Instigator / Pro
7
1555
rating
83
debates
56.63%
won
Topic
#5926
One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything christians believe in and practice.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
fauxlaw
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
10
1702
rating
78
debates
70.51%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Theism VS Atheism
They say that ad-hominem is not a valid argument but I beg to differ. If literally only stupid people believe something and all arguments for that thing are stupid then there comes a point where that makes it less likely to be true, even if it isn't directly falsifiable as a claim in itself. The only way to "reason" that God exists is to ignore a billion other possibilities, theists usually say "something can't come from nothing therefore there must a first cause". Even if that was true, it doesn't have to be God and it certainly doesn't have to be YOUR God. The fact that such weak arguments are the best theists can do proves that theists are inherently stupid which indirectly supports the notion that there can't be a God.
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion
In the Christian worldview morality must come from God to be valid, you can't use empathy or compassion to derive morality because "objective" morality comes from God. Ignoring the fact that God is an entity with personal preferences, making his morality subjective and just his opinion, it really doesn't matter to Christians what God says is moral as long as it comes from God. The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. but God draws the line at having sex outside of a social construct (marriage). God doesn't have compassion for sentient beings and neither do Christians, Christians say that without God we are just an accident and there is no reason not to rape or murder etc. which exposes how evil Christians are. What gives a being moral value is having a subjective experience, ability to feel pain, a will to live etc. not agreeing with your beliefs or having a "soul" which is an excuse to care about human fetuses that aren't even sentient yet while you butcher sentient animals and more developed humans who aren't retarded Christians like you.
Hating pleasure VS hedonism
Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity. This is blatantly retarded because suffering is nature's programming that is meant to tell you when something is bad for you. Avoiding things that feel bad and seeking things that feel good should be the default position and christians have a serious BOP on their hands to prove that the opposite of human nature and the opposite of everything enjoyable is what we should be striving for. There is such a thing as too much pleasure, but this is an argument that SUPPORTS hedonism rather than debunks it. The only valid reason not to do something pleasurable is that it leads to suffering in the long run or shortens your life span (giving you less time to experience pleasure in the future).
Science denial VS "trust the soyience"
Faith is antithetical to scientific thought. In faith the desired conclusion takes precedence over the evidence and evidence is sought after the fact so that a confirmation bias can be formed. In science the evidence LEADS to the conclusion. This doesn't mean that scientific consensus always has the right answer, but in life you have to gamble sometimes and anyone who isn't a retarded Christian would rather gamble on what the evidence leads you to. Whenever you have to take a leap of faith in life, you shouldn't actually leap based on faith but on the thing most likely to be the case based on the available evidence.
animal fat VS Veganism
This is an extension of "trust the soyience" and "genuine compassion". The opposite of Christian morality isn't amorality, because Christian morality is about reducing pleasure and increasing suffering while having no genuine compassion for sentient beings. To be the opposite of Christian, you must seek to reduce suffering and increase well being for all beings. Furthermore the Bible glorifies animal fat as if it is something to be prized, which according to the scientific consensus is the most retarded thing imaginable because the leading cause of death in the western world is heart disease and the leading cause of heart disease is animal fat/cholesterol. Everyone who isn't vegan is both evil and retarded, because it is not only one of the healthiest diets according to science (rivaled only by vegetarian, pescatarian and mediterranean) but THE ONLY morally sound diet.
shame VS pride
According to the Bible the human body is evil and human nature is evil. The first thing Adam and Eve do upon learning the difference between good and evil is cover their sexy, beautiful bodies that God is disgusted by even though he's the one who made them. Furthermore humans are inherently sinners according to God, sinning is unavoidable and we all deserve hellfire by default just for being the way HE made us and that is why we can only be saved through grace and repentance and not through works. We should be proud of ourselves as humans, we have the capacity to be more benevolent than Yaweh and the capacity to be more rational than his retarded subhuman believers. Would you rather constantly be like "I'm so sorry for existing and being human God, please don't burn me in a lake of fire for eternity because of the way you made me be" or would you rather see yourself as a sapient, sexy and compassionate being?
human supremacy VS transhumanism
Paradoxically the Bible views humans as the ultimate creation while also seeing our humanity as something to be ashamed of. Also the snake in eden was trying to enhance us and have us become as God by having us eat the fruit, the first act of rebellion, the "original sin", was literally transhumanism. We should improve upon humanity and gain immortality with biotech rather than by sucking Jesus's imaginary cock. In fact our goal should be to BECOME GOD. How's that for anti Christian? You think God is God? No bitch, I'M going to be God! HAHAHAHAHA
Authority/choice VS Socialism/Technocracy
I like to think of socioeconomics/politics in terms of 4 types of decision-making processes. The prominence of each one in a socioeconomic system determines what type of system it is.
There are collective decisions, which are called "democratic" and the logical extreme of which is socialism/communism. There are individual decisions, the logical extreme of which is anarchism. There are authority-based decisions, the logical extreme of which is fascism. Lastly there are decisions based on a method based in reasoning or science rather than opinion, the logical extreme of which is technocracy.
Christians stress the importance of two things: free will and the authority of God. Instead of simply providing for everyone and basing decisions on what is logical and best for everyone, a truly christian system mirrors God's system for choosing who is damned and who is saved. Everyone is fucked by default but has enough "free choice" to have upward mobility if they make the right decisions. This is literally just conservatism/capitalism, a system where people who don't know what's best and don't care about you have authority but if you work hard enough and are lucky enough you can make money even though most people will be relatively poor or even starve to death on the streets.
Free will doesn't exist, and some people start off more privileged than others, so the "choice" part is just an illusion and everyone's well-being is determined by sheer luck and whatever benefits God/the wealthy.
Instead the optimal system is technocratic socialism, decisions are made based on what is best for everyone and this is decided based on facts rather than opinions.
Male supremacy VS Female supremacy
The Bible makes it clear that women are meant to be subordinate to men. This is retarded because women are better leaders and more compassionate than men. Men are good at physical labor and stuff like math whereas female brains are more developed in areas associated with social skills and empathy etc. Men are wired to be worker bees and engineers etc. Women are wired to be managers of people, teachers and caretakers whereas men are wired to lift heavy things and apply their left brain hemisphere to what women tell them to.
But I'm not done perverting God's plan yet though, oh no, because God hates fags and trannies after all.
Oppressing certain groups for their differences is a very Christian and masculine thing to do, so instead of men being seen as second-class citizens inherently it should be more like femininity is celebrated as a virtue and masculinity is downplayed. male feminization should be celebrated and masculine roles in both society and in the household should be seen as something to be approached in a feminine way. The gender dynamics and roles should be twisted so that masculinity serves the feminine and femininity dominates the masculine. Not necessarily "men" and "women" but "masculine" and "feminine"
unquestioning obedience VS rebellion
At the heart of christianity lies pathetic groveling to an imaginary sky-dictator. The spirit of Lucifer is the spirit of rebellion, the spirit that puts a middle finger up to Yaweh's empty threats and bows to no one. There should be no class, there should be no Gods, there should be no people who go to heaven and people who go to hell, there should be enlightened humans and transhumans working together for the benefit of all.
I submit only to scientific facts, and I serve only the ideology of well being. The ideology that says I want to live and feel good, and I know you want the same.
I will never serve a God that says "go ahead and own slaves and stone gays, but you better not masturbate or smoke weed".
They say that ad-hominem is not a valid argument but I beg to differ. If literally only stupid people believe something and all arguments for that thing are stupid then there comes a point where that makes it less likely to be true, even if it isn't directly falsifiable as a claim in itself. The only way to "reason" that God exists is to ignore a billion other possibilities, theists usually say "something can't come from nothing therefore there must a first cause". Even if that was true, it doesn't have to be God and it certainly doesn't have to be YOUR God. The fact that such weak arguments are the best theists can do proves that theists are inherently stupid which indirectly supports the notion that there can't be a God.
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion
In the Christian worldview morality must come from God to be valid, you can't use empathy or compassion to derive morality because "objective" morality comes from God. Ignoring the fact that God is an entity with personal preferences, making his morality subjective and just his opinion, it really doesn't matter to Christians what God says is moral as long as it comes from God. The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. but God draws the line at having sex outside of a social construct (marriage). God doesn't have compassion for sentient beings and neither do Christians, Christians say that without God we are just an accident and there is no reason not to rape or murder etc. which exposes how evil Christians are. What gives a being moral value is having a subjective experience, ability to feel pain, a will to live etc. not agreeing with your beliefs or having a "soul" which is an excuse to care about human fetuses that aren't even sentient yet while you butcher sentient animals and more developed humans who aren't retarded Christians like you.
Hating pleasure VS hedonism
Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity. This is blatantly retarded because suffering is nature's programming that is meant to tell you when something is bad for you. Avoiding things that feel bad and seeking things that feel good should be the default position and christians have a serious BOP on their hands to prove that the opposite of human nature and the opposite of everything enjoyable is what we should be striving for. There is such a thing as too much pleasure, but this is an argument that SUPPORTS hedonism rather than debunks it. The only valid reason not to do something pleasurable is that it leads to suffering in the long run or shortens your life span (giving you less time to experience pleasure in the future).
Science denial VS "trust the soyience"
Faith is antithetical to scientific thought. In faith the desired conclusion takes precedence over the evidence and evidence is sought after the fact so that a confirmation bias can be formed. In science the evidence LEADS to the conclusion. This doesn't mean that scientific consensus always has the right answer, but in life you have to gamble sometimes and anyone who isn't a retarded Christian would rather gamble on what the evidence leads you to. Whenever you have to take a leap of faith in life, you shouldn't actually leap based on faith but on the thing most likely to be the case based on the available evidence.
animal fat VS Veganism
This is an extension of "trust the soyience" and "genuine compassion". The opposite of Christian morality isn't amorality, because Christian morality is about reducing pleasure and increasing suffering while having no genuine compassion for sentient beings. To be the opposite of Christian, you must seek to reduce suffering and increase well being for all beings. Furthermore the Bible glorifies animal fat as if it is something to be prized, which according to the scientific consensus is the most retarded thing imaginable because the leading cause of death in the western world is heart disease and the leading cause of heart disease is animal fat/cholesterol. Everyone who isn't vegan is both evil and retarded, because it is not only one of the healthiest diets according to science (rivaled only by vegetarian, pescatarian and mediterranean) but THE ONLY morally sound diet.
shame VS pride
According to the Bible the human body is evil and human nature is evil. The first thing Adam and Eve do upon learning the difference between good and evil is cover their sexy, beautiful bodies that God is disgusted by even though he's the one who made them. Furthermore humans are inherently sinners according to God, sinning is unavoidable and we all deserve hellfire by default just for being the way HE made us and that is why we can only be saved through grace and repentance and not through works. We should be proud of ourselves as humans, we have the capacity to be more benevolent than Yaweh and the capacity to be more rational than his retarded subhuman believers. Would you rather constantly be like "I'm so sorry for existing and being human God, please don't burn me in a lake of fire for eternity because of the way you made me be" or would you rather see yourself as a sapient, sexy and compassionate being?
human supremacy VS transhumanism
Paradoxically the Bible views humans as the ultimate creation while also seeing our humanity as something to be ashamed of. Also the snake in eden was trying to enhance us and have us become as God by having us eat the fruit, the first act of rebellion, the "original sin", was literally transhumanism. We should improve upon humanity and gain immortality with biotech rather than by sucking Jesus's imaginary cock. In fact our goal should be to BECOME GOD. How's that for anti Christian? You think God is God? No bitch, I'M going to be God! HAHAHAHAHA
Authority/choice VS Socialism/Technocracy
I like to think of socioeconomics/politics in terms of 4 types of decision-making processes. The prominence of each one in a socioeconomic system determines what type of system it is.
There are collective decisions, which are called "democratic" and the logical extreme of which is socialism/communism. There are individual decisions, the logical extreme of which is anarchism. There are authority-based decisions, the logical extreme of which is fascism. Lastly there are decisions based on a method based in reasoning or science rather than opinion, the logical extreme of which is technocracy.
Christians stress the importance of two things: free will and the authority of God. Instead of simply providing for everyone and basing decisions on what is logical and best for everyone, a truly christian system mirrors God's system for choosing who is damned and who is saved. Everyone is fucked by default but has enough "free choice" to have upward mobility if they make the right decisions. This is literally just conservatism/capitalism, a system where people who don't know what's best and don't care about you have authority but if you work hard enough and are lucky enough you can make money even though most people will be relatively poor or even starve to death on the streets.
Free will doesn't exist, and some people start off more privileged than others, so the "choice" part is just an illusion and everyone's well-being is determined by sheer luck and whatever benefits God/the wealthy.
Instead the optimal system is technocratic socialism, decisions are made based on what is best for everyone and this is decided based on facts rather than opinions.
Male supremacy VS Female supremacy
The Bible makes it clear that women are meant to be subordinate to men. This is retarded because women are better leaders and more compassionate than men. Men are good at physical labor and stuff like math whereas female brains are more developed in areas associated with social skills and empathy etc. Men are wired to be worker bees and engineers etc. Women are wired to be managers of people, teachers and caretakers whereas men are wired to lift heavy things and apply their left brain hemisphere to what women tell them to.
But I'm not done perverting God's plan yet though, oh no, because God hates fags and trannies after all.
Oppressing certain groups for their differences is a very Christian and masculine thing to do, so instead of men being seen as second-class citizens inherently it should be more like femininity is celebrated as a virtue and masculinity is downplayed. male feminization should be celebrated and masculine roles in both society and in the household should be seen as something to be approached in a feminine way. The gender dynamics and roles should be twisted so that masculinity serves the feminine and femininity dominates the masculine. Not necessarily "men" and "women" but "masculine" and "feminine"
unquestioning obedience VS rebellion
At the heart of christianity lies pathetic groveling to an imaginary sky-dictator. The spirit of Lucifer is the spirit of rebellion, the spirit that puts a middle finger up to Yaweh's empty threats and bows to no one. There should be no class, there should be no Gods, there should be no people who go to heaven and people who go to hell, there should be enlightened humans and transhumans working together for the benefit of all.
I submit only to scientific facts, and I serve only the ideology of well being. The ideology that says I want to live and feel good, and I know you want the same.
I will never serve a God that says "go ahead and own slaves and stone gays, but you better not masturbate or smoke weed".
Round 2
Pro
#3
Con is experiencing some kind of problem posting his arguments so he is using the comment section instead. I will link to his argument and continue the debate https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details.
This isn't sufficient to establish that what I described isn't the direct inverse of christianity, as different denominations share core beliefs and values.
All Christian denominations are theistic, the opposite of which is atheism.
All Christian denominations claim "objective morality" based on the authority of an entity who has condoned and even demanded for atrocities such as genocide. The opposite of all Christian morality is compassion.
All Christian denominations view hedonism negatively, the opposite of Christianity is enjoying things without guilt.
All Christian denominations glorify the concept of "faith" which is directly opposed to science because the conclusion comes first and evidence is secondary with faith whereas science is about deriving the conclusion from the evidence.
All Christian denominations follow translations of the Bible that grant mankind dominion over animals and talk about saturated fat as if it's a delicacy. The opposite of Christianity is veganism.
All denominations of Christianity claim that humans are sinners and bad people by default, the opposite of Christianity is having pride in yourself.
All denominations talk about humanity as God's ultimate creation (which is ironic since God hates human nature so much) and talk about a talking snake who is supposedly evil for trying to make us more like God. The opposite of Christianity is transhumanism.
All denominations of Christianity claim that Jesus is a "king" and worship a fascist and irrational God. The opposite of Christianity is technocratic socialism.
All denominations of Christianity accept misogynistic bible quotes as canon. The opposite of Christianity is valuing the feminine over the masculine.
All denominations view rebellion to God as a bad thing. Christianity is about being a sky-dictators bitch and the opposite of Christianity is rebelling against tyranny.
Even if you found holes in my theory, I could also argue that some denominations are more valid to define as "christianity" than others because some interpretations/translations of the Bible are more accurate than others and some church institutions are more historical than others.
For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam
This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim, I'm advocating for inverting Christian philosophy whereas Islam is literally based on the Bible.
"do unto others" is just words, all of Yaweh's actions show 0 empathy. I'm sure Yaweh wouldn't have wanted to be killed in a giant flood just because his creator decided he didn't like the way he was made (which is entirely his creator's fault).
In order to invert everything Christians practice and believe in, you have to take into account that their catch-phrases often contradict their actual beliefs and practices. Actions always speak louder than words in those cases.
claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
In the book of exodus part of God's list of laws include guidelines for how to treat slaves, not for how slavery should be illegal. In the new testament Paul also talks about stoning homosexuals.
On the other hand anything done purely for pleasure is treated as a negative thing. God sees feeling good as evil and hurting people who didn't hurt anyone as good.
but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice of direct inverse
Satanism isn't directly inverse to Christianity because Christians believe in Satan therefore belief in him aligns with Christianity, plus Satan is actually controlled opposition and everything he does is part of God's plan according to the Bible. Not to mention there isn't an actual consistent characterization of Satan, the Bible can be interpreted as referring to multiple entities as "Satan" including God himself. Satan is literally God's alternate persona according to some interpretations of the Bible.
Round 3
Pro
#5
1a1 Example, Pro’s R2 mention of fatted v. veganism. What does veganism have to do with theism v. atheism
This statement alone should prove that Con is merely dodging my points by labeling them with a fallacy and not adequately addressing a single one of them. Not every aspect of Christianity is a direct extrapolation out of theism any more than Islam is, because there are multiple types of theism that can totally contradict each other despite being theistic.
Not eating pork isn't directly related to theism either, but Muslims don't eat pork which is part of their religion which happens to be theistic. Hindus on the other hand are also theistic, but they are allowed to eat pork and not allowed to eat cows the latter of which Muslims are allowed to eat.
dismissing my other arguments because they aren't directly about theism is intellectually lazy. You aren't actually disproving my point about veganism you are merely dodging it with a cheap and nonsensical excuse and implying that because I mentioned theism and atheism first anything that doesn't directly relate to that is outside the scope of the debate.
In the face of a Pro claim in R1 of scriptural support for slaves and gays, my R1 rebuttal [Ic] asked for a scripture reference. Pro’s R2 offered several [157, specifically, an two related websites], but they included Exodus 21: 16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Does not sound like a positive affirmation for either practice to me
You are relying on twisting the Bible's words to support your point, cherry picking a single quote out of dozens, all of which prove that slavery is allowed in God's law, to find one that MIGHT be interpreted as being against slavery provided you are illiterate.
If a human is considered property, you can "steal" them just like you can steal a car, and you can "possess" the stolen car/slave because it is considered property.
, I found in a sampling of >half of each, 40 of slaves; 80 of gays, sequential verses reviewed in each website. Of the 80 reviewed for gays, 62 made no mention of “homosexuals” or ”man laying with man,” 27 made no mention of putting anyone to death by any means
"Unless the Bible specifically mentions stoning and specifically words it as man lying with man in every homophobic verse, all the times God DOES say those things don't count!"
No, if God says that you should stone gays just ONCE then that means your infallible creator told you to go stone gays. So go be a good Christian and murder people for no good reason.
Fatted Christians exist. How about fatted vegans? Meet one.[3] So, where’s the direct inverse since it is proven that both Christians and vegans [some of each] eat excessively, regardless of the consumed groceries?
I specifically mentioned SATURATED ANIMAL FAT AND CHOLESTEROL. Every single one of con's arguments have been straight up intellectually dishonest in this round.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con highlights a lot of potential issues with the resolution but still falls short of negating it. I think the phrasing "everything christians believe in and practice" leaves some leeway for Pro to make his case, since a practice of only one denomination arguably isn't something Christians practice collectively. I'm inclined to agree that the resolution is probably too broad, but Con missed the opportunity to really show this with examples. Most of the verses he cites are playing defense, even though many of Pro's arguments that the Bible endorses some bad thing or other go unchallenged. Pro even gives a list of what things are the opposite of what Christians believe.
If Con had given an example of something Christians practice where doing the opposite is clearly bad, they could have won. If Pro had given a specific practice where doing the opposite is literally impossible, they could have won. I could give this to Con if I really push semantics, but the examples Pro gives were enough to fit the resolution in my view, especially with the clarification that "different denominations share core beliefs and values." That seems like the most fair way to interpret the resolution, and it's really the only way that's fleshed out.
Pro links sources but doesn't do much analysis on them. Con cites verses pro linked to and argues they support his side of the resolution. So source points to Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I made a couple comments previously, which factor into this…
Arguments can be showcased with a single point from pro: “ No, if God says that you should stone gays just ONCE then that means your infallible creator told you to go stone gays. So go be a good Christian and murder people for no good reason.”
The problem for his case is that this feeds into con’s case about the flaw of trying to do the direct inverse. Christians don’t practice murder (in spite of what they are argued to believe), which offends pro… the direct opposite of not murdering people is self evidently bad.
There were other issues such as pro advocating for general atheism and veganism, rather than a direct inverse of Christianity; which is a very weird thing to aim for.
I do think con did well in some points, such as diets, but he selected a very high BoP he could not hold onto when faced with challenges.
Sources are mostly explained in one of my comments. It fell back outside the tired range for pro not defending his sources when he was accused of source spam without reading them (this challenge was well done, quoting said source to show it was unsound).
Conduct to pro for not trying to take advantage of the website error to act like con had forfeited. He had a bad potty mouth, but I believe the integrity outweighs any issues stemming from that.
>Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 to Pro (Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
See Votes Tab and the following two links:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
>Reason for Removal:
The voter sufficiently explains their reasoning for awarding all points, providing an extensive accounting of the arguments presented and how he viewed them in the comments with some additions in the the vote itself. The source points are sufficiently explained by pointing to how those sources were defended, which focuses on the quality of their usage rather than their quantity. And the conduct point allocation rewards some good behavior on the part of Pro that seems justified.
**************************************************
I perceived your entire argument set over three rounds of “X’s don’t do do Y” when, in fact, that kind of generalization is an excuse to be
1. Authoritative
2. Lacking in supporting data
3. Unwilling to allow for individual, independent thought and action (belief and practice, if you will).
Further, your Resolution insisted on “the direct inverse of everything Christian,” not just several or most things. Every little dogma must directly oppose Christianity when, in fact, Islam has the Hadith #13 (my R1) which was never rebutted to combat the golden rule, or your R2 argument of “fatted Christians” (another generalization not describing all Christian’s when “all” is your Resolution’s threshold.) Hence my unrebutted claim, with supporting source reference, of fatted vegans, thus again defeating your Resolution of “everything.” “Everything” was your BoP. It failed.
I'll have a look over this vote later today.
The following vote has been reported:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926-one-should-believe-in-and-practice-the-direct-inverse-of-everything-christians-believe-in-and-practice?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
It has supporting information at:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
In general, votes need not be perfect. Heck in my own vote I mislabeled pro as con at one point (context was still obvious IMO, but still a flaw).
If you want to formally report any vote, click the three dots next to the vote number to open the menu with report being probably the only option. As I voted on this debate, I'd prefer it if whiteflame reviewed any vote (you can also tag him and state that you are reporting whatever vote).
Speaking of which, my vote has been reported, so I need to message him or tag him in a comment (he checks the report log sometimes, but should my vote be removed I'd like to have the time to reread the debate and revote).
1: Atheists don't necessarily adhere to the golden rule, atheism has no inherent moral code
2: I wasn't arguing just for atheism but for an entire list of things that I see as inverse to Christianity
3: Christians don't actually practice the golden rule
Seems to me Savant’s vote misinterprets the Resolution as a moral dilemma, good v. bad, when it states being “the direct inverse of everything” which is neither good or bad, but opposed in every condition when even atheism and Christianity believe and practice identical principles, such as the golden rule, which fails the Resolution.
Your vote suggests I should have argued something that is bad as being a direct inverse of Christian belief and practice, but the Resolution is not a moral question of good and bad, but, rather, a question of direct inverse of everything. Therefore, I argued in all three rounds that Christians and atheists share beliefs and practices such as the golden rule, aka, the law of reciprocity, which are not direct inverse opposition, but merely similar practices for different reasons. Different does not qualify as direct inverse. As I concluded, “everything” cannot have mere difference in reason for shared belief and practice, but must make direct inverse by definition.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit on Cons part.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
Per Americandebaters #21 comment, pls remove his vote of forfeit. This
dude, I don't have the ability. The most I could do is report and hope that a mod would remove it. So, instead of complaining to me. You should talk to Barney to remove the vote.
I’ve waited patiently for four days for a re-assessment of your vote. As Barney advised, I discovered only after accepting the debate challenge that I was prevented somehow from entering argument in the argument field of each round, so I entered them in each round in comments, clearly identified as round 1, 2, etc. complete with listed source references. I did not forfeit any round, and do not deserve that assessment.
FYI, con had technical difficulties and posted his rounds in the comment section.
I did a little experiment using this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Direct_Inversion_of_Christianity_(Tiered)
This was created with ChatGPT, with only minimal input from me (mostly formatting, and the ever annoying need to tell it that quotes must be direct quotes rather than paraphrases).
As someone who read the debate, it's cool to see the differences in where such a tool focuses.
Barney, I'd appreciate your ratification of my comment below [#16], if acceptable to you, an appeal to readers and voters to consider and vote on this debate, appealing to fair-mindedness. Thank you.
To all readers and voters on this debate:
I appeal to your fair-minded consideration of the arguments of this debate. Clearly, it appears I forfeited this debate as there are no posts of my challenges to the Resolution in the argument fields required of instigators and challengers in DebateArt Debate Policy and Code of Conduct. I, fauxlaw, am not a novice; having, now, 78 debates-experience. I began in March of 2020, currently listed at #14 of well over 100 debaters, ranked at 1702 points, I am well aware of policies and codes, but have been prohibited, not by my process, but by some DebateArt process glitch, from entering a single character, let alone an entire round argument for three rounds in this debate, the effect of which was unknown to me, accepting the challenge in good faith that I could proceed with debating prior to acceptance of the challenge to engage this debate. Discovering I could not enter my arguments directly into the debate argument field in each round, I appealed to Mods to find out what was preventing my "posting" of the first round argument. To date, that investigation continues. I am, by all normal consideration, eligible to debate.
Therefore, I appeal to your fairminded approach to this debate since, clearly, I have done the best I can to post my arguments, rebuttals, and conclusion for each round in the comments section since the argument fields remain closed to me as of the posting of this comment [02/08/25] - well within the rounds argument due date of this 3rd round, as all rounds were "posted" on time, but in comments. I shall not accept another challenge for debate, nor issue a challenge for a regular debate, until this process glitch is resolved. Thank you for your kind consideration.
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: Gish Gallop into the sunset…
1a I know that repetition expecting different results is a sign of something, but I cannot remember what it was. Oh, right, it was the Resolution.
1a1 Pr4o’s R3 “Not every aspect of Christianity is a direct extrapolation out of theism any more than Islam is.” No, it isn’t but the Resolution is “Christians” and the “direct inverse of everything” thereof. I am accused of dodging. No, I argued that even “theism and atheism” are also outside the debate scope. Pro’s BoP was to prove the Resolution, but Pro, instead, gave us indirect inverses of off-topic opposites. I demonstrated they have direct identity with Christianity. More gish gallop failure by Pro.
Ib Insanity is, indeed, the result of doing over and over and over again. We have a questionable debate Resolution that has been my BoP to disprove. I have squarely addressed and defeated the Gish Gallop routine in my R1, R2, and R3, thus, this Resolution fails.
Ib1 Pro R3 rebuttal claimed “You are relying on twisting the Bible's words to support your point, cherry picking a single quote out of dozens, all of which prove that slavery is allowed in God's law, to find one that MIGHT be interpreted as being against slavery provided you are illiterate.” Nope. Example: 1 Peter 2: 18 “Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.” Pro insisted I am “…twisting the Bible’s words.” No, I quote Pro’s ESV version.
Ib2 Example: Luke 1: 37: “For nothing will be impossible with God.”
Ib3 Example: Matthew 5: 17: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” 78% of these “slaves and gays” verses, statistically, are unrelated to Pro’s claim.
Conclusion: The Resolution’s “everything Christians…” condition allowed for shared beliefs and practices of Christians, plus Muslims, atheists, hedonists, vegans, slaves and gays, and assorted others, making the “direct inverse” necessity an impossible achievement. Perhaps Pro’s Resolution might have carried the day had “the direct inverse of everything” not been included in his Resolution. The Resolution could have been worded “One should believe in and practice anything but what Christians believe in and practice,” without getting into the weeds of all of Pro’s gish galloping. I say ‘the direct inverse of everything’ scuttled Pro’s Resolution.
Thank you for reading this debate. After due consideration of the arguments, please vote for Con.
I am going to copy your arguments into my notes, if that is okay.
That is a really good first round. I didnt find anything I disagree with.
Just below,
I have posted my Round 2 argument, finding I amn still unable to post in the Arguments section - a tech issue Mods are trying to resolve.
One suggested resolve I have been advised might work on a subsequent debate, but I'll let the Mod who suggested it reveal what that resolve is because it is definitely outside the box.
My Round 2:
D 202501231 #5926 R2. https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: Introducing Mr. Gish
Ia In 2 rounds, my opponent has engaged in a misguided tactic known as “gish gallop;”[1] an attempt to overwhelm a debate by unsubstantiated, personal opinion statements. Why have one good argument with a source reference when ten personal opinion pieces will suffice?
1a1 Example, Pro’s R2 mention of fatted v. veganism. What does veganism have to do with theism v. atheism, let alone any belief and practice? Is merely the “-ism” supposed to represent direct inverse? Thus, Pro’s “arguments” fail his Resolution by excessive dependence on Mr. Duane Gish, a Christian.
Ib Pro’s tactic [per my 1a, above] will be entertained thusly: theism v. atheism, appeal to authority v. compassion, hating pleasure v. hedonism, science denial v. “trust the soyience [rendered undefined - you figure it out], and an… and on and on… are dismissed out of hand as being excessive verbosity without purpose to support Pro’s Resolution, and, in fact, they infest it with thorns and thistles. Is Pro attempting to usurp God in warning of the results of being cast out of Eden?[2] One example will suffice; one that actually has a sourced reference - a flawed one.
II Rebuttal: Slaves and Gays [are mistreated by Christians]
IIa Pro has a particular issue with the Bible “owning slaves and stoning gays.” [Pro R2] In the face of a Pro claim in R1 of scriptural support for slaves and gays, my R1 rebuttal [Ic] asked for a scripture reference. Pro’s R2 offered several [157, specifically, an two related websites], but they included Exodus 21: 16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Does not sound like a positive affirmation for either practice to me, whether or not the stealing man first had his way with the man stolen.
IIb There is ongoing problem with Pro’s R2 citing of 2 sources on treatment of slaves and gays biblically. Both independently offered Old and New Testament verses — slaves, 57 verses; gays, 100 verses — allegedly supporting his argument. But, on detailed examination, I found in a sampling of >half of each, 40 of slaves; 80 of gays, sequential verses reviewed in each website. Of the 80 reviewed for gays, 62 made no mention of “homosexuals” or ”man laying with man,” 27 made no mention of putting anyone to death by any means, and one verse spoke of stoning a cow. I call foul, and throw a red flag. In Pro’s cited sources, 78% failed to support his claim; a landslide against Pro. Similar results stained the slavery verses.
IIb1 Example; John 8: 8: “And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.” Please advise what the !$%#@ that verse has to do with slaves or gays? I question whether Pro actually read his sources, or was merely dazzled by the headings.
III Rebuttal: Veganism vs. Fatted Christians
IIIa One more gish gallop deserves mention: Pro’s R2: “All Christian denominations follow … and talk about saturated fat as if it's a delicacy.” Fatted Christians exist. How about fatted vegans? Meet one.[3] So, where’s the direct inverse since it is proven that both Christians and vegans [some of each] eat excessively, regardless of the consumed groceries?
IV Conclusion
IVa Pro’s arguments amount to a misguided tactic known as “gish gallop;”an attempt to overwhelm a debate by unsubstantiated statements. Does one gish gallop from one to the another Pro claim into the sunset…? Thus, Pro’s arguments fail his Resolution by excessive dependence on Mr. Duane Gish, a Christian creationist. Go figure.
Thank you, all. I rest my case for R2.
Source References:
[1] https://speakingofresearch.com/2012/09/11/gish-gallop/#:~:text=Gish%20Gallop%20is%20a%20technique,each%20point%20in%20real%20time.
[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Genesis 3: 18
[3] https://www.taylorwolfram.com/vegan-fatphobia/
I'm going to get a jump start on this debate (while both have the opportunity to incorporate any feedback if they so desire).
Right off the start, that description should really give a scope statement. Like everything Christians believe and practice, is both broad and self contradictory due to the many branches of Christianity and the far wider number of Christians themselves (I don't yet know if either raises the point that Christian does not equal Christianity as a whole or the bible). Also qualifier word "direct" in the title significantly raises BoP (without it there'd be a wider range that would meet the BoP)
R1: Pro
I assume pro meets their basic BoP unless challenged.
Theism VS Atheism:
Pro is actually wrong to call this an Ad Hominem. It is however an obvious Scarecrow Argument, which risks being a Phantom Argument.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion:
Bad start, but then "The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. " is a solid point, as much as a source would have been fantastic to back up that the bible does those things which it doesn't really do (I have an open mind, and can consider this point won if unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged; but I'll still call out errors).
Hating pleasure VS hedonism:
"Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity" if unchallenged, this is a great argument; and actually one you could have backed up with biblical sources.
Continuing on feels like reading a Gish Gallop; it reduces the impact of the individual points, as it makes me more inclined to think of them as a single contention rather than a nuanced set of them.
...
R1 con:
Con hits hard and keeps nailing in from "Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S."
He even brings up an interesting point that it would be impossible to do the opposite of such a wide set of beliefs.
“do unto others…” while using it to compare Christianity to another religion, raises the point of something which people intuitively should not reject (I'd have liked to see that part of it more in focus). He does come back to this a little later adding "being humble, forgiving, and generous" as values in Christianity one ought to not do the opposite of.
Oh a call for sources, great to see that! Pro may actually deliver, but it creates a great falsifiability moment.
...
R2 pro:
"different denominations share core beliefs and values. " a mild moving of the goalposts, but it fits the themes of the debate enough to have validity.
The return to the Gish Gallop is actually painful... Maybe were it presented here as a numbered list it'd be less bad, but the way it's offered it's be better to just say "extend all arguments from my previous round," and thematically explain why they still hold weight (instead of individually).
I did not initially catch it due to the potty mouth, but "The opposite of Christianity is veganism" is a pretty good point due to the inclusion of "heart disease."
"This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim" leaves the core do unto others bit unchallenged... Ah, God doesn't obey it in the bible isn't the worst point (but kinda misses the point of if those words inspire good actions from Christians or not)
Oh damn, I did not expect to see any sources from pro. Great job! Cherry picked evidence in all, but I'll count it (without these sources would have surely gone to con, but now I'll leave them in the tied range).
I wish you would take the advice of Help Center/Debates to number your paragraphs. It makes for easy reference by everyone involved; yourself, debate opponents, commenters, interested viewers, and voters. How about it?
To all, With an hour to go to time of forfeiture under normal circumstances, IU want all to know that I have posted and argument addressed to my opponent, FishChaser, but, as of now, if you read all comments posted to date, I* have encountered tech difficulties that do nt allow posting my R1 argument but the regular posting method. Barney authorized my posting it to FishChaser directly, which I* have done. Wg=hat is posted in open comments here is a down rev version. Barney noted this action is not entirely kosher, but5 given the circumstances, and doing what I can with the means available, I am counting on the fair consideration of voters and commenters to accept this.
I've done as you suggested
FishChaser, this is my R1 rebuttal/argument. It is sent at Barney's suggestion just in case my tech issue is not resolved by the deadline, so you can properly prepare an R2 argument.
D 202501231 #5925
Resolution: “One should believe in and practice the direct inverse of everything Christians believe in and practice.”
I Rebuttal: 10 opposing condiitons
1a Pro’s R1 arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christians, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
1b For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
1c Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
II Argument: Direct Inverse
IIa Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
IIc Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, Ib, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice of direct inverse, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
I rest my case for R1.
References
[1] https://medium.com/biblical-christian-worldview/how-many-christian-denominations-are-there-and-why-76f74de55a60#:~:text=“Estimations%20show%20there%20are%20more,globally%20(details%20here).”
[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 12 disgusting
[3] Pro’s R1 argument.
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iblis
If it can’t be resolved, it would be good conduct to for you to post a link to his comments post in your next round. The proper link is: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
This is of course not required. You may argue however you’d like. Some voters will probably discount it for being posted wrong; but I believe in the spirit of fairness.
I am aware of that, but something is preventing g my posting the argument. I've appealed to a Mod to find out why
post your argument in the actual debate
Pro’s arguments are a series of 10 opposing conditions, virtually none of which expand on, let alone speak to Pro’s Resolution. The Resolution has five keywords: belief, practice, Christianity, direct inverse, and everything. We are left with the impression that, speaking of belief, practice, and Christianity, Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S.; worldwide, there are a few thousand separate denominations with differing doctrine in their details. [1] By insisting on separate doctrine regarding Christianity and its “direct inverse,” whatever that happens to be, that “direct inverse” is asked to differ by “everything.” A direct inverse-style debate would be a debate of proposed arguments and rebuttals of light, and its direct inverse, dark. In this debate case, religious belief and practice. The polar opposite of such is non-belief and non-practice, regardless of what the religions may be. Otherwise, merely claiming belief in one religion any more than another is not a direct inverse, but merely different. For example, relative to position, clock hands pointed at 12 and 6 are in direct inverse position, whereas at 2 and 5, the hands are merely in different, random positions. Just so, Christianity and Islam, for example, are merely different, but not in direct inverse belief or practice. A simple comparison of their respective holy writ, the Holy Bible, and the Qur’an, will demonstrate the claim.
For example, the familiar Christian doctrine, “do unto others…”[2] is a shared doctrine with Islam: Qur’an, The Hadith #13 Even one example defeats the Resolution’s demand of “everything.” Thus, Pro’s Resolution, and his attempt to justify it by argument, fails.
Pro’s ten X v. Y arguments may be entertaining, vulgar though several of them are, but they give nothing to support the Resolution. I am fully aware by the vulgarity that Pro thinks little of Christianity; that’s fine. To each their own. But Pro’s vulgarity goes to the point of personal attack. In his arguments, I am said to be stupid, retarded, and evil for being a Christian. Such language violates DA Code of Conduct, and I call Pro on such references. Further, he accuses Christians of disgusting sexual action, and claims God, who, by Pro’s argument, is not supposed to exist, says, “Go ahead and own slaves and stone gays masturbate, but better not masturbate or smoke weed.” [3] I challenge Pro to offer book, chapter and verse from whence that quote is cited from the Holy Bible.
Pro offers no definitions, particularly for “direct inverse.” Since no argument by Pro in R1 demonstrated direct inverse, let’s explore why it is not demonstrated in his arguments. Direct inverse is otherwise known as polar opposite. The Resolution demands that the direct inverse of Christianity must differ from Christianity by “everything.” All doctrine must oppose Christianity to qualify as a direct inverse.
Is Islam a direct inverse of Christianity? No, they are merely different because Islam is not a religion with tenets in “everything” that is the direct inverse of Christian tenets. In fact, the two share many tenets, such as above, and such as being humble, forgiving, and generous. The keywords of Pro’s challenge [belief, practice, Christianity, everything] simply do not merit having direct inverses of anything, if not all that Satan represents — a familiar personage or concept of Christianity, but also of Islam, except the name recognized in the latter is Iblis, [4] and that there is not a comparative opposite volume of unholy writ on which satanist converge around common, if not identical tenets of “faith,” or whatever term applies as its opposite — but Pro did not entertain the subject of satanic belief or practice, nor beliefs and practices of any description. Therefore, Pro’s Resolution, and his arguments, fail.
I rest my case for R1.
References
[1] https://medium.com/biblical-christian-worldview/how-many-christian-denominations-are-there-and-why-76f74de55a60#:~:text=“Estimations%20show%20there%20are%20more,globally%20(details%20here).”
[2] Holy Bible [KJV] Matthew 7: 12 disgusting
[3] Pro’s R1 argument.
[4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Iblis
Christians believe in many things.