Instigator / Con
12
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic
#1244

Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
1

After 3 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
19
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

-- 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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.