will leave round 2 at that, and I will await his next response.
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Pro

"The fact is, none of us deserve anything, including the children in Africa or the Jews in the Holocaust."

I would say anyone of character would agree with the people who raise money for the starving children of africa that they deserve to have food. I would say that a person of character would agree with the allies that the Jews needed to be saved. This statement clearly says the opposite. They did not deserve any of this. Yes this statement was meant that way and is not being taken out of context.

My argument is simple a person of character would say that the children deserve food and the jews deserved saving, this quote says the opposite. As long as you the reader believes that a person of character should think they deserve these things then you must vote for me as this quote contradicts the things you believe a person of character would think.
MrCarroll

Con

I apologize, I am writing this on my phone because I am out of town. I will have to make this short. my opponent has not really made a proper argument. He merely assumes as a premise that someone of character would believe that some people such as starving children deserve something. However, the statement has little to do with a person's actual character. It is a philisophic statement. One may believe that no one deserves anything, yet believe that they should give to others regardless of what they deserve. A person can still believe it is right to save jews and feed the hungry. That person shows what we would consider good character. Lastly, the voting is not dependemt on whether you believe a starving child deserves food, but rather who presents the best arguments and so forth. Since pro has failed to uphold his burden, I feel I should win this debate. He has not really made any argument at all to be fair.
Debate Round No. 3
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
*you're.

:)
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
No your just to stupid to realize that get this, if there weren't differences then it would be the same religion. It doesn't take away from the fact that christianity copied many aspects of other religions when inventing their religion.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
So bozo, too much playing in the circus and not reading your schoolbook right?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
So none of the gods were copies as they all had fundamental differences?"
Where did you infer that I stated all deities/none of them were this or that, from what I originally wrote? I wrote that your statement ignored the fundamental differences between the PAGAN RELIGION AND THE ABHRAMIC RELIGIONS, not between the deities....nor did you not mention the fact that I did concede to the similarities between such deities as due to cultural exchange and diffusion.

This is very sad, bozo. It shows that while accusing others of poor reading comprehension, you fail to make reasonable conclusions based on a few sentences or comments.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
And how does that apply to Christianity: it is clear that Christianity is fundamentally different from pagan religions, not only in the fact of the presence of a monotheistic, single deity, but its emphasis on historicity and such...This whole 'similarities in deities' is non sequitur unless you, bozo, are willing enough to convincingly tie it to the image of Jesus...
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
So all the gods were copies despite their many fundamental differences and cultural roles?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"So none of the gods were copies as they all had fundamental differences?"
I did state that the similar gods were "...a product of cultural diffusion and exchange of ideas" [for example, the spread of paganism in the Anglo-Saxon tribes might account for the presence of Wotan, or the Norse god Odin, and his worship there]....This shows the apparently low-level reading comprehension you have since you inferred that I entirely disagreed with you on this.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
So none of the gods were copies as they all had fundamental differences?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"actually you fuckin retard the dead and rising gods were categorized as a type of pagan god, when comparing it is comparing jesus to that tradition of god."
Nice to see you responded to my outburst very well, bozo. And I know that the dead and rising gods are heathen in origin, but their source of categorization still derives from Christian standards.
"If you knew anything about Pagan religions, they had similar gods which made it easy to convert from one religion to another if you moved to a new area of the world."
More of a product of cultural diffusion and exchange of ideas. And this part about "easy to convert" has no basis or evidence given. Therefore, I must impugn it until you provide justification for such an assertion.
"Jesus followed this pattern."
That is to ignore the fundamental differences between the Abrahamic religion and heathen ones...

Bozo needs some anger management, bozo needs some anger management. If you knew that much of pagan mythology, then you would have done far more than make baseless assertions, especially on your so-called knowledge.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
actually the dead and rising gods were categorized as a type of pagan god, when comparing it is comparing jesus to that tradition of god. They had similar gods which made it easy to convert from one religion to another if you moved to a new area of the world. Jesus followed this pattern.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10MrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side presented an argument, though Con was much better in conduct and more attentive to his spelling and grammar. Pro however at least earns a point for sources...
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
izbo10MrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO seems to be drunk, his English is terrible, conduct is terrible, his argument incoherent and self-contradictory.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
izbo10MrCarrollTied
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: It is almost infeasible that something so intuitive as the proposed resolution could be so poorly defended.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
izbo10MrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side was very clear, but Con's semantic argument over "deserves" was legitimate and not well answered. Pro should have argued that human rights are "deserved."
Vote Placed by Marauder 5 years ago
Marauder
izbo10MrCarrollTied
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: honestly the only point that deserves to be given debate wise is the argument point, Con argued with coherent thought and Pro did not. But I award to Con all the other points as well because he did not harass me to not vote on this debate in a PM, pissing me off.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
izbo10MrCarrollTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides clear alternative. A person may believe that no one 'deserves' anything and yet may consider helping others completely altruistically. Pro's R2 is incomprehensible.