Points: 28
It is possible to be a Christian Jew
Finished
The voting period has ended
After 4 votes the winner is ...
Sparrow
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Points: 19
Description
No information
Round 1
Since it is possible "by descent" to be Jewish without actually practicing the religion, it is possible to be ethnically Jewish but to practice Christianity.
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.
Round 2
Racial decent is an illusion.
We're off to a bad start.
There is no Jewish race from a genetic point of view
That's not what everyone else in the universe seems to think. The definition of "Jew" proves this.
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.
Christianity is like an extension of Judaism if you think about it. It's not that far fetched that you could have an ethnically Jewish person who believes Jesus actually was the messiah but still identifies heavily with Jewish culture and heritage.
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.
Definitions are ad populum and the populace does not agree with your assessment of the terms.
Christianity is not an extension, it's a denomination. While they share a beliefs, one is not another. Jews don't believe that Christ is god and that differs heavily from Christianity.
Round 3
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.
Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|
Better arguments | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 3 points |
Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |
Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
Simple semantic argument:
Pro argues Jewish can be used as a racial term - this is supported by the definition, and given a broad basic historical context is also in my view intuitive.
Con argues Jew cannot be used as a racial term. While I would have been sympathetic to a more detailed thesis on the non existence of the Jewish race, or a more semantic argument - this argument was clearly not well enough warranted and does not pass muster.
Without more clearly defined sources of his race claims, pro wins. I would also point out argument ad populum is valid for factual claims - but I think popular definitions are clearly relevant.
As a result of this, pros semantics are clearly stronger - arguments to pro.
Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|
Better arguments | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 3 points |
Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |
Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
I admit that I want to leave this tied, but careful review does not support that award.
C1 (pro): Jews as a race
Quite possible. Calling the dictionary wrong is fine, but a reason to disbelieve it would have shifted this away from pro. ... Pro, you probably should have cited the existence of Christian Jews in Israel (not basing my argument award on this, it's standalone advice). The base fact that something is popular, does not guarantee it to be wrong.
Quite possible. Calling the dictionary wrong is fine, but a reason to disbelieve it would have shifted this away from pro. ... Pro, you probably should have cited the existence of Christian Jews in Israel (not basing my argument award on this, it's standalone advice). The base fact that something is popular, does not guarantee it to be wrong.
Further, con's later argument argued that we are things if we meet the criteria. Even if genetic lines are horrible to consider, they still verify the basis for someone to be genetically one thing (or many things) but not certain others.
C2 (con): Jews as an identify
This did not get much headway. While on the surface accepting what people define themselves as is good and reasonable, con used the chair analogy, which shows how flawed it would be to just accept broad claims (e.g., Donald Trump claimed to be Native American back in '93, but not even his supporters take him seriously). So at least within this argument, some random person not of the blood or religion proclaiming himself or herself to be both does not confirm they have any validity to do so.
This did not get much headway. While on the surface accepting what people define themselves as is good and reasonable, con used the chair analogy, which shows how flawed it would be to just accept broad claims (e.g., Donald Trump claimed to be Native American back in '93, but not even his supporters take him seriously). So at least within this argument, some random person not of the blood or religion proclaiming himself or herself to be both does not confirm they have any validity to do so.
Conclusion: C1 is enough, as C2 does not invalidate it, which leaves an outright likely way for someone to be both things.
Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|
Better arguments | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 3 points |
Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |
Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
Pro states that one can be of Jewish descent and then be a Christian. Con says that race is an illusion. Neither side has sources to back up their claims. Pro says that either being Jewish is an identity or a race, and either way one can be both Jewish and Christian. Con shows that identifying as something doesn’t actually make you that thing.
This was a pretty flat Debate, but neither sides gave any real evidence for their position. This is a tie.
Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|
Better arguments | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 3 points |
Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |
Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |
Reason:
What was missing in this debate was evidence. Pro began by providing a definition of what a Jew is and explained how someone can be a Jew by descent and believe in Christianity. Con's reply was to show that race is an illusion. This is a big claim and without a good source to back it up, I'm left to agree with Pro's definition of Jew. Arguments to pro because con could not offer a counter to the definition and failed to show how it is impossible to identify as both a Jew and a Christian.
>Reported Vote: swetepete540 // Mod action: Removed
************************************************************************
- 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.
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).