Instigator / Pro
28
1504
rating
6
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#670

According to the bible, Is fatalism valid?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
3
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
2

After 4 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

Melcharaz
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
13
1489
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro made it clear that this was from a biblical perspective. Con did not meet the rules.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I will consider this almost a full forfeiture on behalf of con. Con did not provide a single argument and seemed to not understand what this debate was about. Pro provided several arguments from scripture to prove that the Bible can support fatalism. For example:

Ephesians 1:4-13
Romans 8:28-30 9:10-23
Colossians 1:12-23
1 Peter 1:2
2 Thessalonians 2:12-17

What this debate was sorely lacking was clarity. I feel Pro needs to make clear what the topic is actually about.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I'm awarding the argument point to Pro. Here are my reasons.

It was made very clear in the title that this debate was meant to be from a biblical perspective, so I will judge the argument accordingly.

Pro citied many biblical verse to support the claim of fatalism, These verses contained many instances of god imposing on will and demonstrated that God, does in fact know the future and can impose on us to achieve it.

Pro also put the verses into context towards the end of his opening, but I would have liked a more robust argument in general. Still, pro still meets the burden by rightly stating that god knows if we're going to hell. This was really the key point and this was support by pros sources. Even if everything else pro said was wrong, this fact wins the argument point.

Con argued in bad faith and did not make arguments that align with the bible. I am not against using logic in this case. However, the logic must assume that the bible is true because that is the premise of this debate.

Con creates a false dichotomy by saying that free will and fatalism cannot exist simultaneously. Since we are judging from the bible, the bible makes it clear this is possible because while god can see into the future, god IMPOSES on people's will, which Pro pointed out. In order to impose on a will, one must have a free will to be imposed on.

Con states god cannot know the future. this is an argument in bad faith. Con was not using the bible as context for this argument because the bible states this is clearly possible

Con argues that free will must exist in the bible, but this is only a good argument based on the false dichotomy that Con created.

Arguments in subsequent rounds were short and did little to add to the argument.

Ultimately, I Gave the point to Pro because Pro provide sufficient proof for me to believe beyond reasonable doubt. Speaking strictly in a biblical context. Con's loses the point because the only biblical argument made was for free will and this did not rebut Pro.

Con provided no sources and was lacking to the point of needing them. Pro provided robust sources. For example:

Ephesians 1:4-13
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he[a] predestined us for adoption to sonship[b] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[c] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen,[d] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
Footnotes:
Ephesians 1:5 Or sight in love. 5 He
Ephesians 1:5 The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture.
Ephesians 1:9 Or us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he
Ephesians 1:11 Or were made heirs

I used NIV version here just so people know.

This source clearly references free will in the beginning and at the same time says that you are "sealed" which if you read the context, means that god has already chosen your fate.

I award conduct point to Pro because of Con's excessive conduct violation. Con took the debate on bad faith knowing that the topic required an assumption of the bible. This essentially ruined Pro's debate and was not the reason that Pro started it. This misconduct was so bad that it brought the debate to a screeching halt in round 2 and I think it is in the nature of good conduct to accept the topic in order for both side to have fun in the debate.

Grammar and spelling tied.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I am not sure how to score this debate.

While the debate appear to be “according to the bible, is fatalism valid”. Yet pro appears to be arguing external to the bible, and whether the doctrine is misunderstood or disliked.

I’m that vein, I feel that pro clearly took down the notion of fatalism as valid that pro was trying to argue for in the opening round.

That being said, I view the resolution as king, and in the absence of descriptions, my initial reaction is that this was a debate about whether fatalism is a valid biblical belief- not a valid belief.

Saying this, when viewed as the resolution - I don’t think that pro provided warrant to support his position. Simply linking scripture on its own, without argument or context is not sufficient on its own to fulfill pros burden of proof.

As a result, I feel the only real way to come down on this is a tie.