Instigator / Pro
15
1495
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
Topic
#776

The Christian religion is inherently rational

Status
Finished

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

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

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

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
21
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

This house maintains there is nothing in the Christian worldview that would cause one to adopt beliefs that are not rational, that is to say the basic tenants and philosophical underpinnings of Christianity are reasonable and logically sound, so long as the basic claims of Christianity, namely theism, are within the realm of possibility

-->
@David

Feel free to challenge me to that last resolution whenever you're ready. Let's hope my computer is on board

-->
@David

I do believe the Trinity is strongly hinted at in the Tenakh, but it is most clearly taught in the new testament. I think the issue is progressive revelation, in that regard we don't have much common ground. I would certainly be interested in hearing your arguments against the Divinity of Christ using the new testament. I definitely am on board with the last resolution you presented

-->
@Dustandashes

Perhaps we could do "Resolved: The Trinity is Unbiblical." Though I would be using more of the Tenakh as I dont' accept the New Testament. Perhaps I'd be willing to do "Resolved: Jesus is not God" and show from the New Testament that the discipels did not believe Jesus' divnity.

-->
@David

Well I'm certainly not a theologian but I'll try my best to defend it. What would you like the resolution to be?

-->
@Dustandashes

That would be fine. The Trinity is logically incoherent and Unbiblical.

-->
@David

Ok, so maybe we could narrow it down to is the Trinity coherent?

-->
@Dustandashes

I suppose the question would hinge on the word "rational." I would view the idea of the Trinity to be irrational and that's my biggest logical objection.

-->
@David

I would be interested in that. Maybe it could be a little teaser to our Resurrection debate. I think the arguments I make in favor of Christianity being rational would apply to Judaism, I don't see how you could debate against it though

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

You did not respond to my question. I would appreciate a response.

The rules on sources are clearly stated and self-evidently necessary. If you have specific objections to any of the three points, please state them. Merely repeating that the sources are awful is not an argument and does not provide me any insight into exactly why you feel that way.

-->
@bsh1

The sources rules are awful. Chang the DART rules.

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Which vote are you referencing?

-->
@Dustandashes

If you want to debate me on this, feel free.

-->
@bsh1

why don't u fix the sourcing rules they are broke rn

-->
@bsh1

but this vote is apparently ok?

"PRO provided highly questionable sources like infowars, stonecoldtruth and project veritas. Each one of these are known conspiracy theory websites. On the other side, CON provided proper sources like European Union related websites, independent and the actual website they were talking about. "

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 2 to Pro for sources

>Reason for Decision: Con used known conspiracy theory sources like all about world view.org and literallydevices.net. Pro used RELIABLE sources like logicalfallacies.net. All others tied.

>Reason for Mod Action: In conceded debates, voters are required by the site voting policy to give the balance of points to the non-conceding debater (or award a tie). For this reason alone, the vote can be removed. That being said, the vote is insufficient in that it satisfies just two of the three required criteria to award sources points: identifying specific sources and comparing the uses of sources between debaters. It does not complete the other step: explaining how each debater's sources impact the debate. The vote is thus also insufficient.
************************************************************************

Please note my "conceding" of this debate was solely to avoid having further contact with my opponent. I do actually believe my first response, showing my opponent to have engaged in argumentum verbosium still stands.

What's happening to RM?

-->
@RationalMadman

In one of my debates saying websites are not good is a justification four sources. We will see if it holds up against the terrible voting rules.

-->
@RationalMadman

Throwing out a wall of text with dozens of individual points that you opponent has little chance of being able to cohesively counter, no matter how good a debater they are is not arguing in good faith. It’s an argument by verbosity and given how big your argument was - was clearly both toxic and antithetical to good debating. I would always treat it as such - and would have here had the rules not precludes it.

-->
@Dustandashes

He did that to me as well, I’m not gonna vote

-->
@Ramshutu

I debated in completely good faith, I actually worked very hard on it.

ICXCNIKA

-->
@Speedrace

I guess I only have one option

-->
@Dustandashes

Same dude lol

-->
@Speedrace

I feel like I threw a beach ball at my opponent and got hit by a tank in response

-->
@RationalMadman
@Dustandashes

Dust: So this is why Christianity is rational, yada yada yada
Rational: *cites 32 sources*
Voters: Yeah, I'm not reading that

-->
@Our_Boat_is_Right

Lol you're funny xD

-->
@Dustandashes

Fair enough. If no one accepts by the time I'm finished the one I'm in with you, I'll accept .

-->
@David

But... In the spirit of good debate, I welcome you to accept and see what you bring forward

-->
@Dustandashes

Fair enough. At some point, we could probably debate the scientific merits of evolution or the global flood or the age of the Earth. I think that would be a fun debate, especially Noah's flood

-->
@David

I would say debating those issues would be a matter of what is doctrinally true, not necessarily if the religion in it's entirety is rational. I think a lot of that would delve into a matter of biblical interpretation, not so much defending the idea that Christianity does not cause one to espouse unreasonable beliefs. I personally espouse a literal genesis interpretation, although I do not exclude an old earth creation model from the realm of orthodoxy. I think discussing that would veer the debate off into a creation/evolution debate which was not in scope for this particular debate.

-->
@Dustandashes

I'm considering accepting it. I'd challenge a few key points on Christianity. Namley the trinity, deity of christ, and the resurrection of christ. Do you subscribe to a hyper-literal reading of Genesis (yec like Ken Ham)? If so I may challenge that as well

-->
@David

I would definitely welcome you to accept, although I think since you're Jewish you and I would share the same basic worldview that miracles are possible and belief in God is rational

-->
@David

Sorry, should have specified. By inherently I mean an inseparable and fundamental characteristic. By rational I mean logically coherent and reasonable

-->
@Dustandashes

I'd be interested in this possibly. If I were you, I'd define the terms "inherently" and "rational."

-->
@Snoopy

get ready for omar to accept or start a petty war in the comments lmao

Ooh, tempting