Instigator / Pro
28
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#832

It is possible to be a Christian Jew

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
3
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Sparrow
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 week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
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:

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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.

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.

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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
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.