The Torah allows the eating of pork
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 4 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
It's all in the title. My reasoning is surprise.
Effectively a single round debate.
"11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you."
It was pretty hard for pro to recover from quoting a ban on eating pork. Trying to argue one breed of pig would be fine, rubs against the tradition, and needed more information (perhaps a quote from a rabbi okaying it?). An implied problem is if it would be allowed, would the Torah still call it swine? ... Another path to victory, would have been citing some special circumstance (as an example, Muslims are allowed to eat pork if hungry).
Trying to redefine cud, was an area con excelled on the defense, since we have thousands of years of one definition. It's a case where maybe translations should be updated to say grass instead of cud, but both debaters agreed on the intended meaning.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Sources lean slightly to con, but not by enough to merit the points.
Argument: in the first round, pro argued that pigs chew the cud, but ignores the verse, 11:7 which specifically states that swine do not chew the cud. pro further stated that the Torah meant, in the regard, that eating grass constituted chewing cud, but there is no reference cited for this claim, and is, therefore a fail. In Con's argument, there was no rebuttal of the "eat grass" claim, however, Con rightly argued that the "Black Hog" Pro argument was irrelevant. Points to Con
Sourcing: by Pro was nearly exclusively wikipedia, which is fine for 1st level research, but is, by its own admission, an inaccurate source. Con used much more varied, and on-point deeper sourcing. Sourcing decision should be based on "relaible" sourcing. Points to Con
This was an interesting one, and I really felt that if this progressed the Con could muster out a win. You could certainly see he was on the right track especially when we had Pro agree to definitions based in the Torah.
Con made a few mistakes, notably the anatomical assumption of pigs, and other animals, no references to that.
He is feisty and has good logic. I hope his parents let him back here. Both made good use of references, S&G was nothing worth points, and the forfeit was not his fault.
This is an interesting one. it may have looked like Con was getting the upperhand. His point about Judaists during that period, that created the religious beliefs, probably have more understanding of their own beliefs than modern day historians, sounds plausible. Then again, Pro is looking at it from a historical perspective, the same as those from wikipedia, and not a religious one. And given Con forfeited the round, then got banned from debate.art by his parents, suggests the historical perspective is possibly more reliable.
I think also wikipedia is a better source than the Torah, for historical information.
And Pro obviously had the better conduct by continuing to debate and not forfeiting