Instigator / Pro
DeprecatoryLogistician's avatar
1
DeprecatoryLogistician
1511
rating
7
debates
42.86%
won
Topic
#3281

Christianity has value, and people should convert to Christianity.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
3

After 3 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Tags
Religion
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Bones's avatar
3
Bones
1761
rating
31
debates
95.16%
won
Description

-- INTRO --
In light of recent polling data showing that 3 in 10 adults have no relgious affiliation, it is clear that a debate around the value of Christianity and Christian conviction is relevant and necessary.
https://www.pewforum.org/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/

-- TOPIC --
Resolved: Christianity has value, and people should show conviction towards it.

-- STRUCTURE --
1. Constructives
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals/Close

-- Rules --
1. Forfeit merits a loss
2. Citations must be provided
3. Everything else is fair game and if nescesarry can be debated through theory in round

Round 1
DeprecatoryLogistician's avatar
DeprecatoryLogistician
Pro
#1
Definitions 

I define Christianity as any religion that:
  1. Believes in one God (The Trinity)
  2. Believes Jesus saves those who accept him as their savior
  3. Believes in the resurrection and second coming of Jesus

In the context of this debate, value means:
1. relative worth, utility, or importance
Or 2. something (such as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable(Merriam Webster) 

In the context of this debate, convert simply means that someone becomes a Christian, and believes that the 3 Christian beliefs I described are true.

Framing

1.Pro can win by proving Christianity has value, is true, people should convert to it, or any combination of the three.
We are debating if Christianity has any value, and if people should convert to Christianity. Pro can win if I Christianity has value because I am going to assume that if something has value, people should practice this thing. Pro can win if people should convert to Christianity because presumably, the reason someone should  convert to Christianity is that Christianity has value. Lastly, I can win if I prove that Christianity is true.  Although, not explicitly stated in the resolution, the truth of Christianity is reason both that Christianity has value, and that people should convert to it. People should show conviction, so that they do not burn in hell, and the value of Christianity is that you do not burn in hell if we assume that Christianity is true. 

2.Any form of Chistianity counts 
We are debating if Christianity has value,  or if people should convert to it. These things can only be true for one form of Christianity, or true for multiple forms of Christianity. If a single form of Christianity falls under one of the three criteria I listed in subpoint one, this warrants a vote for Pro because this means that Christianity has value, and that people should convert to it, even if it does not apply to all branches of Christianity. 

3.Past actions of particular branches of Christianity do not apply
If any form of christianity counts, then there is no reason that the actions of a particular branch of Christianity should apply to the debate if it is not in relation to an actual branch of Christianity discussed in the debate. The word should also implies we are talking about the future, not the past. We can talk about a set of values, and the effects those values will have, or have empirically had in the past, but we must apply this to the future.

4. Worldly net benefit is a voting criteria if there is no conclusion on truth.
Even if voters do not buy that Christianity is true, and that people should convert, Pro should still win if there is a worldly net benefit to practicing Christianity. In other words, Pro should win if Christianity will create a better world than one without Christianity because there would be no harm to that, and there would be a benefit. Net benefit should be considered as a voting criteria because it is tautologically true. Benefit is beneficial.

The truth of Christianity still supersedes worldly net benefit in this debate because even under net benefit, if Christianity has negative effects on earth, the effects of Christianity in the afterlife would still outweigh in terms of conviction and value. Even if Christianity harms the world, it is still better to Convert and avoid endless torment. In the case that Pro wins on truth, but not worldly value, Pro not only wins on conversion , but Pro also wins on value because the value is avoiding that endless pain and suffering. Therefore the truth of Christianity should be considered before net benefit.  

To simplify this:
Cast your ballot as Con if Pro loses both on truth and value. 

Cast your ballot as Pro if Pro wins on either truth or value.

Conversion is important to the debate, but it is the conclusion drawn based on truth, or value, so in theory voters should not need to consider conversion if they have already decided on truth and value. 

New Points

Contention 1. Societal value

I will assume we can both agree we need some sense of societal value and morality, so I will not address this unless it is attacked. Kant’s categorical imperative sets up a system to implement morality areligiously, and in my opinion his system probably comes the closest to working well (Stanford). The categorical imperative is essentially a principle of universality which says that one can evaluate if an action is moral by imagining what the world would be like if everybody took the same action as you. This is indeed a good system for determining if an action is right, and it is quite similar to Luke 6:31, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

The categorical imperative falls short of the Christianity because there is no enforcement. While it shows if an action is moral, the consequences presented by the test are unlikely to actually occur. Just because you murder one person, this does not mean that you will be murdered, or that the general population will have become any more murderous. Of course, I argue that under strictly the categorical imperative, there would be more murderers in soceity, but this is not because of one murder commited by an individual, this is because of the rejection of religion itself. Whereas, with Christianity there is a clear mechanism that encourages people to act morally. The bible says people will be rewarded for their services, or in other words there is a reward for being a good person. The reason many Christians do not fall in line with this is that it is rarely preached anymore. If it were preached more often, people would likely act more morally (Biblical Use of Rewards as a Motivation For Christian Service).


Contention 2. Individual value

Christianity has many individual benefits, and many of these are not even dependent on the truth of Christianity. For example, a study from Harvard proved that Christians had “better health and well-being during early adulthood.” Additionally Christianity shields people from the harmful effects of nihilism. A report  by Kenneth Wachter of UC Berkeley says that “the sense that one is living a worthwhile and meaningful life is fundamental to human flourishing and subjective well-being.” 

Christianity also has more individual value when one assumes that it is true. Notably, a Christian would be saved from hell where there is an eternal, and hopeless wailing and gnashing of teeth — a pain so unimaginable that we can not even come close to comprehend the pain. In place of this punishment, a Christian is granted an eternal reward of being with God, and having eternal happiness, where there is no hope because there is nothing to hope for, perfection has been achieved and they can live in eternal happiness and contentment. This would be of infinite value based on timeframe, and the actual infinite levels of pain vs. suffering. 


Contention 3. Truth

You have not made any arguments against Christianity yet, so I will not go into depth as to why Christianity is true right now, but I will lay out a couple of basic claims. Christianity is uniquely disprovable because it relies on the empirical claim of a historical fact which can be disproven or proven — the resurrection, and there is evidence for the resurrection. I will not go in depth here into that evidence yet, but I am sure that there will be a lot of clash around this issue in future rounds, so I will let you make your claims about Christianity before I start trying to prove those claims false. 


Contention 4. Conversion 

People should convert to Christianity because of the previous benefits I listed out in contensions 1 and 2 even if they do not believe Christianity to be true. Assuming Christianity is true, someone's salvation from eternal torment depends on converting.

Bones's avatar
Bones
Con
#2
THBT: Christianity has value, and people should convert to Christianity.

Preliminary: 

The resolution of this debate is as follows

  • Christianity has value, and people should convert to Christianity.
Before we begin, I suggest we alter the resolution to the following: 

  • Christianity has a net positive value, and people should convert to Christianity.
As PRO has already provided arguments which supports this altered resolution, a shift to this more accurate resolution will do them no harm. Nevertheless, I will refer to the original resolution throughout this round. 

It can be observed that this debate can be separated into two sections which PRO needs to substantiate. 

  1. Christianity has value. 
  2. People should convert to Christianity. 
A third inference can also be casted, which PRO has already done so. 

     3. Christianity is true. 

PRO dictates that CON must prove both that Christianity a) has no value and b) is not true, however, this is simply a misunderstanding on PRO's part. As CON, I must simply prove that the resolution is incorrect - I need not disapprove of each substantive within the resolution. I can show that. 

  1. Christianity has value, but people should not convert to Christianity.
  2. Christianity does not have value, but people should convert to Christianity. 
  3. Christianity does not have value, and people should not convert to Christianity.
Notice that option 1&2 are valid - take 1 as an example. Though 1 concedes that Christianity has value, it contests by asserting that people should not convert to Christianity, thereby negating the resolution.

PRO must prove that both claims are true, whilst CON only needs to demonstrate that one of these claims are false in order to win. As such, CON is only required to debunk one of the two claims in order to win. 

-

Section I: Christianity is not valuable. 

Contention I: The lessons of Christianity are incoherent. 

In order for Christianity to be a good moral system, it must not provide rules which are contradictory to our moral system. 
Consider 5 of the 10 commandments. 
  • Don’t Worship other Gods
  • Don’t work on Saturday
  • Don’t use the lord's name in vain
  • Don’t be Jealous of your peers
  • Don’t Dishonour your mother of father.
By our moral standard, there appears to be nothing overtly or inherently immoral about these 5 commandments. However, these commandments are laid out alongside more important commands, such as "thou shall not kill" - yet the bible offers no distinction between the prohibition of murder and working on a saturday, thus from a Christian perspective, they are both equally immoral. Further Still, Matthew 5:19 dictates that those who break even one of the commandments will casted out of heaven. 

Contention II: Christianity oppresses the LGBTQ community. 





Evidently, Christianity is not welcoming to Homosexuals. Gary Potter, President of Catholics for Christian Political Action has stated: "When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil". Thus, were everyone to convert to Christianity,  homosexuals and the LGBTQ community would be in great danger. 

-

Section II: People should not convert to Christianity.

Contention III: Muslims in Syria should not convert to Christianity, an argument from a Kritik. 

A Kritik is an argument which operates by questioning an axiomatic truth within the resolution. It is sometimes known as a semantic argument. 

p1. People should, a posteriori not strive to die. 
p2. Converting to Christianity in Syria will, a posteriori result in you dying. 
c1. People in Syria should not convert to Christianity. 

Though these premises are self evident, should CON wish to challenge any of the premises, I shall elaborate accordingly. 

--

Contention IV: Christianity is not true 

p1. Society ought to pursue truth. 
p2. Christianity is not true
c1. Society should not pursue Christianity 

p1.
PRO asserts that "even if voters do not buy that Christianity is true, and that people should convert, Pro should still win if there is a worldly net benefit to practicing Christianity". However, this is to neglect the importance of truth. To use Kant's Universalizability principle, lying cannot possibly be a maxim, as such would result in there being no truth, which in turn would result in there being no lie. Furthermore, belief in Christianity cannot be sustained unless one believes it to be true - for example, the teachings of the Bible are only authoritative if we believe that a) the teachings are foundationally true and b) that the subsequent consequences i.e a rejection from God and Hell, will be actualised. It is simply non-feasible to take the lessons Jesus seriously whilst knowing that such a man is simply the creation of the creativity mortal creatures. Even if it can be demonstrated that Christianity has societal value, such value can only be enforced if Christianity is true. 

p2. 
To disprove the veracity of Christianity, I will provide two arguments. 

Contention V: Application of Occam's Razor 
 
  • The Occam's Razor, also known as the law of parsimony states that “plurality should not be posited without necessity”. The principle deems a theory most likely if it has the least ontological commitments when compared with other theories. The principle can also be expressed as “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”. Thus, my application of Occam's Razor can be framed by theism versus metaphysical naturalism [13]. Whilst Metaphysical naturalism has only two ontological commitments (the physical universe and the laws that govern it), Theism has three commitments (the physical universe, the laws that govern it and a divine being). 
    • Hence, the theory of which God is not necessary is, according to the law of parsimony, more likely.
Contention VI: Gratuitous evils 

  • p1. If God exists, there would be no gratuitous evils (GE). 
  • p2. There are gratuitous evils in the world. 
  • c1. God does not exist.
p1. is true by virtue of truism. By definition, a GE is a type of evil of which creates no good. A GE does not lead to virtue, does not teach a lesson, and is completely unjust. A GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for it would then be a God justified good. By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral. Thus, as God is omnibenevolent (all loving) he would not allow gratuitous evil to occur. 

p2. is also verified by truism. To assert otherwise is to dictate that every single bit of suffering that exists is necessary. Take, for example , koala's getting burnt to death in Australian bushfires. This clearly does not yield any positive outcome or benefit, yet contending the second premise is to state that the exact amount of suffering the koala undergoes is just. Any less suffering would not have sufficed. The koala could not have died a mere second before it did, as such would suggest that the second of suffering was not necessary. In order to uphold this premise, CON must simply show that there is at least some suffering which is not necessary. 

c1. Thus the conclusion is upheld. God does not exist. 

-

Conclusion: 

To end with a quote, consider the words of neuroscientists, philosopher and best selling author Sam Harris. 

It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally or geopolitically. 
Round 2
DeprecatoryLogistician's avatar
DeprecatoryLogistician
Pro
#3
Framing
I agree with Con, we are debating if value has net positive value as I believe it is implied in the resolution.

1.Pro wins by proving Christianity has value, is true, people should convert to it, or any of the 3.
Con contested subpoint 1 which said that Pro could win if any of the following were true. Christianity has value, is true, or people should convert to it. Con brings up the point that Christianity could have value, and that people should not convert to it, and vice versa. This is inherently illogical because if something has value people should convert to it. This debate does not exist in a vacuum, and it is logically impossible for one of these things to be true without the other also being true. Pro must only prove one of these things to be true. 

4. Net benefit is a voting issue with no conclusion on truth.
In p1, on contention 4, Con contests subpoint 4 which says worldly net benefit is a voting criteria if there is no conclusion on truth. The arguments given are that lying destroys truth through Kant's universalizability principle , and that someone can not be a Christian unless they believe in Christianity. Kant's universalizability principle actually says, “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” This is simply a moral test  that generally applies to good and moral decision making, but doing something does not actually make this into a universal law. People have lied in the past, but there is still such a thing as truth. Furthermore, this assumes that a Convert to Christianity would be lying. A lie actually has nothing to do with an objective truth. Lies have to be intentional, so even if Christianity is false, and someone preaches Christianity this does not mean that they are lying unless they themselves believe it to be a lie. Lying is also not what the resolution is talking about, the resolution would be using fiat to actually convert people into Christians who believe in Christianity. 

No other direct arguments were made on framing, so voters should accept these things to be true in round: 
2. Any form of Chistianity counts 
3. Past actions of particular branches of Christianity do not apply

Value
AT: C1, Incoherent lessons 
In contention 1 Con talks about how Christianity does not properly handle the scale of different sins. For example, don’t be jealous of your peers is equivalent to murder. This is not what the Bible says, but even if it did there would be no harm to this. Con even admits, “there appears to be nothing overtly or inherently immoral” about the referenced commandments. This is not a bad thing, sins are sins regardless of the scale and should not be committed, there is no disadvantage to being motivated not to sin, or even to do something that is completely pointless if you do not buy that all of the commandments are wrong to break. 

If  voters do not buy this, the Bible actually does give a way to weigh sins against each other. Matthew 22:36-40 explains this: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Love is not just an abstract thing, St. Thomas Aquinas gave the generally accepted definition saying that love is to will the good of another. Going by this definition, one can clearly see which commandments to prioritize. For example , murder is worse for someone else than jealousy is. 

Also, Matthew 5:19 is misinterpreted by Con. The verse says, “Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” It actually says that anyone who perpetually practices and teaches against the commandments will have a lower status in heaven, not that breaking a commandment one time will cause you to be cast into hell. The verse also acknowledges that certain commandments are more important by using the phrase: “least of these commands.”

AT: C2,  LGBTQ Oppression 
Con’s second contention on the value of Christianity was that it oppresses LGBTQ people. Con loses this point on framework:

2. Any form of Chistianity counts 
3.Past actions of particular branches of Christianity do not apply

These were never responded to so voters can accept them as true. Con only brings up the past actions of particular branches of Christianity to support this point. Notably Con leaves out protestant churches which widely accpet LGBTQ people(HRC). 

If any form of christianty counts then protestant branches count. If past actions of particular branches do not apply there is no valid link proving Christianity is inherently discriminatory, so there is no harm to the value of Christianity itself, just certain branches of it which as established by subpoints 2 and 3, does not matter for this debate. 
 
Conversion
AT: C3, Syria K
The link on the K is flawed. The resolution doesn’t say every single person in the world should convert to Christianity. In debate definitions should be established based on bright lines, and the most reasonable interpretations of the resolution should be accepted to set dividing lines between topical or non-topical arguments. The K is untopical because it assumes the resolution to mean that 100% of people on earth should have to convert for the resolution to be true, rather than a more reasonable interpretation like substantial, or the vast majority. The untopical link does not apply because under the resolution there is no need for Syrian Muslims to convert. 

If voters don’t buy this, even if you interpret the resolution to mean 100% of people must convert, it does not mean they must be vocal. It is entirely possible for them to convert silently, and thus not be killed. Furthermore, if you accept the 100% interpretation this would mean that all people, including all Syrians would be converted through fiat, meaning that all the converts would still survive. For the K to work Con would actually need to say, 100% of people should convert to Christianity, except for violent Syrian extremists. 

AT: Truth
AT: p1. Pursue Truth. 
Con brings up 2 points on truth. The first point is saying Pro violates the categorical imperative, and neglects the importance of truth. The link here is saying that the resolution causes people to lie, but the resolution actually converts people, so it is not a lie as lies have to be intentional. This round, I talked about this more extensively in the worldly net benefit section. The 2nd part of the claim says that people cannot be Christian without actually believing in Christianity. This is not what the resolution is saying. It is saying that people should convert, and actually believe in Christianity. We also assume fiat in debate which means the voters are voting as if the resolution were actually going to be realized, and not the barriers in the way of it being realized. Of course, the vast majority will never just magically believe in Christianity, but we are debating about if they should, not if they will. 

AT: p2. Christianity false 
Occam’s Razor
Pro turns Occam’s razor. It does not solely apply to ontological assumption, it reads: “plurality should not be posited without necessity” or “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity” (encyclopedia.com). Neither of these versions says the razor applies solely to ontology. It applies to entities which according to Merriam Webster are things that are separate from other things. All assumptions should be considered. Christianity makes 2 assumptions. God exists, and God creates things. The physical universe, the laws that govern it are both explained by God’s ability to create things and every other thing God created. Simply saying there is a God who created everything is far simpler than trying to propose a purely scientific explanation which has many assumptions such as the assumption that the universe can be created without a God,  the physical universe, the laws that govern it, and presumably an assumption of some form of morality. That is 4 examples which is more than 2, so Christianity is simpler by this logic. Even without giving specific examples it is clear that saying God created the universe is much simpler than the complicated scientific link chain that goes from the big bang to the creation of humans, and that clearly requires more assumptions. 

Occam’s razor does not prove anything. It is not always true, and it is better to evaluate things with actual logic rather than accepting the simplest solution. For example, DNA is an incredibly complex explanation for genetic inheritance, but it was correct despite being entirely based on the assumption that a complex model was correct. My point here is that Occam's razor is not enough to prove anything false by itself, and if we accept Occam’s razor as true we will be less likely to come to a correct conclusion. 

GE
God's nature is irrelevant to this debate. He does not have to be omnibenevolent for any one of my links to hold up, but God is omnibenevolent. GEs exist because God understands free will to be necessary, and he created people with free will. Not doing this would have been an evil in itself, and an omnibenevolent God cannot commit evil. Con assumes that something is a GE if it does not lead to something good, but something good can also enable something evil which is morally equivalent. It doesn’t matter if the good came before or after the evil was committed. Freewill is good, but it can lead to evil things. God has to allowfree will, so God has to allow GEs.

People should convert, Christianity has value and is true.


Bones's avatar
Bones
Con
#4
THBT: Christianity has a net positive value, and people should convert to Christianity.

Observations: 

  • PRO charges CON of ignoring multiple of his contentions.
    • Note that, in the description of this debate, round 1 is dedicated purely to constructives. 
Preliminary affirmation: 

BoP:

Con brings up the point that Christianity could have value, and that people should not convert to it, and vice versa.
There are many things which have or could have value, which our society would not do e.g enslaving a small portion of the population for the benefit of the majority. Furthermore, I argued that truth is vital to the teachings of Christianity - one cannot truly believe in Gods teachings if they do not first believe in God. 

As I discussed in r1, this debate can be divided into two separate sectors: PRO, being affirmative must uphold the entirety of the statement, whilst CON, the contender, must simply see that the resolution is false. Such does not require the entirety of the topic to be false. 

Truth: 

Here, PRO contends to my proposition that truth is important, and in doing so tangles himself in a contradiction - PRO believes that it is true that truth is not important. Why ought we take his proposition seriously? 

PRO contends by asserting that if everyone believes in Christianity even though it is false, then technically, this is not lying. Whilst this is true, I can simply adjust the terms which I inserted into Kant's moral principle. According to the universalizability principle, mass indoctrination is not beneficial, for if everyone were deluded, no one would have access to the truth. If "truth" can be created at whim, then the value of truth is degraded. 

Section I aff:

Contention I: Incoherence in teachings

Con even admits, “there appears to be nothing overtly or inherently immoral” about the referenced commandments. This is not a bad thing, sins are sins regardless of the scale and should not be committed, there is no disadvantage to being motivated not to sin
Notice how the derived quotation merely shows my statement "nothing inherently immoral (about referenced commandments)", it makes no reference to the scale of which they are committed. It should be blindingly clear that "don’t work on Saturday" is not a sin - in fact, if our world were to adopt this, we would be severely handicapped. Were we to completely stop work on an entire day on the basis of an untrue proposition, our world would surely lose trillions of dollars. 

In order for working on a Sunday to be a sin, the source which dictates it must be true i.e, the bible. In order for the bible to be true, God must exist. As we can see, this debate fundamentally falls back to whether Christianity is true. 

Contention II: LGBTQ oppression:

PRO dictates that CON loses the entire premise on framework. Note that the framework PRO refers to is not a rule in the description - merely a contention in his own argument. As the format of this debate stipulates that r1 is for contentions, I naturally did not rebut. 

  • Rebut: Any form of Christianity counts 
    • The immediate question which arises is: what constitutes Christianity? One noncontroversial criteria would be to follow the teachings of the bible. One cannot contradict all of the teachings of Jesus and still assert that they are Christian. Clearly, if a Christian is pro homosexuality, they either have some justification of seemingly unequivocal discrimination of homosexuals, or they are breaking the teachings of God. Take, for example, the following verses.
      • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 2"
      • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
  • Rebut: Past actions of Christianity do not count 
    • This assertion is completely false. When people consider whether an option is viable, they study the effects which the option yielded in the past. Is printing money beneficial? No, because countries which have done it in the past fell into hyperinflation. Every decision that is made is based on events which occur in the past. Should we elect X? No, he didn't do well in the presidential debates. Should we ban Y? Yes, because countries which have done it in the past have benefited. 
-

Section II aff:

Contention III: Muslims 

PRO does not directly address the syllogism and states that the resolution does not apply to all people. However, the resolution uses the term "people". Are muslims in Syria people? If so, then the resolution is inclusive of their transitioning. 

PRO then states that if every muslim transitioned, we would not have this problem. However, this was not my contention, I merely stated that there are certain people who should not transition, namely, the minorities in Syria. 

Further Still, the rules stipulate that besides forfeiting being prohibited and citations being necessary, "everything else is fair game". Thus, the resolution is negated until my opponent addresses which syllogism is faulty. 

Contention IV: Truth of Christianity 

Surprisingly, PRO contends with premise 1, that society ought to pursue truth. PRO semantically nitpicks the term "lie" and asserts that if everyone were to convert to Christianity, technically no one would be lied to. As covered prior, global indoctrination of a belief which is incorrect would result in a totalitarian society. Consider, for example, North Korea' censorship of western media in an attempt to subdue the logical exposing of the injustices of DPRK. 

Contention V: Occam's razor

Even without giving specific examples it is clear that saying God created the universe is much simpler than the complicated scientific link chain that goes from the big bang to the creation of humans, and that clearly requires more assumptions. 
Three points are to be made here. 

  1. A being capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple. Worse yet, other corners of God's consciousness are simultaneously preoccupied with the doings and emotions and prayers of every single human being. 
  2. In David Hume's "Of Miracles" , he states:
    1. no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish
      1. From reason alone, it is most sensible to conclude that a nature creation is more plausible than one which requires a supernatural God. 
  3. Even if I am unable to provide an explanation for how the universe began, this is not my obligation. Consider the strength of the fine tuning argument 200 years ago. Before Darwin, the argument "look at how perfect the eye is, the best explanation is a creator, do you have a better explanation?" would have wiped the floor on any atheists. But now, we can look back and laugh at the ignorance of such reasoning. Does it matter that an atheist from 200 years ago couldn't provide an argument?  Having a wrong answer is not better than having no answer. To push the theory of God on the basis that the science is not complete is a clear example of "worship of the Gap". 
DNA is an incredibly complex explanation for genetic inheritance, but it was correct despite being entirely based on the assumption that a complex model was correct.
I am not stating that complex models are incorrect, I am asserting that when presented with two sound options, both of which are equal in their explanatory capabilities, we ought pick the one with less ontological commitment. In fact, there are peer reviewed papers which argue that DNA (complex) arose from a single self replicating molecule (simple). Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

Contention VI: GE

PRO charges that God's nature is irrelevant to this debate. How can a debate about the veracity of Christianity not be involved with the coherency of God? 

He does not have to be omnibenevolent for any one of my links to hold up
He has to exist, which means he has to be omnibenevolent. 

GEs exist because God understands free will to be necessary, and he created people with free will.
Recall that in my argument, I particularly took care to preemptively rebut the free will defense. In r1, I stated 

A GE definitionally cannot be cannot be justified by "free will" or "compensation in a latter life", for it would then be a God justified good. By definition, a GE is inexcusably immoral.

If an immoral act can be justified, it is tautologically not gratuitous. There is a reason that my argument is the argument from gratuitous evils, not the argument from justifiable evil. Furthermore, the free will defence cannot excuse the suffering of burning koalas - a point which PRO ignored. 

To reiterate, 

PRO must hold that every single bit of suffering that exists is necessary. Take, for example , koala's getting burnt to death in Australian bushfires. This clearly does not yield any positive outcome or benefit, yet contending the second premise is to state that the exact amount of suffering the koala undergoes is just. Any less suffering would not have sufficed. The koala could not have died a mere second before it did, as such would suggest that the second of suffering was not necessary. In order to uphold this (p2) premise, CON must simply show that there is at least some suffering which is not necessary.

Back to PRO. 
Round 3
DeprecatoryLogistician's avatar
DeprecatoryLogistician
Pro
#5
The Pro framework is superior. The resolution does not say that it has to be protestant, catholic, or any other branch so naturally any form of Christianity counts, so the disadvantages of converting to certain branches of Christianity do not apply. There is clearly societal value to conversion, as well as personal value, and this value warrants conversion as laid out in the Pro framework. For this reason vote Pro.

The actual impacts presented by con were that Syrians might be killed for conversion, and that it oppresses the LGBTQ community. If any form of christianty counts then protestant branches count. If past actions of particular branches do not apply there is no valid link proving Christianity is inherently discriminatory, so there is no harm to the value of Christianity itself, just certain branches of it which as established by subpoints 2 and 3, does not matter for this debate. The LGBTQ discrimination point has no actual impact. 

The link on the K is flawed. The resolution doesn’t say every single person in the world should convert to Christianity. In debate definitions should be established based on bright lines. The most reasonable interpretations of the resolution should be accepted to set dividing lines between topical and non-topical arguments. The K is untopical because it assumes the resolution to mean that 100% of people on earth should have to convert for the resolution to be true, rather than a more reasonable interpretation like substantial, or the vast majority. The untopical link does not apply because under the resolution there is no need for Syrian Muslims to convert. 

If voters still don’t buy this, even if you interpret the resolution to mean 100% of people must convert, it does not say that they must be loud about their conversion. It is entirely possible for them to convert silently, and thus not be killed. Furthermore, if you accept the 100% interpretation this would mean that all people, including all Syrians would be converted through fiat, meaning that all the converts would still survive. For the K to work you would actually need to say, 100% of people should convert to Christianity, except for violent Syrian extremists. The Syria K has no actual impact. 

There is a clear net benefit to converting to Christianity. For example, one individual benefit that was presented was that Christians tend to be more healthy, and they also have a greater sense of meaning which is essential for happiness. Another main advantage on societal value is that Christianity enforces a moral code in a way that other non religious means such as Kant's categorical imperative cannot. This gives Pro the greater net benefit, and as such Christianity has value, and because it has value people should convert to it. This is why the voters should vote for Pro.

Bones's avatar
Bones
Con
#6
Thanks DeprecatoryLogistician for an engaging debate. 

-- 

Observations: 

  • PRO has  dropped my analysis on the burden of proof, thereby rendering is correct. 
    • To recall, the burden ought be assessed in the following manner. 
      • As I discussed in r1, this debate can be divided into two separate sectors: PRO, being affirmative must uphold the entirety of the statement, whilst CON, the contender, must simply see that the resolution is false. Such does not require the entirety of the topic to be false. 
  • PRO has also dropped my analysis on truth - which dictates that the truth of a belief system is imperial to its veracity. 
  • In addition to the preliminary, PRO has dropped 2 entire arguments - the argument from gratuitous evils and Occams razor. 
    • Such implies that PRO is unable to respond to them. As they are key arguments which construct an entire section, my opponent has thus dropped an entire section of this debate - that is, the proposition that people should not convert to Christianity.
      • Such is satisfactory justification for casting a vote for CON.
Preliminary: 

BoP: 

Dropped. As this is the last round and PRO has no further opportunity to respond, it ought be judged as conceded. 

Truth:

Dropped.  

Section I aff:

Contention I: Incoherence in teachings

Dropped. 

Contention II: LGBTQ oppression:

If any form of christianty counts then protestant branches count.
I have already rebutted this last round. Recall:

  • The immediate question which arises is: what constitutes Christianity? One noncontroversial criteria would be to follow the teachings of the bible. One cannot contradict all of the teachings of Jesus and still assert that they are Christian. Clearly, if a Christian is pro homosexuality, they either have some justification of seemingly unequivocal discrimination of homosexuals, or they are breaking the teachings of God. Take, for example, the following verses.
    • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 2"
    • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
To reiterate, I cannot just dream up a branch of Christianity and call it the "Boneology" and say "well this is a branch of Christianity which doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe in the 10 commandments and doesn't believe in Jesus". Clearly, Christianity is defined within certain perimeters, and breaching them are holy unchristian. 

Christianity itself, just certain branches of it which as established by subpoints 2 and 3, does not matter for this debate. 
Two points which I recall rebutting in my second statement. Recall: 

  • Rebut: Subpoint 2 Any form of Christianity counts 
    • The immediate question which arises is: what constitutes Christianity? One noncontroversial criteria would be to follow the teachings of the bible. One cannot contradict all of the teachings of Jesus and still assert that they are Christian. Clearly, if a Christian is pro homosexuality, they either have some justification of seemingly unequivocal discrimination of homosexuals, or they are breaking the teachings of God. Take, for example, the following verses.
      • "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Chapter 18 verse 2"
      • "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Chapter 20 verse 13
  • Rebut: Subpoint 3 Past actions of Christianity do not count 
    • This assertion is completely false. When people consider whether an option is viable, they study the effects which the option yielded in the past. Is printing money beneficial? No, because countries which have done it in the past fell into hyperinflation. Every decision that is made is based on events which occur in the past. Should we elect X? No, he didn't do well in the presidential debates. Should we ban Y? Yes, because countries which have done it in the past have benefited. 

Section II aff:

Contention III: Muslims - Kritik

My opponent essentially reiterates points which have been rebutted already. For example they state:

The resolution doesn’t say every single person in the world should convert to Christianity.
Recall that last round, I already rebutted this by stating: 

PRO then states that if every muslim transitioned, we would not have this problem. However, this was not my contention, I merely stated that there are certain people who should not transition, namely, the minorities in Syria. 

In debate definitions should be established based on bright lines. The most reasonable interpretations of the resolution should be accepted to set dividing lines between topical and non-topical arguments.
This too, was rebutted last round: 

 the rules stipulate that besides forfeiting being prohibited and citations being necessary, "everything else is fair game". Thus, the resolution is negated until my opponent addresses which syllogism is faulty. 

The K is untopical because it assumes the resolution to mean that 100% of people on earth should have to convert for the resolution to be true, rather than a more reasonable interpretation like substantial, or the vast majority. 
Again, refuted: 

the resolution uses the term "people". Are muslims in Syria people? If so, then the resolution is inclusive of their transitioning. 

Contention IV: Truth of Christianity 

Dropped.

Contention V: Occam's razor

Dropped. 

Contention VI: GE

Dropped. 

Conclusion: 

It is clear that my opponent is unable to rebut the majority of my case, thereby resulting in them dropping more than half of my arguments. I have proven that Christianity violently abuses homosexuals, that certain muslims should not transition and that Christianity as a system provides erroneous teachings and is fundamentally wrong. Thus, voters ought to cast their ballet for CON.