I was thinking that we should do a nostalgia rap battle where we copy and paste individual lines and/or stanzas from previous battles and cite where they came from
And yes you should, I never look at RM debates or Type1 debates, etc., but I'll always look at DustandAshes debates and Virtuoso debates, observation is everything
Seriously, I think I deserve an award for the sheer amount of long debate votes I've done + this SUPER long vote (it couldn't even fit in the voting box) + taking more than an hour to make this vote
Overall, Pro won out. I really feel that Con barely did any rebutting, and he could have done a lot more. Pro won out mainly because he focused a lot on rebuttals, but Con did not respond to a lot of different points. However, both parties still did extremely well. I can’t wait for y’all’s next debate! 😊
C2: Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies
Con says that Jesus never built the third and final temple, gathered the Jewish exiles to Israel, or established world peace. Pro doesn't really rebut this but rather points out that since it is stated that the Messiah would die, then how would he have the time to do all of the things mentioned by Con? All Con does in response is add a few words to the scripture, but he doesn't even explain how those words change the meaning of the scripture. He also says that King Agrippa and Cyrus are the two Messiahs referred to, but he states that as if I am supposed to know who they are. I have absolutely no idea, and I'm confused on this point. Anyway, both parties failed to really respond to each other on this, so I'm tieing this point.
C3: Jesus was a false prophet
Con states that Jesus was a false prophet because he claimed to be God, he broke and commanded someone to break the Sabbath, and his prophecies were not fulfilled. Pro first asks Con to clarify his first statement, and Con basically says that God originally revealed himself on Sinai and therefore that must be the only version of him. Pro then points out that God revealed himself to man multiple other times. Con really only responds to one of these scenarios (the Abraham one) but ignores the others, so this rebuttal still counts.
As to the Sabbath, Con clarifies that the issue is that Jesus commanded someone to break the Sabbath. Pro then points out that God allows exceptions to this rule, and that if Jesus is God, then this works. Since I can’t technically presuppose my own opinion of Jesus into this, I have to tie this point.
Finally, Con claims that Jesus’ words were not fulfilled in Mark 9:1. Pro says that this was a reference to Jesus’ Transfiguration, not his second coming. Con simply reiterates his original argument and doesn’t put anymore layers on it. I have to tie this because neither parties really elaborated on it.
Con then explains his view of Isaiah 53 and that it is referring to Jews. However, he doesn't rebut Pro's view of it at all, and neither does Pro rebut Con's view of it. Pro specifically shows why the arm of the Lord MUST be Jesus, while Con only offers reasons as to why he believes Israel fits the description better. "Must be Jesus" beats "fits Israel better." There wasn't enough clash here, so maybe if both parties had responded to each other instead of maintaining completely independent thoughts about it, my vote here would be different.
Finally, Con says that Pro takes the Talmud too literally. Pro rebuts by saying that Con is making a hypocritical argument by then citing the Talmud himself. I'm not sure how valid this rebuttal is mainly because Pro fails to defend the point that Con was attacking when he made this argument. I'm giving this one to Con.
SO, overall, Pro gets his first argument. This was very in-depth. Now I'll move to Con's.
Con's Contentions:
C1: The genealogies of Jesus disqualify him
Con makes the claim that Jesus is not a descendant of David and has no claim to the throne, which disqualifies him as the Messiah. Pro then points out that this means that Jesus was either born of a virgin or was Joseph's biological son and actually had a claim to the throne of David. He also points out the concept of Levirate marriage to explain the two different genealogies and gives an example where an adopted person was still seen as being eligible to his/her father's inheritance. Con then picks option one and, as Pro says, essentially rescinds his argument on this point. I don't see how the other stuff about genealogy contradictions are relevant here. Con challenges Pro to explain how Jesus could have the heritage if he was born of a virgin, but Pro did when he stated how it was shown not to be unreasonable that an adopted person could lay claim to the possessions of his father. Con never responded to this. I'm giving this to Pro.
Here we go! As always, I'll be evaluating this on a premise by premise basis. However, there was not much organization on Pro's part. I will be manually going through to make sure I get all of his.
Pro's Contentions:
Isaiah 53
Pro first offers Isaiah 53:1-12 as a prophecy that he believes is describing Jesus Christ. He says that early Jewish Rabbis even said themselves that it was Jesus being described.
Con responds with a LOT of arguments. I'm not sure if this was completely necessary, but I'll break all of them down.
Con's Responses to Pro's First Argument:
Con first says that we reject vicarious atonement because human sacrifices are outlawed. Pro rebuts this by showing how the verses Con provided don't even apply to the topic Con claimed they did. This was quite evident, and Con did not respond back, so Pro gets this point.
Con says that no one can die for the sins of another person, and he says he'll provide passages for that, but he never does. Pro provides a passage that pretty blatantly states that one's transgressions can be transferred. Con never responded, so this point goes to Pro.
Con says that sins can be forgiven without sacrifices and that no example of a messiah dying has been given. Pro states that the passages given by Con are all exceptions, and even makes the argument that because God inspired Moses and Aaron to build two whole temples then the sacrificial system must still majorly be valid. He also refers back to Isaiah 53 as an example of the Messiah. Con doesn't respond, so Pro gets this point.
Con makes an argument about how Christ being the Passover lamb doesn't make sense. However, this is irrelevant, in my opinion, because Jesus being the messiah or not has nothing to do with his description as a Passover lamb. I'm ignoring this.
This was an awesome debate, as to ideas, I am terrible at coming up with them so I'll leave that up to you guys lol, I'm not super familiar with the differences between Christianity and Judaism barring the belief in Jesus' divinity.
Cool
Lol yeah
I was thinking that we should do a nostalgia rap battle where we copy and paste individual lines and/or stanzas from previous battles and cite where they came from
Lol thanks, so did the closing the window one, I was trying to contain the laughter because I was in public when I read it xD
This is just a silly debate lol
And yes you should, I never look at RM debates or Type1 debates, etc., but I'll always look at DustandAshes debates and Virtuoso debates, observation is everything
I thought he'd do it quicker than that
I only put one day on the clock in case you didn’t notice
I don’t see what the purpose of that was, but ok, LOL
You can understand that?
Bump
u
m
p
Pls vote
How did neither of you give Con grammar??
Oh ok cool lol
Y u do dat
I know lol, we’ll seeeeeeeeeeeee >:)
Please, like he’d vote for you
Plus Ralph can just vote again :D
One vote is all I need haha :P
I noticed that too, weeeeeeeelp
Obviously
It’s raps like this that makes me value your skills even more XD
Wong is the bomb.com
Was? Lol we’re still going
But thanks! :D
We're discussing Ralph's elephant here, so make sure you hurl a different one
Can you send me a PM?
Alrighty lol cool
Worth a try :D
Seriously, I think I deserve an award for the sheer amount of long debate votes I've done + this SUPER long vote (it couldn't even fit in the voting box) + taking more than an hour to make this vote
Pls?
Overall, Pro won out. I really feel that Con barely did any rebutting, and he could have done a lot more. Pro won out mainly because he focused a lot on rebuttals, but Con did not respond to a lot of different points. However, both parties still did extremely well. I can’t wait for y’all’s next debate! 😊
*Tied In All Other Categories*
C2: Jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophecies
Con says that Jesus never built the third and final temple, gathered the Jewish exiles to Israel, or established world peace. Pro doesn't really rebut this but rather points out that since it is stated that the Messiah would die, then how would he have the time to do all of the things mentioned by Con? All Con does in response is add a few words to the scripture, but he doesn't even explain how those words change the meaning of the scripture. He also says that King Agrippa and Cyrus are the two Messiahs referred to, but he states that as if I am supposed to know who they are. I have absolutely no idea, and I'm confused on this point. Anyway, both parties failed to really respond to each other on this, so I'm tieing this point.
C3: Jesus was a false prophet
Con states that Jesus was a false prophet because he claimed to be God, he broke and commanded someone to break the Sabbath, and his prophecies were not fulfilled. Pro first asks Con to clarify his first statement, and Con basically says that God originally revealed himself on Sinai and therefore that must be the only version of him. Pro then points out that God revealed himself to man multiple other times. Con really only responds to one of these scenarios (the Abraham one) but ignores the others, so this rebuttal still counts.
As to the Sabbath, Con clarifies that the issue is that Jesus commanded someone to break the Sabbath. Pro then points out that God allows exceptions to this rule, and that if Jesus is God, then this works. Since I can’t technically presuppose my own opinion of Jesus into this, I have to tie this point.
Finally, Con claims that Jesus’ words were not fulfilled in Mark 9:1. Pro says that this was a reference to Jesus’ Transfiguration, not his second coming. Con simply reiterates his original argument and doesn’t put anymore layers on it. I have to tie this because neither parties really elaborated on it.
Con then explains his view of Isaiah 53 and that it is referring to Jews. However, he doesn't rebut Pro's view of it at all, and neither does Pro rebut Con's view of it. Pro specifically shows why the arm of the Lord MUST be Jesus, while Con only offers reasons as to why he believes Israel fits the description better. "Must be Jesus" beats "fits Israel better." There wasn't enough clash here, so maybe if both parties had responded to each other instead of maintaining completely independent thoughts about it, my vote here would be different.
Finally, Con says that Pro takes the Talmud too literally. Pro rebuts by saying that Con is making a hypocritical argument by then citing the Talmud himself. I'm not sure how valid this rebuttal is mainly because Pro fails to defend the point that Con was attacking when he made this argument. I'm giving this one to Con.
SO, overall, Pro gets his first argument. This was very in-depth. Now I'll move to Con's.
Con's Contentions:
C1: The genealogies of Jesus disqualify him
Con makes the claim that Jesus is not a descendant of David and has no claim to the throne, which disqualifies him as the Messiah. Pro then points out that this means that Jesus was either born of a virgin or was Joseph's biological son and actually had a claim to the throne of David. He also points out the concept of Levirate marriage to explain the two different genealogies and gives an example where an adopted person was still seen as being eligible to his/her father's inheritance. Con then picks option one and, as Pro says, essentially rescinds his argument on this point. I don't see how the other stuff about genealogy contradictions are relevant here. Con challenges Pro to explain how Jesus could have the heritage if he was born of a virgin, but Pro did when he stated how it was shown not to be unreasonable that an adopted person could lay claim to the possessions of his father. Con never responded to this. I'm giving this to Pro.
Here we go! As always, I'll be evaluating this on a premise by premise basis. However, there was not much organization on Pro's part. I will be manually going through to make sure I get all of his.
Pro's Contentions:
Isaiah 53
Pro first offers Isaiah 53:1-12 as a prophecy that he believes is describing Jesus Christ. He says that early Jewish Rabbis even said themselves that it was Jesus being described.
Con responds with a LOT of arguments. I'm not sure if this was completely necessary, but I'll break all of them down.
Con's Responses to Pro's First Argument:
Con first says that we reject vicarious atonement because human sacrifices are outlawed. Pro rebuts this by showing how the verses Con provided don't even apply to the topic Con claimed they did. This was quite evident, and Con did not respond back, so Pro gets this point.
Con says that no one can die for the sins of another person, and he says he'll provide passages for that, but he never does. Pro provides a passage that pretty blatantly states that one's transgressions can be transferred. Con never responded, so this point goes to Pro.
Con says that sins can be forgiven without sacrifices and that no example of a messiah dying has been given. Pro states that the passages given by Con are all exceptions, and even makes the argument that because God inspired Moses and Aaron to build two whole temples then the sacrificial system must still majorly be valid. He also refers back to Isaiah 53 as an example of the Messiah. Con doesn't respond, so Pro gets this point.
Con makes an argument about how Christ being the Passover lamb doesn't make sense. However, this is irrelevant, in my opinion, because Jesus being the messiah or not has nothing to do with his description as a Passover lamb. I'm ignoring this.
A second part would be sweet
Lol nice alter ego dude
Your political beliefs are shown on the DDO page...I don’t see the problem here
NOOOO
#egoboost
Oh ok lol
And? Lol everyone knows that
I go like 2 huge assignments right after I accepted lol
No problem
20 minutes of my life down the drain, that's every vote I've ever given for a debate between either of you, y'all talk too much lol
I'm so sleepy right now that I posted this comment to the wrong debate xD
Except for RM of course, what won’t he accept
I’d distance myself from them if I were you
(Jk)
WHy would anyone challenge this
I'll probably vote tomorrow
This was an awesome debate, as to ideas, I am terrible at coming up with them so I'll leave that up to you guys lol, I'm not super familiar with the differences between Christianity and Judaism barring the belief in Jesus' divinity.
Jinx?
LOL
This is why people like you (and why RM doesn't like you)
Evolutionary theory is based off of assumptions.
And I never said that evolutionary theory supports bad science, I said that evolutionary theory is incompatible with symbiosis
Excuse me. That’s all your understanding of mutualistic evolution is.
I expected you to rebut, but I didn’t expect you to be so hostile and formal
Dude, you said this was a discussion, not a debate, what are you doing?