Instigator / Pro
19
1432
rating
8
debates
12.5%
won
Topic

Is Jesus Christ of Nazereth, God in Human flesh?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
18
Sources points
10
10
Spelling and grammar points
5
6
Conduct points
1
6

With 6 votes and 21 points ahead, the winner is ...

David
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Six months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Required rating
10
Contender / Con
40
1464
rating
81
debates
46.3%
won
Description
~ 71 / 5,000

I am a Christian, and would like to present evidence that Jesus is God.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

forfeit

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro forfeits last round, that's poor conduct.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Cons argument here is most relevant: “In order to win this debate, Pro has to prove that Jesus Christ is God in human form. My opponent's entire argument rests solely on the Bible. The first obvious question to ask is why should we consider the Bible as God's word? Even if I concede your argument, you only proved that from a Biblical framework. You need to do more than just that to win this debate.”

Pro offers no non biblically based examples, or evidence: this means even if buy pros contention - it only proves it within a biblical framework and not objectively. The resolution does not appear to clearly note this, and thus on the grounds of the above, I cannot consider that pro has met a basic burden of proof. Con on the other hand produces a set of clearly unchallenged biblical examples. In terms of BoP, I would assess that pro must provide BoP to affirm, where as proving a negative means cons burden of proof is merely to negate pro. Given this - con clearly uphold this burden with ththe above, and thus arguments go to con.

Conduct also goes to con for the forfeit.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro effectively concedes which was the right move. Stringing together bible verses seldom convinces the unconverted and Con's R1 was succinct, sufficient, and devastating.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

For the laziness in the last 2 Rounds including an actual Forfeit, Conduct would be to Con except for something I will come to later.

Con didn't use sources remotely as well as Pro did. Con could write anything and say its a Bible verse, get a credible source for people to click on and see 'ah, yeah that's legit.' Pro went through the effort of doing this for each and every single verse mentioned, it helped a lot.

Con wins because Pro keeps trying to assert that because Jesus was being promoted, resurrected and ultimately forgiven in ways no other being than God was known to do in the Bible, that this directly meant that Jesus was God in the human flesh. Perhaps Pro is actually correct, but Con points out that being assisted by God and being a sinning being of flesh that's later forgiven, superpowered and the highest ranking soul other than God, doesn't make that you are God in the human flesh. Additionally, unless God has split personality disorder, where is the 'link' to explain why Jesus refers to God The Father in third person a fair few times as Con quoted?

Pro's reply is that Jesus was forgiven for all sins... That's literally Pro's reply. Pro brings a new angle though, saying that the term Saviour is a direct God-only role in one part and a name for Jesus' role in another... This is where Con was cowardly. Con suddenly backtracks absolutely everything from the earlier Round and says 'but the Bible is just lies written by humans' in essence. This is kind of severe cowardice but whatever, Pro never replies to this sufficiently as Pro starts to give up and troll Con.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pretty much no contest. ... Next time please use the description to define what God in Human Form would be prior to the debate rounds, or at least by what standard is to be used (con could have trolled with a simple K denial of God's existence... he quite respectfully gave the desired debate).

"that was a lot of points to counter." ... was badly ironic given the Gish Gallop in R1.

C1 had an attempted counter, pointing to an isolated place where it said without reason (or at least without double checking the rest) that Jesus was without sin; but that left the thrust of those sins he committed unrefuted.

C2 and C3 wholly dropped.

CONDUCT: Forfeiture.