Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
-- INTRO --
This is about whether Christianity is a good moral system to follow or not. It is focused on the New Testament and it's teachings, as it is called Christianity for a reason, that reason being that it focuses on Jesus Christ and his teachings. Therefore, all arguments should center primarily around Jesus Christ/the New Testament.
KJV Bible as the source we are agreeing to use.
-- STRUCTURE --
1. Opening (State your positions. No rebuttals.)
2. Rebuttals (Attempt to debunk opponents augments)
3. Rejoinders (Attempt to defend your case with the rebuttals given)
4. Rebuttals/Close (Rebuttals and conclusion)
When I say attempt. That is the bare minimum. You can do more and would help your case a lot.
-- DEBATER OBJECTIVES --
Pro - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a good moral system while simultaneously disproving Con's arguments. (Basically Christianity is good and demonstrate it)
Con - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a bad moral system while simultaneously disproving Pro's arguments. (Basically Christianity is bad and demonstrate it)
-- DEFINITIONS --
Christianity - the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
Good - to be desired or approved of.
Moral system - a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one's overall perspective.
Follow - act according to (an instruction or precept).
-- RULES --
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all irresolution terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The burden of proof is shared; Pro must show why Christianity is a good moral system to follow, and Con must show why it is a bad moral system to follow. Simply rebutting one's opponent's arguments is not sufficient to win the debate.
9. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
I am going to lose this. You two are the most common voters and more than likely it would end like this. Even if other people would vote I might possibly get the conduct point but not the argument point. If that happens it would be the repeat of what is occurring now. Me losing. Given my lack of knowledge of what the debater enforced rules actually entail. I could've won this but I didn't. I'll challenge Speedrace again after my other debate finishes or during to see if he actually participates in Round 1 and if with a completed debate I win or not.
Someone forfeiting sets them at an inherent argument disadvantage, as they dropped all arguments for a whole round. I've seen less organic judges disallow people to pick things up again once they've been dropped.
Special rules are copy/pasted without understanding of what they mean. The citations rule is not even a special rule, it's something that goes without saying. The K rule, well you saw how that played out (honestly, I would fold that one and trolling into a single rule along the lines of "No Trolling, to include BS Kritiks").
All this said, there's almost a week of voting left. The two most active voters on the site are maybe 30% of the active voting power (Ram's castd like 25%, and I've done 5%?), but you're behind by only five points. Any vote in your favor can be expected to be 4 points, most against you will only be 2 (I assume most people will give you conduct).
“So when I put rules down in a debate? I shouldn't because the opponent can simply refuse and still win?”
Obtuse Straw man
Your rule violation was not applied as you also broke the rules (see my vote RE: sportsmanship), and your opponent presented a case as to why I should not apply the rule (see my vote RE forfeit).
Portraying what happened as simply one side refusing to follow the rules is a grotesque misrepresentation of what actually happened and the reasons I gave in my vote.
So when I put rules down in a debate? I shouldn't because the opponent can simply refuse and still win?
You would have gained Conduct, and you would have continued the debate with it simply being one round shorter. This would have made the debate solely about whether your argument, or your opponents argument was better: so would not have advantages one side over the other (and actually you would have been at an advantage as I think your opponents reply was somewhat weak.
I would be at a disadvantage for something I didn't do.
For Round 2 I had nothing to do.
For Round 3 I had to rebut his claims then wait for Round 4 for rejoinders and conclusion.
That would mean if I continued my opponent for forfeiting will be at an advantage.
Sure I would win the conduct vote if I carried on but a forfeit is less than the convincing argument vote so I would have to actually put more effort into my argument and even then it won't be as convincing to a person who already agrees with him so I would still lose anyway.
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: Ragnar
>Points Awarded: Not Removed
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Interestingly I support the idea of automating a loss for R1 forfeiture or any 2 otherwise. Yet where I support that, I do also point out that R1 is the place that is most recoverable (just if someone forfeits it, they are most likely going to forfeit the rest anyway, so save people time and effort).
>>>>“Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.”
Yup, it totally merits a loss of the conduct point.
I appreciate your voting humor lol
I NEVER GIVE UP
LOL true, Concession here-https://www.debateart.com/debates/1272/should-gambling-be-ilegal
Yeah he tried to play me and I said NOPE 😂 I never go down with a fight
Hey do you need votes on anything by the way? I haven't been voting recently
I agree with you on this one, one forfeit should not interfere with the debate, take a loot at my gambling one. There was a waive and some confusion but I set up the debate
Lol yay thanks though dude 😂
I said "unfair rules" and gave you all the points LOL, but I know it will be countered
Who was it for though? And why'd you delete it?
I deleted it
What happened to your vote lol
I'll wait until this is finished.
I can do it because it’s the weekend and I have time
That is if you do it which might not have happen given the direction this is going.
And you could not make the other one if I finish this one now
You can easily accept the new debate and wait for this one to finish. So I'll wait. Still your loss.