Instigator / Con
12
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic

Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
6
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
1

With 3 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...

Speedrace
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
19
1623
rating
59
debates
66.1%
won
Description
~ 2,190 / 5,000

-- 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.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

Not if you make the new one

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

Are you going to delay your loss in this debate?

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

Are you gonna make the new one?

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

0 is less than 1.
I posted an argument. You didn't.

Therefore my argument is more than yours.

Do it if you want I ain't continuing the debate given the rules apart from repeating what you did even though you accepted it.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

I'm just saying that I can post that argument here in this round dude

Your argument isn't better, I just didn't post mine, so I'm asking you for an opportunity to post mine

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

I care about winning. If my opponent which is higher than me on this site can't finish their argument. In this context my argument is better because I gave one. No argument is worse than an argument.

I do care about finishing this debate because I have the intention to say what rule you broke to merit a loss.

I am an individual. Why does what most people do mean anything to me unless of course you are saying I should follow what normies want?

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

But you're beating me not because your argument was better, but because I was too busy to post anything, so you don't actually care about finishing this debate or what it's about, just about winning

Most people ignore forfeits if they can finish the thing

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

If I did why am I debating a topic that I can lose to given the high amount of Religious people on this site and the people who dislike me?

Wouldn't it be better to pick off people who just started using the site if I wanted wins?

If I beat you since you are higher them I am assuming a competent debater. It would mean I beat a good debater on the site, reduced their win ratio while also increasing mine. That part is because I care about wins while also caring about facing people who are at the very least accustomed to debating on this site.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

>>It would be nice but I don't want too. Given this is rated and I would like a higher ratio.

So you're basically saying that you don't actually care about debating as long as you win in the end, that's sad :(

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

>>You can change the rules, it's done all the time, you don't have to say the rules can be changed explicitly for you to be able to change then

My rules were not the problem. Your rule breaking was the problem. It was fair and clearly laid out. I did not obstruct your arguments nor did I do anything to impact your giving an argument for Round 1 yet you weren't able to.

>>I never said you had to, but it would be nice and it would mean that this wasn't a totally wasted debate

It would be nice but I don't want too. Given this is rated and I would like a higher ratio.

>>He would've done the same thing if it was rated, plus that has happened in plenty of other examples

You don't know that since we can't play out the exact same scenario just removed the unrated part.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

>>That goes against the rules I laid. I didn't add "this can be changed during the debate if both parties agree".

You can change the rules, it's done all the time, you don't have to say the rules can be changed explicitly for you to be able to change then

>>The person with the upper-hand doesn't have to change the rules because he didn't do anything wrong like me.

I never said you had to, but it would be nice and it would mean that this wasn't a totally wasted debate

>>It was also unrated so less was on the line.

He would've done the same thing if it was rated, plus that has happened in plenty of other examples

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

I gave 3 reasons before this comment. You have yet to give a new reply that I think I should rebut. So I wait for you to do so.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

That's not the only time too, and you don't have to put that on the description for us to do it, just like you don't have to say "this debate can be deleted if agreed upon" you just delete it if both people agree

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

That goes against the rules I laid. I didn't add "this can be changed during the debate if both parties agree".

The person with the upper-hand doesn't have to change the rules because he didn't do anything wrong like me.

It was also unrated so less was on the line.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

But people literally change them all the time, which means they aren't binding, like here

https://www.debateart.com/debates/1216/the-self-is-god-unrated-practice-debate

Both people just have to say that they agree to the change

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

I can't change the rules because it is set in stone when you accepted the debate.

A contract is set in stone until you can change. Imagine if I am not able to change the contract because I have no control over it after the period of you accepting it.

That is what is happening.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

You change the RULES

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

I can't change the description.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

>>>> If you win the other points you don't actually lose. Goes against the rules.

So you change them............. People do it literally all the time

>>>>>>>>Yeah that's cool
>>So?

So that's cool...

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

>>Yeah that's cool

So?

>>Or you could just tell these voters to only take the conduct point, most voters do that anyway regardless of the debate descriptions

"Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."

If you win the other points you don't actually lose. Goes against the rules.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

Or you could just tell these voters to only take the conduct point, most voters do that anyway regardless of the debate descriptions

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

Why not finish this now so we can focus on the new debate?

Yeah that's cool

Added:
Instigator
--> @Speedrace

>>Are you still up for a rematch though? If you make it this weekend then I can finish my argument today or tomorrow, you had great points and I think this could been awesome if I wasn't busy

Why not finish this now so we can focus on the new debate?

>>How is that wasting our time? You'll eventually get the W

Every other week I have to come back to make sure I don't forfeit. If you simply accepted the forfeit it would be over a lot quicker.

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

I'm willing to speed it up if you'll do a rematch

Added:
Contender
--> @TheRealNihilist

How is that wasting our time? You'll eventually get the W