Instigator / Pro
17
1577
rating
97
debates
59.28%
won
Topic
#6009
Christianity has had more positive impact than any other religion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
17
1515
rating
23
debates
39.13%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
1: If Christianity is the true religion then it is the only one that has ever saved souls from going to hell. This is probably the greatest good that a religion can do, and it just so happens that the undebunkable shroud of turin proves that Jesus died and resurrected.
2: the catholic church is the largest charitable organization on earth and invented hospitals, universities and science. Theology was often referred to as "queen of the sciences" and every major university in the US was founded by Christians. Not to mention that other denominations besides catholic are very charitable as well, making Christianity by far the greatest philanthropic movement to ever exist.
Semantics:
“Positive impact“ is the moral good that a thing brings about, regardless of the moral harm that said thing also brings about. Notice how my definition does not put “positive impact” and “negative impact” at ends. When OPP used “positive impact” in his title, he probably meant “total impact”, but these are separate concepts. The “total impact” of a thing is found by weighing the positive and negative impacts of said thing.
This means that if I provide OPP with a religion that has done more good than Christianity, then I win the debate, regardless of how much harm said religion has also done.
Judaism has done more good than Christianity:
Judaism is responsible for Christianity, and thus Judaism is responsible for all the good that Christianity has done. Judaism has also done some amount of good apart from Christianity. Thus, Judaism has done more good than Christianity.
Counters:
1: If Christianity is the true religion then it is the only one that has ever saved souls from going to hell. This is probably the greatest good that a religion can do, and it just so happens that the undebunkable shroud of turin proves that Jesus died and resurrected.
According to my definitions of "positive impact" and "negative impact", saving souls from going to hell does not do good, rather it prevents bad. Thus, that is outside the scope of this debate.
2: the catholic church is the largest charitable organization on earth and invented hospitals, universities and science.
The first and last points of that sentence are untrue.
- The Greeks had hospitals, although they were not very advanced.
- Due to his philosophy of inductive and deductive observations, Aristotle is widely considered to be the first scientist.
Theology was often referred to as "queen of the sciences" and every major university in the US was founded by Christians. Not to mention that other denominations besides catholic are very charitable as well, making Christianity by far the greatest philanthropic movement to ever exist.
Christianity would not exist without Judaism, as Christianity itself is simply an extension of Judaism.
- The Old Testament of the Bible is Jewish.
- Jesus was Jewish.
- Judaism and Christianity share the same God.
For every good thing that belongs to Christianity, that same good thing also belongs to Judaism.
Round 2
Judaism is responsible for Christianity, and thus Judaism is responsible for all the good that Christianity has done. Judaism has also done some amount of good apart from Christianity. Thus, Judaism has done more good than Christianity.
This isn't true because Christianity IS Judaism and Judaism is not.
Let me explain
Modern Judaism comes in the form of "rabbinic Judaism". They have their own holy book, called the Talmud, which the Jews of the Bible did not follow. According to Christianity they are not real Jews, for they have rejected the Jewish Messiah.
Thus the true continuation of the Jewish faith is Christianity, and all true Jews before Christ would have been Christians if they lived in the time of the new covenant.
"Judaism" does not exist as something separate from Christianity, Christianity is the ultimate fulfillment of the same religion. Judaism is incomplete Christianity and Christianity is complete Christianity.
If you do not accept this and see Christianity as a separate religion rather than the evolution of the same religion, then you are conceding this point because Judaism did not create Christianity but rather Christians made up their own thing.
If Christianity is a new thing and not a continuation of Judaism then Jews can't take credit for something they didn't create (and no they weren't "jews" who created it if they believed in a religion distinct from judaism) but if Christianity is the true continuation of Judaism then you can't even treat them as two separate religions thus your point is incoherent.
According to my definitions of "positive impact" and "negative impact", saving souls from going to hell does not do good, rather it prevents bad. Thus, that is outside the scope of this debate.
This actually has nothing to do with how you defined positive and negative impact. You said that “Positive impact“ is the moral good that a thing brings about, regardless of the moral harm that said thing also brings about. So if you take something bad that is going to happen and turn it into something good, then you have created good and thus it has had a positive impact. Saving souls from going to hell doesn't just "prevent bad" either because that also implies they are going to heaven, which is arguably the greatest good of all. It would really be a stretch to say that stopping the worst thing that could happen to someone and making sure they instead have the best thing that could happen to someone isn't good. It is in fact the greatest good imaginable.
- The Greeks had hospitals, although they were not very advanced.
Maybe if you define hospital as "place where medical stuff happens" but then you would have to say a 1700s american barber shop was also a hospital (barbers used to also be doctors in a primitive sense).
The actual modern hospital system is different from that.
- Due to his philosophy of inductive and deductive observations, Aristotle is widely considered to be the first scientist.
Aristotle did not invent the scientific method, he merely distinguished reason from empiricism.
Christianity would not exist without Judaism, as Christianity itself is simply an extension of Judaism.
Judaism wouldn't exist without Christianity, because modern Judaism is a different religion from old testament Judaism. Instead Judaism would have just stopped BEFORE it spread around the world and BEFORE it did 99% of the good that it did which was done through Christendom.
Unless you don't believe in Christianity, in which case Christianity is something different from Judaism.
Unless you don't believe in Christianity, in which case Christianity is something different from Judaism.
Restatement of stance:
In your previous debate titled “You aren't a Christian unless you're a Jew” you argued that Christian faith implies Jewish faith. In this debate, it seems that you are trying to fold that same logic to say that Judaism would not exist without Christianity.
Judaism is incomplete Christianity and Christianity is complete Christianity.
Judaism is incomplete Christianity in the same way that a seed is an incomplete tree, or in the way that a newborn is an incomplete human. Either way, the tree would not exist without the seed, and the human would not exist without the newborn.
Thus the true continuation of the Jewish faith is Christianity, and all true Jews before Christ would have been Christians if they lived in the time of the new covenant.
The use of “continuation” in this sentence concedes the point that Judaism is responsible for Christianity. Christian practices and rituals, though now their own separate thing, evolved from Jewish society.
( but wait ! ) modern Judaism is a different religion from old testament Judaism.
They are different in many ways, but you refer to them both as Judaism, which is why I am still grouping them together as one religion.
Judaism is responsible for Christianity, and thus Judaism is responsible for all the good that Christianity has done. Judaism has also done some amount of good apart from Christianity. Thus, Judaism has done more good than Christianity.
Counter:
If Christianity is the true religion then it is the only one that has ever saved souls from going to hell. This is probably the greatest good that a religion can do, and it just so happens that the undebunkable shroud of turin proves that Jesus died and resurrected. ( you said )
According to my definitions of "positive impact" and "negative impact", saving souls from going to hell does not do good, rather it prevents bad. Thus, that is outside the scope of this debate. ( I said )
So if you take something bad that is going to happen and turn it into something good, then you have created good and thus it has had a positive impact. Saving souls from going to hell doesn't just "prevent bad" either because that also implies they are going to heaven, which is arguably the greatest good of all. ( you said )
This is a classic example of false dichotomy. Saving a soul from Hell does not necessarily send that soul to Heaven. In the same vein, the prevention of bad is not good, it is simply bad’s absence. Due to my uncontested definitions, bad and its absence are outside the scope of this debate. Thus, saving souls from Hell is outside the scope of this debate.
Justification of Pivot:
Before the last round, I would like to give a shout-out to Islam, which is another religion that might be a good contender against Christianity for this debate.
The good of Islam in the Renaissance:
Islamic libraries worked to archive and translate ancient Greek and Roman knowledge, which played a crucial role in the Renaissance.
The good of Islam in Mathematics:
Al-Jabr: The first book of algebra, and the reason for algebra’s name, written in ancient Baghdad.
The good of Islam in Ancient Medicine:
Kitab al-Tasrif: The first illustrated surgical book, written and illustrated by a physician in the “Golden Age” of Islam.
Ishāq bin Ali al-Rohawi: The first book relating to the ethics of medicine, written by a Christian who later converted to Islam.
Round 3
In your previous debate titled “You aren't a Christian unless you're a Jew” you argued that Christian faith implies Jewish faith. In this debate, it seems that you are trying to fold that same logic to say that Judaism would not exist without Christianity.
It doesn't matter what I said in other debates. In that debate I thought you had to follow old testament Jewish law to be a Christian (which I now realize isn't true because Jesus fulfilled the law) but now I realize it's the other way around, any real Jew would have followed Jesus and you're not a Jew unless you're a Christian.
Judaism is incomplete Christianity in the same way that a seed is an incomplete tree, or in the way that a newborn is an incomplete human. Either way, the tree would not exist without the seed, and the human would not exist without the newborn.
The seed IS the tree, the newborn IS the human. It is the same thing evolving into more complete forms. Judaism isn't a separate thing that can be given credit for christianity, it IS christianity.
They are different in many ways, but you refer to them both as Judaism, which is why I am still grouping them together as one religion.
You are going to have to prove that Jesus isn't the messiah then, because if he is then Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism is a bastardization of Judaism and not authentic Judaism.
Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves Christians, but real Christians call them heretical. Names do not make something what it is any more than I am a purple dinosaur because I called myself one (I'm a purple dinosaur btw).
This is a classic example of false dichotomy. Saving a soul from Hell does not necessarily send that soul to Heaven.
That's how it works in Christianity. Is there another religion that believes in both heaven and hell and believes you can not go to either? Can you prove that religion is more likely to be true than Christianity?
Before the last round, I would like to give a shout-out to Islam, which is another religion that might be a good contender against Christianity for this debate.
The examples are irrelevant unless you can quantify that Islam has a greater positive impact, not just a significant one.
Counters:
modern Judaism is a different religion from old testament Judaism. ( you said )
They are different in many ways, but you refer to them both as Judaism, which is why I am still grouping them together as one religion. ( I said )
You are going to have to prove that Jesus isn't the messiah then, ( you said )
The baseline assumption is that there are no messiahs, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise.
( but wait ! ) the undebunkable shroud of turin proves that Jesus died and resurrected.
This is a classic example of non-sequitur. We can suppose Jesus was resurrected, but that does not necessarily make him the messiah. The burden of proof is still on you to prove the connection.
If Christianity is the true religion then it is the only one that has ever saved souls from going to hell. This is probably the greatest good that a religion can do, ( you said )
According to my definitions of "positive impact" and "negative impact", saving souls from going to hell does not do good, rather it prevents bad. Thus, that is outside the scope of this debate. ( I said )
Saving souls from going to hell doesn't just "prevent bad" either because that also implies they are going to heaven, which is arguably the greatest good of all. ( you said )
This is a classic example of false dichotomy. Saving a soul from Hell does not necessarily send that soul to Heaven. ( I said )
That's how it works in Christianity. ( you said )
Once again, the burden is on you to prove it and point to the spot in the Bible where it says that a soul must either go to Heaven or Hell.
I would like to give a shout-out to Islam, which is another religion that might be a good contender against Christianity for this debate. ( I said )
The examples are irrelevant unless you can quantify that Islam has a greater positive impact, not just a significant one. ( you said )
The judges can do the tallying. I will simply give them the evidence they need to make their calculations.
The good of Islam in Astronomy:
Al-Farghani: The man who wrote the book on celestial navigation which was used centuries later when Christopher Columbus sailed to the Americas.
The good of Islam in Ancient Architecture:
I cannot describe it to you. If you want to see the greatness of Islamic architecture, you must click on the links above.
The good of Islam in the Arab Agricultural Revolution:
In the “golden age” of Islam, trade between Asia and the Middle East increased, and so innovative methods such as microculture, polyculture, crop rotation, and organic fertilization were needed to grow tropical Asian crops in more westward areas.
Correction for Round-two Argument:
Ishāq bin Ali al-Rohawi: The first book relating to the ethics of medicine, written by a Christian who later converted to Islam. ( I said )
Ishāq bin Ali al-Rohawi: The man who wrote the first book relating to the ethics of medicine, and later converted to Islam.
Conclusion:
Since I already know I have you beat on “better arguments” and “better legibility”, I feel emboldened to do a little victory rap.
There are many fish in the sea
But Fish-Chaser has none
He’s lonely as can be
There are many people like him
Who think they’re the best
Who bang on their chest
But I’ll eat him with chips
Dip him in my mustard
And I’ll eat a side of custard
FishChaser wanted to scrap the conduct category, but it was the one that saved him from losing!
that's all from me
meow
At the end of the day, a debate isn't just about looking at one isolated point—it's about thoroughly evaluating all aspects and arguments presented. That's why I felt Con's position was stronger. They tackled the topic from multiple angles, discussing the contributions of different religions, and presenting a more comprehensive analysis. A debate isn’t just about picking one point and going with it; it’s about looking at the bigger picture and weighing all the points carefully. That’s the perspective I took when making my vote.
"To clarify, I voted for Con because their arguments were more structured and objective in comparing the contributions of different religions, especially in how they challenged definitions and presented alternatives. When it comes to the positive impact, Con didn’t just focus on the significance but also provided a balanced view of the broader context, including contributions from Islam and Judaism, without disregarding their importance.
Christianity, of course, has had a profound impact on the world, especially in shaping Western culture and values. However, Con highlighted that Judaism laid the foundation for Christianity. Judaism's influence, particularly through its moral teachings, ethics, and law, cannot be understated. For example, the concept of charity and community welfare that Christianity later embraced was first deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. Judaism's role in promoting literacy, justice, and the importance of education also laid the groundwork for later societal advancements.
When we look at Islam, it also made massive contributions to various fields like science, mathematics, medicine, and philosophy, particularly during the Golden Age of Islam. This period of intellectual flourishing helped preserve and build on the knowledge of earlier civilizations, which later influenced the Renaissance in Europe.
So, while Christianity's impact is undeniable, Con’s argument that both Islam and Judaism played significant roles in shaping the world’s moral, intellectual, and cultural foundations made their argument stronger in my eyes. I found their reasoning more balanced and comprehensive in addressing the broader scope of religious impact on society."
oh well that\s not the case, i wz setting up my vote again on why i voted for con, so don't b made just cz i didn't favor for u, we're here to b fair n square, they won't b deservin a vote if i had found u b8r, even if the religion wz mentioned, rather than pickin up a single point u should look up the rznz i voted for em, i am not into stuff like biasness or whtevr, i say wht i feel, still u can think whtevr ya want, besides there r others as well, so they can vote, this ain't the final result yknow. there're still 10 days
∧,,,∧
( ̳• · • ̳)
Oh I see, you voted for Con because you're a Muslim and are biased in favor of the pedophile religion!
roger that
Remember this debate is about MORE positive impact, not just significant positive impact.
I'm not sure you really weighed that out in your vote. It's not enough to simply say "Con had better arguments and Islam contributed stuff" you have to actually say why you think Con had better arguments and why Islam hasn't contributed less overall.
but well u r just giving ur opinion, evry1 has the right to say, so it'd b unfair to hv bad thots bout sm1 just cz they didn't vote in one's favor.
I dont do voting. Voting reduces number of allies.
I will accept your friend request if you add an honest vote to this debate.
The time has come for voting.
I can take this one after finishing the other one.