Instigator / Pro
28
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#778

The Bible is evil

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
6
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Pinkfreud08
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Description

Definitions and Rules,

Evil: Harmful to society

Rules:

- Keep it civil

- This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality

Pretty simple debate topic, if I left any rules or definitions you feel I should have clarified I urge you to tell me so that I may clarify.

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 lists a substantial number of repulsive aspects of to the Bible.

Cons response is mostly semantic lawyering: that the book itself can’t be evil, and that there’s no objective definition of repulsiveness. As con shows no actual harm in accepting the decisions and intuitive understanding of the debate - I cant accept this argument.

Cons argument then morphs into an argument that says that while the Bible is vile, people don’t use that vileness. Again this feels like a bit of a semantic argument that veers of the intent of the topic.

Pro provides significant example of where the Bible has been used to advocate evil.

Con goes on to repeat his claims - he defends the JW example as saying it’s down to their interpretation of the Bible. Uh - that appears to concede the point. Con also concedes that the bible advocates slavery, and implicitly concedes it has been used by Christians in the past - just not now. Con objects to the Nazi example as being driven by people not the Bible.

Out of all of this, who I vote for comes down to definitions. If I accept the definitions as stated and the resolution as intuitively understood - this goes to pro. Pro clearly stated the evil aspects of the bible, as a book.

Cons objection were primarily semantic, and were mostly attempting to haggle over definitions of how the bible could be interpreted as evil - rather than any specific defense of how it was not.

As a result - 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:

Too much left unresolved. Too many Bibles, not enough evil measurement tools.

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:

Con avoided and ignored many of pro's rebuttals including,

" Christian ideology is not necessarily inconsistent because it is an evolving ideology with numerous interpretations and versions at play. "

- Pro already answered this question before with the fact that Hitler's and Stalin's ideology can be interpreted as well.

" You just lost all your arguments, the vast majority of Christians do not condone anything you accuse them of therefor I win."

- Pro already proved to why this isn't the case, since if Christians follow an inconsistent book. this makes them ignorant as well as the Bible harmful to society.

Con actually NEVER rebutted any of Pro's points at all and instead kept on spoiting the same none sense pro alredy refuted

" not the bundle of paper and ink sitting on your shelf which has no inherent effect on anything."

- Once again pro already refuted this claim by citing that technically stalin and hitler had no inherent affect on anything either since they never committed the acts themselves

to summarize con initially tried to attempt semantics which pro rebutted and con overlooked and ignored several of pros reuttels and because of this convinving arguments goes to pro, all other points tied although i am tempted to award sources to pro