Instigator / Pro
12
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2148

Proposed: Jesus was tempted by Satan but three times, yet there are so many sins. There are three sins into which all others are encompassed.

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
3

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Username
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
12,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1593
rating
9
debates
77.78%
won
Description

Proposed: Jesus was tempted by Satan but three times, yet there are so many sins. In this debate, I propose to demonstrate that there are three categories of sins into which all other sins are encompassed, and this explains why Satan limited his temptations to these three. Master these three pitfalls, and all sins are less likely to plague the repentant soul and set that soul on the road to achieving perfection. The three basic sins encompassing all others, and why all sins relate to them, will be revealed in the first round and will consist of my total BoP. It will be Con's BoP to prove these three sins do not encompass all others.

-->
@bmdrocks21

thanks man

-->
@Username

Congrats on the win!

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks for the debate man, it was a good one

-->
@blamonkey
@Vader
@PGA2.0
@bmdrocks21

20 min left bump. This will be the final bump.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for voting! I'll take the advice you gave me regarding giving ground into account for future debates. I've been told before that conceding a lot early in this debate is probably a bad idea.

-->
@RationalMadman

I will not comment further until after voting has ended, lest any other voters be unduly influenced

-->
@fauxlaw

That doesn't even make any sense and he replied to it. What envy of possession drives atheism?

-->
@fauxlaw

"Yes, but commentary is outside of debate rounds, and I've completed my rounds."

Right....

I guess I'm just worried that potential voters would be influenced by your comment. Not neccesarily RM.

-->
@Username

Yes, but commentary is outside of debate rounds, and I've completed my rounds. The vote is already cast, and I did not ask that it be re-cast, did I? Do not read anything into what I write but what I write. I am a demon for detail. Believe it.

-->
@fauxlaw

Didn't you tell me not to influence voters outside of the debate rounds?

-->
@RationalMadman

Did you miss my rebuttal to atheism in r2 that atheism is an expression of jealousy, a sub-set of possession, for denial of time commanded to be devoted to worship of God?

-->
@RationalMadman

Thank you for voting!

-->
@bmdrocks21

I'm sorry?

-->
@Username

Rreeeeeeeee

-->
@PGA2.0

Might be an interesting debate to vote on for you

-->
@oromagi

tagging more people, see below comment

-->
@RationalMadman
@blamonkey
@Vader
@bmdrocks21
@MisterChris

Anyone who's considering voting should know that there's less than three days left in the voting period

-->
@whiteflame

Awesome, thank you

Planning to plug through this between today and tomorrow, should have the vote up in time.

-->
@shadow_712

Thank you for re-voting!

-->
@Username
@fauxlaw
@shadow_712

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Nikunj_sanghai // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.

This is really close, but it seems insufficient on impacts. It also feels more like a preference against a source. Generally if both sides put the work into their research, sources should be left a tie.
**************************************************

Nikunj_sanghai
7 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Good job on both sides. I am only voting after PRO said I was free to view it to any religious perspective I want.
Arguments: PRO had a massive task prove all sins committed by individuals are encompassed within three sins. Pride,Possession,Power, I entertained his notions, I mostly don't comment on religious issues, I avoid hurting religious sentiments. I will try to present the reason in the most palatable way. Atheism and following other religions is not a sin by any means .The Bible says:idolatory is a form of worship of Satan. All CON had to do was to point it out, he did, he scored. More than a billion Hindus live on earth to say that they are all are sinner , including myself is far stretch. Almost impossible to prove, all CON has to do was point it out, he did , by stating say he lived in India.

Sources: Again same thing I am mostly respectful, while commenting on religions. Bible can seem as a valid source for someone I am not disagreeing on that but for non-Christians, the source is questionable. It is a matter of faith not of law, you can respect another countries laws, but I dont think any individual can hold what someone else's religious book states as a valid source. PRO only stuck to using Bible so I will mostly consider all arguments as unsourced. CON used 2 sources : 1. Survey about closet atheists.
2. Situation and religious demography in India.

Both hold credence as I can rely on the integrity of journalism to provide an unbiased reporting.

-->
@shadow_712

Thank you for voting. You did that with great skill, and, though I disagree [of course], I cannot argue that your points are credible.

-->
@shadow_712

I can't tell you how to do your analysis. I will say that there's nothing wrong with grading things a tie, if you are left uncertain as to whether the resolution was affirmed or negated.

Regardless of if you end up voting, I assume both debaters would appreciate any feedback you have on any parts of their arguments.

-->
@shadow_712

It is actually a mistake to consider this an exclusively Christian proposal. Every religion, and, in fact, society establishes baseline morality below which they do not tolerate certain actions. This debate is not even really about a god figure. An atheist could deal with the subject matter of this proposal. I merely used characters with whom most are familiar in order to establish common ground for concepts that really are universal: good and bad behavior. Call those bad actions sins. Call them disruptive behavior. Call them anything that one can distinguish from good behavior; behavior that does not offend or injure any deity or moral standard, and no one else physically, spiritually, or mentally. However, everyone will do these things in their lives, and restitution is demanded to meet universal laws of justice. But, that's another debate.
However, if you want to approach this debate from any particular religious perspective, go ahead.

-->
@shadow_712

The one thing I'd recommend against is voting while having no idea what's going on. Maybe re-reading would improve clarity?

-->
@shadow_712

I agree that this is likely a confusing debate to read, but unfortunately no one is going to be able to tell you how to vote - you'll have to come to those conclusions yourself.

Ideally, I'd like to explain to you the relevance of some of the points that me and my opponent made but as a participant in this debate, I think that that's outside of my realm of abilities at the moment.

If you want, I can DM you to clarify after the voting period has ended, or maybe just in the comments here.

huge confusion*

-->
@David
@Barney
@Username
@fauxlaw

This debate is very confusing I am done reading R3 of both sides mostly, PRO and CON seem to be boxing in two different arenas, I read the description, I thought okay this is a debate on Christianity, CON is bringing in other religions and this has caused a huge condusion. There is no boundary, is it or is it not a debate soley about Christianity, how will a voter decide. Frankly both PRO and CON should have decided it, I am done reading R3 and my head is hurting, what is going on?

mods please comment on how to vote on this!

-->
@fauxlaw

I didn't intend it as an argument, just know the odds your against.

-->
@Username

As I argued early in this kerfuffle, "that's the way it has always been done" is a poor argument, DDO and DA, and ought to stop. I will lobby to clarify the policy. It's time past due.

-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw

I understand your point here. My perspective that if a claim is ever levied against me I feel obligated to respond to it.

Fauxlaw, I'm fine if you want to lobby to change the rule. You should do it because you think it's right, not to punish me, because my case will not be affected. Just know that it's been a part of debating for a long time and you can find examples of it so far back as the foundation of DDO.

-->
@Username
@fauxlaw

This stuff does not need to be this complex, and certainly not this big of a deal...

Generally voters should ignore the comment section, save for if the debaters pre-agree that source lists are to be posted in it (I doubt any voter would dig though all these comments anyway).

Debaters should refute each other however they wish to word it inside the debate rounds. If a voter then thinks they were excessively unsportsmanlike, they should assign a conduct penalty regardless of who they believe won the argument points.

-->
@Username

To you, it may appear I have dropped the voter suggestion issue. No, I have not. To you, yes, but not to moderators. You always assumed we would play it out in comments. I was never in favor of that for fear of poisoning voting. I'm afraid that is now muddy, poisoned water, anyway.

(note that I meant including Vote Suggestions is not cheating, not "including is not cheating")

-->
@fauxlaw

You've completely dropped the "Voting Suggestions are cheating " point and Ragnar, a moderator has said himself that they are allowed. The comment(s) in question are things that are seemingly agreed upon by all parties by now. So even under the absolutely absurd circumstance that I did cheat, it would hold literally no weight.

-->
@fauxlaw

Do I have to remind you AGAIN that you made arguments that were completely irrelevant to my Conduct in this debate in your post #24, paragraph three? You've done the exact same thing I did on multiple occasions now.

-->
@fauxlaw

If you accuse me of cheating via Voting Suggestions, you are by default influencing voters.

I'm not offering sources FOR that argument, and I'm not saying it's correct. I'm was defending against an accusation that YOU made, and simply stating that including is not CHEATING. Funny how you attribute MY motivations to the influence of voters but not yours.

Once again, you can ask for Voters to disregard my comments (even though defending against the argument that I was cheating IN THE DEBATE is hardly "outside of the CONTEXT of the debate") but you can't pretend as if I can't make them.

Just take a step back to realize how silly this all is. You accused me of cheating. I defended against that accusation. Now I am the cheater.

-->
@Username

Yes, because voting is to consider "within the context of the debate," which does not include comments made after the close of argumentation. I'm not trying to influence voters by my external comments. You are, by making voting suggestion within the context of the debate, but offering sources for that argument only after the close of argumentation. Get it? Your suggestion is nonsense, just like telling a jury to disregard testimony given in court that the judge tells the jury to disregard. Will the jury disregard? Maybe, maybe not. But, the transcript of the court record maintains it all, as do the memories of jurors. Milk spilt, my friend. Your spill.

-->
@fauxlaw

Lol. Once again you're using the Voting Policy made for VOTERS to prohibit the actions of a DEBATER.

EVEN IF this policy applied to debaters, it would fit YOUR actions as well. Your accusation that my voting suggestions were unfair was an ARGUMENT made during the VOTING PERIOD.

If you really want, we can disregard the posts that I sourced. But by that same token, you'd have to retract your accusations, too.

gosh y'all still commenting here

-->
@Username

No, timing is critical. From Help Center, Debate, Argumentation: "The argumentation is the stage when participants take turns publishing their arguments, the number of which is equal to the number of the rounds in the debate." In argumentation, a participant offers arguments, rebuttals, defenses, and conclusions, all with sourcing substantiation. From Help Center, Voting, Argument points: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole." Arguments here, also refer to all elements of an argument: argument, rebuttals, defenses, and conclusions WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEBATE, i.e. during the argument phase ONLY. As Contender, your "context of the debate" is limited to the argument phase. As Instigator, my "argument phase" is the creation, challenge, and argument. Neither of us can extend the argument into the voting phase, which begins automatically with the post of the last argument, according to the number of arguments determined by hte instigator. This forbids making sourcing references AFTER the argument phase, which can only be accomplished in comments because the argument phase is closed to participants for adding material. It's what I've been saying since you ended your r4. You cannot make source references AFTER the argument phase, but you did.

-->
@fauxlaw

Time has no relevance here, and even if it did you should note that your objection to my Voting Suggestions came AFTER R4. So you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing me of.

In fact, you included arguments that were completely irrelevant to my conduct in Post #24. How is that not worse than what you claim I did?

-->
@fauxlaw

It seems like you made up this "no sources after the debate" thing. It has no precedent in any rules and you've failed to name one rule that I've violated.

Nowhere in these comments have I stated that my Voting Suggestions are RIGHT. I have simply supported the claim that they are ALLOWED. My defense against your claim that I cheated with Voting Suggestions is about as "part of my argument" as your claim that I cheated with Voting Suggestions is "part of your argument". The fact that I was the one who backed my claim up means nothing.

-->
@Username

You may put sources in comments DURING the argument phase all day long, but cannot reference sources in comments AFTER the argument phase has concluded. Your references of the tiny.cc and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format were placed in comments AFTER the argument phase concluded, while arguing what those sources said as part of your r4 argument. Voters may miss the timing of your citations placement and consider the placement valid sourcing for your r4 argument. Without properly placed sources for your argument in the timing allowed, your argument is not supported and should not be considered in voting, Why do you refuse to acknowledge your improper timing?

-->
@Username

I obviously don't think the rhetoric tactic of suggestions to the voters inside the debate is cheating (as much as it can cross over into that if directly lying about debate content). To me it's just another way or wording a conclusion which references back to important points.

On a fairly ridiculous biblical debate, I did something like 8 extensions on dropped points (https://www.debateart.com/debates/950/the-bible-teaches-that-jesus-christ-is-god). Ideally maybe the voters would keep track of all that for me, but I want to make it easier for them.

-->
@Barney

I'll do my best.

"For a debate categorized as religion with Jesus in the title, it usually goes without saying that the Bible will be acceptable evidence. Someone could try to run a Kritik that the bible is false, but it would be extremely bastardly to the point where I as a voter would probably dismiss it from any serious consideration."

First, I agree that any theological debate must have to validate the source of the theology (in this case the Bible). I'd say that's different than it being assumed to be real-world truth though.

"Any vote mentioning that google doc or the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format to justify sources, will of course be removed. This is as per the voting policies, the comment section not being the debate."

Ofc I don't want the voters to vote for me because I put sources in the comments. I just want to be allowed to put sources in the comments in general, especially when I'm accused of cheating.

"Also I don't see what their relevance toward this theology debate would be, so were they used in the debate (pretty sure they were not?), they would be some pretty weak sourcing."

The relevance of those sources was that I was accused of cheating for including Vote Suggestions. I was trying to explain why Vote Suggestions are allowed.

"OED is a valid source, as is just about anything else if cited as a source. Granted, I strongly advise putting definitions within the description or first round. ... I really hope this debate did not degrade into a fight over semantics."

I don't think these type of comments are relevant anyway because in that case my arguments are being challenged rather than my conduct, which is something that generally doesn't deserve to be addressed because it is in the comments.

-->
@Username

Dispute anything you want. But please try to aim it toward debate theory rather than exclusively this debate.

-->
@Barney

Am I allowed to dispute any of the things you say here or would that count as making arguments in the comments?

-->
@Username
@fauxlaw

Regarding #24

"1. You included voter suggestions within the text of your r4. You then, after the argument phase concluded, cited references to two documents, Ragnar's tiny.cc document, and Lincoln-Douglas Debate format."
Any vote mentioning that google doc or the Lincoln-Douglas Debate format to justify sources, will of course be removed. This is as per the voting policies, the comment section not being the debate.
Also I don't see what their relevance toward this theology debate would be, so were they used in the debate (pretty sure they were not?), they would be some pretty weak sourcing.

"2. You made reference to outside material in the debate argument phase in your r4 re: my accusation of vote rigging in another debate."
Citations are usually from outside the debate, so yes other debates may be cited, but I still advise against it in general. Bringing up someone's previous debates, is the start to a downward spiral, which principally asks the voters to read way too much to understand the context of what isn't even a main point for or against the resolution in question.

"3. You claimed in your r4 that I did not source material, referenced from the OED."
OED is a valid source, as is just about anything else if cited as a source. Granted, I strongly advise putting definitions within the description or first round. ... I really hope this debate did not degrade into a fight over semantics.