Christianity has had more positive impact than any other religion
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- 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
No information
Pro's first constructive argument is invalid because hell and heaven has not been physically observed to exist.
Quite frankly though, Pro mentions the effects christianity has had at revolutionizing education. And how Catholicism in particular, as an organization, has had a tremendous impact on the healthcare system and invented hospitals.
Con counters this by establishing a good framework and then fails to fulfill said framework. Con had one job here.
Here Con uses judaism as the religion to contend against christianity, arguing that the accomplishments of christianity are the accomplishments of judaism, as christianity is an extension of judaism. Obviously this argument fails for obvious reasons that Pro correctly points out by retorting there are different sects of judaism that do not belong to christianity and therefore cannot take credit. And that since judaism is christianity, just at a more primitive stage, then it cannot be used to compete with christianity.
Con then pivots by abandoning the judaism argument by bringing up islam, but then fails to make the case of what positive impacts islam has made that outweigh that of christianity. Of course, Con brings this up in the last round. But at this stage, it is already too late because Pro cannot respond. If Con had made those arguments in round 1, he had a clear shot of victory. But Con's case was too weak, too passive, and too scattershot.
And frankly, I'm disappointed by Con's lack of conduct in this debate. Using a cheap trick by waiting until the last round to bring up a valid argument against Pro when Pro cannot respond is unfair. So is dissing him on top of it by calling him lonely and narcissistic.
Arguments lead towards con, but not by enough to make me comfortable assigning the point.
Islam could have taken it, but it was kinda just tossed out there as an afterthought. The whole was Jesus Jewish or not point, either side could have taken the debate with a single source (as is, I’m declining your vote my bias).
7000series (Con) had a stronger argument overall, as they successfully challenged the definitions and provided alternative religions with significant contributions. While FishChaser made passionate points, many were based on faith-based assumptions rather than objective comparisons.
Pro (FishChaser) argued Christianity as the ultimate fulfillment of Judaism with its positive societal impact (charity, hospitals, etc.).
Con (7000series) argued that Judaism is foundational to Christianity and emphasized Islam's contributions to various fields like science and philosophy.
Convincing arguments: Con (7000series) – More balanced and logical.
Reliable sources: Tie – Both lacked specific citations.
Legibility: Con (7000series) – Clearer structure.
Conduct: Tie – Both maintained respect and professionalism.
FishChaser wanted to scrap the conduct category, but it was the one that saved him from losing!
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.