The Instigator
Acts2-38
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Grape
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

Why speaking in tongues is still for today.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 9 votes the winner is...
Grape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,939 times Debate No: 12264
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (9)

 

Acts2-38

Pro

I will try to prove that tongues is still for today. I will use the bible and very little philosophy to prove my point. I aspect my con to do the same.
Grape

Con

I accept this debate under the premise that my opponent is referring to the gibberish rants of certain religious enthusiasts. If he is referring to the organ located on the bottom of the mouth that is necessary for eating and speech than I will concede that they are still "for today." However, the fact that my opponent lists himself as a Pentecostal Christian on his profile and refers to the Bible seems to indicate that my assume is true.

Prove to us that tongues "is still for today."
Debate Round No. 1
Acts2-38

Pro

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

***Fact How were they all filled with the Holy Ghost by the sign of speaking in tongues.***

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

***Fact how did they know the Holy Ghost was poured out?*** Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

***Fact when the Holy Ghost came them what happened? They spoke with tongues.***

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

***Fact the gift of the Holy Ghost which is speaking in tongues is for your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord shall call. And unless God is done calling you need to receive it.***
Grape

Con

The previous round consisted of a serious of quotes from the Bible and interpretations of them rather than actual arguments.

Deconstructing this is going to require a series of contentions that build on each other. I am going to try to keep this as organized as possible.

C1: God does not exist. My opponent has offered no evidence to the contrary so for now this stands on it own. However, I will offer an explanation for this point anyway. The statement that God exists is a claim about the nature of the universe and therefore a valid scientific theory. Hence, it must be tested and scrutinized to the level that is appropriate for a scientific theory. Theories require observable evidence and repeatable experiments to support them and the theory of God lacks both of these. Therefore the theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny and cannot be assumed true.

C2: It follows from the fact that God does not exist that the Holy Ghost does not exist either. The Holy Ghost is generally considered an aspect of God. However, the first argument disproves the existence of the Holy Ghost as easily as it disproves the existence of God. Just go back and replace the word God with Holy Spirit.

C3: Given the fact that neither God nor the Holy Ghost exist, it is not rational to jabber incoherently in an attempt to communicate with either of them.

C4: It is also important to note that given the fact that God does not exist, the Bible is not inherently more reliable than any other source of information. The fact that it seems to recommend babbling nonsensically in order to communicate with imaginary beings seems to hurt its credibility a lot actually.

***Fact God does not exist and making up random sounds to talk in a fake language so that you can communicate with him makes you severely stupid if not possibly insane***
Debate Round No. 2
Acts2-38

Pro

You have automatically forfeited this debate. If I had wanted to debate the existence of God I would has started a debate called "does God exist." Con has posted something totally off subject. Therefor I would rather that no one vote for or against me or my con because of their beliefs. I wanted a debate using bible as I stated. Therefore there is no need to prove God exist. After seeing my Dad raise people from the dead through God I no longer would want to deabte the existence of God. If you wanted to deabte the existence of God you should have started a debate. I am thinking about reporting you for taking a debate and totally changing the subject. You knew that this debate had nothing to do with the existence of God. You have really made me upset. All I wanted was a honest bible debate.
Grape

Con

I have not posted anything off topic. The debate was on the subject of whether or not speaking in tongues is "still for today," whatever that means. The fact that God does not exist would clearly indicate that speaking in tongues is not a good idea and makes no sense. It is COMPLETELY relevant to the speaking of tongues.

Also you clearly said in the first round, "I will use the bible and very little philosophy to prove my point." It is completely within your power to do that but that does not mean I have to, regardless of what you "aspect." In fact, using the Bible over philosophy only shows that you prefer mindless regurgitation of a source over serious thought on a topic as a means of argument. I consider this a very weak way to debate.

This debate is completely relevant to whether or not God exists. If God does not exist then there is no reason to speak in tongues. You seem to think that I can't bring up any points that aren't specifically mentioned in the resolution. I suggest you look at some of the better debates on this site: people frequently bring up and address related ideas and arguments rather than just the exact resolution.

If you really want an "honest Bible debate" then change the resolution to "The Bible supports the idea that the speaking of tongues is relevant in a modern context." Then you will have nothing to worry about regarding whether or not what the Bible says is actually true, whether or not God exists, whether or not tongues is a real language, and the slew of other problems related to actually speaking tongues.

As it stands right now, I have clearly won this debate. Not a single argument was ever offered to actually support the speaking of tongues, just a list of Bible quotes and interpretations which I demonstrated are meaningless. There is no reason to speak the gibberish pseudo-language that is tongues, and the fact that God does not exist clearly supports this.

Also, unless your dad is a surgical cardiologist I must cast personal doubt as to whether he has revived many dead people.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by feverish 6 years ago
feverish
Personally, I'd like to heae more about his dad raising people from the dead. Necromancy?
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Reported Act's comments for spam, harassment, and threatening nature.
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
good fun.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
I think I explained this in the last round but just in case I didn't: if you want to limit your opponent to using the Bible as a source than phrase the resolution so only the Bible can be used or specifically list it as a rule, don't just say you "expect" it. And certainly don't say not to use philosophy because logic is a form of philosophy and debating without logic would be fairly problematic. In fact, philosophy is fairly essential to everything, including religion. I have to think the only reason you wanted you opponent to use "very little philosophy" is because though it is useful for supporting religion it is also a powerful weapon against it.

This could very well have been framed as a literary style debating in which you argued that the Bible should be interpreted to support the speaking of tongues, but that is not what you did. You said that the speaking of tongues "is still for today" which I took to mean "relevant in a modern context." It was thus my job to show that this is not the case. I did so by presenting an argument against God, which would lead to the conclusion that the speaking of tongues is irrelevant. The fact that you "expected" me to use little philosophy and rely on the Bible is irrelevant because it was not required by the resolution and you never clarified that it was an actual rule. I'm not going to abide by something that severely restricts me simply because you have suggested it.

Also, that doesn't change the fact that you never actually made any arguments or claims, just a list of quotes and interpretations that were supposed to imply that the resolution is true. I could just as well have conceded that all those quotes were true because you never explained why it matters or is "for today."
Posted by dabsq 6 years ago
dabsq
and sadly I can't confirm my identity and vote because I am not a US/Canada/Belgium/India etc etc Resident :) So Ill just Vote here...

Vote Straight goes to Grape
Posted by dabsq 6 years ago
dabsq
although as a Christian and I do agree that Speaking in Tongues is still for today, I would vote Grape, because he produced a logical and convincing argument to Acts2-38's arguments. I am not saying Grape changed my beliefs! hahaha LOL...I am just saying that Acts2-38 defended poorly his case...and Yvette is right no need to repeat.
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
I was not expecting a very strong rebuttal when I used that argument. If you would like to have a serious debate about whether God exists than I would certainly be willing to do that.
Posted by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
"The statement that God exists is a claim about the nature of the universe and therefore a valid scientific theory. Hence, it must be tested and scrutinized to the level that is appropriate for a scientific theory. Theories require observable evidence and repeatable experiments to support them and the theory of God lacks both of these. Therefore the theory does not hold up to scientific scrutiny and cannot be assumed true."

You've gotta be joking me.
Posted by Acts2-38 6 years ago
Acts2-38
OK I will.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Again, just take it in stride and be clear next time. I'm sure everyone knew what you meant but you opened your argument for attack very easily that way. Getting upset and lashing out by breaking rules only hurts your case more. :)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by ChuckHenryII 6 years ago
ChuckHenryII
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by tthansel 6 years ago
tthansel
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Shestakov 6 years ago
Shestakov
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Acts2-38 6 years ago
Acts2-38
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by whatledge 6 years ago
whatledge
Acts2-38GrapeTied
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