No, that is not my claim. But if you need a reference for that point, I would direct you to where Jesus specifically identified Himself as the coming Messiah from the Old Testament in no vague terms (John 4:25-26).
But my twofold claim is in response to your point that everyone who died before the crucifixion went to hell, and I used scriptural references from both the Old and New Testament to support it:
1. The Bible does not support it ("...And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven" 2 Kings 2:11)
2. Your point that Jesus contradicts the rest of the Bible by saying "No one comes to the Father except through me" in John 14:6 is demonstrably false. It shows a clear lack of soteriological understanding - particularly as to what it means to be justified by faith through Christ (Rom. 4-5:1) - which is unbecoming for a prestigious former junior youth pastor like yourself.
2/2
"Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer" (Galatians 3:6-9).
Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. So there is no contradiction to say that Abraham was saved through Christ by faith, just as we are. Without the blood of Christ, Abraham's faith would be worthless.
1/2
"Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 4:23-5:1)
Abraham's faith justified him since he was credited with righteousness. Abraham's faith was the same faith that credits us with righteousness. This is why the the Old Testament says that the righteous will live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
But it is ONLY by the blood of Christ that ANYONE is justified.
"But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:5-6).
Acts 8:32-35 makes clear Isaiah was speaking about Jesus. So the sins of Abraham were atoned for by the sacrifice of Jesus.
But CON's argument is that all people who died went to hell with no chance of repentance, meaning they stayed there. While I see problems with those sects' interpretation, they aren't arguing that everyone goes to hell without a chance to go to heaven. That's certainly an interesting take though.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some small fringe group who held to the belief CON is asserting, but you can always find people that will believe anything. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of Christian groups would reject such an idea.
No, you misinterpreted a single passage by ignoring the rest of the Bible. We can go into prophecies concerning the Messiah, particularly how the Messiah is identified as distinct from God the Father but is still deity (Jeremiah 23:5-6, Psalm 110:1).
But your interpretation of the Bible also requires that every person who died before Jesus went to hell. Meaning that if a single person is demonstrated not to have gone to hell, the interpretation is wrong.
Enoch went to heaven (Hebrews 11:5-6).
Elijah went to heaven ("As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven" 2 Kings 2:11.)
In fact, let's just say that the entire chapter of Hebrews 11 refutes this idea:
"But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them" (Hebrews 11:16)
Hebrews 11:26 even says Moses considered " the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward."
So do you still think the Bible teaches that everyone who died before the crucifixion went to hell? Because that's the actual question at hand.
Have you never heard of a theophany? A physical manifestation of the presence of God? God is a spirit, an immaterial being (John 4:34). He does not EXIST as a physical being. We can discuss the nature of the hypostatic union of Christ in reference to this point if you'd like, but God is not a physical being because He created the physical material in the first place. Matter did not exist before it was created, so God is not made of matter.
Ummm...do you get all of your understanding of Christianity from atheist forums? Because now it sounds like you're just making it all up as you go. This is why I said that it seems you aren't concerned with being intellectually honest in understanding what the actual claims of Christianity are.
And the Old Testament is full of references to a promised Messiah. So those who had faith in God also had faith in a coming Messiah who would save them. And who was that Messiah that the Old Testament saints had faith in? Jesus. Whose sacrifice was it that forgave the sins of Abraham because of his faith? Jesus.
Abraham could not have "come to the Father" except through the saving work of the Messiah. That's literally the main point of the entire Bible.
And how does one come to the Father through Jesus? By faith. That is the most basic principle of Christianity.
"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" (Hebrews 11:5-6).
As I said, trying to argue that everyone from the Old Testament went to hell is a lost cause.
I tried to discuss it with you in the comments and you refused to answer. Like I said, when I wrote my argument, it didn't seem worth addressing because I actually laughed when I read it. But after, I was curious WHERE you got that idea from since you didn't source it, but you didn't answer. And I think you know that trying to argue that everyone in the Old Testament went to hell is a lost cause.
I am more concerned about intellectual honesty than winning debates. And it is intellectually dishonest to make a claim about Christianity that no one believes and the Bible clearly contradicts. If ignoring a ridiculous claim loses me points, oh well. But I can understand not wanting to discuss it before the voting is over so I won't press it. And you're right, the voters can decide.
I didn't address it because it seemed so ridiculous of a representation since no one believes that. Except maybe the most fringe of groups you can find on the internet. But as I said, I was curious where you actually got that from because it didn't come from the Bible...
I guess the point isn't to argue what Romans says. I'm just curious where specifically you got the idea that God sent everyone to hell before Jesus' death with no chance to be saved. Again, basically no Christian groups teach that, and the Bible clearly doesn't support that if you don't ignore the clear teaching of it. Was there a passage that you read that implied that?
Except that Paul was quoting Genesis 15:6 when he said, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." So Paul's teaching in Romans was a truth revealed in the very first book of the Old Testament. And most translations use all caps in Romans 15:6 to make it explicitly clear that Paul is using an Old Testament quotation so there should be no confusion. So if Paul is stating that a particular passage in Genesis was teaching that Abraham was saved by faith, how is that a teaching exclusive to the New Testament?
But anyone who is familiar with the Bible is likely also familiar with Romans 4:2-3
"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Abraham lived long before Jesus. People in the Old Testament weren't saved by how well they followed the law. They were saved by faith. This is like Christianity 101.
Just because it's bugging me, where are you getting the idea that God is sending one group of people to hell without the chance to repent of their sins? I don't know any Christians who actually believe that. Obviously you can find fringe groups who will believe anything, but I have never met anyone, nor am I aware of an actual denomination, that holds that view.
The only significant assertion I saw was this source (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals) which does not point to a specific component or components that actually determine what gender people are attracted to. Or even what species people are attracted to. What specifically determines (not just possibly influences) this?
What biological component determines a person sexuality? And not just vaguely appealing to evolution, surveys, or something. What specific component or components determine attraction?
I did read the debate, I just disagree that you somehow know the mind of every single person throughout human history who has gone from being homosexual to heterosexual, and whether or not they chose that. That seems a bit presumptuous.
That's all I was referring to. People who were at one point attracted to people of the same gender, but they are now attracted to people of the opposite gender. By choice. Are you going to deny their experience?
I actually agree that it would be very difficult to argue a position that I did not agree with. But believing that homosexuality is a choice does not make one homophobic. I have no irrational fear toward homosexuals. Nor do I harbor any kind of hatred toward them. But I do know there are many people who chose a homosexual lifestyle, and then came out by choice. You can argue as to why that may be, but that at least supports the idea that SOME people choose to be homosexuals.
Doesn't it make sense that if there is a cheaper technology alternative to video games that can provide the same level of benefit, that a school would choose that option?
To show I'm a man of my word, I did review the sources you provided in the comments after my vote. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Let me note that from the beginning, the reason I gave a more thorough review of all sources was because I actually found your debate topic quite interesting, so good job on that.
Your argument was that a study "found that over 300+ studies done on the topic had positive shown evidence of positive impacts on a student’s academic performance in subjects such as History, Physical Education, and even Science and Math." The source you used to support that claim (Round 1 source #1) essentially made the conclusion that there is not enough empirical data to make any meaningful conclusion about the benefit of video games in K-12 education. This is not surprising since the abstract did say, "Many educationally interesting games exist, yet evidence for their impact on student achievement is slim." Admittedly, the study did say, "we can report finding evidence only for language learning and, to a lesser degree, physical education," but I saw nothing significant that really changed the justification given in my vote. Nor was this the example that ultimately swayed my source vote.
Per comment #45, I was actually able to access your Round 2 source in full during my original vote.
I will apologize however since I feel that in defending my vote justification, I had to give excessive scrutiny and criticism to your arguments. While I recognize the immense value of criticism, I also realize it's not the most enjoyable feedback to receive, especially if you disagree with it. But as I said, I thought the topic was quite interesting and the arguments vote was actually a close call for me. Had CON argued against both video games and virtual workspaces without making a distinction, my vote probably would have gone in your favor. I also thought you aptly countered his arguments about competition, fun games vs games that "suck," and learning outcomes vs learning processes.
But the context was CON's argument that other virtual experiences could be used as a cheaper alternative to video games in particular with the same benefit. CON even mentioned that the debate was about "video games" specifically to bolster his point. In that context, the very source PRO uses in his rebuttal against that argument says that the concept of virtual experiences are not limited to "video games". So PRO's source not only explicitly contradicts what he says (that the source does not make a distinction), but it actually supports CON's argument PRO is trying to defend against that cheaper alternatives can achieve the same benefit of virtual workspaces.
I think even if you disagree about my awarding source points to CON, we can at least agree that was a poor use of a source by PRO.
No, I want to know about this question in particular from my post:
"But more importantly, if PRO states that
source #2 from Round 1 makes no distinction between video games and virtual experiences, but then I see that the one-paragraph abstract explicitly makes a distinction between video games and virtual experiences, isn't that a bad use of a source?"
I'm still waiting on a response to my post #53. If you're going to criticize my ability to evaluate a debate based upon voting guidelines, the least you can do is justify it. I honestly want to hear why you think citing a source that explicitly contradicts the very claim a debater says it supports is not a bad use of sources.
Source #3 from Round 1 explicitly stated that participants in that study were 18 or older, making the study almost entirely irrelevant to a debate on K-12 except perhaps a small population of 12th graders.
But more importantly, if PRO states that
source #2 from Round 1 makes no distinction between video games and virtual experiences, but then I see that the one-paragraph abstract explicitly makes a distinction between video games and virtual experiences, isn't that a bad use of a source?
Since you seem to have taken such issue with my vote, perhaps you could answer the two situational questions I asked in comment #42. How do my justifications violate the stated voting policy?
Thanks for the feedback. If you (or any mod who sees this) would be willing to, could I get some clarification as to how to apply the voting standard to two specific situation? It would just be helpful for future votes.
The first, CON argues there is a distinction between "video games" and "virtual workspaces." PRO counters by saying:
"Next, Con critiques that the study titled "Practicality in Virtuality: Finding Student Meaning in Video Game Education" Is somehow not about video games at all. Despite the similar setting provided by the DNA Lab and the Study itself calling it "video game education", Con decides that he is more credible than experts. I await his reasoning why the experts' own decision on their naming of study is incorrect. The only requirement for video game from MW is "an electronic game in which players control images on a video screen" [1]. Even simulations or sandboxes are popular genres within video games, and this is no different."
When I went to the source PRO cited, there was only a one-paragraph abstract, but it included the statement, "When considered conceptually, the notion of virtual experience is not limited to those experiences generated by computer aided technology, as with a video game or computer simulation." This explicitly contradicted what PRO claimed his source was saying. If CON doesn't explicitly say that, am I allowed to factor that into my source vote?
The second, PRO cited a source to support the following claim, "It's clear that incorporating video games would actually help them in their learning." This is referring to K-12 students. If I see that the source is only including video game users 18 years or older, can I consider that in my sources vote about relevance K-12 education?
From bsh1's Guide to Voting Using the 7-point System:
"Oftentimes sources points are awarded based on quantity alone, but more bad sources is not a good thing. Quantity may inform a decision, but it should not be the only factor assessed. Relevance, credibility, and accessibility are all very important factors that go into awarding sources points.
Standard: To assign justifiable sources points, one must illustrate that there was a significant difference between the two sets of sources AND one must show that this significant impact had a substantial effect on the round or on the voter's ability to assess the round. A voter must also explain (to show demonstrable analysis) why this standard for sources points was met."
Assuming you are referencing my vote, how did I not fulfill my responsibility to award the sources point?
I had thought about it but I figured I would have to cover too many topics to make my point. And I am already in two debates!
At least with the Disney one, I was really arguing against Critical Theory rather than having to delve into the moral aspect of homosexuality. That's a much easier issue to critique
I will review the source to see if it sways my decision by having access to it. And to be fair, you did set the character limit, though I know you can't exhaustively cover every detail.
But the part of the price issue was not just that video games were too expensive, but also that virtual workspaces could still be used without requiring the increased cost of video games specifically. So it wasn't so much a dollar amount, but that schools have budgets and his option was less expensive.
In your defense though, you handled the competition argument particularly well. So it's not that I think you did a horrible job or anything.
And I maybe wasn't explicitly clear in my vote. My thought was more that I didn't consider a claim to be validated by a source if I couldn't access it without a paid subscription. Even free subscriptions wouldn't be a problem. But my penalization was more based on the fact that his sources contradicted his claims. Had they not been contradictory, I probably would have just disregarded the source and treated it like he had not even cited anything.
For instance, PRO claimed in Round 3 that the study "Practicality in Virtuality:..." had the name video games in the title, so CON's critique that video games and virtual workspaces could be distinguished was incorrect. Had the abstract of the article cited not explicitly stated that virtual experiences were not limited to video games and thus distinguishing them, I probably would have called it a tie. So my penalization was ultimately for the contradictions, but the accessibility issue forced me to look at the abstracts and did not help win sources points for PRO.
But I can understand the somewhat unorthodox nature of the vote, which is why I spent so much space explaining why I could justify it in my mind.
I see the point of sources is to back one's claim and should be evaluated as such. While my vote was heavily swayed by sources in this debate, I based it on their usage within the arguments presented.
For example, if PRO cites a source claiming that it proves video games greatly benefit learning, but the source itself says that the results of surveyed literature produce conflicting results, I do not see that as giving any credibility or basis for PRO's argument.
Or, if PRO states that a study greatly benefits learning, but all I can see is the abstract that makes no such claim, I see no reason to consider that claim valid. Now if PRO had explained the content of the study and how they arrived at their conclusion, I think that would have been fine even if I couldn't access it. So accessibility was not ultimately the issue. But as I said, even the abstracts contradicted PRO's claims and hurt his arguments.
It seems reasonable to evaluate a source based on the claim the debate participant is making. If the source contradicts the point the the participant is making, that hurts both his argument and his use of sources. But my decision was ultimately based on the arguments and not the sources. I think CON successfully showed that price is an important factor, and that using cheaper alternative virtual workspaces (as opposed to the actual video games which was the topic of the resolution) is a viable option; that was his argument, not mine. But, CON also argued that it is reasonable that schools should have the option to do so rather than it being mandatory. I was not convinced by all of CON's arguments, and PRO countered some of them quite well. If the mods think I overstepped my evaluation of the sources within the context of the arguments made, that is up to them.
1. https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s062387.html, see page 767.
2. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, J. Murray, London, 1901, pp. 172–173 (footnote), https://archive.org/details/ncbs.BB-001_0_0_0_1/page/n189/mode/2up
3. https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news
4. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
We may have to do just that! And as I told Benjamin, I think some of these issues would make for a more beneficial debate by themselves. Then one could more adequately address the soft tissue issue!
Well evolution and the big bang are far from settled theories. There are plenty of dissenters who have found issues with those conclusions. Finding soft tissue on dinosaur fossils is a great example. Are we really supposed to believe that soft tissue was preserved in nature for hundreds of millions of years?
I personally try to narrow the scope and focus of my arguments. So rather, than briefly commenting on many subjects (e.g. big bang, age of the earth, geology, radiometric dating, evolution, semantics, limits of science, authenticity of the Bible, existence of God, literal vs figurative Bible interpretation), I prefer to address a few key arguments more deeply. That includes answering my opponent's strongest arguments more fully, while sometimes only briefly commenting or ignoring arguments that stray too far from the debate topic. Obviously this is not always possible, but I feel like if you don't really dig into those key issues, voters may tend to just default to their presuppositions.
Practically speaking, I would limit many of those topics to their own debate. In a scientific debate about the age of the earth, I would probably refrain from trying to prove the existence of God and the validity of Christianity. Not because I don't believe that the Bible is authoritative in what it says, but because I am confident that if the God has revealed that the Earth is young, then the natural data will point us to that conclusion. So I agree with your conclusion that because God created the universe and gave us an eyewitness account, His testimony is sufficient. I just would have taken a different approach to this particular debate based on my desire to limit the scope of my argumentation. That's just my personal approach though, probably because I like to keep things simple.
I think you have identified some key problems with the "science" of the Big Bang Theory and an old earth. Trying to reconcile the Big Bang with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, as well as promoting abiogenesis are two assumptions we are simply supposed to accept...because, you know, science.
It seems to me we have gotten so used to just accepting whatever scientists say that we have forgotten how to think critically. As you pointed out, PRO's statement about how the earth "says" it is old shows just how blindly people have placed their faith in science. "The earth said it so it must be true!" Sounds more like paganism than science. He made multiple statements about how old the rocks were, but never bothered explaining HOW someone determined the age, or the assumptions involved with their methodology.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21)
"Scripture" is used to refer to the written Word. The words themselves are from God. He used human authors, including their unique personalities, but the words are His. That's why we call it God's Word. Infallible means the Bible is absolutely trustworthy and there are no errors.
No, that is not my claim. But if you need a reference for that point, I would direct you to where Jesus specifically identified Himself as the coming Messiah from the Old Testament in no vague terms (John 4:25-26).
But my twofold claim is in response to your point that everyone who died before the crucifixion went to hell, and I used scriptural references from both the Old and New Testament to support it:
1. The Bible does not support it ("...And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven" 2 Kings 2:11)
2. Your point that Jesus contradicts the rest of the Bible by saying "No one comes to the Father except through me" in John 14:6 is demonstrably false. It shows a clear lack of soteriological understanding - particularly as to what it means to be justified by faith through Christ (Rom. 4-5:1) - which is unbecoming for a prestigious former junior youth pastor like yourself.
You do realize that my claim isn't connecting the particular name of Immanuel to the Messiah, right? Do you even know what I am actually arguing for?
You: None of that is about the Messiah!
Also you: The passage in Isaiah about the Messiah wasn't a prophecy!
2/2
"Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer" (Galatians 3:6-9).
Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. So there is no contradiction to say that Abraham was saved through Christ by faith, just as we are. Without the blood of Christ, Abraham's faith would be worthless.
1/2
"Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 4:23-5:1)
Abraham's faith justified him since he was credited with righteousness. Abraham's faith was the same faith that credits us with righteousness. This is why the the Old Testament says that the righteous will live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4).
But it is ONLY by the blood of Christ that ANYONE is justified.
"But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:5-6).
Acts 8:32-35 makes clear Isaiah was speaking about Jesus. So the sins of Abraham were atoned for by the sacrifice of Jesus.
But CON's argument is that all people who died went to hell with no chance of repentance, meaning they stayed there. While I see problems with those sects' interpretation, they aren't arguing that everyone goes to hell without a chance to go to heaven. That's certainly an interesting take though.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some small fringe group who held to the belief CON is asserting, but you can always find people that will believe anything. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of Christian groups would reject such an idea.
No, you misinterpreted a single passage by ignoring the rest of the Bible. We can go into prophecies concerning the Messiah, particularly how the Messiah is identified as distinct from God the Father but is still deity (Jeremiah 23:5-6, Psalm 110:1).
But your interpretation of the Bible also requires that every person who died before Jesus went to hell. Meaning that if a single person is demonstrated not to have gone to hell, the interpretation is wrong.
Enoch went to heaven (Hebrews 11:5-6).
Elijah went to heaven ("As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven" 2 Kings 2:11.)
In fact, let's just say that the entire chapter of Hebrews 11 refutes this idea:
"But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them" (Hebrews 11:16)
Hebrews 11:26 even says Moses considered " the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward."
So do you still think the Bible teaches that everyone who died before the crucifixion went to hell? Because that's the actual question at hand.
Have you never heard of a theophany? A physical manifestation of the presence of God? God is a spirit, an immaterial being (John 4:34). He does not EXIST as a physical being. We can discuss the nature of the hypostatic union of Christ in reference to this point if you'd like, but God is not a physical being because He created the physical material in the first place. Matter did not exist before it was created, so God is not made of matter.
Ummm...do you get all of your understanding of Christianity from atheist forums? Because now it sounds like you're just making it all up as you go. This is why I said that it seems you aren't concerned with being intellectually honest in understanding what the actual claims of Christianity are.
And the Old Testament is full of references to a promised Messiah. So those who had faith in God also had faith in a coming Messiah who would save them. And who was that Messiah that the Old Testament saints had faith in? Jesus. Whose sacrifice was it that forgave the sins of Abraham because of his faith? Jesus.
Abraham could not have "come to the Father" except through the saving work of the Messiah. That's literally the main point of the entire Bible.
And how does one come to the Father through Jesus? By faith. That is the most basic principle of Christianity.
"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" (Hebrews 11:5-6).
As I said, trying to argue that everyone from the Old Testament went to hell is a lost cause.
I tried to discuss it with you in the comments and you refused to answer. Like I said, when I wrote my argument, it didn't seem worth addressing because I actually laughed when I read it. But after, I was curious WHERE you got that idea from since you didn't source it, but you didn't answer. And I think you know that trying to argue that everyone in the Old Testament went to hell is a lost cause.
I am more concerned about intellectual honesty than winning debates. And it is intellectually dishonest to make a claim about Christianity that no one believes and the Bible clearly contradicts. If ignoring a ridiculous claim loses me points, oh well. But I can understand not wanting to discuss it before the voting is over so I won't press it. And you're right, the voters can decide.
I didn't address it because it seemed so ridiculous of a representation since no one believes that. Except maybe the most fringe of groups you can find on the internet. But as I said, I was curious where you actually got that from because it didn't come from the Bible...
Doubling down on the "God sent everyone to hell before Jesus" straw man?
I guess the point isn't to argue what Romans says. I'm just curious where specifically you got the idea that God sent everyone to hell before Jesus' death with no chance to be saved. Again, basically no Christian groups teach that, and the Bible clearly doesn't support that if you don't ignore the clear teaching of it. Was there a passage that you read that implied that?
Except that Paul was quoting Genesis 15:6 when he said, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." So Paul's teaching in Romans was a truth revealed in the very first book of the Old Testament. And most translations use all caps in Romans 15:6 to make it explicitly clear that Paul is using an Old Testament quotation so there should be no confusion. So if Paul is stating that a particular passage in Genesis was teaching that Abraham was saved by faith, how is that a teaching exclusive to the New Testament?
But anyone who is familiar with the Bible is likely also familiar with Romans 4:2-3
"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Abraham lived long before Jesus. People in the Old Testament weren't saved by how well they followed the law. They were saved by faith. This is like Christianity 101.
Just because it's bugging me, where are you getting the idea that God is sending one group of people to hell without the chance to repent of their sins? I don't know any Christians who actually believe that. Obviously you can find fringe groups who will believe anything, but I have never met anyone, nor am I aware of an actual denomination, that holds that view.
The only significant assertion I saw was this source (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals) which does not point to a specific component or components that actually determine what gender people are attracted to. Or even what species people are attracted to. What specifically determines (not just possibly influences) this?
What biological component determines a person sexuality? And not just vaguely appealing to evolution, surveys, or something. What specific component or components determine attraction?
I did read the debate, I just disagree that you somehow know the mind of every single person throughout human history who has gone from being homosexual to heterosexual, and whether or not they chose that. That seems a bit presumptuous.
That's all I was referring to. People who were at one point attracted to people of the same gender, but they are now attracted to people of the opposite gender. By choice. Are you going to deny their experience?
I actually agree that it would be very difficult to argue a position that I did not agree with. But believing that homosexuality is a choice does not make one homophobic. I have no irrational fear toward homosexuals. Nor do I harbor any kind of hatred toward them. But I do know there are many people who chose a homosexual lifestyle, and then came out by choice. You can argue as to why that may be, but that at least supports the idea that SOME people choose to be homosexuals.
He gave into the whole "you questioning anything I say means you are a terrible human being who hates me" game.
Voting on a 500-character debate that requires me to evaluate heavily source-dependent arguments? I'm not going near that one.
I was honestly just thinking the same thing haha at least three rounds is easier on the voters
Yeah I couldn't decide what approach to take. The irony of course being that it took the full two weeks to decide on the short and simple approach
Doesn't it make sense that if there is a cheaper technology alternative to video games that can provide the same level of benefit, that a school would choose that option?
To show I'm a man of my word, I did review the sources you provided in the comments after my vote. Thanks for taking the time to do that. Let me note that from the beginning, the reason I gave a more thorough review of all sources was because I actually found your debate topic quite interesting, so good job on that.
Your argument was that a study "found that over 300+ studies done on the topic had positive shown evidence of positive impacts on a student’s academic performance in subjects such as History, Physical Education, and even Science and Math." The source you used to support that claim (Round 1 source #1) essentially made the conclusion that there is not enough empirical data to make any meaningful conclusion about the benefit of video games in K-12 education. This is not surprising since the abstract did say, "Many educationally interesting games exist, yet evidence for their impact on student achievement is slim." Admittedly, the study did say, "we can report finding evidence only for language learning and, to a lesser degree, physical education," but I saw nothing significant that really changed the justification given in my vote. Nor was this the example that ultimately swayed my source vote.
Per comment #45, I was actually able to access your Round 2 source in full during my original vote.
I will apologize however since I feel that in defending my vote justification, I had to give excessive scrutiny and criticism to your arguments. While I recognize the immense value of criticism, I also realize it's not the most enjoyable feedback to receive, especially if you disagree with it. But as I said, I thought the topic was quite interesting and the arguments vote was actually a close call for me. Had CON argued against both video games and virtual workspaces without making a distinction, my vote probably would have gone in your favor. I also thought you aptly countered his arguments about competition, fun games vs games that "suck," and learning outcomes vs learning processes.
But the context was CON's argument that other virtual experiences could be used as a cheaper alternative to video games in particular with the same benefit. CON even mentioned that the debate was about "video games" specifically to bolster his point. In that context, the very source PRO uses in his rebuttal against that argument says that the concept of virtual experiences are not limited to "video games". So PRO's source not only explicitly contradicts what he says (that the source does not make a distinction), but it actually supports CON's argument PRO is trying to defend against that cheaper alternatives can achieve the same benefit of virtual workspaces.
I think even if you disagree about my awarding source points to CON, we can at least agree that was a poor use of a source by PRO.
No, I want to know about this question in particular from my post:
"But more importantly, if PRO states that
source #2 from Round 1 makes no distinction between video games and virtual experiences, but then I see that the one-paragraph abstract explicitly makes a distinction between video games and virtual experiences, isn't that a bad use of a source?"
I'm still waiting on a response to my post #53. If you're going to criticize my ability to evaluate a debate based upon voting guidelines, the least you can do is justify it. I honestly want to hear why you think citing a source that explicitly contradicts the very claim a debater says it supports is not a bad use of sources.
Source #3 from Round 1 explicitly stated that participants in that study were 18 or older, making the study almost entirely irrelevant to a debate on K-12 except perhaps a small population of 12th graders.
But more importantly, if PRO states that
source #2 from Round 1 makes no distinction between video games and virtual experiences, but then I see that the one-paragraph abstract explicitly makes a distinction between video games and virtual experiences, isn't that a bad use of a source?
Since you seem to have taken such issue with my vote, perhaps you could answer the two situational questions I asked in comment #42. How do my justifications violate the stated voting policy?
Thanks for the feedback. If you (or any mod who sees this) would be willing to, could I get some clarification as to how to apply the voting standard to two specific situation? It would just be helpful for future votes.
The first, CON argues there is a distinction between "video games" and "virtual workspaces." PRO counters by saying:
"Next, Con critiques that the study titled "Practicality in Virtuality: Finding Student Meaning in Video Game Education" Is somehow not about video games at all. Despite the similar setting provided by the DNA Lab and the Study itself calling it "video game education", Con decides that he is more credible than experts. I await his reasoning why the experts' own decision on their naming of study is incorrect. The only requirement for video game from MW is "an electronic game in which players control images on a video screen" [1]. Even simulations or sandboxes are popular genres within video games, and this is no different."
When I went to the source PRO cited, there was only a one-paragraph abstract, but it included the statement, "When considered conceptually, the notion of virtual experience is not limited to those experiences generated by computer aided technology, as with a video game or computer simulation." This explicitly contradicted what PRO claimed his source was saying. If CON doesn't explicitly say that, am I allowed to factor that into my source vote?
The second, PRO cited a source to support the following claim, "It's clear that incorporating video games would actually help them in their learning." This is referring to K-12 students. If I see that the source is only including video game users 18 years or older, can I consider that in my sources vote about relevance K-12 education?
Thanks.
I see. I figured I would use that guide since the mods would likely use that as a standard. Though it seems to have raised quite a controversy...
From bsh1's Guide to Voting Using the 7-point System:
"Oftentimes sources points are awarded based on quantity alone, but more bad sources is not a good thing. Quantity may inform a decision, but it should not be the only factor assessed. Relevance, credibility, and accessibility are all very important factors that go into awarding sources points.
Standard: To assign justifiable sources points, one must illustrate that there was a significant difference between the two sets of sources AND one must show that this significant impact had a substantial effect on the round or on the voter's ability to assess the round. A voter must also explain (to show demonstrable analysis) why this standard for sources points was met."
Assuming you are referencing my vote, how did I not fulfill my responsibility to award the sources point?
I had thought about it but I figured I would have to cover too many topics to make my point. And I am already in two debates!
At least with the Disney one, I was really arguing against Critical Theory rather than having to delve into the moral aspect of homosexuality. That's a much easier issue to critique
I will review the source to see if it sways my decision by having access to it. And to be fair, you did set the character limit, though I know you can't exhaustively cover every detail.
But the part of the price issue was not just that video games were too expensive, but also that virtual workspaces could still be used without requiring the increased cost of video games specifically. So it wasn't so much a dollar amount, but that schools have budgets and his option was less expensive.
In your defense though, you handled the competition argument particularly well. So it's not that I think you did a horrible job or anything.
And I maybe wasn't explicitly clear in my vote. My thought was more that I didn't consider a claim to be validated by a source if I couldn't access it without a paid subscription. Even free subscriptions wouldn't be a problem. But my penalization was more based on the fact that his sources contradicted his claims. Had they not been contradictory, I probably would have just disregarded the source and treated it like he had not even cited anything.
For instance, PRO claimed in Round 3 that the study "Practicality in Virtuality:..." had the name video games in the title, so CON's critique that video games and virtual workspaces could be distinguished was incorrect. Had the abstract of the article cited not explicitly stated that virtual experiences were not limited to video games and thus distinguishing them, I probably would have called it a tie. So my penalization was ultimately for the contradictions, but the accessibility issue forced me to look at the abstracts and did not help win sources points for PRO.
But I can understand the somewhat unorthodox nature of the vote, which is why I spent so much space explaining why I could justify it in my mind.
I see the point of sources is to back one's claim and should be evaluated as such. While my vote was heavily swayed by sources in this debate, I based it on their usage within the arguments presented.
For example, if PRO cites a source claiming that it proves video games greatly benefit learning, but the source itself says that the results of surveyed literature produce conflicting results, I do not see that as giving any credibility or basis for PRO's argument.
Or, if PRO states that a study greatly benefits learning, but all I can see is the abstract that makes no such claim, I see no reason to consider that claim valid. Now if PRO had explained the content of the study and how they arrived at their conclusion, I think that would have been fine even if I couldn't access it. So accessibility was not ultimately the issue. But as I said, even the abstracts contradicted PRO's claims and hurt his arguments.
It seems reasonable to evaluate a source based on the claim the debate participant is making. If the source contradicts the point the the participant is making, that hurts both his argument and his use of sources. But my decision was ultimately based on the arguments and not the sources. I think CON successfully showed that price is an important factor, and that using cheaper alternative virtual workspaces (as opposed to the actual video games which was the topic of the resolution) is a viable option; that was his argument, not mine. But, CON also argued that it is reasonable that schools should have the option to do so rather than it being mandatory. I was not convinced by all of CON's arguments, and PRO countered some of them quite well. If the mods think I overstepped my evaluation of the sources within the context of the arguments made, that is up to them.
Sources for Round 3:
1. https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s062387.html, see page 767.
2. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, J. Murray, London, 1901, pp. 172–173 (footnote), https://archive.org/details/ncbs.BB-001_0_0_0_1/page/n189/mode/2up
3. https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news
4. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
We may have to do just that! And as I told Benjamin, I think some of these issues would make for a more beneficial debate by themselves. Then one could more adequately address the soft tissue issue!
Well evolution and the big bang are far from settled theories. There are plenty of dissenters who have found issues with those conclusions. Finding soft tissue on dinosaur fossils is a great example. Are we really supposed to believe that soft tissue was preserved in nature for hundreds of millions of years?
I personally try to narrow the scope and focus of my arguments. So rather, than briefly commenting on many subjects (e.g. big bang, age of the earth, geology, radiometric dating, evolution, semantics, limits of science, authenticity of the Bible, existence of God, literal vs figurative Bible interpretation), I prefer to address a few key arguments more deeply. That includes answering my opponent's strongest arguments more fully, while sometimes only briefly commenting or ignoring arguments that stray too far from the debate topic. Obviously this is not always possible, but I feel like if you don't really dig into those key issues, voters may tend to just default to their presuppositions.
Practically speaking, I would limit many of those topics to their own debate. In a scientific debate about the age of the earth, I would probably refrain from trying to prove the existence of God and the validity of Christianity. Not because I don't believe that the Bible is authoritative in what it says, but because I am confident that if the God has revealed that the Earth is young, then the natural data will point us to that conclusion. So I agree with your conclusion that because God created the universe and gave us an eyewitness account, His testimony is sufficient. I just would have taken a different approach to this particular debate based on my desire to limit the scope of my argumentation. That's just my personal approach though, probably because I like to keep things simple.
This one should be fun to dig into as a formal debate. Thanks for making the argument time two weeks
I think you have identified some key problems with the "science" of the Big Bang Theory and an old earth. Trying to reconcile the Big Bang with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, as well as promoting abiogenesis are two assumptions we are simply supposed to accept...because, you know, science.
It seems to me we have gotten so used to just accepting whatever scientists say that we have forgotten how to think critically. As you pointed out, PRO's statement about how the earth "says" it is old shows just how blindly people have placed their faith in science. "The earth said it so it must be true!" Sounds more like paganism than science. He made multiple statements about how old the rocks were, but never bothered explaining HOW someone determined the age, or the assumptions involved with their methodology.
If the Lord wills...
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16)
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pet. 1:20-21)
"Scripture" is used to refer to the written Word. The words themselves are from God. He used human authors, including their unique personalities, but the words are His. That's why we call it God's Word. Infallible means the Bible is absolutely trustworthy and there are no errors.