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.

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’m going to be unusual with this RFD and keep it brief.

What separates the two sides in this debate largely comes down to tactics. I can see (though it takes me sometime to get there) how Pro is approaching the debate: by arguing that every sin falls under those two central commandments (which he ends up saying are inextricable from one another, effectively making them one commandment with two parts). That’s an interesting tactic and Pro spends a lot of time defending it, but as Con points out, it’s difficult to link this 1:1 with the three sins Pro is supposed to be defending as all-encompassing from the get-go. I buy that following these commandments represents the core sins of the world and maybe even that they represent all sins, but that doesn’t meet Pro’s burdens. Pro does also spend a great deal of time arguing about what fits under each of the three sins represented by the three temptations, and I’ll get into that momentarily, but by doing so he implicitly acknowledges that, yes, he does have to fit all sins into these three categories. There may have been room to argue that this was unnecessary for Pro to win this debate, but I don’t see much on that front.

Con’s view is that the “all” in the resolution allows him to function based on any doubts that result from individual sins either not fully or not at all fitting under these three sin categories. Con immediately concedes a lot of ground by doing this, and in particular, I think it is an error to say that many of his examples could fit under them, largely because doing so provides Pro easy routes of response and forces Con to get more and more specific. I recognize that there are good reasons to do this to preempt some points from Pro, but Con, you need to be careful how much you concede up front to your opponent in your own arguments. Let him do the legwork, and build in responses rather than handing points to him. That being said, there are many of these points that, at minimum, provide reasons to believe that they might not fully fit under the three sins Pro ascribes them to, and while I could go back through each individual example, I’ll just focus on the two that made it all the way to the end.

Idolatry is probably the most difficult to assess. I can both see Con’s point about a lack of intention and Pro’s point about how intention doesn’t necessarily make a sin a sin. Possession, at least to some degree, does apply to idolatry and while intentions may be sufficient to show that someone was trying to sin, I have a hard time buying that it falls outside the realm of Possession that Pro describes. I don’t love the shifting on the definition, but he contorts it well enough that I have a hard time with it, so this would not be an easy point to vote on.

But Atheism is a lot easier for me, largely because Pro takes a couple of steps too far on this. His main justification for why this is Possession (how it falls under the other two is unclear) is that these people are possessed by nothingness. I thought this was an intriguing line of attack at first, but Con pointed out the error that was coming to my mind shortly thereafter: Pro is trying to use multiple definitions and perspectives of possession. If nothingness possesses you, are you guilty of possession? If you possess nothing (equating this to idolatry is weird when you’re talking about literally possessing nothing), are you guilty of said possession? I think Pro fell into a trap that he could have easily avoided here by pointing out that atheism is itself a form of belief, an argument that I believe Con himself made. Pro’s own language use does him in here by making it more and more difficult to understand where atheists, and not the supposed nothingness they believe in, are guilty of possession. I can’t give Pro points he didn’t make, and while I can see where possession may apply, Pro’s efforts to contort the definition here result in my voting against him.

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 unironically find this debate to be almost a tie and my reasoning will seem simplistic but this simple reasoning is merely fleshed out over many characters and multiple Rounds. In the end, Con wins it but I will explain why Con also loses it before winning it.

Pro's entire case is that there are ways to see all sins as motivated by pride, power (meaning lust for power), and possession (meaning greed). If Con had merely explored the other 4 of the seven deadly sins, Con could have won the debate (but not easily, Pro is clearly very educated on the matter and this is why it ended up being such a long debate).

Both sides end up conceding the debate to the other side, it is therefore conclusive to me that it's a tie.

I will explain how and when this occurs by quoting the most significant moment in Pro's case and Con's case where I perceive concession:

Con's indirect concession: "Working on the Sabbath COULD be a Sin of Pride, Power, or Possession in some cases, but..."

Pro's indirect concession: "As on all commandments “hang all the law and the prophets,” so it follows that all sins, as well, hang on them. It would be well, therefore, to understand the two commandments: Love God with all effort of body, spirit, and mind. Likewise love all people. That covers everyone on whom we should express love, and, therefore, covers all possible sins."

I will explain to you very briefly why these resulted in the tie. The only reason I am voting at all is that I was asked to by Con and I didn't ignore this debate, I genuinely read it and didn't understand why both sides kept agreeing with the other side so much.

Both sides of this debate believe that the resolution is true. Pro believes that it is true because all sins can be interpreted to come down to Pride, Power-lust and greed for posession of material things. Con believes that it is true because you can twist any sin to somehow be motivated by one of those three things but that doesn't necessarily mean that the sins are only of those three categorical natures.

So, it would appear Pro won the debate since both sides agree to the resolution initially. However, the resolution doesn't say 'motives behind sin' it actually says 'there are three sins into which all others are encompassed'. It doesn't even state 'types of sin' but 'three sins'. On top of this, Con's BoP is specifically stated, in the debate's description, to be to prove that those three sins encompass all others. What Con does in this debate is force Pro to keep admitting that he is INTERPRETING all sins through an intentionally biased lens to make them fit a three-type system he believes that Christianity declares necessary to split all sins into. When Pro indirectly concedes the debate in what I quoted, it is one of the most blatant moments where you question what he is even trying to represent. He says that because the Bible says "Love God with all effort of body, spirit, and mind. Likewise love all people."... Somehow we are supposed to then declare all sins to be ones of either pride, power or possession.

How does that logically follow?

Con's strongest attack at the resolution and Pro's case was this:

"I see what my opponent is doing here. He’s adding a piece to his definition that would conveniently include Atheism and Idolatry, my counterexamples. I can see the potential argument: “Atheism and Idolatry both refuse gratefulness to God and therefore fit under my definition”. "

This was both a defense and attack all at once and began to highlight what Pro was doing over and over throughout the debate; tweaking interpretation of things outside of pride, power and possession to somehow fit into them.

I agreed with Pro that being ungrateful for the generosity of others does come under the 'greed for possession' category of sinning so I didn't find Con's defense there satisfactory since ungratefulness was clearly what a possession-craving person would embody. Regardless, I did agree with Con that Pro kept trying to force all sins to fit into the three categories but Pro actually did so quite successfully for most of the debate, it's just it wasn't enough and Con did indeed provide exceptions such as atheism and non-Judeo-Christian idolatry.

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:

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.