Judaism is responsible for Christianity, and thus Judaism is responsible for all the good that Christianity has done. Judaism has also done some amount of good apart from Christianity. Thus, Judaism has done more good than Christianity.
This isn't true because Christianity IS Judaism and Judaism is not.
Let me explain
Modern Judaism comes in the form of "rabbinic Judaism". They have their own holy book, called the Talmud, which the Jews of the Bible did not follow. According to Christianity they are not real Jews, for they have rejected the Jewish Messiah.
Thus the true continuation of the Jewish faith is Christianity, and all true Jews before Christ would have been Christians if they lived in the time of the new covenant.
"Judaism" does not exist as something separate from Christianity, Christianity is the ultimate fulfillment of the same religion. Judaism is incomplete Christianity and Christianity is complete Christianity.
If you do not accept this and see Christianity as a separate religion rather than the evolution of the same religion, then you are conceding this point because Judaism did not create Christianity but rather Christians made up their own thing.
If Christianity is a new thing and not a continuation of Judaism then Jews can't take credit for something they didn't create (and no they weren't "jews" who created it if they believed in a religion distinct from judaism) but if Christianity is the true continuation of Judaism then you can't even treat them as two separate religions thus your point is incoherent.
According to my definitions of "positive impact" and "negative impact", saving souls from going to hell does not do good, rather it prevents bad. Thus, that is outside the scope of this debate.
This actually has nothing to do with how you defined positive and negative impact. You said that “Positive impact“ is the moral good that a thing brings about, regardless of the moral harm that said thing also brings about. So if you take something bad that is going to happen and turn it into something good, then you have created good and thus it has had a positive impact. Saving souls from going to hell doesn't just "prevent bad" either because that also implies they are going to heaven, which is arguably the greatest good of all. It would really be a stretch to say that stopping the worst thing that could happen to someone and making sure they instead have the best thing that could happen to someone isn't good. It is in fact the greatest good imaginable.
- The Greeks had hospitals, although they were not very advanced.
Maybe if you define hospital as "place where medical stuff happens" but then you would have to say a 1700s american barber shop was also a hospital (barbers used to also be doctors in a primitive sense).
The actual modern hospital system is different from that.
- Due to his philosophy of inductive and deductive observations, Aristotle is widely considered to be the first scientist.
Aristotle did not invent the scientific method, he merely distinguished reason from empiricism.
Christianity would not exist without Judaism, as Christianity itself is simply an extension of Judaism.
Judaism wouldn't exist without Christianity, because modern Judaism is a different religion from old testament Judaism. Instead Judaism would have just stopped BEFORE it spread around the world and BEFORE it did 99% of the good that it did which was done through Christendom.
Unless you don't believe in Christianity, in which case Christianity is something different from Judaism.
that's all from me
meow
At the end of the day, a debate isn't just about looking at one isolated point—it's about thoroughly evaluating all aspects and arguments presented. That's why I felt Con's position was stronger. They tackled the topic from multiple angles, discussing the contributions of different religions, and presenting a more comprehensive analysis. A debate isn’t just about picking one point and going with it; it’s about looking at the bigger picture and weighing all the points carefully. That’s the perspective I took when making my vote.
"To clarify, I voted for Con because their arguments were more structured and objective in comparing the contributions of different religions, especially in how they challenged definitions and presented alternatives. When it comes to the positive impact, Con didn’t just focus on the significance but also provided a balanced view of the broader context, including contributions from Islam and Judaism, without disregarding their importance.
Christianity, of course, has had a profound impact on the world, especially in shaping Western culture and values. However, Con highlighted that Judaism laid the foundation for Christianity. Judaism's influence, particularly through its moral teachings, ethics, and law, cannot be understated. For example, the concept of charity and community welfare that Christianity later embraced was first deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. Judaism's role in promoting literacy, justice, and the importance of education also laid the groundwork for later societal advancements.
When we look at Islam, it also made massive contributions to various fields like science, mathematics, medicine, and philosophy, particularly during the Golden Age of Islam. This period of intellectual flourishing helped preserve and build on the knowledge of earlier civilizations, which later influenced the Renaissance in Europe.
So, while Christianity's impact is undeniable, Con’s argument that both Islam and Judaism played significant roles in shaping the world’s moral, intellectual, and cultural foundations made their argument stronger in my eyes. I found their reasoning more balanced and comprehensive in addressing the broader scope of religious impact on society."
oh well that\s not the case, i wz setting up my vote again on why i voted for con, so don't b made just cz i didn't favor for u, we're here to b fair n square, they won't b deservin a vote if i had found u b8r, even if the religion wz mentioned, rather than pickin up a single point u should look up the rznz i voted for em, i am not into stuff like biasness or whtevr, i say wht i feel, still u can think whtevr ya want, besides there r others as well, so they can vote, this ain't the final result yknow. there're still 10 days
∧,,,∧
( ̳• · • ̳)
Oh I see, you voted for Con because you're a Muslim and are biased in favor of the pedophile religion!
roger that
Remember this debate is about MORE positive impact, not just significant positive impact.
I'm not sure you really weighed that out in your vote. It's not enough to simply say "Con had better arguments and Islam contributed stuff" you have to actually say why you think Con had better arguments and why Islam hasn't contributed less overall.
but well u r just giving ur opinion, evry1 has the right to say, so it'd b unfair to hv bad thots bout sm1 just cz they didn't vote in one's favor.
I dont do voting. Voting reduces number of allies.
I will accept your friend request if you add an honest vote to this debate.
The time has come for voting.
I can take this one after finishing the other one.