To worship God is to worship a murderer.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
THBT: To worship God is to worship a murderer.
Worship - to honour or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power.
God - the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. For this debate, we will be discussing the Christian God.
Murder. To kill a human being.
-Burden of Proof-
Pro bears the larger burden, as they are the one proposing the idea of God being a murderer. Con must simply refute all allegations and maintain the status quo.
As the Bible is the only document regarding God, it shall be regarded with 100% accuracy. Anything that is stated in the Bible can be used as evidence. Debate about the actual reliability of the bible and the existence of God is for another time.
Forfeit = Instant loss
Definitions are agreed upon
And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.Number 16:35
And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.Exodus 14:28
Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods:2 Chronicles 21:14
And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.2 Kings 17:25
Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah: and the LORD struck him, and he died.2 Chronicles 13:20
“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, so whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”John 3:16
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.2 Kings 19:35
Murder, contrary to PRO, is not just the act of killing someone, but the act of killing them unjustly. To murder is to end someone’s life in a fashion that comes from malicious intent and is conducted outside of the law. Virtually all legal definitions of murder include “malice aforethought” as something that must be proven in court.
the crime of intentionally killing a person
“I can create whatever debate I want. I can set whatever rules I want. I can debate about whatever I want. What I cannot do is force my opponents to compete against me.”
“the fact is you agreed to debate without even messaging me prior with your concerns.”
Because I had already seen how unreasonable you were in the comments. You said things like “I don’t think I made this possible to lose for myself”, and “If I add the word unjust', a religious person may argue that God cannot act unjustly and that all the murders were justified as God is Omnibenevolent.”
Murder, as was established in my first argument, is the premeditated killing of another human being with malicious intent. If your definition is different, you’re running counter to basically every judicial institution that has ever been founded.
If you kill someone out of self-defense, during war, or with some other reasonable justification you are vindicated and the charges against you are dropped. Civil society has always recognized this, and it baffles me that you’re so willing to contravene that consensus.
The crime of intentionally killing a person.
To cause someone or something to die.
The bible gives a helpful analogy for those struggling with this question. If I fashion a pot and decide, for whatever reason, to destroy it, I am well within my rights to do so. It is my creation, and so I have full claim and jurisdiction over it. I am allowed to do with the pot as I see fit, and while you might quibble about my rationale, no one could seriously maintain that I am in the wrong. Likewise, God created humanity and therefore has the authority to whatever he desires with it. He can strike people down, decimate nations … whatever he feels is suitable, he is right in doing.
My question is this: Do you apply your standards across the board, or are you being selective? Do you admit that your definition requires the damnation of all forms of induced death, including self-defense, warfare, and even abortion (which is undoubtedly the most egregious of the three)? If not, then your redefinition is tentative and prejudiced, and it can be concluded that you don’t really condemn murder (at least, not in the sense you’ve dictated).
When mothers slaughter their children in abortion facilities, is that wrong?
So here we reach a crossroads. Either:1. All forms of murder (killing) are wicked, meaning that the Omnibenevolent God of the Universe is on a par with people like Hitler.
2. Only the murder (killings) God commits are wrong, and not the ones committed in war or at abortion clinics - in which case you’re being inconsistent with your application of this newfangled law.
My opponent first agrees that they broke the rules of the debate, but then go on to insult my debate on a personal level.
The word unjust would actually make this debate impossible for me to win.
The motivation for removing the word "unjust", was not for greed as you seem keen to suggest, but because I wanted to remove any loopholes which would make this debate unfair.
In removing the word unjust, the question is no longer judged by God's perfection, but by our own morality.
I have already cited where my definition came from (Cambridge Dictionary) so this argument is purely emotional.
It is clear that the only difference between killing and murdering is that a) murder is intentional, and b) killing includes causing death to both "someone" and "something".
They seem to believe there is no murder at war.
People at war were presumably fighting for life and death. They had little choice. What they did was still murder, there is no dispute about this, but society simply treats veterans acts of murder differently.
However, murder can be justified.
Before you say God's acts of murder can be justified, tell me how you can justify God burning 250 men into crisp.
This is exactly why I removed the word "unjust". How can I debate against this?
As to the Omnibenevolent, I'll give an analogy.
God is much much worse Hitler.
All killing is wrong, but some can be justified.
>Reported Vote: Seld // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 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.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Added: 8 days ago
Better spelling and grammar
Sources to Con, because Pro's Cambridge source defeats his own idea that murder is equal to killing.
SG to Con, because Pro mis-defined murder.
Conduct to Con, because Pro blatantly admitted he believed his topic as is cannot be won by any opponent, and did not give effort to link together the idea that God's murder may be unjust.
Argument to con, because Pro just dropped all of con's arguments and admitted he could not prove that God's killing were equivalent to murder.
Feedback: Con's assertion may look impossible to beat, but there are many ways to go around it, especially the famous idea defeating morality from God: "does God dictate what is Good because it is good, or is it good, because God dictates it?" In addition, Con's argument comes from appeal to authority (despite God being the highest authority possible). Whether pain and suffering is deserved is definitely up to question.
To be a fan of Will Smith is to be a fan of aggravated assault. Uh? No.
whos this wylted person? It there an issue with me questioning the votes that have been put through?
> If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: To worship "YHWH" is to worship a slaughterer of women and children.
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves.
Checkmate is not wylted. Wylted likes to do debate about rape, pedophilia, etc. not affirmative action and god being a murderer
Are you just Wylted again?
Mmm... not necessarily, just like CalebEr did here, it could be just to kritik your debate topic.
You would be allowed to do that. That is in your full control. You can make any debate you want. You can set any rules you want. However, if someone accepts the debate, then they clearly a acknowledge the harsh rules and will abide by them.
Ok, duly noted
I changed my mind after R1 and decided to move forward with the argument, even though my condition had not been met. There were still some points I wanted to make. As for the latter quote, that wasn't meant as a concession, but I get why it might come across that way. What I was trying to say was: "What I've communicated thus far is sufficient; everything else my opponent has stated has either already been addressed or is not important enough to respond to."
if you've been on debate.org, Debateart is not a site where you can impose incredibly strict and unreasonable rules. For example, If I created the same debate as you and said:
"Violation of any rules is a full 7 point forfeit. Forfeit a round = instant loss. No kritikis. Definitions cannot be contested.
I define Worshiping God as Worshiping a murderer.
Do you intend to concede or not?
""If you refuse to rescind your definition, I forfeit."
"And this is where I’m calling it quits."
Most judges allow debaters to ignore the ruleset at penalty of conduct point with the sole exception of a rule that says "Any breaking of these rules will result in an instant loss."
That said, if you did that, this debate would be even more contemptable in my view.
Unfortunately yes, I do agree that in cases (besides definitions) you should be to set rules, but there are no rules that the other participant has to follow them, the most you could justfiably do (you as in a general DART member) is penalize them on conduct.
So it doesn't matter that I said "no kritiks, agree to definitions" in my rules? So I might as well not have written rules? I've seen many top debaters on this cite that have the same format, including rules.
I mean.... yeah... you aren't wrong there
I didn't say this before because I didn't want to influence the arguments, but the definitions of murder and God here have a weird result. Murder is defined as killing, and God is defined as perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness. Since God has killed, and God is perfect in goodness, murder is good according to the definitions in the description.
That actually made me laugh
When you said of seldiora's vote, "I believe the vote to be improper," were you intending to use the standard and accepted definition of 'improper'?
I'm not saying you charged God, I'm saying PRO did, which is why I'm holding him to such a high standard and why his dramatic failure was pointed out time and time again. Several others had already asked for clarification, and PRO had refused to alter his definitions. The external critiques weren't influencing him at all so I went in with an internal one. Maybe this discussion has taught him that loading a debate in your favor is simply not welcome here. If his behavior changes in the future he can earn my respect back, but as of right now he is simply not deserving of it.
Re-read my commentary. I did not charge anything relative to God. I do not charge that He is a murderer. You will note that I did not vote, and explained why. You will note that I criticized your acceptance of the debate, accepting the definitions as is. Pro prohibited nothing. You could have asked via comments for clarification of definitions, and did not, so accept that for what it was: a mistake. I did not vote because neither of you treated the debate, or each other, with any respect.
One more note, if you believe a vote to be fraudulent or the like, report it, and the mods will decide. If you aren't confident enough to report it, then the vote is most likely fine.
As much as I lean towards your side in regards to the topic, CalebEr is completely correct in there criticisms. First of all, in the code of conduct in dart on debates (https://info.debateart.com/help/debates) there is no rule that the Contender must follow all rules or obligations in the description, therefore CalebEr is perfectly within their rights to kritik your entire argument.
Second of all - it is also true that the one who has created a definition that deviates from the sourced or cited definition must provide reasoning for their decision. Therefore the burden of the reasoning does fall to you in order to substantiate your new definition. Definitions are some of the most fundamental pieces of a debate, for them to not be open for argument is absurd.
If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of. Needless to say, that's a grave allegation and should therefore be substantiated to the fullest extent that this formatting allows. I don't see this as just some fun intellectual exercise where I try to make a defense against completely biased charges. From my perspective, this is a chance to guide a person who is obviously lost, both theologically and philosophically. That was my initial goal, and while I admit it failed, it wasn't for a lack of trying on my part. PRO cared little about the subject matter, and frankly, I just don't tolerate the kind of flippancy that he displayed. I'm obligated to fight against it, even in the context of an online argument.
Usually, when one side decides to deviate from a traditional definition they must shoulder the extra burden of explaining why - you don't just get to assert your rehashed terminology, you need to defend it; this is a common decorum. Well, he didn't. Not so much as a finger was lifted by him to support the objectionable concepts he provided. And the disturbing part is that he knew he wouldn't be able to defend it, so he prohibited any litigation. This is the kind of arrogance I was talking about, but I had no idea it would be as pervasive as it was. You seem to think I should have known this debate was going to be fruitless beforehand as if I'm some sort of psychic who can read the minds of my rivals. That isn't realistic, obviously. I stated probably around three or four times that the whole reason I entered into this was to see if I could change the nature of the debate from the inside. This is a very important topic and it deserves to be discussed, but the discussion isn't going to be productive or useful if one side has stacked the courts in his favor. In a normal interaction, PRO would use the accepted definitions and present his evidence accordingly. Then I would counter that as best I could. I was hopeful that I could shift the doomed trajectory of this conversation, and it would have worked had my opponent complied.
My comment to your in #31 was before you changed your vote, which was a 7-7 tie. So be it. Your vote, your consequence.
I believe the vote to be improper. After getting my definitions shifted and rules broken, and even after my opponents admitting they will use kritiks and ignore my rules, they somehow pull through with the vote? Does my opponent not bear any consequence for accepting a debate and then complaining about it? Not to mention that the BoP was not proved by con, what so ever.
Sorry if you concluded I was criticizing your vote; I wasn't. I just could not come to your conclusion to proffer a vote. I, too, however, believfe the debate could have been waged, and a clear winner determined. I just don'r think either participant had that as a worthy goal.
"murder: the crime of intentionally killing a person"-Cambridge
"To kill someone in self-defense is to commit murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". " -You
Killing someone in self-defense is not a crime, so it's not murder
you might want to re-read my vote. I don't like how dishonest Pro was in setting up and unwilling to think of other ways to prove the resolution. It's entirely possible to win this with usual definitions, merely very difficult
This debate is absurd from both sides. Just reading the arguments, dismissing the rationale of morality and law, I wanted to kill both combatants. Their utter disregard for one another made a vote a disservice in the extreme. The set-up, as Con charged in R1, was biased to the point of creating an attempted truism, and Pro actually bragged in R1 that his set-up was a virtual win for him. Nope. A win for that is ill-gotten. However, as Con accepted the debate with the full knowledge of the biased set-up, he bears responsibility for accepting the debate. Con charged Pro with prohibition of disputing definitions. The time to dispute definitions is prior to accepting the debate. As soon as the Instigator creates the debate, the comments section is open. Prior to accepting the debate as is, anyone can message the Instigator to seek clarification of the resolution, the set-up, definitions, etc. Having accepted the debate as is, those doors of query close, and Con is on one's own to develop arguments with the conditions set. Pro's definition is the only dictionary definition I see that does not add to the definition the notion of murder being an unlawful act. As Cambridge defines it [I checked], murder is a virtual match with the act of killing. Every other dictionary I consulted [a half-dozen, including my go-to, the OED] draws the distinct of murder being unlawful, or words to that effect, separate from killing, which draws no such distinction. The choice of Cambridge stacks the deck, in my view. Con's argument that God, being the Creator, has the authority as a life-giver, to take it, has merit, but God does not kill indiscriminately, as did all mortal murderers Pro names. In all of Pro's examples in R1, the people are steeped in sin. But Con does not defend the point, choosing to abandon the entire debate. Likewise, Pro turns the debate to attacking Con,, and Con replies in kind losing all sense of conduct as expected. This debate was doomed, IMO. I think Fruit_Inspector did a good job in reducing my commentary to simple graphics.
As the debate voting rules do not allow for deducting points, [a flaw, imo] I will not vote, because neither side deserves any points for any factor. But, that's my view; I'll impose it on no one. Please vote as your inclination suggests. seldiora did the next best thing - a tie, but that's being generous, imo.
we asked for clarification. Pro was confused. Pro offered a similar legal definition from Cambridge in R2 and essentially conceded the debate.
The preceding is the legal definition. But y'all who offer advice back and forth ignore that Con has the right, indeed, a responsibility, prior to accepting the debate, to clarify definitions if there is objection to them. If the Instigator does not wish to clarify, that also is a choice, but will likely have no takers in the debate. There is no reason not to seek such clarification before the debate begins, because to accept it, yet complain about misunderstandings is defacto acceptance of what is proposed.
"Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought."
You just admitted it has to be a crime. Lol
Con has agreed to debate against the topic To worship God is to worship a murderer. That is what they will be doing. Not doing so will be a breach of the rules and poor debating ethics.
Saw this late. But the point is to make the topic more debate able, not just an easy win bc of some redefinitions.
The clear difference is that it was arguable, because it is not a given that God has broken his own law (i.e. the same reason that it would be arguable to say God murders in the sense that he breaks the moral law). To remove any sort of qualification of "just" or "lawful" is to remove any sort of debatability the resolution possesses. Anyway, I will keep it at that to avoid giving CON his argument for free.
So be it.
It's worth noting that I got this idea from a debate conducted by seldiora, to which his opponent believes that God has not even broken a single law. I thought that was a certain win for seldiora, but apparently someone thought better. I do not see the issue with this debate.
Unfortunately, as if you agreed to the terms, you shall be abiding by them. Though you have opinions about my debate, you have taken part in it willingly. I have the freedom to set up any debate I want with whatever terms I see fit, and you also have the freedom to accept of reject my debate. However, upon acceptance, you have acknowledged the terms of this debate and will be abiding by them.
Break the rules if you want, but that will be poor conduct and a breach in an agreement.
The reason I accepted this debate is that I think your redefinition of murder is wildly inappropriate, not because God hasn't killed people in the past. If we were to follow the rules you've put in place, without deviation, a productive exchange of ideas would be impossible, as you've already rigged the setup in your favor. That's why I'm going to ignore some of your rules, and why if you continue insisting that I comply with them you'll have admitted that you don't actually believe in the contention you're arguing for.
Does not impact my point in the slightest. As for them believing God has not killed... well, we will see.
Well someone accepted the debate so clearly they believe God has not killed.