Instigator / Pro
4
1465
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2636

To worship God is to worship a murderer.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

CalebEr
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1519
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Description

THBT: To worship God is to worship a murderer.

-Definitions-
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.

-Rules-
Forfeit = Instant loss
No kritks
Definitions are agreed upon

vote bump

bump

Voters, anyone?

*bump*

-->
@seldiora

**************************************************
>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.
**************************************************

seldiora
Added: 8 days ago
#1
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
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.

Bump

To be a fan of Will Smith is to be a fan of aggravated assault. Uh? No.

-->
@Intelligence_06

whos this wylted person? It there an issue with me questioning the votes that have been put through?

-->
@CalebEr

> 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.

Numbers 31:17-18
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.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Checkmate is not wylted. Wylted likes to do debate about rape, pedophilia, etc. not affirmative action and god being a murderer

-->
@Checkmate

Are you just Wylted again?

-->
@Checkmate

Mmm... not necessarily, just like CalebEr did here, it could be just to kritik your debate topic.

-->
@seldiora

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.

-->
@CalebEr

Ok, duly noted

-->
@MisterChris

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."

-->
@Checkmate

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.

Good luck."

-->
@CalebEr

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."

-->
@Checkmate

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.

-->
@Checkmate

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@SirAnonymous

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.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

That actually made me laugh

-->
@Checkmate

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'?

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@CalebEr

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.

-->
@Checkmate

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.

-->
@CalebEr
@Checkmate

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@seldiora

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.

-->
@seldiora

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.

-->
@Checkmate

"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

-->
@fauxlaw

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.

-->
@fauxlaw

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."
-https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303

↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓

-->
@Checkmate

You just admitted it has to be a crime. Lol

-->
@MisterChris

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.

-->
@Checkmate

Saw this late. But the point is to make the topic more debate able, not just an easy win bc of some redefinitions.

-->
@Checkmate

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.

-->
@MisterChris

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.

-->
@CalebEr

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.

-->
@Checkmate

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.

-->
@Checkmate

Does not impact my point in the slightest. As for them believing God has not killed... well, we will see.

-->
@MisterChris

Well someone accepted the debate so clearly they believe God has not killed.