Instigator / Pro
1
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#4481
There's only one valid biblical interpretation or biblically valid one.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
There's only one valid biblical interpretation upon reading the *words* of the biblical scriptures.
That's biblically valid, that's according to biblical words of book chapter and verse.
Any questions, please leave a comment. That includes the critics as well.
Round 1
Before I get to the main points , I'm going to clear up any confusion about the topic.
The topic is there is only one valid biblical interpretation. Now according to me is it? No.
I'm not saying there is only one valid way based on how I see it .
There is indeed based on the bible, what the bible explains, the correct way so that there is no error, no falsification, no invalidity when reading the scripture to get proper place understanding .
Doing this improperly, people fabricate contradictions that aren't there as well as others that most likely have not done any study and support those that claim conflict .
With that out of the way, let's move to this.
What is the only biblically valid interpretation?
The only one where you're not found in a lie of the Bible. If you're in a lie, you're not correct, you're not in truth. If I have an invalid password, it's an incorrect password. To say my password is billy bob when it's really swordfish is not true.
Proverbs 30
"5 Every word of God is purified;[t]
he is like[u] a shield for those who take refuge in him.[v]
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he reprove you, and prove you to be a liar.[w]"
You add to the words by your own interpretation, it's invalid. The interpretation that you have can go no further than His words .
Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, we have another in Deuteronomy 4:2
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."
Any time you have thoughts of reason, logic, common sense, any personal interpretation, throw it out.
This was heavily demonstrated by the biblical contradictions debates. People think they understand one thing and find something that doesn't seem to be logical, their minds fill in the blanks and assume things into the context.
You may do that with secular books. Our minds are configured to plug in missing information. The bible is of a different read.
It's really that secular empirical approach that non believers in the bible take. I can show more scripture in regards to this but it more so applies to believers.
I'm trying to be objective in this topic. When anybody comes to read this book, don't calculate, don't add so that you get a trinity. Don't add or assume what makes sense . Don't apply your own definition of words. The context is in place for all of that.
I noticed with your case is that it is self-referenced. Self-reference refers to a statement or situation that refers back to itself or to the person or thing making the statement. This can create a kind of loop or feedback mechanism, in which the statement or situation is both the cause and the effect of itself. This can lead to paradoxical or circular reasoning, where the conclusion is assumed in the premises, or where the premises depend on the conclusion. In conclusion, using self-reference in a theory by using the proposition being proved as part of the proof itself creates a circular argument that is logically invalid.
I am not basing my argument on self-reference, but rather on the principles of ambiguity and interpretation. Most words in language contain some degree of ambiguity, while certain words are more ambiguous than others. Ambiguity occurs when a word lacks specificity, resulting in multiple valid interpretations. When language is explicit, there is less ambiguity and less room for misunderstanding. However, parables and other ambiguous language are meant to be interpreted rather than explicitly stated. Many parables in the Bible fall into this category, and no one person's perspective is inherently more valid than another's, as long as it fits within the specifications of the scripture. The Bible contains much ambiguity and lack of specification, so as long as one's actions align with the specifications written in the scripture, their interpretation is valid, even if it differs from someone else's interpretation. This makes it possible to have multiple unique interpretations that are all simultaneously valid.
Round 2
I keep getting this "circular argument" claim against me so let me make an example of what I'm doing.
Let's say my position is , the earth is round according to a photograph. The photo has a valid image of a circle because it shows a round object. A circle is round.
I'm plainly just saying or reporting something that says what it says or communicates. So the question would be is it fact that this something communicates what it does?
Well , check the photo. Likewise with the opposing side to this topic, their position to refute me would be...check the Bible to verify it actually communicates the way to interpret it in a valid fashion.
If the opposing side evades this, they're forfeiting their task of refuting the assertion that the bible actually teaches what I say it says.
The topic is basically what does the bible teach about interpretation?
I think the opposing side is confused with me saying I'm saying something on my own and imposing it on the bible.
"Many parables in the Bible fall into this category, and no one person's perspective is inherently more valid than another's, as long as it fits within the specifications of the scripture."
This makes my point. As long as both fit within scripture, they're both valid but then all of the interpretations would be mirrored. Whatever "specifications of the scripture" means, are we reading what the bible teaches ?
Have to refer to the bible to find out. Not circular.
"so as long as one's actions align with the specifications written in the scripture, their interpretation is valid, even if it differs from someone else's interpretation. This makes it possible to have multiple unique interpretations that are all simultaneously valid."
You're going to have to unpack all of this. I'm sensing conflict with it. I request examples of what you're talking about.
Thanks
Your argument exhibits circular reasoning by relying on the premise that multiple scriptures prove there is only one valid interpretation of scripture. This circular reasoning stems from using scripture to validate scripture, creating a logical fallacy that is self-referential rather than grounded in external logic.
Let's temporarily put aside the issue of self-reference paradox and acknowledge the progress we have made so far. We have established a common ground with your statement, "As long as both interpretations align with scripture, they are both valid," which we both agree with. However, our disagreement arises when you assert that if any interpretation falls within the specified parameters, it would be mirrored. In the second half of your statement, you mentioned, "but then all of the interpretations would be mirrored." Now that we have a shared foundation, I would like to provide examples that clearly illustrate my perspective.
Here are two clear examples that demonstrate different interpretations when considering a sentence both literally and metaphorically, showcasing the validity of both approaches:
"You are the light of the world."
Literal Interpretation: Taking this sentence literally, it could be understood as a direct statement that individuals possess a physical luminosity. In a religious context, some might interpret this as a divine affirmation that believers are meant to radiate goodness and bring illumination to the world through their actions and character.
Metaphorical Interpretation: Interpreting the sentence metaphorically, it could be seen as a symbolic representation of the impact individuals can have on others. In this sense, being the "light of the world" suggests that individuals have the capacity to bring knowledge, positivity, and inspiration to those around them, acting as guiding influences.
Both the literal and metaphorical interpretations emphasize the importance of individuals' influence on the world, whether it is through their literal radiance or the metaphorical impact they have on others. Both interpretations are valid and provide valuable insights from different perspectives.
"Love is a battlefield."
Literal Interpretation: Interpreting this sentence literally would lead to confusion, as it presents a figurative statement as a literal truth. It does not make logical sense to view love as an actual physical battleground.
Metaphorical Interpretation: Understanding the sentence metaphorically, it conveys the challenges, conflicts, and struggles that can arise within romantic relationships. The metaphorical comparison to a battlefield captures the emotional intensity and potential hardships experienced in love relationships.
The metaphorical interpretation recognizes that "love is a battlefield" is a symbolic statement that expresses the complexities and difficulties inherent in romantic relationships. It does not imply a literal physical battlefield but rather highlights the metaphorical aspects of the emotional journey of love.
In both examples, the literal and metaphorical interpretations offer different insights and perspectives, while still being valid in their own contexts. They demonstrate that a sentence or statement can be understood in multiple ways, and both literal and metaphorical interpretations can provide valuable understanding and meaning.
Here are two clear examples that demonstrate ambiguity in a literal context, leading to different interpretations and results within the set parameters:
"I saw a man on the hill with a telescope."
Ambiguity: The ambiguity lies in the interpretation of who possesses the telescope, the man on the hill or the speaker.
Interpretation 1: If we interpret the sentence as "I saw a man (who was on the hill and had a telescope)," it suggests that the speaker saw a man using a telescope while being on the hill.
Interpretation 2: Alternatively, if we interpret the sentence as "I saw a man on the hill (and I had a telescope)," it implies that the speaker observed a man while being on the hill and used their own telescope to see him.
The ambiguity arises from the placement of the phrase "with a telescope." Depending on whether it modifies the man or the speaker, the interpretation and resulting image differ. This ambiguity demonstrates how even within the set parameter of the given sentence, different interpretations can lead to distinct mental images and understandings of the situation.
"She left her money to her sister sitting on the table."
Ambiguity: The ambiguity here lies in determining whether the sister or the money is sitting on the table.
Interpretation 1: If we interpret the sentence as "She left her money to her sister (who was sitting on the table)," it suggests that the sister is the one sitting on the table, while the money is being left to her.
Interpretation 2: On the other hand, if we interpret the sentence as "She left her money (which was sitting on the table) to her sister," it implies that the money was placed on the table and later left to the sister.
The placement of the phrase "sitting on the table" introduces ambiguity as to what is being described as sitting on the table. Depending on whether it modifies the sister or the money, the interpretation and the resulting understanding of the sentence differ. This ambiguity showcases how different interpretations, within the given parameters, can lead to contrasting outcomes.
In both examples, the ambiguity within the literal context allows for different valid interpretations, resulting in different mental images or understandings of the situation. The interpretations, while constrained within the set parameters of the sentence, showcase the potential for diverse outcomes based on individual perspectives and assumptions.
Instructions that contain ambiguity or vagueness often necessitate interpretation, leading to multiple valid but potentially different results. Here's a detailed explanation of how ambiguity in instructions leads to varied interpretations:
Lack of Specificity:
When instructions lack specificity or clarity, individuals may interpret them differently based on their own understanding or perspective. Ambiguity can arise from imprecise language, unclear terms, or the absence of explicit details. As a result, individuals may fill in the gaps by making assumptions or relying on personal experiences, leading to diverse interpretations.
For example, consider the instruction, "Paint the room blue." Without further clarification, interpretations of "blue" could range from navy blue to sky blue, resulting in different shades of blue being used by different individuals following the instruction.
Contextual Factors:
Interpretation is influenced by contextual factors, such as cultural norms, historical background, and personal experiences. Different individuals may bring their unique contexts and perspectives to the interpretation of instructions, resulting in varied understandings.
For instance, consider the instruction, "Dress appropriately for the event." The definition of "appropriate" attire may vary depending on the occasion, cultural expectations, and personal beliefs. Some individuals may interpret it as formal wear, while others may consider it more casual, leading to different but valid interpretations of the instruction.
Ambiguity in Language:
Language itself can be inherently ambiguous, with words and phrases capable of multiple meanings or interpretations. Different individuals may assign different meanings to ambiguous terms, leading to diverse outcomes.
For example, consider the instruction, "Bring a friend to the party." The term "friend" could be understood as any acquaintance or specifically someone with a close relationship. Some may interpret it as inviting any person they know, while others may limit it to close friends, resulting in a varied mix of guests at the party.
Subjective Perspectives:
Interpretation is subjective, influenced by individual biases, perspectives, and preconceived notions. Different individuals may focus on different aspects of an instruction or prioritize certain elements over others, leading to varying interpretations.
For instance, imagine the instruction, "Write a detailed report." Some individuals may interpret "detailed" as emphasizing thoroughness and comprehensiveness, while others may prioritize brevity and conciseness. Consequently, their respective reports may differ significantly in terms of length and content.
In conclusion, instructions with ambiguity or vagueness require interpretation, and this interpretation can result in several different yet valid outcomes. The lack of specificity, contextual factors, ambiguity in language, and subjective perspectives all contribute to the diversity of interpretations. Recognizing and addressing ambiguity is crucial to ensure clear communication and aligned understanding among individuals involved in following instructions.
The sentence "sheep are soft" can be both literally and metaphorically true, as it allows for dual interpretations:
Literal Interpretation: In a literal sense, the sentence is true because sheep have a soft woolly coat. When you touch or feel a sheep's wool, it is known for its soft and gentle texture. This literal truth acknowledges the physical attribute of sheep having soft fur.
Metaphorical Interpretation: Metaphorically, the sentence can be true by using "soft" as a metaphor to describe the gentle and docile nature often associated with sheep. Sheep are commonly perceived as calm, submissive, and non-aggressive animals. So, when someone refers to sheep as "soft" metaphorically, they are emphasizing their gentle demeanor and peaceful characteristics.
In this example, the sentence "sheep are soft" can be understood both literally and metaphorically. The literal truth acknowledges the physical attribute of sheep having a soft coat, while the metaphorical truth highlights the peaceful and gentle nature typically associated with sheep. The sentence demonstrates how a single statement can have different layers of meaning, allowing for both literal and metaphorical interpretations that are valid in their respective contexts.
How can you now assert that something has only one meaning when I have demonstrated that many sentences possess multiple valid meanings and contexts? Your claim that you have proof of sentences having only one meaning would require you to provide an example. However, even if you were able to provide such an example, it would merely demonstrate that certain sentences can have one meaning. Nonetheless, my evidence substantiates the fact that other sentences indeed possess more than one valid interpretation.
In conclusion, based on our discussion, we can conclude that the Bible, at least in part, allows for multiple valid interpretations, even if certain sections of the Bible may have only one. Thus, this confirms that the entire Bible does not possess one solitary valid interpretation but rather can accommodate multiple interpretations. This concludes my argument and brings our debate to a close.
Round 3
"Let's temporarily put aside the issue of self-reference paradox and acknowledge the progress we have made so far. "
Apparently you don't know what circular reasoning is or you're calling what something is stated to be said in a book circular.
For instance, saying God is a spirit is biblically valid or God is a spirit according to the scriptures is valid. You would call that circular.
When something is circular, something has yet to be proven to be fact. It's a fact that the bible states God is a spirit so therefore it is not circular.
Saying that God exists because the bible mentions God gets circular. It's because I'll ask prove the bible is true. The bible was written by those that believed in God. Ok, prove what they believed in is true, which is God. That's an argument going in circles.
It's when we're looking for proof and absolutely are not going anywhere to get it. My position is according to the bible, according to the passages I've provided it's communicating there's only one valid interpretation to get from it.
So your rebuttal should be to check the passages I've listed to verify the conclusion.
Just like if my position was in the constitution the 2nd amendment states a clause which would in turn mean whatever it does to someone or to us the society. . It's not circular to say what a reference says and we prove it by checking the reference. Where else would we go to check a reference other than the reference itself where the reference excerpt was taken from ?
You got to ask yourself that question to really check yourself on using a reference for verification.
Where else would we go to check a reference excerpt taken from a reference than from that very reference ?
It only makes sense.
"Both the literal and metaphorical interpretations emphasize the importance of individuals' influence on the world, whether it is through their literal radiance or the metaphorical impact they have on others. Both interpretations are valid and provide valuable insights from different perspectives."
First off, this has nothing to do with the bible disproving there is only one correct or valid interpretation of the bible according to the bible.
I think you're homogenizing everything according to how you look at interpreting things , bible included.
But the topic is concerning what is according to the bible the correct interpretation. We're basically fact checking a reference which you think is circular.
You're looking for me to have an argument based on something fundamentally rational or universal. But I never made that the topic or a part of my stance as a claim.
The topic is straightforwardly, the bible says this or has this to say about reading it or interpreting it.
If you don't know much about the scripture, it's no wonder you not being prepared to refute anything just dealing from the scriptural texts.
"How can you now assert that something has only one meaning when I have demonstrated that many sentences possess multiple valid meanings and contexts? "
This is not my assertion. The topic is not "something has only one meaning". Like I said, I think you mistaken the topic for a generalization for everything. I'm specifically referring to what does scripture teach regarding the scriptures. Which you may call circular. But it's actually fact checking or reference checking.
All your examples are arguing in generalization. Anything we read and the validity of the interpretation is based on whatever the writer meant of the message.
Which I can't speak to as it's outside of the bible unless there was some books, chapters and verses I missed.
"Your claim that you have proof of sentences having only one meaning would require you to provide an example. However, even if you were able to provide such an example, it would merely demonstrate that certain sentences can have one meaning. Nonetheless, my evidence substantiates the fact that other sentences indeed possess more than one valid interpretation."
Wrong topic.
"In conclusion, based on our discussion, we can conclude that the Bible, at least in part, allows for multiple valid interpretations, even if certain sections of the Bible may have only one."
I don't know what is meant by "allows for". Let me put it this way so that you understand what I mean. When I say "valid interpretation", you're getting the correct or truthful meaning of the scriptural text.
So whatever the text actually teaches and you interpret or get what it actually teaches is valid.
I don't mean valid as the logical basis somebody uses in their own mind to come to their own conclusion on what they think or can argue what the text teaches even if the text itself doesn't actually mean or teaches the conclusion the individual comes to.
We have to make a clear distinction here. That is, what the bible actually says. It is not what we can logically interpret and judge fair, valid and justified.
I will make a refresher on this subject with bringing these scriptures up again .
Proverbs 30 and 6:
" Do not add to his words,
lest he reprove you, and prove you to be a liar."
See when your interpretation of the bible, not everything, just the bible causes you to add to the words and or what is written, you're not in truth.
You don't have a truthful interpretation which is not a correct interpretation of the text you're interpreting.
That's all it is in a nutshell. You went passed or took this topic somewhere else regarding interpreting things across the board .
I'm not arguing that. Also the bible can't be homogenized in interpreting it like with everything else . Again , it's according to the bible. You're looking for a debate topic according to me, this isn't it. You're looking for a debate topic according to logic, this isn't it. You're looking for a topic and all this is presumably the case but you're looking for a topic according to rationality. This isn't it.
So next round, I kindly direct you to adhere to the actual topic by starting with the scriptures used to back up how we are to interpret scripture in complete validity (correctness).
Acknowledging that the topic is called "There's only one valid biblical interpretation or biblically valid one," my case still holds true.
Your argument does exhibit self-reference as it relies on the assumption that there is only one valid biblical interpretation based on what the Bible itself explains. However, the argument does not provide independent evidence or logical reasoning to support this claim. Instead, it asserts that the correct interpretation is the one that aligns with the Bible, without establishing why the Bible should be considered the ultimate authority on interpretation in the first place. You have failed to acknowledge that some text in the Bible can be true in the metaphorical and literal sense, in which case it would still have multiple valid interpretations thus proving your case incorrect. Your argument creates a circular reasoning, as the argument is using the Bible to validate the idea that the Bible is the only valid source for interpretation.
I have a thorough understanding of the Scriptures, having read the Bible cover to cover. Through extensive reading, studying, and learning, I have arrived at my current conclusion. It is illogical for someone to reject reading the Bible simply because they find it nonsensical. After all, you cannot disagree with something you do not understand. Therefore, I approach this discussion with the respect and knowledge of someone who has comprehended the text.
You are correct in pointing out that my argument is based on rationality and reasoning, which aligns with the purpose of a debate platform. In contrast, your argument relies on personal convictions, such as the assumption that what the Bible says is factual and that the Bible is fundamentally different from other texts. However, there is no evidence to support either of these claims, and building a debate upon such unproven precepts is not a rational or logical approach. I have no issue with individuals practicing their religious beliefs and respecting their viewpoints. However, it is nonsensical for someone to enter a debate platform meant for logical and rational discourse while basing their arguments primarily on their own religious convictions.
I am providing a rational and logical response to the topic question, "Is there only one valid biblical interpretation or a biblically valid one?" Thus, I am not misinterpreting the topic but rather answering it correctly. I have maintained my stance and have not forfeited it, as I have objectively addressed the issue by applying rationality and foundational principles. Perhaps you should have specified in the description, we will not be using logic or rationality to come to a conclusion in this debate.
Round 4
"Acknowledging that the topic is called "There's only one valid biblical interpretation or biblically valid one," my case still holds true."
Your case is irrelevant to this topic. If you're not biblically knowledgeable, I'd advise to stay out of topics such as these .
"However, the argument does not provide independent evidence or logical reasoning to support this claim. Instead, it asserts that the correct interpretation is the one that aligns with the Bible, without establishing why the Bible should be considered the ultimate authority on interpretation in the first place. "
Are you saying the bible can't instruct on how it is to be read?
That's like saying I can't instruct people on how to play the game I designed. I put together the rules. Nothing or no one has any place, entitlement or authority other than me on that.
Besides any of that, the topic is not bringing a case to justify authority. It's simply does the bible say what it says?
It's not who or what has the authority or what is logical.
I really think you refuse to understand that this topic is not generalizing the way everything is to be interpreted. This topic is not about everything we read. I'm talking about the bible, the bible, the bible, the bible on how IT is to be read ACCORDING TO IT. I'm not talking about the bible teaching how we are to interpret everything we read ever according to it.
Really distinguish those two things.
On the topic, I keep bringing it back .
Does the bible say what it says? I say yes. You should be arguing no and refute the scriptures I provided being that you have taken the opposing side.
For some reason you're not going there and it's really no wonder.
Then furthermore, why wouldn't the correct interpretation align with the bible?
How are you defining "correct interpretation"?
You just seem really aloof to this discussion.
I've gone over what a correct interpretation or an interpretation of truth is in the first round.
How do we determine when something is misinterpreted?
There's something not true,not correct about the reading of it. This is the foundation and no time should be wasted in disputing it. If you don't know what correct or incorrect is, don't debate anything.
"You have failed to acknowledge that some text in the Bible can be true in the metaphorical and literal sense, in which case it would still have multiple valid interpretations thus proving your case incorrect. "
Not the topic. You really don't understand the topic. I won't say the goalpost is being moved. I really think some of these debates should be live in real time.
You don't understand my case. If you think you do, I would request of you to recite it to me in summary.
"Your argument creates a circular reasoning, as the argument is using the Bible to validate the idea that the Bible is the only valid source for interpretation."
Valid source for interpretation FOR WHAT? ACCORDING TO WHOM OR WHAT?
This is what you are to address.
Add one more question to all the other questions asked. The answers can be a chance for a genuine refutation from you.
Is adding unrelated non contextual words to the context of any biblical scripture a misinterpretation?
" In contrast, your argument relies on personal convictions, such as the assumption that what the Bible says is factual and that the Bible is fundamentally different from other texts. "
I don't know how I'm going to break this down so that you get it. It's like each round with each point you come up with an irrelevant point.
I'm going to make this example. Let's say the topic was it's valid or correct to say that in the bible we read or interpret from reading it that "For God so love the world" according to the bible.
This is valid because according to the book of John 3 , we READ that. Do you get it? According to the bible it says this , it says that. So your basic burden was to come along to disprove what I'm saying is what it the bible is saying, THAT'S IT.
It's no more complex than that. You have yet to deal with the scriptures I've given to say it don't mean or says what it does to make the topic statement true.
So you are by virtue forfeiting this debate as you haven't met the burden.
You have effectively clarified your intentions and objectives behind the debate title, providing me with a better understanding of your original purpose and the specific means by which you expect me to refute your arguments. However, it seems that you did not include all of this information in the initial description but rather introduced it in a subsequent round after I had accepted the challenge. Consequently, the additional rules or late rule introductions you have presented are not considered valid as they were presented after the debate had already commenced. Given the nature of this platform as a debate forum, it is my responsibility to present a conclusion that is reasonable for voters to evaluate in support of my case. Meanwhile, you are asserting that this platform does not prioritize logical reasoning, which contradicts the fundamental principles of debate. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the logical nature of my arguments, and it is important to note that considering logic in a debate is not only reasonable but also an essential aspect of the discourse.
You're looking for a debate topic according to logic, this isn't it. You're looking for a topic and all this is presumably the case but you're looking for a topic according to rationality. This isn't it.
It is important to recognize that the additional rules and restrictions you imposed on the debate were introduced after the rounds had already begun, making them invalid as they were not stated in the initial description. It is crucial to establish and communicate the rules and restrictions of a debate beforehand to avoid encountering this issue in the future. The responsibility lies with the debater to provide a comprehensive description of their intended format and guidelines. Furthermore, I appreciate your acknowledgement that you accepted my debate to be logical and reasonable. While I understand that your original intentions for the debate may have differed from what you initially stated, the judgment of the debate should be based on the topic as presented in the beginning. Therefore, considering your lack of description regarding the restrictions and rules that are now deemed irrelevant, my case can be concluded as logical and rational, both by your acceptance demonstrated by the quote above and by my own assessment.
Round 5
"However, it seems that you did not include all of this information in the initial description but rather introduced it in a subsequent round after I had accepted the challenge."
It would of made sense to contact me first to be better prepared. Once you accept a challenge , you have to be prepared for the individual's actual position. You can be prepared so much for what you're ready to argue but you do have to wait and see what the actual person's position is. Now if you're not the type that's very sharp on their feet and can immediately have a counter argument ready , you may want to do a lot more digging first.
Let's look at the skimpy description which I believe you say you really understand in the direction of this topic but left somehow to your assumption of what path its going.
"There's only one valid biblical interpretation upon reading the *words* of the biblical scriptures."
Upon reading the words, so we're talking about reading the bible, is that right?
The topic is about the BIBLE. Didn't say anything about reading all sorts of literature, whatever you may read. Didn't mention how we all should interpret things. Didn't mention that the bible suggests how we all should interpret things of every book.
The focus is reading the bible, when you read or upon reading it . When reading it, the very words communicate only one validity of interpretation of those words that exists. That's the first part of the context of this topic. Stay with the context.
"That's biblically valid, that's according to biblical words of book chapter and verse."
ACCORDING TO BIBLICAL WORDS. That is what is meant by biblically valid. The words that can be found in the bible. Not words unrelated, not words added to the text, not words out of context. These words out of context are often formed by individual personal thoughts, perceptions, viewpoints, opinions and even logical conclusions. These are all personal forms of input.
So to sum up all from the description, upon reading the words of the bible, you find biblical validity out of your interpretation according to the words and only the ones read from it.
That description was super specific around the bible. To suggest more than that, is a suspicion of building a strawman.
"Consequently, the additional rules or late rule introductions you have presented are not considered valid as they were presented after the debate had already commenced. "
The problem you're struggling with is recognizing my actual position opposed to what you want it to be or think it is.
You can ONLY argue against my position. You can't strawman it because that's a fallacy and would be invalid. You're in a debate with me so that means argue against my actual position.
This thing about you didn't know is not an excuse. This is evading the matter, evading the burden .
"Given the nature of this platform as a debate forum, it is my responsibility to present a conclusion that is reasonable for voters to evaluate in support of my case. "
Yes but a case against my actual position. Not one that you think or misunderstood as being mine .
"Meanwhile, you are asserting that this platform does not prioritize logical reasoning, which contradicts the fundamental principles of debate. "
I've made no such assertion. This demonstrates further your misunderstanding of the communication from me.
"It is important to recognize that the additional rules and restrictions you imposed on the debate were introduced after the rounds had already begun"
I'm going to draw you back to the description being that you appear to have so much confidence in what you read.
""That's biblically valid, that's according to biblical words of book chapter and verse."
This was before the debate started. What have I been saying before and after?
Over and over I've said during this debate"according to the bible" and similar expressions.
I truly and strongly believe you misunderstood what you were reading if you read anything. Then made an assumption off the title or misinterpreted it,no pun intended. You prepared yourself for the wrong topic. Also you showed indication of this from the comment you made. I just was hoping your misunderstanding cleared up by this point.
But apparently you've maintained this misunderstanding having accepted this challenge to present it.
But instead of conceding, you're giving this trumped up ad hoc excuse.
"making them invalid as they were not stated in the initial description."
Just more in addition to escape conceding. Like saying "this doesn't count, I win anyway". You actually have to refute my position. The first round expounded my position. Explained it with scriptures and all.
You never refuted the scriptures I used to show biblically that when reading the scriptures, there's a uniform interpretation to ensure valid interpretation. Scriptures also mention of no private interpretation.
But this whole debate long you were arguing over a pseudo position you assigned to me to refute.
That's an easy way to do it. Like creating your own written exam and answers.
Classic strawman.
Everything else you had to say was just mile long excuses.
I made it clear what the topic was. I demonstrated the consistency between everything. I want to draw attention to my questions that were not answered.
By not answering the questions, it exposes the acquiesce. You dismissed the questions conventionally as the honest answers would refute the correct burden you were to attempt to meet.
This was just one of the questions I didn't get an answer to.
Is adding unrelated non contextual words to the context of any biblical scripture a misinterpretation?
I understand if you were not prepared for this topic but only for what you presumed it was.
Yet your burden has not been met. You forfeited upon forfeiting answering these questions.
Thank you for participating, thank you for reaching out.
Sorry for the misunderstanding on your part.
Here are three Bible verses that have a wide range of meanings and interpretations:
1. Isaiah 53:5 - "But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds, we are healed."
This verse from the book of Isaiah is often interpreted as a prophecy about the suffering and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ. The various meanings attributed to this verse include:
- Atonement: It signifies Jesus' sacrifice for humanity's sins, emphasizing the idea that his wounds bring spiritual healing and reconciliation with God.
- Physical Healing: Some interpret the verse in a more literal sense, associating the wounds mentioned with physical healing and divine intervention in matters of health.
- Spiritual Healing: It is also seen as addressing the restoration of the soul and the spiritual healing that comes through faith in Jesus.
2. John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
This verse is found in the Gospel of John and has rich theological implications. Some of the significant meanings associated with it are:
- Jesus as the Incarnate Word: This verse is often understood as referring to Jesus Christ as the divine Word made flesh. It highlights Jesus' eternal existence and divine nature.
- The Trinity: It is interpreted as expressing the concept of the Trinity, where Jesus, the Word, is described as being with God and also identified as God.
- Creation: The verse can be seen as suggesting that the Word was present at the beginning of creation, emphasizing Jesus' role in the divine plan of creation and redemption.
3. Matthew 16:24 - "Then Jesus told his disciples, 'If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.'"
This verse presents a call to discipleship by Jesus and has different layers of meaning:
- Self-Denial and Sacrifice: It is often understood as an invitation to believers to prioritize their commitment to Christ above their own desires and self-interest. It involves taking up the metaphorical "cross" of self-denial and following Jesus' example.
- The Cost of Discipleship: The verse implies that following Jesus may require sacrifice, endurance, and willingness to face challenges or persecution for the sake of the Gospel.
- Spiritual Transformation: It can also signify the transformative nature of discipleship, where believers are called to live a life aligned with the teachings and values of Christ.
These verses demonstrate the depth and diversity of meanings that can be attributed to specific passages in the Bible, offering different insights and perspectives for readers and scholars alike.
I'm glad you agree with my suggested resolution as it both promotes understanding and knowledge within the forums and the skill of debating within the challenges. I will stand by my bio as I will no longer participate with ChatGPT in debates, and I believe it would be beneficial to include these more nuanced rules and regulations within the code of conduct for the site.
Please direct message me a link when the revised rules are added so I can review and maintain them, I appreciate our time to work through this problem as I don't want to create a negative atmosphere as I am trying to cultivate knowledge and understanding which requires positive engagement.
I don’t mind if you use it in the forums. If you don’t use it in a debate, you likely won’t hear from me about it.
As for the basis for doing it, I would say that it’s at least implied in existing rules. I don’t have a bias against ChatGPT, but I do have a problem with people using it like this because it bears a lot of the hallmarks of plagiarism. We all take info from other sites, but we cite what we take and quote what we use directly. Just because it’s a tool you’re using instead of another website doesn’t make it substantially different. All that being said, I’m more than willing to clarify this in existing rules.
ChatGPT is free and as a tool it should be used responsibly and helpfully in a way that benefits everyone, just as I have done so to promote understanding.
https://chat.openai.com/
I acknowledge how you feel, and it is quite peculiar to the immediate response to the exposure of AI on the platform. Though, how was I supposed to know of your feelings and the feelings of others if they aren't based on anything objective, I could have been aware of them before doing so. We should remain objective when creating rules and regulations, this would help to remove bias.
However, I would like to make others feel safe and benefited by my interactions as I have the intention of learning and teaching, which requires others to want to engage with oneself. Therefore, I want to create a solution that is beneficial to all and to their knowledge. This is why I suggest restricting AI from the debating ground while permitting it in the forums.
To my knowledge, there aren’t restrictions on posting AI generated content in the forums. In debates, there’s a problem with plagiarism, and whether the rules explicitly state that this is an example of plagiarism or not doesn’t affect how well it applies here. You can say this isn’t plagiarism if you want, but it seems blatant to me and, clearly, to others as well.
Once we do find the solution to this problem, we should post the new rules on the website code of conduct. I searched "AI" and "generated text" and found nothing regarding restrictions.
Please tell me if this is acceptable. I believe the best solution to this problem is to restrict AI from the debating ground, thus to promote the skill of referencing and forming one's debate; and to permit AI in the forums, thus to promote a better understanding and knowledge that a human couldn't provide alone. This would promote both skill and knowledge on the platform.
I feel like this is very simple: if you’re going to use ChatGPT, don’t represent the resulting text as your own words. Researching your profile doesn’t change what you did here and elsewhere. Your profile doesn’t designate what words are yours and what words aren’t - you’re claiming that your profile somehow grants you a blank check to utilize it as much as you want and represent it as yours, which is not nor has it ever been the case. You can develop a better understanding of the universe and practice the skill of debating simultaneously. The two are not mutually exclusive.
This is exactly why I am no longer participating in these time-consuming debates. People don't research their words before using them, just as you claimed I was plagiarizing. I just find the whole conversation rather unproductive. The debate is meant to be the next step of bettering one's knowledge, but when people don't learn what they're even saying before getting into a debate it is truly nonsensical.
It still comes down to what the site is trying to cultivate.
Practicing the skill of debating or developing a better understanding of the universe.
Which is it?
This is straight from Wikipedia:
Plagiarism is the fraudulent representation of another person's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work.[1][2] Although precise definitions vary, depending on the institution,[3] such representations are generally considered to violate academic integrity and journalistic ethics as well as social norms of learning, teaching, research, fairness, respect, and responsibility in many cultures.[4] It is subject to sanctions such as penalties, suspension, expulsion from school[5] or work,[6] substantial fines,[7][8] and even imprisonment.[9][10]
I do not claim my stance as my own but rather a result of the past's collective understanding. This was in my bio. Therefore, I am not plagiarizing.
I suppose it comes down to what the site is trying to cultivate. If it is skill of writing debates then AI should be banned, if it be knowledge and understanding AI should be promoted. What is the site intended for, practicing skill, or developing knowledge?
It doesn’t matter from where you personally derive merit for a given argument. Plagiarism exists regardless of your preferences.
The difference between using another's words and speaking from another's knowledge is the difference of whether you understand it fully or are just speaking as a parrot. I speak with understanding. Though, if it makes you feel better, I posted in my bio I won't be participating in anymore debates. This was before this whole commotion.
I base my understanding on the word's merits, not from their source. I don't need to hear a quote by a guy who people personify and is not truly intelligent.
Speaking as someone who has read your bio, the disclaimer is not a blank check to use ChatGPT without attribution. I don’t see quotes or attribution of any kind within the debate. Currently, you require others to parse through your points to find the difference. That’s like telling us to randomly Google points you’ve made to find points you took from other webpages rather than quoting and sourcing them.
By joining Mall's debate, you implicitly agreed to the rules of the debate, which by default include the rules of the site. Hence, plagiarism restrictions apply. You can use ChatGPT to get information, but if we can still pick out words and phrases generated by AI, it's not really "your" argument.
If you'd created the debate and put a disclaimer in the description allowing for AI, it would be a different story. But as it stands, using AI-generated content isn't fair to Mall.
Please read my about me. I have already addressed this openly with several people, but you should really have done more research about me. Additionally, you also should have asked me if I used ChatGPT and then tested my text through an AI detector to see if I'm honest, then we can build a sense of trust between us. Regardless, I believe that the win should not be as you said against the user of an AI, but rather everyone should be aware that I'm using AI as I have addressed in my bio, and then base their vote on who they deem as worthy of victory. I have already taken all the measures to notify others of all my disclaimers. All I can say is that going into a debate and not reading the opponents background is quite ignorant.
Don't respond to this if you haven't read my "About Me."
Yes, I can do that.
We'll need to figure out a meaningful response to this kind of behavior, particularly as it can be sometimes difficult to determine whether they used an AI to generate their argument (not saying that's the case here), but it is against site rules to use an AI generated argument without having stated explicitly that it will be used in the description. This being a standard debate, it's less important, but still not acceptable.
Since there seems to be confirmation of cheating, is it possible to have my vote removed? I wouldn't want to vote against the side that debated honestly.
Oh, they are.
Already confronted them about it and they admitted it.
No use in talking to them. They’ll respond to your accusation with a ChatGPT-generated answer too.
Is it just me, or do Con's responses sound a lot like ChatGPT? Every AI detector I plug it into says it was generated by a human, making me think it might have been AI-generated and then slightly edited afterwards. The only evidence I have is instinct from reading AI text, but there are a lot of phrases here that sound suspiciously like AI. Some parts don't, so I think those bits were changed to avoid detection. I don't think it's 100% ChatGPT, but I think significant portions are.
Sound like ChatGPT:
"It is important to recognize that..."
"You have effectively clarified your intentions and objectives behind the debate title, providing me with a better understanding of..."
"offering different insights and perspectives..."
"it is important to note that..."
"This concludes my argument and brings our debate to a close." (in R2, which wasn't the last round, but ChatGPT wouldn't know that.)
There's formatting, but it's mostly only the kind that could be copied from ChatGPT. Nothing is bold or underlined, but ChatGPT formats with colons after a section heading. Con's R2 goes randomly from lines in the bible to non-topical expressions like "love is a battlefield", making me think that Con may have copied and edited erroneous results from ChatGPT without realizing that they didn't address the prompt. There's a lot of tangents there that seem indicative of AI as well. With no proof of foul pay, this is a win for Con, but I could see this becoming an issue in the future. I won't say I have proof, because I don't (and I'm not suggesting anything should be done without hard evidence), but maybe someone else who's used AI a lot can tell me if they agree.