Instigator / Pro
22
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#3484

Resolved: On balance, the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically tenable.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

I, PRO, believe that, on balance, the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically tenable. As CON, you believe that the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically indefensible.

As instigator, PRO retains the BoP. CON is only required to rebut PRO's arguments.

DEFINITIONS:

On balance: All things considered.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA): For the purposes of this debate, PSA is defined as the doctrine that states that God, in the form of Jesus Christ, sacrificed himself of his own accord on behalf of humanity, paying the penalty of sin due to humanity in order to exercise mercy over humanity whilst upholding cosmic justice.

Ethically tenable: Not obviously or demonstrably unjust, all things considered. Able to be defended ethically.

STRUCTURE:
R1- PRO Constructive & CON Constructive
R2-3- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here.

RULESET:
1. No new arguments made in final round
2. No trolling
3. You must follow the debate structure
4. No plagiarism
5. Must follow debate definitions.

RULESET PENALTY:
If the ruleset is broken, the penalty will be the loss of a conduct point. By accepting the debate, the contender accepts the RULESET and the RULESET PENALTY.

-->
@Public-Choice

As I have a vested interest here, I will give you a hint:

Redo your vote and keep the arguments justification the same as before (paste from the comment whiteflame has where he pasted it), then if you want to justify sourcing, you would need to give 2 examples from each debater (since both used them 2 or more times) and justify them.

Leave SnG and Conduct tied, I say this for both selfish reasons and sensible one because they were tied if you base SnG on legibility and Conduct on severe violations.

-->
@Public-Choice

The voting policy should give you enough direction on that, though let me know if you want a more detailed set of info.

info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

-->
@whiteflame

Can you just give me the TOS agreement section for how to vote on debates? It is apparent that I seem to not understand some of the aspects of voting according to this website's TOS.

I was trying to nudge based on objectively-held standards of logic and argumentation and sourcing. But I can see how thay might not me appropriate depending on the site's rules.

-->
@RationalMadman
@MisterChris

Next debate on my list, guys. Not exactly my area of expertise (also means I have no position on the matter), so I’ll take my time going through it and considering the points.

-->
@Public-Choice

I do encourage you to either modify your vote to better justify the points you’ve allocated or to simply award argument points.

-->
@RationalMadman
@MisterChris
@Public-Choice

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Public-Choice // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con, 2 to pro
>Reason for Decision:

See previous comment

>Reason for Mod Action:
While the reasoning provided for awarding arguments is sufficient, the rest of the voter's reasoning for awarding points is insufficiently explained.

On sources, the voter provides reasons why he prefers certain sources in the context of this debate, but the provided reasoning bases this allocation on source number and emphasis rather than source quality. The voter's apparent preference for primary sources is not a sufficient basis for awarding these points, either. The voter must specify why at least one exemplar source is unreliable, not just lesser than, the opponent’s sources. A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument). From the voting policy: “A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).”

On S&G, the voter does not meet the threshold required to award this point. From the voting policy: "The goal isn’t to nitpick, the problem(s) should usually be obvious at a glance."

On Conduct, it is not sufficient for the voter to non-specifically state that one side was more offensive. If there are specific instances where one side of the debate was offensive, they must be designated and explained. It should also be noted that these offenses should be considered excessive in order to warrant awarding this point. From the voting policy: "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating." While overuse of curse words and clearly insulting language may suffice for this, based on the vote as written, it must be made apparent that one or both of these have happened.
**************************************************

Vote by Public-Choice
Added: Today

Arguments: CON
PRO came out the gate really strongly in round one with a very strong argument from deontology. But PRO ultimately failed (further along in the debate) when he argued that PSA should be understood the way Christians understand it, and then failing to defend how his understanding is THE proper Christian interpretation as opposed to CON's understanding of it. PRO relied on a couple Christian answer websites that openly admit their biases toward a certain type of Christianity in the websites themselves, and two (three?) theologians to claim what the "proper" Christian believe was. While these sources would normally be good usage, PRO said his argument rested on the understanding of PSA for "the Christian." He did not, at any point, prove that most Christians understand Christianity in the way he is describing it. He cited about 4 different experts, but not a collective view of Christianity. Therefore, PRO failed to prove his view of PSA was the real Christian view.
CON also failed to do this. But CON did not make the claim that we must understand PSA according to how Christians understand it. He claimed the Christian understanding is flawed for reasons he gave. Remember that both parties already agreed to a definition of PSA. They did not agree to perceive it as a Christian would. That claim was put forward by PRO and therefore the burden of proof is on PRO for such claim. PRO offered no such proof for his claim. He offered anecdotal evidence of two or three theologians and then interpreted the Scriptures according to the theologians' interpretations and not the other way around.
This is important for one reason: PRO and CON both implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are the primary source document. And CON made his argument from the primary source document, whereas PRO made his argument from choice theologians who supposedly spoke for all Christians, and then shoehorned the primary source document to agree with his experts.
Therefore, CON simply gave better arguments, since he did provide justification for his beliefs on Christianity when asked by PRO, according to the implicitly agreed upon primary source document. He also showed ample evidence from the primary source that his beliefs are Christian.
Sources: CON
PRO mainly relied on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Theologians. While these things can hold true statements, they are not, in fact, primary sources and can be subject to commentary and marred analysis. PRO did cite 11 scriptures, but Scripture was not the main source for PRO, but rather a secondary source to confirm the opinions of his experts, which bore the brunt of his argument.
CON mainly relied on Scripture, which he cited, and made an argument based on primary source material. CON, therefore, used better sources because he went straight to the primary source as a main tool of evidence, and not secondary sources for commentary and analysis OF the primary source.
Spelling and Grammar: PRO
CON had multiple instances of bad grammar. PRO also had some grammar errors, but overall had better proofed statements.
Conduct: PRO
CON admitted his statements were going to be offensive. PRO used more neutral language and did not use insults or cuss words regularly.

-->
@RationalMadman

LOL

-->
@Public-Choice

https://c.tenor.com/nVzcrTJoCnAAAAAC/well-hey-wink.gif

-->
@RationalMadman
@MisterChris

FWIW, I don't actually believe CON's views are Christian. But CON just did a much better job arguing for his beliefs as being Christian since both parties implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are a primary source document. In reality, CON's Scriptural definitions fail due to translation issues that do not convey what the text is saying, and also due to ignorance of the terms and words as they were used when Scripture was being written.

Furthermore, CON heavily engaged in Cherry Picking, but PRO never explained how or why it was cherry picking. PRO simply responded with anecdotal evidence. He did not use the source document, the original manuscripts, the definitions of the Greek and Hebrew words, or even surveys or polls to explain why CON cannot be engaging in proper interpretation of the document. His argument boiled down to "my three of four experts say you are wrong, and here's some Scriptures I am going to interpret to fit their opinions instead of try to interpret them objectively myself."

To win this debate, PRO had to first explain why his view is, in fact, the Christian one, since he made that the central tenet of his thesis, and then explain why CON's usage of the source document was flawed and inaccurate, since it severely crushed his argument's central point. PRO failed on both, so CON had better arguments.

-->
@whiteflame

Thanks!

-->
@Public-Choice

Done.

-->
@whiteflame

Yes. Thank you so much!

-->
@Public-Choice

Would you prefer that I delete the existing vote? That would give you the opportunity to vote again.

-->
@whiteflame

Can you give me the opportunity to revote. It was my first time voting on this site and I seem to have accidentally violated sitewide rules.

I will keep my personal opinions out of this and future analyses. They did not sway my opinion, but I can see how it appears that way, so I would like a re-do.

-->
@Public-Choice

I agree with RM, but I will add that you are outright false on many of your assessments.

For one, I referenced specific Scriptural passages explicitly 11 times within the first two rounds, and countless times implicitly by referring to broader, orthodox doctrine. You also outright omit literally 90% of the debate, which, if you would have read it, might have swayed your opinion.

-->
@Public-Choice

I have to report your vote as Chris and others definitely will.

Please ask Whiteflame or Barney to let you revote and allocate only arguments points. It is okay to allocate sources too but go further into how we used the sources, not just that mine is the Bible.

Go more into arguments from us as well, please.

One addendum to my vote, PRO had the opportunity to demolish RM's claims, but he ultimately failed to do so by stating, essentially, "it is too deep for us to understand" and then stating "it isn't relevant."

Yeah. It may not be completely relevant to your opening statement, but that doesn't mean that:

1. Your opening statement was completely correct
2. It is not relevant to the debate as a whole.

So, basically, by leaning on the "we can't understand it" argument, you default to CON by saying "you're wrong but I can't explain why."

-->
@Tejretics
@Barney
@oromagi
@Bones
@ossa_997

For any who care to vote, the debate is now complete.

-->
@whiteflame
@Novice_II
@PREZ-HILTON
@Ehyeh
@Avery

For any who care to vote, the debate is now complete.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'm afraid I've lost my interest in internet debating. I like all the people here, but I just don't have the motivation to continue right now. Sorry.

This reminds me of the days when I was into Christianity. It wasnt that bad. Much better than islam. Prayers are much easier to learn. However, I quit it after a month. It just got boring and repetitive. Reading about Jesus for the first time was fun. After 100 times it got a lot less fun. The stories about Jesus were the only thing in the Bible that made me read it. So once I was over that, it didnt seem to make sense to read it anymore.

-->
@whiteflame

okay but if I say sorry then it won't fix anything

-->
@RationalMadman

The voting period is one month, and with the argument period being so long, I don’t want to lose track of arguments while I wait for the next arguments to be posted. I’ll wait until it’s all posted before I start reading.

-->
@whiteflame

so you can read round by round and be ready then

-->
@RationalMadman

Not sure why you’re asking before the debate is finished, but I’ll aim to get to it after it’s done.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@Username
@SirAnonymous
@Novice_II

Please vote.

Novice, you will probably vote against me. Then at least give a good reason.

PSA is the most beautiful part about Christianity for me. So many ways to interpret it and really no other religion has an analogous concept; it's what sets Christianity apart. Whether it's moral is another question I guess.

-->
@RationalMadman

I agree fully. In this case, work played a large part in my delay, but I also wanted time to think of my response.

-->
@MisterChris

It is fine by me, patience and hesitation are signs of respect for the opponent, contrary to popular belief.

I can reply rapidly to a low skilled opponent.

I have not forgotten about this. Writing a rebuttal today, although I will be unable to post it until late tonight.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@SirAnonymous
@Novice_II

please read, Round 1 is posted.

-->
@Novice_II

I was in Honduras for a week, so I have been very occupied lately

-->
@MisterChris

You must be extremely occupied to allow a duration of two weeks for posting arguments

-->
@RationalMadman

I have not forgotten about this debate. My constructive is almost finished.

-->
@MisterChris

Given how similar our thought processes were with the eliminate racism debate, I'm guessing you are probably correct about my strategy. We'll see after the debate.

-->
@SirAnonymous

I'm pretty confident I know what sort of ploy you were thinking of. It could work for Pro technically, although if I used it, it would obviously be done in bad faith. I might get voted down just for using it.

-->
@RationalMadman

Did not expect such a swift acceptance. Looking forward to the debate

-->
@RationalMadman

Well, I highly doubt that he will use the strategy I'm thinking of.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06
@Novice_II

You guys may enjoy keeping up with this, given the ratings involved and all.

-->
@SirAnonymous
@PREZ-HILTON

I actually feel strongly about this topic and given our rankings it's just so utterly worth the risk.

If you wrote this in English, somebody might accept

I should probably keep my mouth shut, but there's a strategy Pro could take that would drive Con up the wall.