Instigator / Con
11
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic
#1307

Jesus's Resurrection

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
10
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

I am going to waive the first round and Speedrace would have to wave the final round.

Pro: Jesus did resurrect and I can prove it
Con: No he didn't

Burden of proof is on Speedrace. If I fail to counter his claims sufficiently then he wins. If I do counter his claims sufficiently then I win.

Kind of an extreme burden of proof since I would have to debunk all his claims to win but given there isn't a lot to discuss I don't think this is too much to ask for.

I don't really want to add rules since I know they ain't going to be enforced and think if the previous rules are going to be broken I still think I can win if I do post arguments as well.

Thanks for reading and participating in whatever way you see fit.

Hopefully this is worthwhile.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

"how can a human being resurrect itself?"
Not a clue. That they do not tend to do that, would have been a fantastic contention for you to make. Just because you're con, doesn't mean you cannot build a counter case separate from pro's contentions.

"Find me where Speedrace used [other reports during that time] as his argument."
To start, there were nine in R1...
"Luke 24:39 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"Revelation 1:18 Jesus’ Own Testimony
"John 20:14-16 Mary Magdalene
"Matthew 28:9 The Virgin Mary
"Luke 24:34 Peter
"Luke 24:13-16 Two Disciples On a Road
"John 20:19,20,24 The Disciples (except Thomas)
"John 26-28 All of the Disciples
"John 21:1,2 Seven Disciples
"Matthew 28:16,17 Eleven Disciples
"1 Corinthians 15:6 Over 500 people
"1 Corinthians 15:7 James
"Acts 9:3-5 Saul
"Acts 1:3 Saul"

"I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed."
I've had a few votes deleted. I don't keep a list, but literally yesterday there was one (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1480/money-cant-buy-happiness).

-->
@Barney

#29

-->
@Speedrace

Sorry.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

@ Ragnar, not me lol

-->
@Speedrace

"To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top."

I am sorry but this was about Jesus' resurrection not if Jesus ever lived. It is one thing to claim that a lot of people saw a tree but it is another thing for a person to see that same tree moving. Sure if people don't decide to change their story it would be reliable but a tree moving is also a scientific one. Does the tree have the properties to move by itself like how can a human being resurrect itself?

"“Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?”"

Find me where Speedrace used this as his argument.

"You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it."

I still find it very offensive given I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed. Getting an extra set of eyes would be necesssary would be blatant if your vote was not sufficient but it is. My problem isn't the framing it is with what you said. You of all people know moderators don't vote on the thing I am complaining to you about.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

>You didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.
To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top.

>>"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."
>Please explain this.
...Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about).

>>"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials"
>Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?
No, that is not what I said.

>>"You're of course welcome to report the vote."
>Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.
You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it.

-->
@Barney

"You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings"

I did and you didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.

"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."

Please explain this.

"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable)."

Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?

"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials "

Please point to me where Speedrace made that point. Having multiple copies was Speedrace's point.

"You're of course welcome to report the vote."

Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings, does not imply they don't support each other) and sources, to launch a strawperson claim against the competing case; worse your focus is on the introduction rather than the real contentions. You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it.

Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable). This plays both into copies of a single historical document, and collaborating documents. That the patriots won the Superbowl for example, you can say it was a mass hallucination by people smoking weed, and also compare the copies of the original broadcast to Hitler; but we would still left with strong reason to believe that the account of the victory is historically reliable (just like we would be left with information to suggest Hitler existed and is not a boogeyman made up up in the 21st century). ... There are other grounds to attack the soundness of said event, but on that area its validity is hard to make inroads against.

To break it back down from content already inside the vote: Con states “basically X person saw Jesus resurrect” would be reliable evidence. Pro already provided several accounts from different historical documents which did precisely that, to a total of just over 500 people. He further showed that these documents were unlikely to have been greatly altered by later generations. This sealed the debate, but I listed other areas for feedback.

You're of course welcome to report the vote.

-->
@Barney

Please explain your vote for me. You stated this "Arguments: pro, but not by a high margin" which I don't think is enough for me to improve or understand how I lost.

The only the other thing would be did me making it clear what Speedrace needs to do really makes my argument less convincing?

Sorry if this is too much.

-->
@Barney

TRN: "So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?"
Speedrace: Yes, this is how actual historians determine the validity of historical documents. Didn't you read my source? I can provide more if you would like. [1]

This is what he said. I looked through every single point and nothing came close to reliability = amount of documents. Please see my point Round 2 to find out what I was arguing against.

If you can't find it here:

Speedrace: "In comparison, the New Testament FAR outweighs any secular document. The one with the most is Homer’s Iliad with 647 copies. The New Testament has 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These were all written within a few hundred years of the originals. As you can see, we can have very high confidence that the New Testament is reliable."
TRN: So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?

"Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?"

That wasn't what he was saying he was saying reliability is met by having a lot of copies.

-->
@Barney

"Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about)."

I don't agree with this.

-->
@Barney

Lol

-->
@Speedrace

I posted my vote fifteen minutes ago, whereas your vote request was three hours ago. It's actually what pulled me to this debate to vote. So you not seeing that there, was a reliable witness testimony that it was not there.

-->
@Barney

Oops didn't see that there

-->
@Barney
@Ramshutu
@oromagi

Let's goooooooooooooooooo

-->
@crossed

Wow, you thought I was an atheist? XD

-->
@crossed

He is a Christian. Look at his profile.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I did not know he said you were mean. i just assumed he was an atheist.

-->
@crossed

https://www.debateart.com/participants/Speedrace

Religion: Christian

Not on this topic he agrees.

Do you mean the prior debate or are you speaking about this one when you talking about me being mean?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Why you being mean to Speadracer. from past interactions it appears he mostly agree's with you guys ? I did not expect him to do a debate like this

-->
@crossed

Please don't post clickbait and thank you for reminding me Speedrace is engaging in strawmans. It was obvious.

This reminds me of this video.
https://youtu.be/-JMF6hkOnmY

bumping it so I see it at the top.

-->
@Speedrace

Wowee

-->
@Speedrace

Same to you.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Yes, except you don't have an opening argument, not really, you just have rebuttals

-->
@Speedrace

What do you say to mine?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Is that a yes or a no?

-->
@Speedrace

You don't mind if I use my previous opening argument, right?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You don't mind if I use my previous opening argument, right?

-->
@Speedrace

Why not?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Why'd you change your name?