Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
-- 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’d like to start off by thanking both participants for the debate. Afterall without you guys I wouldn’t have a debate to vote on.
All formalities aside I’ll now begin my vote.
Arguments:
Pro offered Con clear rebuttals to several of pro's points which went un disputed by Con.
Including Pro never addressing Con's rebuttals on Law of love and Slavery.
Instead Con spends the entire debate regarding Pro losing out on conduct points.
While this is fair, this doesn't excuse the fact that Con never countered most of Pro's rebuttals.
Conduct:
Pro must lose a point due to Forfeiting which by the rules merits a loss.
Forfeit Rule. I have often enforced these rules when unchallenged. However pro challenged this rule and gave me a reason not to enforce it. Moreover, given the reasonable request from pro, cons denial constitutes poor sportsmanship, and so this balances itself out.
Arguments:
Pro argues that CMF is good as it promotes loving one another and being good to one another. This was unrefuted by conZ
Con argues homosexuality is considered immoral, pro argues that it is not part of the “law of love”. I do not find this particularly convincing, but it is unrefuted and unchallenged.
Con argues the bible indirectly supports slavery by citing some examples where the bible supports slaves honouring their owner - and this is inherently a bad thing. Pro argues this is merely a translation issue; remaining unrefuted and unchallenged by pro.
Con argues that women are not treated equally to men, and this is supported by a number of biblical quotes. Pro mainly argues a combination of context being incorrect, and that the meaning of these passages is actually different. I do not find everything pro said convincing, and I feel con could have obliterated this point in the next round, but con didn’t bother to refute.
In general, pro scraped through by the skin of his teeth, due to the arguments being dropped by con. It’s a bit of a shame, as I felt that many of pros points could have been easily dealt with.
While I appreciate the frustration of forfeits, and I am not penalizing con for suggesting that the forfeit rule be invoked, I do feel in this case, con should have continued the debate.
Interpreting the resolution:
Christianity’s rules are more beneficial than harmful.
Gist:
Pro wanted to debate more than con. With all arguments dropped through multiple rounds, there isn’t much to consider.
If doing a follow-up, an alternative moral system should be pointed to for comparison.
1. Homosexuality (con)
Con cites multiple parts of the bible preaching burning people to death (or worse) for non-crimes. Pro responds by saying that if they’re Christian they can do what they want... This strikes me as a dangerous standard which did not refute the problem to begin with.
2. Slavery (pro)
The bible normalizes slavery. Pro argues that was servants not slaves, and that the bible further tells people to assist runaway slaves in fleeing captivity.
Side note: Surprised I did not see reference to the principles of jubilee, or that time God commanded an abused slave to return to her master.
3. Women (tie)
We have competing interpretations of the same passages, without context for which one Christians practice (I know it’s both, but the debate should have gone to which is more often followed... a con case for any frequency of abuse would have gone a long way).
Instructing that if women get out of line to shave their heads... I’m reminded heavily of Britney Spears, and not in a good way. Granted, pro did not say she should be forced to do that, but that she should willingly do it herself (honestly, it’s really weird without more context).
4. Law of Love
Unchallenged, but really could have used some clarifications...
5. K the rules
Pro K’s the no forfeit rule,
Con weirdly brings up the no K rule, to which was specific to the resolution anyways, plus was in violation of the “Observe good sportsmanship” rule (which pro really should have mentioned...).
Continued under conduct.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. On #3 I am calling it tied more as a reminder of how incomplete it felt, but with it outright dropped by con through multiple rounds, it goes to pro.
Conduct:
“Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.”
Yup, it totally merits a loss of the conduct point.
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.
************************************************************************
That's understandable
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).
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2290/propositions-for-automatically-finished-debates
>>>>“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
YEAH
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.
Not if you make the new one
Are you going to delay your loss in this debate?
Are you gonna make the new one?
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.
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
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?
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
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.
>>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 :(
>>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.
>>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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
You change the RULES
I can't change the description.
>>>> 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...
>>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.
Or you could just tell these voters to only take the conduct point, most voters do that anyway regardless of the debate descriptions
Why not finish this now so we can focus on the new debate?
Yeah that's cool
>>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.
I'm willing to speed it up if you'll do a rematch
How is that wasting our time? You'll eventually get the W