Resolved: On balance, the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically tenable.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- 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
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.
Through much of the debate, it felt as if pro and con were simply talking past one another, never actually addressing much of their respective points. However, the burden of proof favours pro pretty heavily in this debate. If I am left feeling as if Con does not show PSA to be untenable, I ought to vote for him. Much of the Cons' arguments were arguments far beyond the topic, such as arguing that Jesus may be Lucifer and other such things far beyond the topical discussion.
Pro argument 1:
Pro makes an argument for the idea that PSA is simply incomprehensible for the human mind to understand. He admits people may see this as a copout, and for the purpose of logical discussion, it ought to be viewed as a copout in a debate. Anyone could create an appeal to ignorance argument on essentially any topic to win, so pro doesn't get any points on that argument from me even if it's true.
Pros threshold deontology is not directly addressed, while Con addresses it indirectly as irrelevant by pointing out supposed contradictions in the Bible.
Pro argument 2:
In my opinion, the best rebuttal and argument from the pro in my eyes is his argument for human free will still being justified within the Christian faith. Through his argument and sourcing from the Bible, he shows God does not tempt people to sin but simply gives them the path to be able too. Unless he can refute this point, all of the cons' arguments for a lack of free will and God causing people to sin are moot. and subsequent round 3 arguments for Adam and Eve seem irrelevant to me because of this.
Cons arguments:
Most cons arguments are non-sequiturs and redherrings, simply acting as distractions from the debate. Such as arguing that Jesus looks like an Indian man or might be Lucifer, just irrelevant stuff.
The best argument from con, in my opinion, was simply him arguing that Jesus's sacrifice was unnecessary if we could be saved without Jesus dying for us on the cross. However, this struck me more as damage control or lessening the impact of the crucifixion as opposed to making it wholly unnecessary.
Considering pro arguments for God being omniscient, simply being irrelevant to making people sin, and this point going uncontested by Con except through damage control, I have to give my vote to Pro.
Conclusion:
Much of the opposition's arguments feel more like damage control or downplaying the significance of Jesus' sacrifice rather than disproving it as a good altogether. I believe he would have to show God was the reason why we sin, but since pros argument to compatibilist free will goes unresponded too, I remain unconvinced of it being an untenable framework.
This debate is largely two ships passing in the night. Both sides largely stick to their own arguments and ignore their opponents' points, with Con doing this across all three rounds and Pro doing it to a slightly lesser extent, but largely missing the opportunities to respond to Con's central points. This places both sides in a more precarious position, though to evaluate just how precarious, we need to start with the burdens analysis. Pro gives me the sole analysis to that effect, and while his R1 leaves the door more open on this front, his R2 is rather specific, arguing that he has to show that "PSA is ethically tenable, that is, it is defensible to the point that it is not “obviously or demonstrably unjust.”" That's an important distinction, since it effectively places the burden onto Con to show that it is unjust in some very clear way. In that sense, Pro's opening round provides a means of viewing PSA as ethically tenable, and it's up to Con to either present an alternate framework that he believes outweighs it and demonstrates that it is unjust, or to argue on Pro's framework that PSA is unjust. Con never tries the latter, so the focus is on the former.
There's a lot in Con's arguments that just doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate, though I'm only going to focus on the points that Con emphasized rather than issues like the Jesus-Lucifer connection that are entirely irrelevant. There's an effort to attach the issue of original sin to PSA, and while there might be some association between the two in terms of establishing what sins are being atoned for, these responses at best serve to mitigate the sins that PSA was meant to address. Both sides acknowledge individual sin, so though I'm left questioning whether Christianity upholds a collective sin as well (the sources appear to disagree on this one), that only suffices as one part of the picture. Con could have argued that PSA necessitates proof that collective sin exists, but I don't see that as necessary to prove Pro's point. Even if it was, Con is arguing that, based on several parts of the Bible and his frustrations with original sin, it is illogical and contradictory for original sin to apply collectively. That doesn't mean that it does not actually apply, just that there are contradictory parts of the text with regards to this issue, which renders this more of an issue of whether original sin ought to apply rather than whether it does. For sin in general, Con does suggest that free will might not exist, but when presented with compatibilism from Pro, he provides no responses.
But the main thing that sticks out to me from Con's argument is a lack of a clear framework. There's quite a bit of analysis of deontology from Con... in R3, when it's too late. Much of Con's arguments focus on how illogical and problematic some elements of Christianity are, but never a clear framework that he uses to challenge the threshold deontology framework that Pro provides. We get lots of points about how the Trinity makes PSA appear nonsensical, though again, the resolution regards its ethics and, at best, this questions the value of Jesus's sacrifice rather than the ethical tenability of that sacrifice. That might have yielded some points about how a symbolic gesture is an empty one or even a negative, but I don't see Con taking that tack, largely just leaving the point after clarifying why he is and we should be incredulous. Expressing incredulity is the vast majority of Con's argument, and while that does challenge Pro's claims on some level, it largely skirts around the issue of whether PSA is ethically tenable. The most he does is minimize how important PSA is.
There's actually very little in the way of offense relevant to the PSA from Con's case, since the lack of an ethical framework through which to analyze the PSA effectively means that he is arguing on Pro's framework the entire time, yet his engagement with that framework is too minimal (or too late) to meaningfully challenge the central tenets that Pro sets up. All of this might have been enough regardless if the burdens weren't set up to so distinctly favor Pro's side. He outright tells me that "as long as the question of PSA is sufficiently indeterminate to the voter, PRO has fulfilled their BoP." Con never challenges that. By not furnishing an opposing framework (the most I can take away from Con's case is that original sin and collective sin are morally problematic), Con's best case scenario is that I discard Pro's framework and am left without one entirely. Assuming I do that, I have no good way to analyze PSA, and am thus left with no ethical framework to assess it. That leaves it indeterminate. So whether I'm buying some elements of Pro's case (and I kind of have to, since Con drops the vast majority of it), or I buy Con's framing that we should discard his framework, I'm still left with the same decision: I vote Pro.
I'll leave the other point allocations tied.
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.
I would like to say more on the other topics, but the TOS for voting makes it impossible to judge the other three parts of the debate based on a lack of standards from the debate description and outside sources for criteria not being allowed. Oh well.
RFD in comments. I did not feel anyone did severely better sources nor much better conduct. RM tends to talk a bit harsh but it didn't pop out too badly in my eyes.
Possibly. It will really come down to what kind of time I have in my day.
does this debate interest you? 1 day left to vote.
Python, itself, is not a hard language. It is the moronic ways of explaining it that make it hard. Every Python class I've ever seen only focuses on making calculators and data analysis algorithms. It completely ignores a foundation in the mechanics of the language and how to use it to do whatever you want. Python can be used for web development, server-side development, artificial intelligence, and virtually everything else, but I have yet to find a decent class that presents Python in the way a language should be presented. So I gave up learning it a long time ago lol.
Yikes. less than 2 days left.
I did more than question it, I proved it to defy raw Christian moral framework.
Python has defeated me. But I am going to keep trying at it. Not going to be able to vote on any hard decisions for awhile.
That said, my estimation is that I would end up taking the pro side if the low BoP of tenable is argued. However, if treated like it should never be questioned, then con would win.
I will chat in private about it.
The issue is Mr. Chris has a very straightforward assuming approach and you have your own refusal approach. I think whiteflame didn’t see how your questions directly tackled the framework and so it’s difficult to win by his standards. I’m a little more generous and I know how moral frameworks usually work, so I thought you did an alright job. But it could really go either way. If I was arguing con and you offered me this argument I would not commit to it as written.
please vote on the debate
Friendly reminder we have less than a week left. Tagging you two because you both showed interest in voting
If my schedule calms down after next week, I'll make the time to read this. Trying to learn Python in a class right now, and it's admittedly kicking my ass.
Alright then. Have fun with that. Guess I shouldn’t have bothered after all.
I proved many things in this debate, actual professors of theology would see how I actually pushed Christianity against itself here as it is indeed a deeply contradictory religion primarily due to the PSA event.
Find some and prove me wrong. It is 100% an intellect issue and I am done discussing it.
If I prove to you I argued things here, it only hinders me getting punished for weak debating. I need to study some things after I finish my current debates and take a hiatus. I want to see what I am doing wrong in wording so that certain types of brain can genuinely not see what I am 100% doing.
I also will avoid any debate that bans rebuttals in Round 1 so I can attack framework from the get-go as that seems to be something I keep getting hurt by when Pro sides outrule it.
I need to read much more into the debates had and see how voters interpret wording, maybe I will finally understand how and why voters believe Oromagi won debates that I think he lost and why they don't mind his bulletpoint zero eloquence style. After my analysing is complete, I will come out with a completely new debate style and structure things in a way that I know are optimal.
I currently am hampered by having a brain that works too fast to conclusions, I am in essense showing math sums where I make it too smooth and not step-by-step enough it seems.
I need to put less characters into eloquence and elaboration and dedicate them to rigid 'attack-defense' stuff. I am not sure how to do this as I do believe I'm doing that already but clearly I have got a lot wrong about people here.
After I am done you will see the difference.
Not really, you're literally saying I didn't do that I so utterly blatantly did ACCORDING TO THE OTHER PAIR OF VOTERS.
There is definitely a dysfunction in one pair of voters out of the 4 who have voted so far as they have so utterly opposite views of what I did in this debate, it's actually unbelievable.
First off, don't appreciate your taking a jab at the intellects of those who vote against you, even if you're solely focused on reasoning. Believe it or not, people can disagree with your perception of how debates go without having intellectual dysfunctions.
Second, I think I'm beginning to see where the problem was here and why we're disagreeing on this, so first let me amend what I said: you did not propose an ETHICAL framework. That's an important distinction because an ethical framework is required to compete directly with Pro's framework on the topic. Losing that option loses you an important means of offense for this debate, and I still think that was a problem. Still, absent that, you had two options: argue that it is unethical on Pro's framework, or argue that Pro's framework doesn't work. You did the latter.
So, why is that a problem? Two reasons.
One, you didn't argue Pro's burdens analysis. That's a problem for this strategy, since he clearly said that an indeterminate conclusion on the ethical tenability of PSA yields a vote for him. When your strategy is to simply knock out your opponent's offense and you don't present any, you would normally render the debate a tie or default to Con, but Pro told me to default to him. You didn't tell me otherwise.
Two, your argument largely functions as a Kritik that's overfocused on links (it's 90-95% of your argument) and lacking an alternative and voters, since the rest is impacts. You're challenging PSA and everything connected to it as illogical. You have to tell me what it means if I buy that analysis. The closest you get is arguing that it's effectively impossible to evaluate whether or not PSA is ethical, which is fine, but again, that makes me default to indeterminate, which favors your opponent. If you're going to make it about PSA being utterly impossible, then tell me why my take-away is that I should vote for you. What is a better alternative to engaging with PSA? What should I do instead? Why should I refuse to play the game of determining whether it's ethical in favor of that alternative? All you left me with is "it's all absurd," which doesn't tell me why you deserve a vote for pointing it out. You may not like doing it, but part of debating is earning a vote, and that means giving some direction to your voters. Leaving us with a big shrug over the issue of how we would determine the ethics of PSA doesn't help with that, and getting that far and stopping kind of hamstrings any effectiveness a Kritik can have. I can agree with you 100% and still end up pulling the trigger for Pro because he told me that's what I should do if I don't know the answer. Maybe you think that just winning this argument is enough to net you the debate, but I don't see it.
I'm sure you won't agree with any of this. Chances are you'll read through half or less of this, dismiss it out of hand, and assume that I just didn't get your perfect argument. Believe it or not, I'm honestly trying to provide you with actionable feedback. Your points have merit, but they have clear ways to make them winning points. If you don't want that advice, feel free to just ignore all this I guess.
Novice loves to vote against me anyway, it's just a question of justifying it.
Lets just hope novice and others get done with their votes as soon as possible.
It does net me the debate.
I cannot talk further without insulting the intellect of you and Ehyeh.
It is clear to me I have a flaw in presenting things in a way others if a certain level of intelligence and comprehension can understand, it's caused me issues elsewhere. I tend to only be able to be able to communicated effectively with highly intelligent people or very patient and medium intelligent people (the patience helps, lets me explain myself).
I am not saying it's hierarchical, you could be intelligent in other ways but in terms of reasoning, I see a clear dysfunction.
I proved it not only untenable but impossible. It is ethically impossible, ethically unviable entirely so within the Christian ethical framework, even if they think otherwise and THAT was the framework I laid out.
Their own religion completely rules out the concept of being punished for another's sin or atoned for by another's repentance and sacrifice.
I proved so much about it to be utterly absurd and implausible if not impossible. The voters who voted for me saw it, clear as day.
I’ll note again: the lack of a clear framework meant that the best you could do with the whole “theatre” argument was render PSA indeterminate, since you weren’t arguing on the threshold deontology framework that it was actually harmful, just that it was meaningless. You could have argued that that kind of theater is damaging, but I would need a framework through which to relate that harm to an ethical failing of PSA.
As for whether you proved it, I’d say that the best case scenario is that you proved that there are logical holes in our understanding of how deontology and PSA interrelate. On that front, you hit some good points, though accomplishing that alone doesn’t net you the debate telling us that there are problems with our understanding of PSA doesn’t tell us that PSA itself is ethically untenable. It also doesn’t engage with the threshold, which is Pro’s argument from the start. You can argue that the threshold doesn’t matter either, but I don’t see you doing that.
As a Christian, I would be curious what you'd vote here. I am aware you are biased against me but your vote would be appreciated regardless.
I did, by proving that the PSA has absolutely no deontological relevance at all, it's just theatre.
However, if you didn't get that from reading what I wrote, it is clear I have to alter my writing style to be easier digested by a certain type of thinker but how to do that is beyond me.
That’s an odd response when you are outright claiming that it’s obvious you have presented an alternate framework and even directed me to a portion of your argument where, I’ll say, I still cannot find it.
Considering Pro’s framework was threshold deontology, and considering that you did not ever address the existence of said threshold, I’d say my answer speaks for itself. If you think his threshold was purely Christian, that might be part of the problem here, because I don’t view challenging Christianity as a whole or in part as a response to his framework.
I am curious what you think I did or didn't to to use the christian framework against Pro.
I am also curious how you read the entire opening to my Round 2.
Until you answer this, I cannot give you what you're looking for, it's there and you're not perceiving it so me quoting it will achieve nothing.
I appreciate the votes! I'm with whiteflame in wishing there was more direct clash in the debate, but the approach CON took necessarily minimized that on my end.
If you are willing, I would be intrigued by your votes.
Alright, then quote where you stated what your framework is.
I not only gave alternative framework at the start of my Round 2, I actively pointed out how Christianity itself abhors and outlaws judging one for the sins or atonement of another.
I annihilated him from every possible angle and do n9t care if you cannot see it, this debate was raw brutal strategic dominance by me. Those that see it gained my respect here.
Not sure if you actually meant to send that first comment truncated, but it's also not particularly clear what point you're making. None of what I said included any problems with your not presenting something in R1. I didn't see it in any of your constructives. You briefly mentioned in R2 that you "cast doubt on Pro claiming that anything deontological is made clearer by PSA," though a) that's not specific to threshold deontology, b) simply saying you did it doesn't mean you accomplished the task, c) casting doubt on it logically doesn't mean that mean that it's ethically untenable, and d) I did point out how I would evaluate this debate if I assumed that you had rebutted his framework without presenting a competing framework.
Round 2. My first round I am allowed to rebut his framework due to the description banning rebuttals in round 1.
ROUND 2 BECAUSE IF i did it in Round 1 it counts as rebuttal and violates the structure in desc
I’m happy to reconsider my vote if you can point out to me where you presented an alternative framework. Hell, if you want to explain specific points you feel I’ve missed, we can discuss them in detail.
You did not demonstrate that the orthodox church supports or even allows anyone to believe Jesus is Lucifer. As far as I can tell, you never actually rebuked him on saying we should look at it from an orthodox perspective, so I'm stuck looking at it from that perspective until you comment on it. Nowhere in the description or round 1 did misterchris say we ought to look at it this way. You just never directly confronted it so i have no other choice.
You simply stated that mister Chris saying something does not make it true, but I lack evidence on how or why it is not true for him to tell us to look at it that way, which was your burden of proof to do. Instead all you do is leave it up for the voter to decide for you if we should agree with misterchris or not on taking a orthodox view.
If necessary, I will break the tie. If not, it is what it is.
He agreed it was god using a human puppet avatar.
And he says it, therefore it must be true. What I say at the start of Round 2 should be ignored. Got it.
"Regardless, again, voters should prefer orthodox Christian doctrine over CON’s strawmen. "
"On this basis, CON’s “alternate scenario” of “Jesus is not God and instead is an independent messiah and preacher that is the chosen son of God” can be dismissed outright without further discussion. No orthodox Christian holds (or ought to hold) that position (Colossians 2:9 states that “whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” within Jesus)."
He says it a number of times littered all through the debate that we should look at it from an orthodox Christian perspective.
I twisted it back in Round 2 because I was not allowed to rebuke in Round 1.
Both voters for me saw me doing that.
Protestants believe the Bible itself is above any one human's authoritative interpretation, I see nowhere this debate is limited to orthodox. You are lying.
I do not care. Dumb voters are part of the game. I am just saddened as two competent voters got my hopes up.
Mister Chris's greatest strength in this debate wasn't even any of his arguments. but how beautifully he twisted the burden of proof to be in his favor, despite the fact that if anyone else argued the same point, the outcome would be the opposite for most.
The debate was going on based on what Christians believe, in particular the Orthodox Church. I don't think any of them believe Jesus was Lucifer. I also am pretty sure the orthodox church supports belief in the trinity. Show me the part where you show the sacrifice was fake. Is it even relevant to the discussion if you interpret the sacrifice as fake? within the debate we had to assume a Christian framework. No Christians believe the sacrifice was fake.
How is it irrelevant that we have no real idea if Jesus is god himself playing a role, Lucifer or some new son?
Can you tell me how my Round 1 and Round 2 do not do the very things you say they fail to do?
I can show you explicitly where I explain how the sacrifice was fake etc.
I could not have made it clearer without ruining readability and reducing other aspects of my case. What a shame.
I worry for your reading comprehension skills. What you say is lacking is absolutely there even in my Round 1, let alone 2.
Hey, as usual, you’re welcome.
I expected no more competence than I got.
I do agree Con has a BoP to disprove, he kind of circled his way around it to put a bit of doubt. He didn't directly complain about your lack of biblical references, but he showed directly from bible that God has "contradictions" which I interpreted your final round to just say "just accept it", which is... lacking in my opinion.
I mean, if they thought your case was more convincing, so be it, I just disagree with their interpretations quite a bit.
Playing dirty and losing anyway must feel bad.
Discussing your own debate during the voting period is always walking on thin ice. I personally try to minimize it within my debates. That said, it was decided a long time ago not to push the rules in the direction of forbidding it.
The voting policy makes two mentions of what is going too far when discussing your own ongoing debate:
"Flagrant misbehavior in the comment section, such as threats, or voter manipulation (not to be confused with polite requests for more details, or encouraging more votes in general)."
AND
"You may of course always request further detail from a voter, but it should not cross into clear harassment should people decide to vote against you (or not enough in your favor)."
So discussions are not banned, but toxic behavior can cross obvious lines. On this page I am not spotting any flagrant examples; and I really must get some sleep.