Instigator / Pro
10
1363
rating
13
debates
3.85%
won
Topic
#2422

Your definition of Christianity/a Christian is likely incorrect

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
4
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
1

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

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

I want to try something a little different, I'm not forcing anyone.

The con position will outline their definition of what Christianity is. Basically, what are Christians required to do and believe to call themselves a Christian.

My hope? To use a Biblically based argument to show that the statistically observed lean towards incorrect assumptions (based on my observations, I'm not trying to be presumptuous. I hope we initially agree and I just have to spool another one up) are in fact incorrect. Or I'm being dramatic and it's not as prevalent as it seems and I don't need to at all. I suspect I'll get some good discussions going and I wanted to try. I don't intent to offend.

If you're a professing Christian, I'd think you'd want to see if you're in line with Jesus. It's something I personally do with those I trust who follow Jesus with my own theological understanding.

If you're not Christian, I just hope to better target the objections and arguments raised against Christianity for future discussions. I think there are some really good arguments and points of conflict out there and I want to explore them. I just feel bogged down by the incorrect assumption discussions mid theological debate on one or many other topics.

-->
@SirAnonymous
@Crocodile

and also @RationalMadman

Thanks for voting!

-->
@SirAnonymous

Considering what a mistake it was for FDR to run in '44, I'll read that remark as ominous.

-->
@oromagi

With this victory, you've officially made it to FDR's fourth term.

-->
@oromagi

Thank you again. I learned a lot and your patience and willingness to meet me where im at are so appreciated.

I enjoyed our conversation very much!

-->
@oromagi

Totally up to you! I made some points in my most recent round. I'm all for continuing to talk them out. This has been interesting and engaging so far!

I only meant to be explicit and to hopefully properly set some conditions to ensure fairness. Im not out here looking for wins. I truly want to talk these things through. If I happen to make a compelling enough case based off an usual premise, im happy to take the win. If not, I only feel it fair to concede. Or at least inform any voters that they should most likely vote for you unless you're basically like, yeah I get it, good argument. I agree with you now. Otherwise the premise is too potentially leading. I just have found that by doing it this way, I can better target the discussion.

Again up to you but im all for continuing. Thank you!

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

are you sure you want to concede? do you want a counter-argument or should I just hand it back to you?

-->
@oromagi

This was at the very top of the round i posted. I couldn't think where else to trim but needed the character count room to post.

Figured I could just drop it here since it doesn't relate to the direct subject matter anyway:

Your method of approach and format are helpful, easy to follow, and well written. Thank you. It's a pleasure to engage with you. Furthermore a call out to your patience and kindness of the lack of this level of format and flow from me. Thank you. 

If we are able to come to agreement (please feel free to contest any part of the addition you'll see below to Christianity i offered) then i have lost according to my premise.  If we are not able to come to a consensus on definiton where you'll agree to disagree essentially, it will be impossible to satisfy the premise of the debate. Given the unique setup, this burden falls to me and I shall offer my concession for this debate. I never wanted to be unfair. Just start the conversation differently. I hope this is understood.

-->
@Barney

Interesting. I'll need to spend some time going through that. Thanks for calling it out.

-->
@Sum1hugme

The addition of likely is one solely motivated to call out the people with who's definiton I would be in complete agreement. I mean, it's not that special. It's shared by those I regularly talk to at my church. By those running my church. By my Bible study members and ever single speaker, teacher, and scholar I follow.

The rest of the motivation is laid out in the description.

This makes me think of the recent debate:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/2152-thbt-the-roman-catholic-church-is-christian

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

It's probably gonna bite you with that word "likely" in there. Cuz by what metric of probability ya know?