Instigator / Pro
12
1499
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#1960

Christianity has done more good than harm for humanity.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1522
rating
18
debates
58.33%
won
Description

This debate is about Christianity's historical impact, and nothing more. We aren't here to discuss whether God exists, who Jesus claimed to be, or any other intensely exciting question that is not relevant to the Christian faith's historical influence. Though the emphasis is on the past, contemporary social ills/benefits on Christianity's part are undoubtedly appropriate.

Christianity refers to the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations (those varieties of religion that agree with the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc.).

This is my first debate here, so let me know if I've missed anything in setting this up!

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

I have a long RFD if anyone wants to read it. I think this summary is more than effective enough.

Pro argued that science could not have occurred without the philosophical foundations of Christianity. Pro tried to make a causal relationship between them. Yet throughout their arguments, the phrase "plausible": came up many times. There were a few examples where Pro tried to minimize arguments, by creating an exception circle. Pro argued that some Christians are open-minded and some not. Wars and conflicts that are attributed to Christianity are in fact political. Overall there was an inconsistency in the argument., and apologetic or exception reasoning.

Con did a great job of tearing down the causal relationship argument of Christianity and Science. I accepted Cons logic. and feel they won that part of the debate.

But herein lies the problem. Con did not demonstrate the negative aspects or harm caused by Christianity in any sort of detail. There were passing references to the Thirty Year War, and inquisitions. However not enough to establish any causal proof that Christianity did harm. Pro acknowledged some problems with violence and Christianity,

For the above reasons, I find the arguments a tie. Con took apart Pro's arguments well, however, they did not present their own

I disagree with the other judge about sources. The sources for Con are accessible. For Pro, many of them are not. It is march harder to judge a debate when you don’t have access to the reference materials. I give the sources point to Con for accessibility reasons. I could not verify a majority of Pros source-based arguments.

S&G and Conduct are unremarkable.

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

See comments.