Instigator / Con
7
1411
rating
11
debates
13.64%
won
Topic
#1646

Is the trinity pagan?

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
2
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
3

After 3 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

sylweb
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
21
1534
rating
7
debates
78.57%
won
Description

No information

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:

This largely boils down to a BoP failure, and almost no contest. As the instigator, con should be providing enough reason to doubt the validity of the resolution (unless specified otherwise in the description); instead he merely makes two assertions (each literally a single sentence). He also completely dismissed his EoF when making a counter claim.

Pro literally schooled con. He dismantled con's case (at far greater lengths than it existed), he built his own showing the historical connections to pagan cultures (I am somewhat amused that con complained that pro provided a link, rather than trying to refute any aspect of it). And he even walked con through what he would need to do to support his claims and win the debate (but con was uninterested).

Con's assertion "that trinity doctrine is beyond our comprehension" basically amounted to an accidental concession, as he needs to prove something about it, thus comprehend it (not even getting into the problems of that 8th century anti-educational viewpoint).

Sources:
Pro had an overwhelming advantage here from bothering to research their case, and then line up the sources with the arguments via numbering them. The one that takes to cake for me was con's LogicallyFallacious source, which he leveraged against his own final round (/guilt by association is a fallacy!/ ... "Also, I notice you're citing a Jw.org link, which is telling on where you're getting these ideas from").

Conduct:
Con's refusal to engage with the debate was a problematic to say the least; however this is already well punished under other areas, and he did not get nasty. ... This still leans heavily in pro's favor, such that I am on the fence about giving the point or not.

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:

Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. He showed how pagan emperors influenced the Nicean Council. He argued that the pagan Platonic philosophy was added to the Trinity and that the doctrine developed over time rather than being the beliefs of the earliest Christians. He refuted Con's argument that the Trinity is Biblical by providing a verse hinting at the opposite. I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie.

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:

CON made one argument in R1- the trinity didn't come from CoNicea. OK. nobody said it did and non-sequitur to question of pagan origins. Truly terrible, lazy argument.

PRO took the high road and offered some Platonic, Roman, and Egyptian origins, correctly pointed out that some early Christian support for trinity does argue against pagan sources and points out that Nicea was, in fact, a milepost on the road to Trinitarian acceptance. Nice work.

CON comes back with unsupported declaration and bizarrely insisting that his topic lies beyond our capacity to understand- which suggests that CON has no hope of proving his argument since he admits to not understanding the subject.

ARGUMENTS to PRO

SOURCES to PRO. CON offered no sources in support of claim. Worse, PRO fronts one specific religious source and condemns CON's use of a specific religious source (one assumes because it is the wrong kind of religious source), ignoring that PRO, at least, pulled from multiple religious and secular sources.

CONDUCT to PRO.

CON set up 5 rules for the debate and then broke 3 of them in his tiny arguments.

1. Don't uses logical fallacy.
"There is no evidence that the trinity is pagan." =arg from ignorance
" it didn't came from the Council of Nicea" =straw man
"the trinity can be found in the Bible" =appeal to authority, false authority
God that is outside our space and time, comprehension = arg from incredultiy
arguing that the number 3 ... is an association fallacy =fallacy fallacy
I notice you're citing a Jw.org link =appeal to authority

3. Give your opponent evidence.
CON gave zero evidence relevant to topic.

4. Don't mock or call someone names.
CON's source called Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and then CON irrationally inferred PRO's participation in that org because CON cited a JW website.

CON's conduct was thoroughly hypocritical and anti-engagement.