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.

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:

following orders

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:

Concession.

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:

Pro conceded and these points (arguments and sources) were used far more effectively by Con than Pro in this specific debate because whenever Pro used a source it wasn't actually about the likelihood of one defining Christianity correctly or not.

I think that Pro meant 'understand' rather than 'define'.