Instigator / Pro
21
1495
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
Topic
#684

Jesus of Nazareth existed

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Dustandashes
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
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:

Pros argument sites two documentary sources of evidence from antiquity concerning the existence of Jesus. In the second round, Pro points out this is a similar amount of evidence - and nature as other historical figures s

Con doesn’t initially argue these are wrong, but generally implies they are mistaken by arguing they were written well after the facts being described.

Con goes on to effectively try and shift the burden of proof - that just because several documentary sources mentioned Jesus, pro must prove they are not lying.

Pro points out this exact same issue can be true of accepted historical figures. Pro lists several of them, and asks whether assuming they are lying is a justified level of criticism.

Cons response felt similar, arguing that there’s not sufficient proof, that other historical figures had other evidence to support their existence.

Note: discussion about the messiah or not was not considered topical and was ignored.

Basically, pro provides evidence and con attempted to simply cast doubt on that evidence. While that’s all he could do, I think given that he can’t prove a negative, the argument was too generic and too open ended. For me to award this to pro, con needed to give me compelling explanations for pros sources: rather than simply claim two independent non-Christian sources were making it up.

If con had provided such a reasonable argument in favor of skepticism - I would have voted for him; but as he didn’t I must award arguments to pro.

All other points 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:

Kiss my goddamn ass.

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:

Before I start, I just want to say that I am trying my hardest to approach this from a non-biased viewpoint. Please feel free to message me if you think I let bias seep into my vote and I will delete it.

Argument:

So we start out with Tacitus and Josephus, the common people used in these debates. Pro presented these and why they should be used as evidence for Jesus' existence. Con's main argument was that these accounts were written a long time after Jesus has been said to have lived. I would have given the argument point to him based on this alone, but Pro responded by showing how we say other figures exist who have the same standard or less of a standard of proof towards their life. Con responded simply by saying:

"I agree that any potential historical figure that has the same level of evidence as Jesus should not be accepted. As for other historical figures, they meet a standard of evidence that Jesus did not."

The problem I find with this is that it doesn't respond directly to what Pro says. He said that the people we as a society generally agree as having existed have the same or less of a standard for their life as Jesus, yet he is the one being brought into question and not them. If I am operating from a standpoint that takes into account societal norms (of accepting these people's existence), then Con simply saying that their existence should be taken into question as well is not sufficient. If I don't take that standpoint, then Con's rebuttal goes through. However, after deliberating, I personally think that the former is a better stance, because we are talking about the way historians operate and the process through which Jesus' existence should be established, a process which already exists and therefore must be taken into account by voters.

As to providing an alternative for the origins of Christianity, I agree with Con that it was unnecessary. My only confusion is why he gave one at first and then backtracked later, but I'll still count this point towards him.

This was extremely close for me and I was definitely editing a lot of this as I decided. In the end, I think that if Con had given a good explanation as to why we should dismiss the existence of those other figures as well as Jesus', I would have given him the point. Because he didn't, I am giving it to Pro.

I hope that this was detailed enough and that both parties are satisfied with my evaluation of the debate. Great job to both of you! :)

Sources:

My instinct is to give sources to Pro, because his obviously helped his position quite a bit. However, Con's critiques of them were very good, and I ended up giving the point to Pro because of his points about other figures, not because of his original arguments. Because of this, I am making sources a tie. I just wanted to explain why.

*Tied In All Others*