Instigator / Pro
4
1465
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2636
To worship God is to worship a murderer.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
CalebEr
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1519
rating
4
debates
50.0%
won
Description
THBT: To worship God is to worship a murderer.
-Definitions-
Worship - to honour or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power.
God - the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. For this debate, we will be discussing the Christian God.
Murder. To kill a human being.
-Burden of Proof-
Pro bears the larger burden, as they are the one proposing the idea of God being a murderer. Con must simply refute all allegations and maintain the status quo.
As the Bible is the only document regarding God, it shall be regarded with 100% accuracy. Anything that is stated in the Bible can be used as evidence. Debate about the actual reliability of the bible and the existence of God is for another time.
-Rules-
Forfeit = Instant loss
No kritks
Definitions are agreed upon
Round 1
Pro
#1
I honestly thought no one would take this debate. But here we are. As stated in the description, to win this debate, I must prove that God has committed murder, thus making him a murderer.
God personally killing.
And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.Number 16:35
And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them.Exodus 14:28
Behold, with a great plague will the LORD smite thy people, and thy children, and thy wives, and all thy goods:2 Chronicles 21:14
And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.2 Kings 17:25
Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah: and the LORD struck him, and he died.2 Chronicles 13:20
“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, so whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”John 3:16
When Jesus died for us, He took our sin. If we truly believe this, then we gain the ability to go to Heaven. Atheists like myself reject this promise, and therefore don’t have the key to everlasting life. With no acceptance of forgiveness, we apparently deserve damnation for their un-forgiven sin.
God commanding murder
And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.2 Kings 19:35
Con
#2
I’ll start off by stating the completely obvious: This debate is stacked against me. My opponent, being the one who set the rules, has chosen to weigh them in his favor by issuing newfangled definitions and prohibiting any challenges to them. This is gross, insincere, and quite frankly, indicative of an arrogance that isn’t conducive to seeking truth. He wants to win, whether it be through shameless bias or other craven methods (which I’m sure will come to light as the debate moves forward). Because of this, I have decided that the best course of action is to ignore the rules he set up, and attack his unfair definition.
PRO’s flimsy and haphazard argument for Round 1 reinforces what I’ve already stated. He set the bar so low for himself that all he has to do to win is post a few verses from the bible and leave it at that. There’s no in-depth exegesis done here, no elaboration. He doesn’t bother to examine the context, or even construct a case. He did a hasty Google search for “verses where God kills people”, slapped the first 10 results together, and called it a day. I am certain that no more than five minutes of work or thought was put into his argument. I don't have anything of substance to respond to.
Murder, contrary to PRO, is not just the act of killing someone, but the act of killing them unjustly. To murder is to end someone’s life in a fashion that comes from malicious intent and is conducted outside of the law. Virtually all legal definitions of murder include “malice aforethought” as something that must be proven in court. In fact, malice and ill-intent are why we consider murder to be so vile in the first place, not to mention why most of civil society has always outlawed it. If you remove “malice” from the term, you effectively remove the stigma attached to it as well. What’s wrong with killing, or murder, if it isn’t done in a way that contradicts the law or moral consensus?
You see, according to PRO’s definition killing is synonymous with murdering, which means everyone who has ever killed out of self-defense, within warfare, through negligence, or by accident would have to be branded a murderer. Of course, that means there have been virtuous murderers in the past, which is patently absurd. The noble Abraham Lincoln orchestrated the bloodiest war in American history, and while he was not without fault, he was still an upstanding leader and it’s absurd to put him on par with actual murderers like Ted Bundy and John Gacy. You’ve uprooted an immutable moral definition and changed it because it makes your side of the argument easier to contend for. But the problem is that, in doing so, you’ve made the word lose all of its potency. I see no issue with worshipping a murderer if all he’s guilty of is killing people, especially when literally every instance where he has done so it’s been because of his own ultimate righteousness and his target's sins against him. You’ve made “murder” a meaningless term. I ask, PRO: Why is it wrong to worship a murderer?
If you want to have a conversation that will yield some sort of benefit for both of us, you will discard your lopsided standards and present an argument that is in line with reality. Scrap the contrived definition and adopt the one you and I both know is true. Show not only that God has killed people, but that he has done so on evil grounds. Until you have done that or at least attempted to, you are a fool and a laughing stock. Nobody likes it when people overhaul age-old moral precepts for the sake of winning a debate.
If you refuse to rescind your definition, I forfeit. I do not care whether I lose according to your rules or not. You’ve already shown how little you care about imposing rules fairly. Loss means nothing to me here. If I am to be the scapegoat you have to kill for you to feel good about yourself, then I’m fine with that. Just know that nobody here is impressed with you. Maybe you can redeem yourself if you offer a more accurate definition. I hope that is what you decide to do.
I trust the voters will be wise with their decision.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I have to say I am disappointed with my opponents debating ethics. Con's first 2 paragraphs were essentially just complaints and personal attacks on my debate. So let me clarify the following clearly.
I can create whatever debate I want. I can set whatever rules I want. I can debate about whatever I want. What I cannot do is force my opponents to compete against me.
YOU chose to accept this debate. Upon acceptance, you agreed to the rules which were clearly set. It does not matter how "outrageous" the debate is, it does not matter how "unfair" it is, the fact is you agreed to debate without even messaging me prior with your concerns.
Murder, contrary to PRO, is not just the act of killing someone, but the act of killing them unjustly. To murder is to end someone’s life in a fashion that comes from malicious intent and is conducted outside of the law. Virtually all legal definitions of murder include “malice aforethought” as something that must be proven in court.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, murder is
so I'm not too sure what the fuss is about, that's essentially the definition I used.
However, What I'm really interested in is what you have instore for the coming rounds. So in short, do you believe God has committed murder? If no, continue, if yes, forfeit.
Con
#4
“I can create whatever debate I want. I can set whatever rules I want. I can debate about whatever I want. What I cannot do is force my opponents to compete against me.”
I didn't dispute this. I get that you have a right to set the rules. What I'm upset about is the fact that you're so hungry for a victory that you rigged them in your favor and forbade me from asking why. And of course you didn't force me into this interaction. That was a voluntary decision I made, mostly so I could urge you to reexamine your faulty definition. This has always been a very interesting topic to me and I want to have a fruitful discussion with you. But no fruit will be produced if your foremost goal is to win no matter what. I entered into this hoping that I could alter the path this debate was heading down.
As I predicted would be the case, my effort was in vain, as you ignored my challenges and doubled-down on the suspicious rules/definitions you mandated beforehand.
“the fact is you agreed to debate without even messaging me prior with your concerns.”
Because I had already seen how unreasonable you were in the comments. You said things like “I don’t think I made this possible to lose for myself”, and “If I add the word unjust', a religious person may argue that God cannot act unjustly and that all the murders were justified as God is Omnibenevolent.” While I applaud your honesty and straightforwardness, the bottom line is that these remarks demonstrate your intent was never to exchange ideas, it was to win a debate. You knew that your argument wouldn’t merit a victory on its own so you loaded the rulebook and stacked it in your favor. I was hoping to reverse that.
Murder, as was established in my first argument, is the premeditated killing of another human being with malicious intent. If your definition is different, you’re running counter to basically every judicial institution that has ever been founded. Murder is and has been considered to be, morally reprehensible SOLELY because of the malintent you have to have to commit it. If you kill someone out of self-defense, during war, or with some other reasonable justification you are vindicated and the charges against you are dropped. Civil society has always recognized this, and it baffles me that you’re so willing to contravene that consensus.
The bible gives a helpful analogy for those struggling with this question. If I fashion a pot and decide, for whatever reason, to destroy it, I am well within my rights to do so. It is my creation, and so I have full claim and jurisdiction over it. I am allowed to do with the pot as I see fit, and while you might quibble about my rationale, no one could seriously maintain that I am in the wrong. Likewise, God created humanity and therefore has the authority to whatever he desires with it. He can strike people down, decimate nations … whatever he feels is suitable, he is right in doing. He has full claim over our lives because he is the one who gave them to us. He is sovereign over everything he has made, and the benefits/liberties that stem from that are guaranteed. To top it off, you have the added fact that all humans have sinned against God and transgressed his moral law, which only lends him more credence when he decides to end someone’s life. The bible says that all of mankind is deserving of death, so God allowing us to die is not only upright but actually laudable. It’s one of the ways he judges people, and nobody can sincerely deny that we aren’t worthy of such judgment.
My question is this: Do you apply your standards across the board, or are you being selective? Do you admit that your definition requires the damnation of all forms of induced death, including self-defense, warfare, and even abortion (which is undoubtedly the most egregious of the three)? If not, then your redefinition is tentative and prejudiced, and it can be concluded that you don’t really condemn murder (at least, not in the sense you’ve dictated).
It gets even direr than that, as what you would essentially have to believe is that it is fine when people murder each other, but when God does it he deserves special condemnation. When Judges mete out the death penalty for egregious crimes, are they committing murder themselves? If they rule in that direction, aren’t they directly involved in the death of the criminal? When mothers slaughter their children in abortion facilities, is that wrong? Are you holding them to the same guidelines you’re insisting that God has to follow? If your answer is no, then basically what you’re telling me is that you believe it’s fine for women to dismember their innocent children in the womb en masse but wrong for God to harm the creatures he has full jurisdiction over, even as a response to their depravity and sinfulness. Solve that conundrum as you will.
So here we reach a crossroads. Either:
1. All forms of murder (killing) are wicked, meaning that the Omnibenevolent God of the Universe is on a par with people like Hitler. George Washington and Abe Lincoln would fall under the same umbrella as Stalin and Pol Pot - their actions, according to you, are morally equivalent and uniformly evil.
2. Only the murder (killings) God commits are wrong, and not the ones committed in war or at abortion clinics - in which case you’re being inconsistent with your application of this newfangled law.
3. Or finally, no murder is wrong, which would beg the question of why you find it so repugnant to worship a murderer in the first place.
These are your three options, and regardless of which one you choose, ultimately you have stripped the word of all its moral imperative. Say that I worship a murderer all you want. If we’re defining it your way, then I take no issue with that whatsoever.
I’ve got better things to do right now, so I’ll have to leave it there. Please, for the sake of this discussion, actually respond to my argumentation this time.
Round 3
Pro
#5
No introductions, I'll hop straight into things.
My opponent first agrees that they broke the rules of the debate, but then go on to insult my debate on a personal level.
Because I had already seen how unreasonable you were in the comments. You said things like “I don’t think I made this possible to lose for myself”, and “If I add the word unjust', a religious person may argue that God cannot act unjustly and that all the murders were justified as God is Omnibenevolent.”
The word unjust would actually make this debate impossible for me to win. Religious people can argue that anything God does, including the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is "just", as God is "perfect". How could I possibly debate against this? The motivation for removing the word "unjust", was not for greed as you seem keen to suggest, but because I wanted to remove any loopholes which would make this debate unfair. In removing the word unjust, the question is no longer judged by God's perfection, but by our own morality.
Murder, as was established in my first argument, is the premeditated killing of another human being with malicious intent. If your definition is different, you’re running counter to basically every judicial institution that has ever been founded.
I have already cited where my definition came from (Cambridge Dictionary) so this argument is purely emotional.
If you kill someone out of self-defense, during war, or with some other reasonable justification you are vindicated and the charges against you are dropped. Civil society has always recognized this, and it baffles me that you’re so willing to contravene that consensus.
According to the Cambridge dictionary, to commit murder is
The crime of intentionally killing a person.
while the definition of killing is
To cause someone or something to die.
It is clear that the only difference between killing and murdering is that a) murder is intentional, and b) killing includes causing death to both "someone" and "something". However, my opponent seems to have this point mixed up. They seem to believe the there is no murder at war.
Murder occurs at war. However, murder can be justified. People at war were presumably fighting for life and death. They had little choice. What they did was still murder, there is no dispute about this, but society simply treats veterans acts of murder differently.
You may point out that I just said "but murder can be justified". Before you say God's acts of murder can be justified, tell me how you can justify God burning 250 men into crisp.
The bible gives a helpful analogy for those struggling with this question. If I fashion a pot and decide, for whatever reason, to destroy it, I am well within my rights to do so. It is my creation, and so I have full claim and jurisdiction over it. I am allowed to do with the pot as I see fit, and while you might quibble about my rationale, no one could seriously maintain that I am in the wrong. Likewise, God created humanity and therefore has the authority to whatever he desires with it. He can strike people down, decimate nations … whatever he feels is suitable, he is right in doing.
This is exactly why I removed the word "unjust". How can I debate against this? Essentially, the question boils down too "is God real", which is a debate I will create in the near future.
But assuming God is real, what makes burning 250 men right? If God commanded you to do exactly what he did, and burn a town of innocent men wives and children, would you do it? Don't give me the "but he would never command me to do it" because that would be hypocritical, just imagine God is commanding you to do EXACTLY what he did himself.
My question is this: Do you apply your standards across the board, or are you being selective? Do you admit that your definition requires the damnation of all forms of induced death, including self-defense, warfare, and even abortion (which is undoubtedly the most egregious of the three)? If not, then your redefinition is tentative and prejudiced, and it can be concluded that you don’t really condemn murder (at least, not in the sense you’ve dictated).
To kill someone in self-defense is to commit murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". To kill someone in warfare is murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". To perform an abortion is murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". It is how we judge these acts of murder which matters.
When mothers slaughter their children in abortion facilities, is that wrong?
To slaughter a child is murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". As you can see, I'm pretty constant over the board.
So here we reach a crossroads. Either:1. All forms of murder (killing) are wicked, meaning that the Omnibenevolent God of the Universe is on a par with people like Hitler.
When did I say all forms of murder are wicked? As to the Omnibenevolent, I'll give an analogy. If I had an 18 year old son living with me, I have the rights to kick them out, as they are 18, but I will not be allowed to then call myself Omnibenevolent. You cannot be all loving while burning people to death.
I disagree with you on the second half of the statement thought. God is much much worse Hitler. Yes. Hitler never claimed to be perfect, never claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. The acts he committed were heinous, terrible, and hateful. The christian god claims to be omnieverything, and yet, because he has to allow for free will, he allows children to suffer and die, allows families to be ripped apart, people to be “tested with trials and tribulations” and the suffering of an entire human species, all due to the act of one person eating a stupid piece of fruit thousand of years ago.
God is definitely much more terrible than Hitler, and even if he actually does exist, he is by no means worthy of my praise and worship.
2. Only the murder (killings) God commits are wrong, and not the ones committed in war or at abortion clinics - in which case you’re being inconsistent with your application of this newfangled law.
All killing is wrong, but some can be justified. Usually, the justification is "I had no choice, my life was under threat, I was forcibly threatened to". However, God has no such excuses. He is the maximal being of whom can do anything he pleases. Surely, burning 250 men was not necessary.
--
Overall, all of my definitions have some how been questioned or shifted, which I am disappointed about.
The question remains do you believe God has committed murder. If yes, forfeits, if no, continue.
Con
#6
My opponent first agrees that they broke the rules of the debate, but then go on to insult my debate on a personal level.
Because the way you set up the debate is clearly the symptom of some personal flaws. As we will see over the course of my next (and most thorough) rebuttal, you have made it abundantly clear that you not only care nothing about debate ethics or decency but that you do not understand the concepts you’re invoking in your arguments (if they can even be called that).
The word unjust would actually make this debate impossible for me to win.
If you can’t make a plausible argument for your position using accepted definitions then that’s a good indicator your position is probably indefensible and shouldn’t be held any longer. In my mind, you’ve just tacitly conceded the debate. And while this is quite amusing (in a morbid sense), it’s also disheartening; here you are, confessing that you have no cogent, grounded argument for why God should be labeled a murderer, but instead of following that line of logic to its obvious conclusion you decide to manufacture some new definitions.
The motivation for removing the word "unjust", was not for greed as you seem keen to suggest, but because I wanted to remove any loopholes which would make this debate unfair.
Let me get this straight. You emptied “murder” of the very elements that make it so vile because otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to justifiably claim God has committed it, and then you restricted your opposition from challenging that and, indeed, say they have lost if they do; all under the banner of making things “fair”? I won’t bother pointing out the irony here - it’s already quite difficult to miss.
In removing the word unjust, the question is no longer judged by God's perfection, but by our own morality.
Ah yes - by the ever-shifting, eternally changing standards of mankind. Those are perfectly reliable metrics for measuring the goodness of The Almighty God. If Hitler won WWII, had succeeded in conquering the world, and you had survived up to this point (assuming you aren’t Jewish and that he hadn’t exterminated you yet), your moral convictions would be very, very different. Especially if you lived in a region that was under his control. You would have been brainwashed and indoctrinated as a child into believing Hitler was virtuous. This is man-made morality - it’s artificial, unreliable, and dangerous. If you’re going to be examining God’s actions, you will need something with more steadiness and deeper roots than the vagaries of human judgment.
But come to think of it, you shouldn’t even do that. Who are you to sit over God and arbitrate whether his actions are good or not? Are you really suggesting that your moral standing rivals that of the infinite God? I’d like to see some elaboration on this, but unfortunately, we’re running out of space. I doubt you could provide any satisfactory response anyway, so maybe that’s a good thing.
I have already cited where my definition came from (Cambridge Dictionary) so this argument is purely emotional.
Funny. The definition you cited agrees with me. It states that murder is an act that must be done outside of lawful conduct in order to qualify as such. What law, exactly, is God guilty of breaking? His own? What law restricts God from treating His subordinate creation as he desires? These are questions you have clumsily evaded for this entire discussion and honestly, I’m getting a bit tired of it.
It is clear that the only difference between killing and murdering is that a) murder is intentional, and b) killing includes causing death to both "someone" and "something".
This is a useless distinction to make. There are plenty of instances where people kill others with intent. The requisite that separates those sorts of deaths from the more grievous act of murder is that the latter happens because of malice. Again, if there is a reasonable excuse as to why you killed someone, you’ll be exempt from any legal ramifications. Self-defense and warfare are emphatically not forms of murder, at least not inherently.
They seem to believe there is no murder at war.
Where did I say this? Nowhere.
People at war were presumably fighting for life and death. They had little choice. What they did was still murder, there is no dispute about this, but society simply treats veterans acts of murder differently.
No, there is definitely a dispute. There are many problems with this little blurb, but most importantly
1. Murder is unlawful. Oftentimes, war is not, especially if you’re fighting to, say, liberate a group that’s being oppressed or if you’re exercising your right to self-defense. Similarly, murder must be done with malicious intent. If the motives that provoked a nation to declare warfare aren’t malicious, then it isn’t murder. This is elementary logic.
2. You act as though society constitutes the absolute moral norm for all of humanity. Which society? Hitlers, or yours? Once again, you’ve put the nonsensical aspects of subjective morality on full display. For the subjectivist, there is no point of reference - no timeless, unalterable principles. All you have (and all you’ve presented) are philosophical deepities. Come back when you have something more concrete than this amorphous blob you call “human morality”.
However, murder can be justified.
Then this entire discussion has been a catastrophic waste of my time. Saying all killing is murder is bad enough, but then going further and declaring that it can be justified . . . It’s almost insulting. You’ve reduced “murder” into a meaningless, vapid term. Now instead of being one of the most horrendous acts someone can commit, it's merely a catch-all for any form of killing whatsoever, even those that are done fairly and within lawful standards. Nobody who reads this debate in the future is going to come away thinking this was an intelligent thing to say. I’m sorry if that’s too blunt for you, but it’s just the truth. You’ve conjured up such a warped definition and are now doing (some rather impressive) mental contortions to defend it. Do you realize how oxymoronic the statement “murder can be just” is? You’re not a stupid person, I can tell that much. Why aren’t you employing your mind here? Did you wade in too deep and decide that you should double down to save face?
Before you say God's acts of murder can be justified, tell me how you can justify God burning 250 men into crisp.
First off, you haven’t demonstrated how it isn’t. Second, I already gave you a lengthy explanation as to why God can kill people rightly. God presides over mankind and sustains our existence. Therefore He has absolute authority over us. He fashions life like a pot and destroys it when his desires call for it. There is nothing wrong with this, or rather, you have yet to identify anything wrong. Your abject refusal to flesh out your objections has left me unable to give a substantial refutation. I can’t interact with your arguments because you have none.
This is exactly why I removed the word "unjust". How can I debate against this?
Yet another concession that your stance is much less tenable than you’ve purported it to be. If you can’t make a persuasive case for a certain viewpoint without fumbling around with fundamental judiciary/moral standards, perhaps you shouldn’t be making a case for it at all.
As to the Omnibenevolent, I'll give an analogy.
We’ve all heard this analogy before, and it’s growing stale. Yes, as the parent you have the power to remove your child from your household. My questions are why that is wrong and also how it at all relates back to God’s ultimate supremacy and sovereignty over creation. I genuinely don’t see the connection. It seems like you’re grasping at straws, which isn’t surprising considering how much you’ve been doing that during this debate.
God is much much worse Hitler.
You claim to be so deliberate and analytical - so adamant against the use of emotion as a tool of persuasion. You even listed it as one of the reasons why you baselessly removed “unjust” from the definition of murder. And yet here you are, responding with emotionally charged language and empty rhetoric. I honestly don’t know how to respond other than by reiterating what I’ve been stressing since the debate began. God created life and thus wields the power to end it when he sees fit. He is operating on a different plane than Hitler or any human for that matter. Hitler didn’t create the Jews, and the Jews did nothing to him that would warrant their extinction. He had no right to make violent movements against them. Jews, or more broadly, humanity as a whole has sinned against God, AND He created them. The disparity is so plain and easy to detect.
All killing is wrong, but some can be justified.
And this is where I’m calling it quits. I just can’t do this anymore. You are clearly a very confused person and I pray that you will rethink some of the things you’ve done here, as well as the positions you’ve been advocating for.
I trust the voters to issue an agreeable verdict. That is all.
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:
Argument to con, because Pro just dropped all of con's arguments and admitted he could not prove that God's killing were equivalent to murder.
Feedback: Con's assertion may look impossible to beat, but there are many ways to go around it, especially the famous idea defeating morality from God: "does God dictate what is Good because it is good, or is it good, because God dictates it?" In addition, Con's argument comes from appeal to authority (despite God being the highest authority possible). Whether pain and suffering is deserved is definitely up to question.
vote bump
bump
Voters, anyone?
*bump*
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Seld // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G.
To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
Added: 8 days ago
#1
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:
Sources to Con, because Pro's Cambridge source defeats his own idea that murder is equal to killing.
SG to Con, because Pro mis-defined murder.
Conduct to Con, because Pro blatantly admitted he believed his topic as is cannot be won by any opponent, and did not give effort to link together the idea that God's murder may be unjust.
Argument to con, because Pro just dropped all of con's arguments and admitted he could not prove that God's killing were equivalent to murder.
Feedback: Con's assertion may look impossible to beat, but there are many ways to go around it, especially the famous idea defeating morality from God: "does God dictate what is Good because it is good, or is it good, because God dictates it?" In addition, Con's argument comes from appeal to authority (despite God being the highest authority possible). Whether pain and suffering is deserved is definitely up to question.
Bump
To be a fan of Will Smith is to be a fan of aggravated assault. Uh? No.
whos this wylted person? It there an issue with me questioning the votes that have been put through?
> If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of.
DEBATE RESOLUTION: To worship "YHWH" is to worship a slaughterer of women and children.
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 However, all the girls who have not known a man intimately, keep alive for yourselves.
Checkmate is not wylted. Wylted likes to do debate about rape, pedophilia, etc. not affirmative action and god being a murderer
Are you just Wylted again?
Mmm... not necessarily, just like CalebEr did here, it could be just to kritik your debate topic.
You would be allowed to do that. That is in your full control. You can make any debate you want. You can set any rules you want. However, if someone accepts the debate, then they clearly a acknowledge the harsh rules and will abide by them.
Ok, duly noted
I changed my mind after R1 and decided to move forward with the argument, even though my condition had not been met. There were still some points I wanted to make. As for the latter quote, that wasn't meant as a concession, but I get why it might come across that way. What I was trying to say was: "What I've communicated thus far is sufficient; everything else my opponent has stated has either already been addressed or is not important enough to respond to."
if you've been on debate.org, Debateart is not a site where you can impose incredibly strict and unreasonable rules. For example, If I created the same debate as you and said:
"Violation of any rules is a full 7 point forfeit. Forfeit a round = instant loss. No kritikis. Definitions cannot be contested.
I define Worshiping God as Worshiping a murderer.
Good luck."
Do you intend to concede or not?
""If you refuse to rescind your definition, I forfeit."
"And this is where I’m calling it quits."
Most judges allow debaters to ignore the ruleset at penalty of conduct point with the sole exception of a rule that says "Any breaking of these rules will result in an instant loss."
That said, if you did that, this debate would be even more contemptable in my view.
Unfortunately yes, I do agree that in cases (besides definitions) you should be to set rules, but there are no rules that the other participant has to follow them, the most you could justfiably do (you as in a general DART member) is penalize them on conduct.
So it doesn't matter that I said "no kritiks, agree to definitions" in my rules? So I might as well not have written rules? I've seen many top debaters on this cite that have the same format, including rules.
I mean.... yeah... you aren't wrong there
I didn't say this before because I didn't want to influence the arguments, but the definitions of murder and God here have a weird result. Murder is defined as killing, and God is defined as perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness. Since God has killed, and God is perfect in goodness, murder is good according to the definitions in the description.
That actually made me laugh
When you said of seldiora's vote, "I believe the vote to be improper," were you intending to use the standard and accepted definition of 'improper'?
I'm not saying you charged God, I'm saying PRO did, which is why I'm holding him to such a high standard and why his dramatic failure was pointed out time and time again. Several others had already asked for clarification, and PRO had refused to alter his definitions. The external critiques weren't influencing him at all so I went in with an internal one. Maybe this discussion has taught him that loading a debate in your favor is simply not welcome here. If his behavior changes in the future he can earn my respect back, but as of right now he is simply not deserving of it.
Re-read my commentary. I did not charge anything relative to God. I do not charge that He is a murderer. You will note that I did not vote, and explained why. You will note that I criticized your acceptance of the debate, accepting the definitions as is. Pro prohibited nothing. You could have asked via comments for clarification of definitions, and did not, so accept that for what it was: a mistake. I did not vote because neither of you treated the debate, or each other, with any respect.
One more note, if you believe a vote to be fraudulent or the like, report it, and the mods will decide. If you aren't confident enough to report it, then the vote is most likely fine.
As much as I lean towards your side in regards to the topic, CalebEr is completely correct in there criticisms. First of all, in the code of conduct in dart on debates (https://info.debateart.com/help/debates) there is no rule that the Contender must follow all rules or obligations in the description, therefore CalebEr is perfectly within their rights to kritik your entire argument.
Second of all - it is also true that the one who has created a definition that deviates from the sourced or cited definition must provide reasoning for their decision. Therefore the burden of the reasoning does fall to you in order to substantiate your new definition. Definitions are some of the most fundamental pieces of a debate, for them to not be open for argument is absurd.
If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of. Needless to say, that's a grave allegation and should therefore be substantiated to the fullest extent that this formatting allows. I don't see this as just some fun intellectual exercise where I try to make a defense against completely biased charges. From my perspective, this is a chance to guide a person who is obviously lost, both theologically and philosophically. That was my initial goal, and while I admit it failed, it wasn't for a lack of trying on my part. PRO cared little about the subject matter, and frankly, I just don't tolerate the kind of flippancy that he displayed. I'm obligated to fight against it, even in the context of an online argument.
Usually, when one side decides to deviate from a traditional definition they must shoulder the extra burden of explaining why - you don't just get to assert your rehashed terminology, you need to defend it; this is a common decorum. Well, he didn't. Not so much as a finger was lifted by him to support the objectionable concepts he provided. And the disturbing part is that he knew he wouldn't be able to defend it, so he prohibited any litigation. This is the kind of arrogance I was talking about, but I had no idea it would be as pervasive as it was. You seem to think I should have known this debate was going to be fruitless beforehand as if I'm some sort of psychic who can read the minds of my rivals. That isn't realistic, obviously. I stated probably around three or four times that the whole reason I entered into this was to see if I could change the nature of the debate from the inside. This is a very important topic and it deserves to be discussed, but the discussion isn't going to be productive or useful if one side has stacked the courts in his favor. In a normal interaction, PRO would use the accepted definitions and present his evidence accordingly. Then I would counter that as best I could. I was hopeful that I could shift the doomed trajectory of this conversation, and it would have worked had my opponent complied.
My comment to your in #31 was before you changed your vote, which was a 7-7 tie. So be it. Your vote, your consequence.
I believe the vote to be improper. After getting my definitions shifted and rules broken, and even after my opponents admitting they will use kritiks and ignore my rules, they somehow pull through with the vote? Does my opponent not bear any consequence for accepting a debate and then complaining about it? Not to mention that the BoP was not proved by con, what so ever.
Sorry if you concluded I was criticizing your vote; I wasn't. I just could not come to your conclusion to proffer a vote. I, too, however, believfe the debate could have been waged, and a clear winner determined. I just don'r think either participant had that as a worthy goal.
"murder: the crime of intentionally killing a person"-Cambridge
"To kill someone in self-defense is to commit murder as it is "intentionally killing a person". " -You
Killing someone in self-defense is not a crime, so it's not murder
you might want to re-read my vote. I don't like how dishonest Pro was in setting up and unwilling to think of other ways to prove the resolution. It's entirely possible to win this with usual definitions, merely very difficult
This debate is absurd from both sides. Just reading the arguments, dismissing the rationale of morality and law, I wanted to kill both combatants. Their utter disregard for one another made a vote a disservice in the extreme. The set-up, as Con charged in R1, was biased to the point of creating an attempted truism, and Pro actually bragged in R1 that his set-up was a virtual win for him. Nope. A win for that is ill-gotten. However, as Con accepted the debate with the full knowledge of the biased set-up, he bears responsibility for accepting the debate. Con charged Pro with prohibition of disputing definitions. The time to dispute definitions is prior to accepting the debate. As soon as the Instigator creates the debate, the comments section is open. Prior to accepting the debate as is, anyone can message the Instigator to seek clarification of the resolution, the set-up, definitions, etc. Having accepted the debate as is, those doors of query close, and Con is on one's own to develop arguments with the conditions set. Pro's definition is the only dictionary definition I see that does not add to the definition the notion of murder being an unlawful act. As Cambridge defines it [I checked], murder is a virtual match with the act of killing. Every other dictionary I consulted [a half-dozen, including my go-to, the OED] draws the distinct of murder being unlawful, or words to that effect, separate from killing, which draws no such distinction. The choice of Cambridge stacks the deck, in my view. Con's argument that God, being the Creator, has the authority as a life-giver, to take it, has merit, but God does not kill indiscriminately, as did all mortal murderers Pro names. In all of Pro's examples in R1, the people are steeped in sin. But Con does not defend the point, choosing to abandon the entire debate. Likewise, Pro turns the debate to attacking Con,, and Con replies in kind losing all sense of conduct as expected. This debate was doomed, IMO. I think Fruit_Inspector did a good job in reducing my commentary to simple graphics.
As the debate voting rules do not allow for deducting points, [a flaw, imo] I will not vote, because neither side deserves any points for any factor. But, that's my view; I'll impose it on no one. Please vote as your inclination suggests. seldiora did the next best thing - a tie, but that's being generous, imo.
we asked for clarification. Pro was confused. Pro offered a similar legal definition from Cambridge in R2 and essentially conceded the debate.
The preceding is the legal definition. But y'all who offer advice back and forth ignore that Con has the right, indeed, a responsibility, prior to accepting the debate, to clarify definitions if there is objection to them. If the Instigator does not wish to clarify, that also is a choice, but will likely have no takers in the debate. There is no reason not to seek such clarification before the debate begins, because to accept it, yet complain about misunderstandings is defacto acceptance of what is proposed.
"Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought."
-https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
You just admitted it has to be a crime. Lol
Con has agreed to debate against the topic To worship God is to worship a murderer. That is what they will be doing. Not doing so will be a breach of the rules and poor debating ethics.
Saw this late. But the point is to make the topic more debate able, not just an easy win bc of some redefinitions.
The clear difference is that it was arguable, because it is not a given that God has broken his own law (i.e. the same reason that it would be arguable to say God murders in the sense that he breaks the moral law). To remove any sort of qualification of "just" or "lawful" is to remove any sort of debatability the resolution possesses. Anyway, I will keep it at that to avoid giving CON his argument for free.
So be it.
It's worth noting that I got this idea from a debate conducted by seldiora, to which his opponent believes that God has not even broken a single law. I thought that was a certain win for seldiora, but apparently someone thought better. I do not see the issue with this debate.
Unfortunately, as if you agreed to the terms, you shall be abiding by them. Though you have opinions about my debate, you have taken part in it willingly. I have the freedom to set up any debate I want with whatever terms I see fit, and you also have the freedom to accept of reject my debate. However, upon acceptance, you have acknowledged the terms of this debate and will be abiding by them.
Break the rules if you want, but that will be poor conduct and a breach in an agreement.
The reason I accepted this debate is that I think your redefinition of murder is wildly inappropriate, not because God hasn't killed people in the past. If we were to follow the rules you've put in place, without deviation, a productive exchange of ideas would be impossible, as you've already rigged the setup in your favor. That's why I'm going to ignore some of your rules, and why if you continue insisting that I comply with them you'll have admitted that you don't actually believe in the contention you're arguing for.
Does not impact my point in the slightest. As for them believing God has not killed... well, we will see.
Well someone accepted the debate so clearly they believe God has not killed.