The Instigator
greasypanda
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

the bible should be under fiction in the library

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 903 times Debate No: 42892
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

greasypanda

Pro

how can the bible be under non-fiction in a library. it has talking snakes and a magical man up in the sky, also all species of animals in the world fit on a boat, and someone survives in a whales stomach? explain that please
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

Pro has not specified whether the first round is for acceptance or not. Hence, I'm going to present my arguments which will basically correct Pro's misunderstandings. I'm personally an agnostic atheist, but I refuse the condensing proposal to have the Bible classified as fiction.

REBUTTAL

Nonfiction does not necessarily mean factual

According to the definition of "nonfiction," a book is nonfictional if it is either factual or assumed to be truthful by the author or many of the book's readers[1]. The fact that the Bible is classified as "nonfiction" does not say anything about its factuality as opposed to Pro's false assumption. A book might be based on false historic accounts and yet be characterized as nonfiction because some people(including the author) believe its content. This also applies to many works of natural history and literary criticism which fall under nonfiction when they could have been based on subjective opinions and extraordinary claims.

Encroaching on the liberty of dissenting authors

Applying Pro's proposal is an encroachment on the liberties of dissenting authors, in the sense that they would be prohibited from categorizing their works, but forced to leave such judgment to the dominant paradigm's advocates, who would classify the thoughts of others as "fiction" if they do not go along with modern-day thinking. This does not only persecute dissenters, but damages all what lies at the heart of free inquiry.

The Bible's supernatural claims are plausible

It is plausible that there exists a God who is behind miraculous phenomena that cannot be naturally explained. Although I personally do not accept many biblical stories because of my empirical approach, my intellectual modesty prohibits me from claiming that I have absolute knowledge that such stories are fictional. It is plausible that such stories are surprisingly factual, although this plausibility could be nominal for all I know. That is to say, my limited knowledge of the world does not permit me to state with absolute certainty that biblical accounts are definitely fictional or truthful. It is more reasonable for me to simply classify the Bible as nonfiction, given that this particular classification carries out the intention that is carried out by the Bible itself which claims to be a gospel of truths that lead man to heaven, without having to include my personal judgment on whether the Bible is actually factual.

--

SUMMARY

Pro seems to be holding a heretic stamp with the word "Fiction" written on it and stamping it on works that contain supernatural or extraordinary claims, when being classified as nonfiction does not mean that such works are factual, and when we have no absolute knowledge that such biblical accounts are fictional.

CITATIONS

[1] Fact & fiction: the new journalism and the nonfiction novel. J Hollowell - 1977 - Univ of North Carolina Pr.
Debate Round No. 1
greasypanda

Pro

greasypanda forfeited this round.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

INTRODUCTION

I'm going to continue developing my case even though Pro forfeited his second round.

My CASE

Nonfiction does not necessarily mean factual

As defined above, if a book is considered factual by its author or readers, then it is listed under nonfiction regardless of its factuality. These two conditions are satisfied here, although only one is enough.

1- A large portion of the Bible's readers believe it is nonfiction.

2- The authors of the Bible's new testament treated what they wrote (regardless if it was based on legends and truth) as factual occurrences. For instance, St. Paul says in Gal 1:11-16 that he received the gospel from no man but "the revelation of Jesus Christ." If the book was fictional, such statement would not be written as fictional books to not include a meta-explanation about the book in the fictional story itself.

I extend the other points I made in previous rounds, waiting for Pro to participate in this debate which he started.
Debate Round No. 2
greasypanda

Pro

greasypanda forfeited this round.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Unfortunately, Pro forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
"not entirely. NiqashMotawadi3 has made false generalizationns..."

...

greasypanda = destroyed
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
"NiqashMotawadi3 has made false generalizationns of what is plausible"

Where? I don't think you do understand logical plausibility.

"and has also not demonstrated that the biblical authors did believe their work to be factual."

I've already explained If the book is believed to be true by many of its readers, then it is listed under nonfiction. Moreover, I exclaimed that the book itself does not claim to be fictional but speaks of guiding the life of man and being a gospel of truths. That is enough to satisfy my BoP.

"NiqashMotawadi3's initial argument was made out of turn, not allowing his opponent a chance to respond."

Are you kidding me? He can respond in other rounds. Are you new to this website and not familiar with the concept of many rounds? If the initiator does not clarify that the first round is for acceptance but argues in his first round, then I can argue from the first round. You sound as if you think the actual debate is over when we still have like two rounds.
Posted by xxWesxx 3 years ago
xxWesxx
not entirely. NiqashMotawadi3 has made false generalizationns of what is plausible, and has also not demonstrated that the biblical authors did believe their work to be factual. It is also improper to begin a debate from which your opponent cannot respond in rebuttal within the turn. NiqashMotawadi3's initial argument was made out of turn, not allowing his opponent a chance to respond. Unless he permits the same opportunity to make a level debate, such tactics doom an argument to defeat.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
greasypanda = destroyed
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
greasypandaNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeits. and more than a forfeit, till I read this debate I never knew that ""nonfiction," a book is nonfictional if it is either factual or assumed to be truthful by the author or many of the book's readers[1]." by this definition, he destroyed his opponent. well done @CON
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
greasypandaNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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: Such a pity this debate failed to materialize, I was really looking to have a great read but so be it. I enjoyed the way Con was creating a good argument, and while I do not agree with Con his point were convincing and as such argument points go to Con. Grammar and conduct go towards Con as Pro forfeited and lacked sentence structure. Sources go to Con.
Vote Placed by wateva232 3 years ago
wateva232
greasypandaNiqashMotawadi3Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full 7 points award to NiqashMotawadi3 due to Pro forfeiture. There was really no debate here unfortunately which would've been an interesting one.