It is possible to be a Christian Jew

You might be able to argue that my argument wasn't satisfying to you. However, you can't argue that I made less of an argument than my opponent. I had more data. I explained everything with more detail. Everything you're saying is a lie. Like I said, you're proving my point that your standard is vacuous.

As for the circle thing, I always chuckle when people make this accusation. It takes two people to form a circular argument Ramshutu. Remember that.

I've said my piece. I never expected to convince you. I just want to shine a spotlight on a piece of illogic that I think you have.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: swetepete540 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct

>Reason for Decision: It is possible to be a jew but practice christianity.

>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not justify any of the points they award in any clear manner, and it appears they are voting based on a pre-judgement of the topic. Per the site's voting policy: A vote bomb is a vote "cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed." The user can find the site's voting policies at this link: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************

Unfortunately, you seem either unwilling or unable to accept the errors for which I voted for your opponent, and your mostly just going around in the same circles you have in the beginning:

- Pro used definitions to explain how Christianity and Jewishness are not mutually exclusive. He did that via definitions.
- You asserted a number of “facts” about race and genetics that were unsupported by any links, sources or data : meaning you didn't warrant your claim.

Your argument appears to be that you feel I should have accepted your argument at face value despite you not warranting it, despite your opponent warranting his, and despite the fact you shared none of this subsequent detail in your debate. Your whole argument appears predicated on the notion that your opponent has to do more to show that the word Jew can imply ethnicity, than show an authorative definition showing it so.

I completely understand your argument - it’s just really bad. You don’t seem to get that you have to warrant your claims. You can assert that Jewishness doesn’t exist, or assert that there is no genetic standard, or assert that Jews don’t even exist - you need to warrant those claims - I’m not going to manufacture your evidence for you. That’s your job, and your failure to do so is why you lost.

Hogwash.

"Racial decent is an illusion. There is no Jewish race from a genetic point of view and judging them by location is nationalism.

Furthermore, the people you're referring to are not Jews, but rather Hebrews, which is a very broad and ill defined term.

At best, we could say that people from certain tribes at a certain time were Hebrews. As for Judaism, The only way to be a Jew is by taking on Judaism either literally or at least culturally, either way, you would then be unable to be Christian. "

"Ahh, definition games. That will not meet your burden the topic is "to be" which means that definition is not enough.

Identifying as something is not the same as being something."

"My point is that personal identities are not being. I could identify as a hunk of cheese or a dog or a cat or a boat or a chair, etc, etc.

That doesn't actually cause me "to be" any of those things.

The state of being is directly cause by a thing's ontology.

So I'm a chair because I meet an objective standard (I am a thing that can objectively be sat upon by humans and I meet certain special requirements that are generally found in chairs) No matter how much I call myself a chair, I cannot meet this objective standards.

It's the same for being Jewish or Christian.

There is no objective standard for being an ethnic or cultural Jew. Races are arbitrary. There is no "jewish gene" that can objectively make someone jewish. To be jewish. "

Everything I just said a moment ago is explicitly mentioned in these arguments. Since you're to blind to turn the tab over and see them, I brought them to you. If you want to vote on vacuous definitions, that's your prerogative, but logically it makes you about as rational as a blind faith theist.

What you’re doing, is throwing out all the things that were in your head when you wrote your argument - but didn’t put in your debate.

The resolution is “it’s possible to be a Christian Jew”

If Jew is an ethnicity - and Christianity is a faith - then the two are not mutually exclusive and as such it’s possible to be both. Right?

Your argument is that it’s not possible to be a Jew by ethnicity - your raising the existential argument here, and you don’t back it up with any data. Hence you lose

I did reject his definition.

I also explained, through ontology and identity, why we should treat it as a religion.

This exemplifies the fact that I did in fact make sufficient arguments, but you simply hand waved them off.

You're missing the point. If identity implies existence, then literally anything can be true by definition. That's why I said you're not using true semantics. There needs to be logical entailment. A bunch of people saying that they descend from a jewish race because their blood line contains a bunch of theists who subscribe to Judaism does not make them a race. Even the wildly accepted definition for a race doesn't fit and there is no objective way to judge somebody a race. It's an arbitrary made up definition.

When he is arguing you can be a Christian Jew - it depends on what the definition of Jew you use. Words can have different meaning, and selecting a dictionary definition of the word “Jew” that denotes origin or ethnicity is inherently compatible with being Christian. When it comes to what words mean - the dictionary is authorative, so this sets up a solid case for your opponent - despite your objection.

Saying this, I could have given him a source point, I chose not too, as it wasn’t a particularly substantial usage of sources, or particularly well executed: allocating source points would mean him getting 5 points instead of 3 - and there wasn’t that big of a gap between you two to warrant it.

In terms of how you could have won: two ways. You could have objected to the definition and presented an argument that explained why we should treat the definition as meaning faith alone, or you could have presented a source that supported your contention that Jews aren’t really a race - preferably whilst giving a reason why I should ignore the dictionary definition.

Arguments and Sources (my opinions, not moderation policy):
Evidence is used in convert assertions into arguments. If there's enough good evidence, sources may be awarded. These two things can end up going to opposite sides (Like 'oh wow this person researched their case well, but their logic still didn't line up so well'). However winning sources is somewhat about the effort differential; they're never awarded merely for 'had a source.' It's also important to note they are not awarded for source spamming (I actually hold it against people).

Well, let's just put the vote aside. I don't care about that. You voted for who you believed to be right and I wouldn't tell you to do otherwise. That doesn't mean I agree with your RFD.

Okay, I'll humor you. what could I have done differently to make my argument more convincing? I don't see how a dictionary link makes his argument any better than mine. My argument covered way more relevant details and had a clear methodology clearly distinguishing the difference between ontology and definitions. I don't see how my argument was unintuitive nor was the language confusing in such a way where I needed a bunch of dictionary links myself. Furthermore, if it was his flimsy link that won him the debate, then why not a source point instead of an argument point? That last one was arbitrary, but it just crossed my mind. lol

Unfortunately - It wasnt me, but you who let your opponent get away with this argument. His argument wasn’t great - but as you didn’t challenge the definition with any evidence - his position wins. That you want me to rule in your favor, despite you having no arguments against the definition that was warranted, and offering no specific evidence against it, is more than problematic.

I could write a whole debate argument in mentalese and you would accept it if I defined a couple of symbols. lol

You're just proving how fallible your standard is. If some random person can just post a single dictionary definition in the face of logical arguments and get away with it, then your standard is arbitrary. You're worshipping dictionaries at this point. You might as well slap a Bible sticker on it so people know what it really is to you.

Again, no. The standard is basic standards of warrant; despite your claims to the contrary - it can’t be used to justify any arbitrary point.

There’s only so many ways I can explain that his argument was based on a source that justified his claim: and yours was not. /shrug.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have your own standard. I'm just saying your standard is vacuous. I'm for subjective voting, so if it helps you vote better and you're hell bent on it, then that's your prerogative. On a logical level, however, I find that your method is not as objective as you might think it is. I guess that's the best way to put that. The core thing that bugs me is that you think that garbage of an argument he touted actually passes for a good semantic argument.

And that is a complete misrepresentation of everything I’ve said and complete untrue for all the reasons I’ve listed. I’ve clearly explained why and how your opponent warranted his claim.

If you I think demanding one side provides a warrant for their claims is vacuous, or could be applied to any position - then there’s not much point in me carrying on the conversation as if you don’t get that key premise, there’s not a lot more I can say.

Secondly, you are very much accusing me of holding your opponent to a different standard. You accused me of ignoring your data, whilst allowing your opponent to effectively make any argument he liked. Of course as shown, neither of those claims are actually true.

The main issue here is that you neglected to provide any evidence or warrant for your claims. Your opponent relies on warrant from the definition he used and cited. Ergo he wins - and it wasn’t even a hard decision.

If you dont or won’t understand the reasoning behind that - then I can’t really say much more other than you’re going to lose a lot of debates if you base your arguments on that understanding.

Well now you just strawmanned me. Although it was probably be accident.

I'm not saying that you're holding me to a different standard. I'm saying your standard is vacuous. Anybody could prove anything under your standard.

Basically, you’re making a major straw man by implying I am holding your opponent to a different standard. I clearly outlined what the standard was - why he passed and you failed.

I’m taking that as you haven’t objected to the remaining points - that you understand the error you were making interpreting my position.

I tried to take that seriously, but you lost me at "If your opponent had said Jews are potatoes - he’d have to warrant his claim too, and he’s have to provide a justification for it including a source too."

What I find interesting is how similar to type1, wrick it's angle was, despite Sparrow being Type1.

By all means, please point where you included specific data in any of your debate rounds.

While you may or may not be factually correct, it’s up to you to source and warrant your positive claims if you make them. I cannot simply declare that you are correct because I have googled your position - incorporating external data not included in the debate is expressly forbidden. It’s up to you to warrant your claims, not me. If you make a claim for which you have the burden of proof - you have to support it.

If your opponent had said Jews are potatoes - he’d have to warrant his claim too, and he’s have to provide a justification for it including a source too.

My reasoning for accepting your opponents position is his source and definition of the words, the same wouldn’t apply for this theoretical claim. So this is a really a grotesque straw man of the logic I am using.

Finally I’m telling you what I mean by a semantic and definitional argument: you may accept my definition or not; I’m advancing it to explain my understanding of the phrase I’m the context I’m using it. While ontological proves are a subset of both; I would still consider haggling over the
Validity of a definition a definitional argument, and I would consider attempts to portray the resolution as meaning something other than apparently intended as a semantic argument (though there other forms)

That's hogwash. You're saying I didn't have data when really you just rejected my data. If you rejected it, that's fine. But don't sit here and lie and say I didn't have data.

I made it very clear that identity doesn't imply ontology. Your definition of semantics is dubious. Semantics isn't simply a defined argument. It's an argument where the definitions logically follow each other. also known as a rigorous logical proof. Nothing about his argument was rigorous nor did it prove anything.

By your definition, he could have said a Jew was a potato and you'd believe him just because it's an identity and then he could call the blood line of potatoes a "race" and you'd believe that nonsense too as he told you that the potatoes were religious within a small fraction of their blood line so that religion becomes the potato race. Is this really what you consider good logic? Get out of here with that bunk.

I often use semantic and definitional argument interchangeably, as they mean something very close. A semantic argument is when you deviate from the intended avenue of argument and instead attempt to win based on a narrow or specific interpretation of how this he resolution or argument was written. A definitional argument is one where the argument is won over the meaning of the word. In this case they are much the same.

Now, what evidence is there for a Jewish Race? I don’t know: you didn’t list any specific quantifiable evidence.

All I saw was the dictionary - which implies that Jewish could have a component of descent and you asserting that they don’t. The sourced argument wins.

Definitional and semantic arguments, are often weak (though depends on the context), in this context you needed data to support your position: as all I had was my own interpretation of where the default position was.

Nothing tops Ramshutu calling definitional arguments semantic arguments. That just hurts my soul. What has the world come to?!!

Nothing can actually be a race. Races are social constructs and only exist in identity . That's why definitional arguments are silly. If I can just call anything and Jew and then also call it a Race, then why would anybody debate anything? We would just define everything to existence and nobody would care about truth.

Thanks for the vote, but what evidence is there of a Jewish race? There's evidence of Israelites (not jews) and Hebrews (also not jews). I find it strange that people think definitional arguments are strong. I find it even stranger that you think a definitional argument is the same as a semantic argument. It's not. It's the opposite actually. A semantic argument would require ontology to justify the definition. I'm mainly pointing this out because it's a theme I see in your voting process.

If people can be genetically Jewish by descent, then technically they could also be Christian by descent. Most people who are "racially" Jewish don't have anything resembling a pure ancestry of the people of Judah. By the same standards I would be German, and Czech, and British. But I am an American. To be fair, Jews are and were much more exclusive than nationalities when it comes to marriage. But Jews lived in Poland and Germany, etc., for over a thousand years. Little or none would be purely Judaic in ancestry.

It’s called Messianic Christianity/Judaism

So many different ways by different definitions... No True Scotsman will probably get heavily involved in this as a logical proof.