New Levels of Low

[Mystical]

I just want a good debate, Lion. Yet agaIn you're missing the point. I don't want to have a debate with you about specific Christian events and members' legitimacy in their beliefs. How many times do I have to say this??
I want to have the ORIGINAL ARGUMENT YOU ASKED FOR. Simple. Concise. Should be easy. Compare the good effects to the bad effects. I don't want to waste my breath with you 'qualifying' who is and isn't a Christian. That's not what the debate is about. The mere fact that Christianity and the bible exists, is enough. Anyone who uses it to do 'bad' need not have to be a "True Christian"--because without Christianity they would not have been enabled by decree and will of a god.
I'd argue the same with hindu's, muslims, etc.
As for limiting your 'good' acts, I have yet to say a single thing about that and you still continue to accuse me of wrong-doing and are plain out making up my intentions. What's happening, and I know I've said this several times now, is that you are trying to change the pulp of the debate. Not only that, but you're taking one simple debate and turning it into a time intensive multiple subject debate, something I simply do not have the time for. I said I'd have a debate with you about the original subject you yourself posed. If you don't want to do that, then fine. Stop projecting your insecurities onto me.

[Ryantology]

This is primarily why I didn't accept the challenge. Why would I debate someone who will only agree to source his claims if I agree to accept them as fact and change my mind without ever seeing the evidence? If that's how I approached things, I'd still be a Christian myself.

Anybody who calls themselves a Christian and believes in the basic tenets of Christianity is a Christian. You don't get to decide that people aren't Christian just because their crimes make your narrative difficult.

[Esquilax]

Lion, here's the problem: introducing an argument about what constitutes a "true christian" is problematic on three fronts. The most obvious is that framing a debate around "christianity: harmful or beneficial?" and then hanging your case on individual christians misses the point entirely, which is whether or not the existence of the religion that motivates these people is good or bad, and shifts the entire debate into one about whether or not individual humans are following it correctly.

The second problem is that in doing so, proceeding to frame what a "true christian" is as "only those christians who do good things," is insinuating your own victory condition into the very thing you're debating; if you didn't realize that, I'm sure you now see how deeply unfair that is.

And in a broader sense, when we begin discussing individual christians, we've now set up a case where we need to settle the initial intent of the religion and its tenets, which- aside from simply being a different discussion than the one being posed- also means that now we're just debating the existence of god again. That's not a question we're going to find an answer to, and more importantly, it's not one that you're going to have a chance of winning on the strength of the votes alone. Your initial question is not only more interesting, but it also actually gives you a host of verifiable, data-based talking points to discuss, which was also in the initial conditions. Why not talk about things we can all see actually happened, rather than philosophical notions that the majority of us here believe are fictional?

[Lion IRC]

The formal debate motion; That Christianity has done more good for humanity than harm.

Affirmative/Negative : Lion IRC (Affirmative)

Participants - Lion IRC vs

Scope - Christianity/Christians as defined by Nicene theological distinctives etc. A debate contending the overall net good (or harm) to human society over the last 2000 years resulting from the presence of and adherence to biblical Christianity. The contestants will attempt to persuade the audience that their notion of good/harm consists in the position each side takes respectively.

Format - Heres my suggestion;
*Introduction of no more than 500 words each
* 3 main debate posts of up to 1500 words each excluding diagrams, tables, images, etc. (Videos specifically excluded from debate)
* 5 question Q&A interrogatory prior to concluding remarks :
* Conclusion of no more than 500 words each
* 3 day post turnaround (72 hours to submission deadline) from their opponent's last post. No time extensions shall be allowed without the agreement of both contestants.
* Debate Mod to review and approve submitted posts within 24 hours of their submission.

Rules - No abusive ad hominem remarks. No retrospective editing of posts. Automatic forfeit of the debate if a post deadline is not met.
Any other AF.org house rules as deemed enforceable by the Debate Mod.

Moderator(s) - Dont care. If the rules are clearly laid out and agreed to in advance, it doesnt matter who Mods the debate.

Post debate Poll?
Example poll.

*Lion IRC won the debate, but I still disagree with his viewpoint
*Lion IRC won the debate and I continue to agree with his viewpoint
*Lion IRC won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
*Missluckie26 won the debate, but I still disagree with his/her viewpoint
*Missluckie26 won the debate and I continue to agree with his/her viewpoint
*Missluckie26 won the debate and convinced me to alter my viewpoint on the issue
*I cannot decide who won the debate

The topic of the debate is; That Christianity has done more good for humanity than harm. But we seem to have bogged down on the scope of the topic.

Apparently, "Christians" might have flown planes into the Twin Towers and the affirmative side (me) isn't allowed to object that those weren't actually Christians.

Apparently, the only reason Spanish Monarchs wanted to colonise South America was to spread the Gospel and the acquisition of new territory and natural resources was purely coincidental.

Apparently, the only people who are "True Christians" for the purpose of this debate are the serial killers, the pedophiles hiding in the clergy, the blasphemous dictators who claim god-like status, the apocalyptic suicide cult leaders, homophobes, misogynists, money grabbing gold loving Televangelist hypocrites who don't practice what they preach...

Apparently we are supposed to debate "Christianity" but we can't inspect the behaviour of allegedly Christian people to see if that behaviour can in fact be reconciled WITH Christianity.

No Lion IRC, you CAN'T TRY TO DEFINE Christian doctrine during the debate. No you can't appeal to the bible to refute the (idiotic) claim that Jesus wants His followers to fight each other until none are left. No you can't try to claim that love and forgiveness and sharing with those less fortunate is a benefit to society, because "everyone knows" that such behaviour makes people weak and insipid and vulnerable to the far superior Darwinian Law of the jungle which makes stronger Übermensch by natural selection and obeying ones selfish DNA.

I find it bizarre that someone would offer to have a formal debate, (some people actually do know what a FORMAL debate is) and then, after having already seen the topic and the proposed scope, try to start denying something as FUNDAMENTAL to a formal debate, as the need for agreement upon the meaning of the key words in the debate proposition!

Oh yeah, and the blatant, unapologetic personal insults directed at your prospective debate opponent IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the debate are lame.

[Ryantology]

No you can't try to claim that love and forgiveness and sharing with those less fortunate is a benefit to society, because "everyone knows" that such behaviour makes people weak and insipid and vulnerable to the far superior Darwinian Law of the jungle which makes stronger Übermensch by natural selection and obeying ones selfish DNA.

Which is funny when you think about how the highly Christian right wing in America pretty much tout this opinion on a constant basis. So, obviously, they're not TRUE CHRISTIANS

What you're trying to do is define Christianity so that none of the bad things Christians do can be blamed on it, and define "true Christian" to exclude every professed believer who is guilty of whatever atrocity. I foresee a very selective interpretation of which parts of the Old Testament apply to Christians and which ones don't.

[Esquilax]

Apparently we are supposed to debate "Christianity" but we can't inspect the behaviour of allegedly Christian people to see if that behaviour can in fact be reconciled WITH Christianity.

Not if your purpose in doing so is to define the topic in discussion as the same as the thing that would make you win.

Besides, the topic in discussion doesn't have anything to do with whether or not X group is obeying the gospels right or not, but whether the existence of your religion is a net positive or negative. To excuse bad actions done in the name of your religion because "they're doing it wrong," doesn't make any sense, if the actions wouldn't have been committed without the motivating factor for it, namely, the religion itself.

Especially given how many other good christians out there would disagree with you on whether they're doing it wrong at all. What you seem to want to debate is the notion that your particular fantasyland variant of christianity, this cartoon where only people who do good are christians and everyone else is an atheist faker or something, is a net good. Well, that's probably true, but the thing is, what you believe doesn't exclusively comport to reality, in that it requires you to shut down people you don't even know because they don't fit into your boxes. But we don't live in Lionworld, we live in the real one, which isn't required to conform to your views of it; you don't get to label everyone inconvenient to your case as not a proper christian.

Can you not see how utterly unfair it is, to phrase the debate as you have, and then to go about defining christianity as "only those with good fruits?" You are adding your own case to the definition of the thing being debated. You might as well just say that the motion is "is christianity good or bad?" and then say that christianity is, for the purposes of this debate, "good things."

I mean, seriously? I liked your Nicene definition, because that was a smart move that allowed both sides to build up their case based on a solid structure, but you can't then go classifying actions that do have biblical bases, based around nothing but your own selective reading of the text. Frankly, the idea that the text is apparently so fraught with generalities that it can be misinterpreted so harmfully, so often and in so many ways, should be a part of Luckie's case!

But it can't be, if you're pre-emptively slamming shut avenues of discussion except the ones which lead to the point you're trying to make!

[Lion IRC]

This is primarily why I didn't accept the challenge....

Yadda yadda yadda.
Yeah, you go right on ahead and tell everyone why you didn't agree to the debate using whatever excuse you like.
The irony which makes me laugh is that the person who came after you said to me...Yeah I'll debate you if you got the balls.
(As if I'm the gutless one around here.)

...You don't get to decide that people aren't Christian just because their crimes make your narrative difficult.

Um. Here's a news flash Pal!
In a formal debate, it's the audience which gets to decide which narrative they find persuasive.
You people seem to think that you can gag me and try to stop me from framing the argument however I want. But my opponent isn't gagged either. They arent prevented in the debate from alleging that Hitler was a bible-believing, obedient disciple of Jesus Christ if they think that will help their case.

[Esquilax]

You people seem to think that you can gag me and try to stop me from framing the argument however I want. But my opponent isn't gagged either. They arent prevented in the debate from alleging that Hitler was a bible-believing, obedient disciple of Jesus Christ if they think that will help their case.

The difference being that Luckie's not out here trying to define christianity from the start as only the bad parts of it. She's smart enough to understand that has nothing to do with the question.

Honestly, I thought your motion was really interesting, but I guess you just made it that way on fucking accident.

[Lion IRC]

I just want a good debate, Lion.

You won't enjoy debating me.

I don't want to have a debate with you about specific Christian events and members' legitimacy in their beliefs.

Your wish is granted. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

How many times do I have to say this??

Whenever I hear people say that, I always wonder who they are asking?
You can keep repeating yourself forever if you want. If you think repetition makes something more credible you're welcome to keep saying it over and over for the rest of your life for all I care.

... I don't want to waste my breath with you 'qualifying' who is and isn't a Christian. That's not what the debate is about.

Fine. Save your breath. You aren't doing ME a favour.

...The mere fact that Christianity and the bible exists, is enough. Anyone who uses it to do 'bad' need not have to be a "True Christian"--because without Christianity they would not have been enabled by decree and will of a god.

Yadda yadda yadda.
You just got through telling everyone that you didn't want to waste your breath doing exactly THIS and now you're doing it.

I'd argue the same with hindu's, muslims, etc.

Off you go. Have fun.

Stop projecting your insecurities onto me.

Yawn. Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Sorry if you feel you have been projected on.

[Mystical]

Game: Set: Match.

I accept.

---

Unless you are bowing out now?