Buddhism vs Christianity
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 9,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,500
This debate revolves around two syllogisms.:
1. Which is more true? (Historical, scientific, and evidence of the supernatural)
2. Which leads to a more fulfilling life?
Pro argues for buddhism, Con for christianity.
On-balance.
(Only FishChaser can accept.)
Voting Justification:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6097/comments/64357
End at this:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/6097/comments/64351
If it somehow gets jiggled later, it is 6 parts, you can surely find it.
1. Which is more true? (Historical, scientific, and evidence of the supernatural)
Pro and Con both cite miracle claims. Con put himself at a disadvantage by not citing any sources, meaning that Pro was able to at least reduce it to being speculative evidence. In the final round, Con argues that if we don't know whether the Shroud of Turin is real, then the odds are 50/50. One could arguably say the same about Buddhist miracle claims if we start from a position of agnosticism, and Con doesn't really argue for why "not knowing" equals a 50/50 chance. Furthermore, the "truth" of Buddhism argued for by Pro isn't entirely based on supernatural claims. Pro uses cause and effect as an example of a true Buddhist teaching. I think Con could have argued along these lines as well by citing Christian teachings like "thou shalt not commit adultery" which most people agree with, but their case boiled down to assuming that supernatural claims have a 50% chance of being true by default, and as that was argued in the final round I can't afford it much weight. Con does dispute the point on cause and effect, but I still think that leans toward supporting Pro, since natural cause and effect could be argued to basically be a Buddhist teaching whereas arguing that a deity influences cause and effect required more evidence than Con provided.
2. Which leads to a more fulfilling life?
Meditation is conceded as having benefits for the individual practicing Buddhism. Christianity is conceded to have a positive impact on society, but the impacts are based on how I interpret the description. Since the second topic asks which religion leads to "a more fulfilling life" (singular) rather than "more fulfilling lives" (plural), the most obvious life to examine would be the person practicing the religion. This puts Con's arguments outside the scope of the debate, since helping 100 other people live fulfilling lives doesn't really address the "a fulfilling life" that the description refers to. There was potential for Con to argue that helping others leads to fulfillment, but in this case, meditation ended up being the only point left within the scope of the debate.
As Pro wins on both contentions and provided sources to justify his arguments, Pro wins on arguments and sources.
Getting this in under the wire.
I'm awarding the win to Pro on this one. I think he lays out a very clear case early on for how Buddhism yields a more fulfilling life for the individual, which necessarily can and does extend beyond them. Con's response is that things can still be bad anyway, which may mitigate that positive, but it doesn't do anything for his case. Also, maybe don't end the debate by saying that Christians can meditate too since that implies that Buddhists having it as a core precept is a positive. Con's kind of giving up that point in the end, and with no direct responses to much of the concepts Pro presented in R1, that puts him in a bad spot.
Con's case on this point doesn't work so well in his favor, either. I get the point on charity, but a) it seems like there's a mix of good and bad things that Christians have done for the world at large, even if this one is just a straight up good, and b) for all you keep stating that it is consistent with leading "to a more fulfilling life," I don't really see it. It leads to a more stable and prosperous world in general, sure, and it might improve the lives of others, but I needed some clear reframing of what makes a "fulfilling life" specifically, not an assertion in R2 that more people living longer and better lives necessarily makes those lives fulfilling. The term has a meaning that you're not digging into and I think Pro does a better job setting up what that looks like. The same is true for Con's prosperity argument. Lastly, the point about the afterlife is an instance of trying to add in another term to the resolution. It specifically says "life" and arguing in the final round that "afterlife" suffices isn't going to work for me. You could argue that life is made more fulfilling with the promise of that future afterlife, but not just that the afterlife being a better experience supports the resolution as described.
As for truth, I end up siding with Pro here as well, in that I think both sides don't do enough to support the historical truth of their respective religions. Nothing here suffices as any kind of historical or scientific evidence beyond assertion. Con can't just keep arguing that the Shroud of Turin or eucharistic miracles exist and are evidence without any kind of sourcing and hope to meet his burden. I disagree that uncertainty affords him a "50/50 chance" that anything he's suggested is true - you don't automatically get a coin flip probability just because it cannot be proven either way. And the existence of cardiac tissue in communion wafers is only ever going to suggest the possibility of a miracle, not serve as proof thereof.
Also, yes, I'm awarding sources to Pro. Much as Con gave some responses on these points, a lot of these arguments stand and those responses don't exactly flip the sources in Con's favor. The support for Pro's case lends him more support in the "fulfilling life" department by making this not just about his opinion, whereas much of Con's perspective comes down to personal preference.
I thought I had replied already, so sorry for the delay…
The vote in question reads to me like it’s focused heavily on the con side so as to give advice and help con do better in future. That said, it does give a sufficient amount of detail in the pro side as well, even if it’s much less than what’s offered to con.
The source allotment could be nitpicked but to what ends? With only one debater using any, it feels like a foregone conclusion.
"What if someone's sources undermine their own point?"
Well, sure, if you linked those sources too, it would be different. But when it comes to objective standards, anyone can say that any source says anything, literally. There were debates where people claimed same sources said completely opposite things. So generally, I cannot agree with your quote from a source if you didnt even link the source you quoted from there. I would have to be biased to say both sides provided equally good sources when you literally provided none of yours, none. So even if some of his sources are bad, yours are non-existent.
"It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words""
Well, yeah, what else is conduct supposed to be for? Conduct is for forfeit and insults, personal attacks. You will probably always lose conduct point if you do personal attacks. Some voters may choose to ignore conduct, but its not any advantage for you to rely on hope that voters will always ignore it. Same with sources point.
Your view of this is very much wrong.
What if someone's sources undermine their own point? What if someone's sources do absolutely NOTHING to support their point? You're saying you should still give them points for completely ineffectual or self-refuting sources which is retarded.
It's even more retarded that conduct is seen as "oh no you said mean words" on this site but outright lying and distortion isn't seen as a conduct issue. It shows that truth doesn't matter at all to people on this site and votes are based on which opponent is seen as more likable and who is better at appealing to semantics and putting all the BoP on their opponent.
"Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial"
The sources point is awarded for quality and presence of sources. When one side has no sources while the other has, no matter how low quality those sources are, they are still somewhat better than none.
"he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate"
Lying doesnt lose conduct. It loses argument there. Lying = claim not true
So yeah, even if I can justify giving you argument points here, it would take over 10 of my votes just to make debate tie now. Literally anyone who votes for you cant reasonably give you even 3 points here. I dont see why you refuse to use sources there. At least 1 source per round would make it somewhat possible to give tie on sources. But as it stands now, for every 1 vote against you, you need 5 votes for you just to make simple tie in debate.
Anyone who didn't vote for me in this debate is both retarded and has personal grudge against me
Not so, his sources didn't actually negate or prove anything substantial to the debate and he lost conduct by outright lying and twisting things all through the debate.
Its okay to disagree with voters, but at this point, even if I or someone could cast 10 votes in your favor, it still wouldnt outweigh their votes. You objectively lose sources point here as you used none. So no one can reasonably leave sources tie. Conduct also is questionable. You gave your opponent plenty of advantage here. Even if you won arguments, you objectively lost 3 points on sources and conduct.
https://youtu.be/ZsfKFBaWcyk?si=Z_eSV0dLNxKv4J7X
✌️🙏
If that's how you see it, I very much disagree with all of your take-aways, but so be it. I'm not going to continue to belabor this in the comments here. If you think the votes are so fundamentally flawed, then there's no way all three should stand under the voting standards. Report them. Invite more people to give their thoughts on the debate. Haranguing us for taking the time to vote on this when this is the first attention the debate is getting is not helping you or anyone else.
Remember that Lancelot used intellectually dishonest tactics and outright lies which I pointed out throughout the whole debate and you still voted for him. Remember that I debunked buddhism completely in the first round because it claims the universe operates with a moral framework with no moral agent governing it.
All 3 of you (we all know who the third is) are retarded ass holes who skimmed the debate looking for excuses to vote against me without thinking about any of my arguments at all. Look at your fucking votes, they ALL treat me as wrong by default and go out of their way to interpret the debate through pro's POV.
you interpreted the debate in a biased way designed to give him more benefit of the doubt and me more BoP.
It was close. I mentioned arguments that could have won.
Because I don't think I performed as poorly in this debate as you all are suggesting.
What makes you think I don't like you as a person?
wow, 3 incredibly biased shitty votes in a row that are all based on not liking me as a person with long-winded explanations that attempt to mask bias with superfluous justifications that treat me as having higher BoP and pro as the default winner.
Wait nvm
Voting Justification (1/6)
Sources: Pro used several to back up Buddhist principles and concepts even apparently showing deities of Buddhism (I will approach blank slate and validate this) while casting doubt on Shroud of Turin's validity.
Con used literally zero sources.
Conduct: Con degrades Buddhists as plagiarists, nihilists and then attacks Pro personally in the final Round. If this were pro debating he'd be docked conduct marks (plural). Pro's several new points in Round 3 are poor conduct also.
Where it tips over the edge to me giving Pro conduct is Con adds a degrading word 'sh**hole' in Round 3, to all Buddhist regions. That is over the line for formal debating.
Voting Justification (2/6)
Pro presents a case based on 4 contentions.
"offers the solution which is the ultimate goal of life, and the second contention is that the supernatural forces and stories are very plausible.
Third contention is that christianity perpetuates suffering, and my fourth contention is that christianity’s teachings are partly inspired by buddhism."
He asserts 2-pronged Burden of Proof that both sides share equally:
"Prove their religion leads to a more fulfilling life.
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable."
Voting Justification (3/6)
Con decides to go full blast and assert as case against ALL non-Christian religions as follows:
"Every religion other than Christianity is either atheist, has hypocrite gods who claim to be benevolent while they watch humans suffer, or has gods that admit they don't care about us. The Christian God makes us suffer sure, but he actually came down and suffered FOR US unlike any other God. The Christian God in doing so proved that he has unconditional, self-sacrificial love and that he was willing to put his money where his mouth is in terms of human suffering."
This can be taken as Con believing in a different burden of proof(BoP).
It would seem in Con's perspective, the burden of Con is to prove that Christianity is the sole religion that has gods that are neither atheist (doesn't even say atheistic, increasing what he has to prove) nor hypocritical (here 'hypocrite' had to be a typo/error) as well as that the value system in Christianity matches very much how the God acts.
In fact it seems to be the case that Con wants the debate about the gods of the religions specifically.
"It seems that the biggest clash Pro directly has with Con's case is sola fide. "
I think that's the other debate...
Voting Justification (4/6)
During what proceeds, the clash in both sides' views of BoP is essentially why neither seems to understand the case the other is making and debates as if their opponent is either deceptive or deluded. Con's Round 3 is blatantly stating that he sees Pro as a deceiver. Pro's Round 3 does similar but masks the wording. Pro adds many new points in Round 3 which I disregard all of in my vote as my voting ethics are that closing Rounds are for rebuttals and reinforcement only.
It seems that the biggest clash Pro directly has with Con's case is sola fide. The issue for Con is the debate isn't specific on which Christian sect is being debated against. Therefore when Pro rebukes about Hitler potentially being in Heaven if he repents and prays last minute, he is correct and even without sola fide, I know for a fact Christians are banned to declare with firm assurance about who went to Hell (judge not lest ye be judged etc). This seems to be Pro's point sort of. I do not claim Pro states the ban on humans judging humans to Hell, he instead proves something huge against Con; that the Christian God has only based its morality on faith and dedication to it rather than whatever system Con said that dooms Hitler to Hell.
Voting Justification (5/6)
I am confused at what Con exactly assumed the BoP was as the debate progresses. He seems to go from starting bold with saying all non-Christians gods are atheist or hypocrites to saying Buddhism is nihilistic plagiarism and that it has no god.
Pro sticks to his 2-pronged BoP but in my opinion he barely succeeds. For example Pro doesn't prove that Buddhists have more fulfilling lives than Christians anywhere in the debate as far as I see. This is also completely failed by Con to be denied as a valid BoP.
Where it seems the real debate lies then is in the 2nd part Pro offers:
Provide evidence that their religion is more accurate. Basically whether the buddhist worldview is closer to truth, or whether the christian worldview is more probable.
Voting Justification part (6/6)
There seems to be some sort of brain chemistry logic from Pro. I disregard brand new Round 3 points, I refer to Round 2. In Round 2, Pro says people are wired to feel karma so to speak. Meanwhile I don’t see where Con gives evidence of the reward system of Christianity being proven. He is more eager to prove that Jesus was real. Jesus being real does not exactly prove Christianity correct. Pro didn’t even deny it.
Furthermore, it appears that Con concedes that meditation does actually work. He even says Christianity permits Buddhist meditation. That needs FAR MORE elaboration then to explain how that isn’t a wrong religion caving in to a truer one, incorporating an irrefutable benefit.
As for Eucharistic miracles, we are at a loss. Con insists labwork backs him up and gives 0 while Pro says it is a bluff in essence and Con fails to source or back up which lab work when proved it.
Again, I'd say fulfillment and quality of life are distinct terms. You can argue that if you'd like, but I didn't see any kind of reframing of the topic on your part that put the terminology into a different perspective. Just pointing back at the topic and saying you meet it with your argument because it wasn't spelled out that fulfillment is individual doesn't tell me anything about how you'd define fulfillment and why I should believe your framing. Pro gave me a great deal of reasoning for what fulfillment looks like in his first round, so yes, I'm favoring that.
I don't know what standard you think I'm holding you to that does not apply to him. He set up his case on a pretty clear standard of what fulfillment looks like and argued that throughout. If you want, I can go through all the ways in which he does that, I just didn't feel the need to point to multiple dropped arguments. They set up a sufficient case that required challenges that undermined his perspective and supported yours. To that end, I expected that, if you were going to challenge his view of fulfillment, you would have engaged on how he presented fulfillment and not just say that quality of life improving = fulfillment because a shitty life isn't fulfilling.
I've removed several of Barney's votes before and I know he wouldn't hesitate to remove mine if it didn't meet the standards for voting on the site. But it's up to you what you choose to do about it.
Read whiteflame's vote and tell me if you see an issue or not. He focuses way more on my arguments being wrong than pro's being right, as if he is treating me as the one who has higher BoP and pro as the default winner. He also doesn't actually substantiate his vote that much, he is mostly just saying "I don't agree with con because in my opinion he's wrong" with little to no elaboration.
Would your life be as fulfilling if your quality of life was drastically lower? Come on this isn't rocket science.
You're essentially holding me to a standard you're not holding him to and treating him as the default winner. Your vote is more about why my arguments aren't good enough than why his are sufficient.
If I report your vote that would be like reporting police brutality to the other cop who is beating me while two officers are beating me.
That's a... very selective reading of my vote.
I didn't say he "did better in the evidence department," I said "I think both sides don't do enough to support the historical truth of their respective religions." You were the only one to include examples to support your side, but you didn't provide any evidence to support their historical truth. At best, I'd give you that there's some chance of historical truth from your argument whereas Pro provided none, but the standard for truth is a high bar.
I addressed the quality of life argument. Fulfillment and quality of life are not interchangeable terms.
I'd say if you're conceding that meditation is a positive, then you're conceding Pro's entire argument as to why it's a positive and how that interrelates with fulfillment from a Buddhist perspective. At best, that's mitigation of the benefits of meditation because some Christians will garner it too. And yes, I'd say that's a negative connotation when you're conceding that meditation is a distinct positive and not acknowledging all the specifics of why, in a Buddhist context, Pro established that to be important for fulfillment.
If you have that much of a problem with it, report the vote. Barney will take a look at it.
Your vote sucks and is dripping with bias. You are blatantly going out of your way to only see pro's side of the debate. You even say he did better in the evidence department when there is NO proof of buddhism and the things I mentioned at least might be proof of christianity. You are essentially saying "well pro provided no evidence, but I don't like con's evidence so I'm favoring pro's complete lack of anything that even remotely resembles evidence".
Your entire quality of life is thanks to Christianity. Every aspect of modern western society that you benefit from would be replaced with oppressive backwards shariah law muslim theocracies or with savage pagan tribes killing each other instead of building western civilization.
You say I am conceding on the meditation point. My point was clearly that buddhists can't benefit from what christianity has to offer but christians can benefit from what buddhists have to offer, but you went out of your way to superimpose a negative connotation because the entire mod team on this site has it out for me.
Every time someone votes for me mods delete it and every time a mod votes on one of my debates it's against me. You let retarded biased votes remain as long as they are against me.
I assure you there are no worries.
A vote is always appreciated, but never expected.
Damn, I completely lost track of this. Still got a day, I'm going to try and blitz through it and post a vote.
I may get voting privileges soon depending on an AI debate.
What I wanted to say to you is that you need to remember to use sources.
For instance you are wrong that Caths and EO arent against Buddhist meditation. They are. We only supoirt meditsting with christ in mind or holy spirit etc. we also insist on the music if used being gregorian chants, catholic hymns or at least not remotely demonic in lyrics or vibe.
You could still have won that point if you found protestant sources saying the Buddhist meditation is fine.
Take your time, no need to rush into it.
The truth is there's plenty of time to wait.
I'll try to get to this, remind me if I'm slow.
I don't know if you guys are interested in debates or discussions that compare eastern asian religions with judaism or christianity, but would you guys like to vote on this?
I think it's a pretty quick read. 3-rounds
I can make any modifications if the description is incomplete