Instigator / Pro
16
1590
rating
94
debates
60.11%
won
Topic
#6038
Christians shouldn't smoke/drink alcohol recreationally (even one drink) or perform any sexual activity other than sex with wife
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
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
35
1747
rating
24
debates
100.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
This debate should be approached from a Christian perspective and is basically meant to determine how clean of a lifestyle God expects you to have as a Christian. It is not a debate about knit picking the fact that I used "wife" in the proposition instead of "spouse" and saying that I'm wrong because women can be Christians.
“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” – 1 Corinthians 6:19-20
“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” – Romans 14:21
The above verses imply two things, that you shouldn't consume anything which makes your body impure (because it is a temple) and that you shouldn't consume anything which is unhealthy (because unhealthy things are impure and you are "made weak" by them).
“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” – Romans 14:21
The above verses imply two things, that you shouldn't consume anything which makes your body impure (because it is a temple) and that you shouldn't consume anything which is unhealthy (because unhealthy things are impure and you are "made weak" by them).
In August, we covered a large-scale review that drew an unequivocal conclusion: it’s not, in fact, safe to drink any amount of alcohol.Senior author Dr. Emmanuela Gakidou referred to the idea that one or two drinks are safe for health as “a myth.”She said that her and her colleagues’ research found that any level of drinking is tied to an increased risk of early death, cancer, and cardiovascular events.
Alcohol is yeast urine! Yeast are tiny animals that, through the process of fermentation, convert sugar plus water into ethyl alcohol and carbon dioxide gas. These two products constitute the bodily wastes of yeast.
Yeast Urine - The Fermentation Product Alcohol Is Yeast Urine!
Now as for the sexual aspect, Jesus makes it clear that fornication is bad. Fornication is any form of casual sex done for pleasure, and this would include masturbation since it is a sexual act that doesn't involve reproduction or marriage. Important biblical figures and the church fathers (renowned bishops from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century) are pretty much unanimously in agreement that chastity is a virtue with the only exception being in the context of marriage.
Now as for the sexual aspect, Jesus makes it clear that fornication is bad. Fornication is any form of casual sex done for pleasure, and this would include masturbation since it is a sexual act that doesn't involve reproduction or marriage. Important biblical figures and the church fathers (renowned bishops from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century) are pretty much unanimously in agreement that chastity is a virtue with the only exception being in the context of marriage.
Con
#2
Thanks, FishChaser, for an intriguing opening argument.
Framework:
Burdens
First, the phrasing “you shouldn’t x or y” means that you shouldn’t do x and that you shouldn’t do y. Saying “Leonardo DiCaprio is not white or black” would be false, since he is white, even if he’s not black. Saying “children cannot vote or breathe” would be false, since children can breathe, even if they can’t vote.
Hence, per the resolution, Pro must establish all three of the following:
- Christians shouldn't smoke
- Christians shouldn’t drink alcohol recreationally (even one drink)
- Christians shouldn’t perform any sexual activity other than sex with their wife
“Should” implies that this isn’t an individual choice to make and ignores circumstances. Given the emphasis on “any,” “even one drink,” and the fact that no Christians are excluded, any exception is sufficient to negate the resolution.
If Pro fails to establish any of these three premises, then by default the choice would be left up to the individual Christian. Hence, in the absence of a specific restriction on these things for all Christians, the claim that Christians shouldn’t ever do any of these things is negated. I’ll contest the points about alcohol and sexual activity, which should be sufficient to negate the resolution.
1. Drinking Alcohol:
“1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ‘What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?’”
This verse says the body is a temple. It says nothing about what Christians can or can’t consume.
“Romans 14:21 ‘It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.’”
Pro cites this verse out of context. The preceding verse states that “All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.” Furthermore, Romans 14:2-3 states that “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.” This is not a blanket restriction on alcohol or food, it is advice specifically for a case where eating meat or drinking alcohol would harm someone else’s faith.
“it’s not, in fact, safe to drink any amount of alcohol.”
This study examines the impact of 1 drink per day. However, the resolution doesn’t say anything about one drink per day, it claims that Christians shouldn’t have one drink at all. The study doesn’t say anything about having one drink a month or one drink a year. Furthermore, the article states that, “Consuming one or two drinks about four days per week seems to protect against cardiovascular disease.”
Furthermore, neither of the verses Pro brings up is a prohibition on everything that increases mortality rates. Not exercising regularly, or driving a car instead of walking might make you less healthy, as could eating pizza in moderation. Yet those decisions aren’t inherently sinful.
“Alcohol is yeast urine”
Drinking yeast urine is not prohibited in the Bible, so this point is irrelevant.
Alcohol Permitted in the Bible
There are many examples in the Bible where drinking alcohol is permitted or encouraged:
- Jesus turns water into wine for people to drink.
- Paul writes, “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”
- Ecclesiastes states, “drink your wine with a merry heart.”
Hence, the claim that “even one drink” is prohibited is simply not true. Christians are allowed to drink under many circumstances.
2. Sexual Activity:
Pro argues here against fornication, however there are many forms of sexual activity other than sex with one’s wife which are not prohibited in the Bible.
“It is not a debate about knit picking the fact that I used "wife" in the proposition instead of "spouse" and saying that I'm wrong because women can be Christians.”
There’s a pretty big difference between the term “wife” and the term “spouse,” since half of all spouses are husbands. The statement “all spouses are female” is clearly false, and it’s not nitpicking to point it out. Similarly, the statement, “Christians can only have sex with wives” is also false. This debate is over the resolution, not over a hypothetical resolution Pro could have written instead.
Sex With Husbands
1 Corinthians states “each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.” Husbands are not wives, and Pro seems to concede this point.
Sexual Activity Other Than Sex
The Bible doesn’t restrict most sexual activities between married couples, even those that aren’t sex. Sexual caresses, for example, are still allowed, even if they aren’t part of sexual intercourse. It is possible to be sexual without actually having sex. In fact, in the resolution, Pro distinguishes “sexual activity” and “sex.”
A few verses to further illustrate this:
- Proverbs states: “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times” (referring to married couples), despite the fact that breasts aren’t necessary for sexual intercourse.
- Song of Songs states, “You are tall like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its bunches of fruit. I said, ‘I will climb up the palm tree and take hold of its fruit.’”
“masturbation…is a sexual act that doesn't involve reproduction or marriage”
This is untrue. Masturbation can be done in the context of marriage, and there are plenty of ways for spouses to stimulate each other.
Even the Catholic church, which tends to be more restrictive about sexual activity than Protestant denominations, does not teach that the only sexual act a married couple may perform is intercourse. Of course, the resolution includes Protestants, so many married Christians are permitted to engage in a wide range of sexual activities that don’t require actually having sex.
Round 2
Pro
#3
It should be noted that there is a difference between "shouldn't" and "can't". You can in fact do the things stated in the resolution without losing your salvation (and hence your status as "Christian"). But what I will establish is that the covenant of grace still expects you to avoid sinning, thus if extramarital sexual activity and recreational drug use is a sin then Christians shouldn't do it.
In Christianity there is a distinction between "works" and "grace" as a means of salvation. Under a covenant of works you must not sin to be saved, under a covenant of grace your sins can be forgiven as long as you have faith.
The key misunderstanding stems from the fact that humans CAN'T stop sinning entirely as long as they are in the flesh, so it brings into question what amount of sin is acceptable.
The answer is: as little sin as you are capable of, and the proof is the law of Moses.
A common misunderstanding is that God's covenant with Moses was a covenant of works, but if that was true God would have abandoned the Israelites from the beginning since they all would have continuously broken the covenant from the moment it was made.
Instead God only cursed or abandoned Israel when they turned away from him and worshipped other gods, all of their sinning (i.e breaking the law of Moses) wasn't enough to make God turn on them until they broke the law that said you must be FAITHFUL to God.
Hence, as a Jew OR as a Christian you should strive to sin as little as possible even though faith and loyalty to God is the only thing that actually saves you, and the proof is that God gave us the law of Moses and commanded us to follow it even though he knew it was impossible for humans to keep the law perfectly.
“1 Corinthians 6:19-20 ‘What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?’”
This verse says the body is a temple. It says nothing about what Christians can or can’t consume.
The fact that it is a temple means it should be cared for and treated as sacred. If drinking alcohol is unhealthy then drinking alcohol is sin, of drinking alcohol is unclean (it is literally bacteria pissing and shitting in your mouth) then drinking it is a sin.
Pro cites this verse out of context. The preceding verse states that “All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.” Furthermore, Romans 14:2-3 states that “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.” This is not a blanket restriction on alcohol or food, it is advice specifically for a case where eating meat or drinking alcohol would harm someone else’s faith.
Touche'
This study examines the impact of 1 drink per day. However, the resolution doesn’t say anything about one drink per day, it claims that Christians shouldn’t have one drink at all. The study doesn’t say anything about having one drink a month or one drink a year. Furthermore, the article states that, “Consuming one or two drinks about four days per week seems to protect against cardiovascular disease.”
Touche', but would you let someone piss or shit all over a temple of God?
urthermore, neither of the verses Pro brings up is a prohibition on everything that increases mortality rates. Not exercising regularly, or driving a car instead of walking might make you less healthy, as could eating pizza in moderation. Yet those decisions aren’t inherently sinful.
You don't seem to understand what sin is or why it's impossible not to sin as a human. Literally anything less than being perfect is a sin, that's why without a covenant of grace all humans go to hell. The reason non-humans don't go to hell is because they don't have knowledge of good and evil, hence they aren't held accountable.
Drinking yeast urine is not prohibited in the Bible, so this point is irrelevant.
Urine is unclean and so is poison. It is implied by the bible that drinking neurotoxic urine is bad, if not just by common sense.
There are many examples in the Bible where drinking alcohol is permitted or encouraged:
- Jesus turns water into wine for people to drink.
- Paul writes, “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.”
- Ecclesiastes states, “drink your wine with a merry heart.”
the phrase "grape juice" did not exist when the bible was written. Not all "wine" has alcohol in it.
There’s a pretty big difference between the term “wife” and the term “spouse,” since half of all spouses are husbands. The statement “all spouses are female” is clearly false, and it’s not nitpicking to point it out. Similarly, the statement, “Christians can only have sex with wives” is also false. This debate is over the resolution, not over a hypothetical resolution Pro could have written instead.
It is intellectually dishonest to push this issue because everyone reading this debate is capable of understanding that what I meant may be different from the flawed phrasing in the resolution. To debate this point or vote against me based on this is essentially to pretend you have severe low functioning autism and are incapable of not taking everything completely literally.
The Bible doesn’t restrict most sexual activities between married couples, even those that aren’t sex. Sexual caresses, for example, are still allowed, even if they aren’t part of sexual intercourse. It is possible to be sexual without actually having sex. In fact, in the resolution, Pro distinguishes “sexual activity” and “sex.”
Again, Con is making an argument from severe low functioning autism. This is the same logic Bill Clinton used when he pretended not to know a blow job counts as "sexual relations".
Furthermore, the bible makes it clear that lusting after someone you aren't married to is a sin. If you look at someone and think they are attractive that's literally a sin. Not only is it a sin, it is the act of fornication itself according to Jesus.
Matthew 5:27-28
Now you may say "but this is about cheating not about messing around when you aren't married". This totally misses the point of what Jesus is saying though.
Jesus is using this as an example to drive home the point that a covenant of grace is necessary, because even if you think you are keeping the law you are incapable of keeping it perfectly and any imperfection counts as breaking the law and sinning.
So by the same logic, all sexual activity is "sex" and even looking at someone you aren't married to and finding them attractive is extramarital fornication.
Masturbation can be done in the context of marriage, and there are plenty of ways for spouses to stimulate each other.
And in that case it counts as sex between man and wife, in all other cases it counts as sinful fornication.
Con
#4
Thanks, Pro
1. Drinking Alcohol:
Note that Pro concedes here that there’s no evidence having one drink a year is unhealthy, and that consuming one or two drinks about four days per week protects against cardiovascular disease.
“Literally anything less than being perfect is a sin”
Well, protecting against cardiovascular disease is good, so by Pro’s standards, it would be “less than perfect” and thus sinful not to drink alcohol. However, I think these standards are too harsh. Sin is transgression against the law of God. Since there is no specific law against alcohol or being unhealthy, it’s not a sin to drink in moderation.
“The fact that it is a temple means it should be cared for and treated as sacred. If drinking alcohol is unhealthy then drinking alcohol is sin.”
Jesus didn’t work out 10 hours a day. Health isn’t the only thing that matters. Having fun and engaging in social events are also good things. Psalm 104 talks positively about “wine that gladdens the heart.” Pro is implying that humans should sacrifice all pleasure to maximize health outcomes, which isn’t supported by the bible.
“Touche', but would you let someone piss or shit all over a temple of God?”
Fermented alcohol isn’t the same as human urine or feces. Yeast and humans are totally different organisms. This would be like saying that Jesus eating fish means he’s okay with eating humans. Different organisms are different.
“Urine is unclean and so is poison. It is implied by the bible that drinking neurotoxic urine is bad, if not just by common sense.”
Again, human urine is not the same as alcohol. Neither the bible nor common sense implies that fermentation is inherently bad.
“the phrase "grape juice" did not exist when the bible was written. Not all "wine" has alcohol in it.”
Scholars consistently agree that the wine in the Bible was alcoholic. As Professor D.F. Watson states, “All wine mentioned in the Bible is fermented grape juice with an alcohol content. No non-fermented drink was called wine.” Maintaining unfermented grape juice was a virtual impossibility in biblical times. The Passover celebration, ordained by God and which Jesus participated in, included alcoholic wine.
Jesus’ consumption of alcohol was well-known enough that he was even called “a glutton and a drunkard” by his enemies. Obviously he drank in moderation, but the accusation wouldn’t make sense if he totally abstained from alcohol.
2. Sexual Activity:
Pro concedes that the resolution is negated as written, since women can be Christians and have sex with their husbands.
“It is intellectually dishonest to push this issue because everyone reading this debate is capable of understanding that what I meant may be different from the flawed phrasing in the resolution.”
By this standard, any instigator can choose to modify the resolution after creating a debate by saying they meant something else. If I created a resolution saying that “wives can be male” and then once someone accepted, I said that “I meant spouses, not wives,” that would be dishonest and unfair. The resolution must be agreed to by both sides, and I agreed to debate the resolution as stated, not a hypothetical resolution in Pro’s head. Pro doesn’t dispute that the terms “wife” and “spouse” mean different things, in fact he admits at the beginning of R1 that he should have written the word “spouse” if he wanted to include husbands in the resolution.
“Fornication”
I’m not talking about fornication, I’m talking about fooling around in the context of marriage. Christians are permitted to perform sexual activity that isn’t sex.
“by the same logic, all sexual activity is "sex"...[Masturbation] counts as sex between man and wife”
By what logic? Jesus never says this. He classifies lust as adultery, but that doesn’t mean that lust is sex, just that you can cheat on someone without having sex. Again, it’s possible to be sexual without having sex. Married people are permitted to sexually caress each other without actually having sex. If any sexual activity was sex, then any virgin who watched pornography would no longer be a virgin.
The legal system distinguishes sex pretty clearly from other forms of sexual activity. Not all sexual assault is rape, because not all sexual activity is sex. And lust alone is obviously not rape, because again, it’s not sex. If nonconsensual sexual activity isn’t all rape, then it follows that consensual sexual activity isn’t all sex.
“This is the same logic Bill Clinton used when he pretended not to know a blow job counts as "sexual relations".”
Except I’m not saying that a blowjob isn’t sexual, I’m saying that caressing/fondling isn’t by itself sex, even if it is sexual activity.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Well, protecting against cardiovascular disease is good, so by Pro’s standards, it would be “less than perfect” and thus sinful not to drink alcohol.
There is only so much room in the human stomach, so any time you eat or drink something you are missing an opportunity to eat or drink something healthier. Even if alcohol in certain amounts is healthy, it's still less than perfect and thus sinful unless it is the healthiest possible thing you could have drank at that time.
There are many things that are better for protecting against cardiovascular disease than alcohol, thus it is sinful to drink alcohol instead of those things.
Sin is transgression against the law of God. Since there is no specific law against alcohol or being unhealthy, it’s not a sin to drink in moderation.
Except I just finished explaining to you how the law/sin actually works. Getting angry at someone is murder, being attracted to someone who isn't your wife is adultery, drinking something that isn't the healthiest possible thing you could have drank is suicide.
Jesus makes it clear that unless you are following the rules perfectly you are breaking the rules.
Jesus didn’t work out 10 hours a day.
That would be overdoing it and would be unhealthy.
Psalm 104 talks positively about “wine that gladdens the heart.”
Wine can literally refer to the unfermented juice of grapes in the bible.
Pro is implying that humans should sacrifice all pleasure to maximize health outcomes
Christianity is not a very hedonistic religion.
Fermented alcohol isn’t the same as human urine or feces. Yeast and humans are totally different organisms. This would be like saying that Jesus eating fish means he’s okay with eating humans. Different organisms are different.
Jesus actually ate fish though, he didn't drink fish urine.
Maintaining unfermented grape juice was a virtual impossibility in biblical times.
Now it isn't impossible though. This is like saying that being forced to kill someone in self defense once now gives you license to murder whoever you want.
Pro concedes that the resolution is negated as written, since women can be Christians and have sex with their husbands.
Con concedes that he has severe low functioning autism.
By what logic? Jesus never says this. He classifies lust as adultery, but that doesn’t mean that lust is sex
Your low functioning autism is apparent once again, not everything in the bible is meant to be taken so literally. Jesus is in fact making the point that the desire to do a sin counts as doing the sin itself in God's eyes, because to sin is to know good and evil as God does yet be unable to live up to God's glory and be perfectly good.
So yes, in the sense that lust leads to sex and is just as bad as having an orgy with 10,000 prostitutes in the context of sin, lust is sex. Lust is literally all forms of sexual immorality and all forms of immorality all at once, because in the word of Saint James:
New International Version
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Con
#6
What Are the Burdens in This Debate?
Pro does not dispute that he must establish each of the following:
- Christians shouldn't smoke
- Christians shouldn’t drink alcohol recreationally (even one drink)
- Christians shouldn’t perform any sexual activity other than sex with their wife
As I stated in R1, “If Pro fails to establish any of these three premises, then by default the choice would be left up to the individual Christian. Hence, in the absence of a specific restriction on these things for all Christians, the claim that Christians shouldn’t ever do any of these things is negated.” Since neither side disputes that Pro holds the much greater burden in this debate, these are the goalposts.
What Does the Bible Permit Christians to Drink?
“There is only so much room in the human stomach, so any time you eat or drink something you are missing an opportunity to eat or drink something healthier.”
Well then even if Jesus drank nonalcoholic grape juice, it would defeat Pro’s argument, because he could have turned the water into cranberry or tomato juice instead. The fact that Jesus didn’t have only the healthiest foods and drinks at every opportunity demonstrates that Pro’s standard here is not one promoted by the Bible.
Furthermore, Pro claims that “there are many things that are better for protecting against cardiovascular disease than alcohol” but does not list any drinks better at protecting against cardiovascular disease than alcohol. Even if we accepted Pro’s standard, in some cases it would mean people should drink alcohol to protect against cardiovascular disease, since Pro does not list any other drink with this benefit.
“Getting angry at someone is murder”
Getting unjustly angry is a sin, but that does not make it the same thing as murder. Jesus doesn’t say it’s murder, he says it’s subject to judgment.
“drinking something that isn't the healthiest possible thing you could have drank is suicide.”
Again, neither grape juice nor wine are “the healthiest possible thing” Jesus could drink, so Jesus himself disagrees with Pro’s standard. Pro also doesn’t cite any verses justifying their view here, they just assume that any drink or food that isn’t the most healthy possible (so almost all of it) is suicide. I pointed out in R1 that this would mean “eating pizza in moderation” is a sin, but Pro apparently believes eating any amount of pizza, candy, or processed food is suicide.
Calling the body a “temple,” even saying it should be “cared for and treated as sacred” is not the same as saying you can’t eat anything for fun, that’s something Pro is adding themselves. As I said in R1, the verse about the body being a temple “says nothing about what Christians can or can’t consume.” Even if it were ambiguous, since Pro holds the greater BoP in this debate, ambiguity would mean the choice is up to individuals and the resolution is negated.
“The law of Moses includes health laws that were dictated by God to Moses”
Since Pro brings up the Law of Moses, it should be mentioned that under this law, one was allowed to spend part of their tithe for the consumption of alcohol.
“[Working out 10 hours a day] would be overdoing it and would be unhealthy.”
Pro is missing my point here. Jesus could have worked out more than he did, and the Bible doesn’t talk about Jesus doing the level of strength training that bodybuilders do. Jesus didn’t turn water into protein shakes. He focused on things that weren’t maximizing health. Pro drops my point from R2 that “having fun and engaging in social events are also good things” and again does not establish why humans should sacrifice all pleasure to maximize health outcomes.
“Now it isn't impossible though [to make unfermented grape juice]...this is like saying that being forced to kill someone in self defense once now gives you license to murder whoever you want.”
Con concedes my point in R2 that wine in the Bible was all alcoholic. However, Jesus was not forced to drink alcoholic wine, he chose to. When he turned water into wine, no one commented that the wine tasted nonalcoholic, in fact it was described as the best wine of the wedding. He could have miraculously removed alcohol from all the wine he drank, but the bible doesn’t show that. Also, no one was forcing him to drink wine at all, plenty of nonalcoholic drinks like water existed during that time.
Also, in some poor areas, people might not have the resources to make nonalcoholic wine. So Pro’s argument would permit those people to drink alcohol recreationally (at least one drink) and negate the resolution.
“Christianity is not a very hedonistic religion.”
Pro presents a false dichotomy between hedonism and sacrificing all pleasure to maximize health outcomes. Valuing pleasure isn’t the same as hedonism. I didn’t say that Christianity values only pleasure, just that it is portrayed positively. Jesus celebrated with friends. The Bible talking about a drink that “gladdens the heart,” whether in reference to grape juice or wine, is clearly portraying pleasure positively.
“Jesus actually ate fish though, he didn't drink fish urine.”
This is missing the point of my analogy, which was that different organisms are different. If eating fish is not equivalent to eating humans, then drinking alcohol produced by yeast is not equivalent to drinking human urine. Pro comparing alcohol to “urine” (i.e. human pee) is disingenuous. A substance produced by yeast is totally different from pee produced by humans.
What Sexual Activity Is Permitted?
Sex with Husbands
Pro does not dispute that Christian women are permitted to have sex with their husbands.
“Con concedes that he has severe low functioning autism.”
I didn’t concede this, nor is this the subject of the debate.
“So yes, in the sense that lust leads to sex and is just as bad as having an orgy with 10,000 prostitutes in the context of sin, lust is sex”
X leading to Y or being as bad as Y doesn’t mean X is Y. For example, stabbing someone might be as bad as shooting them or vice versa, but stabbing and shooting are different things.
“Jesus is in fact making the point that the desire to do a sin counts as doing the sin itself in God's eyes, because to sin is to know good and evil as God does yet be unable to live up to God's glory and be perfectly good.”
Except my argument isn’t about sin, it’s about distinguishing sex from sexual activity within the context of marriage. As I cited in both R1 and R2, it is possible to be sexual without having sex. Con has brought no alternative sources to the table to dispute this. I also cited multiple verses describing sexual activity permitted in marriage other than sex itself.
Conclusion:
Many of Pro’s arguments in this debate are irrelevant to the resolution. Lust outside of marriage and unjustified anger might be sins, and God's covenant with Moses might be a covenant of grace, but that does not help Pro affirm the resolution. Nor does accusing me and potential voters of having “severe low functioning autism.”
Consider the following points, each of which show that Pro has failed to uphold his BoP:
- Pro doesn’t dispute that Jesus drank wine in the bible, all of which was alcoholic.
- Pro doesn’t dispute that Jesus sometimes focused on having fun or being social and not just on maximizing health outcomes. (For example, turning water into wine instead of tomato juice).
- Pro doesn’t name (or attempt to name) a single nonalcoholic drink that protects against cardiovascular disease better than alcohol.
- Pro doesn’t dispute that Christian women are permitted to have sex with their husbands.
- Pro doesn’t dispute that sexual activity within marriage other than sex itself is non sinful.
And those are just a few points Pro has dropped. Because of Pro’s heavy burden in this debate, each dropped point negating part of the resolution is sufficient to negate the entire resolution.
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:
Pro didn't do the work that his side required. There were several stipulations he made for himself that made his case even more complicated to argue. If he kept it simple, then he could have easily made a successful argument. What he needed to do was establish a framework that states pleasure is sin, recreational drinking/smoking is hedonism and hedonism = self-indulgent pleasure. Pro shoots himself in the foot, the more he adds unnecessary claims. "Not even one drink, lust is sex."
Pro also establishes a very loose framework that establishes a very unclear, vaguely defined criteria. Striving for perfection is the ultimate goal, he claims. However, he never offers advice or a solution to reach this goal. All of his arguments are telling you what not to do, but they avoid telling you what you should do instead. But he is applying a theological framework for this, so his arguments will be supported and based on what the bible encourages you to do.
Pro diverts from the resolution when he goes from saying that you shouldn't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes by saying you shouldn't eat or do anything unhealthy because while he is not contradicting himself, he is making a broad statement that doesn't specifically address the resolution that he is making, when the scope of his arguments are narrowed down to two vices.: Drinking and smoking = bad.
Con starts off very strong here by countering Pro's framework with one that relies on semantics. He establishes Pro's burden very high here and argues that there are three rules for Pro to follow, and that if he falls short of any of them, then he loses the debate. Con points out that Pro is misquoting a source and this is conceded by Pro who responds, "Touche." Con mentions that Jesus turned water to wine for his followers, and reasons that if drinking of it was encouraged, then drinking liquor is not bad. Con retorts that there is no passage in the bible that specifically states the wine had any alcohol and could have been referring to grape juice. This is a weak argument, but it's an acceptable one.
Con also says that alcohol in moderation is good for heart health and uses Pro's own argument against him about how not consuming anything healthy is less than perfection and is therefore sin, so Con says by Pro's standards, that Pro is inadvertently arguing that not drinking liquor is a sin. This is a half straw-man.
I like how Pro pushes back on Con's arguments about the wording of the resolution, stating that the principle of the debate should reflect the intended context and meaning behind Pro's words rather than it be some cheap trick to steal the win by attempting to clarify the meaning of terms, as sentences can on occasion be misworded. I accept that argument.
Pro then stoops to insulting Con by calling him autistic, which Con correctly retorts by mentioning that is off-topic. In the end, Pro's actual burden of proof is simply too high to overcome. But in an on-balance debate, Pro has the advantage. But here, he loses the point for arguments.
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:
This debate ends up pretty lopsided, particularly after Pro starts shifting the goalposts in R2. When he argues that Christians must effectively and solely be working toward not just their own best health interest, but the optimal means of achieving it, he effectively cedes the point about alcohol. Even if Pro had somehow proven that there was an optimal drink, he shows no evidence whatsoever that Christianity demands imbibing that specific drink, nor does he demonstrate anywhere that I can see that it's outright sinful to be imbibing suboptimally. It doesn't help that Pro is not responsive to indicators that Jesus himself behaved suboptimally in this respect, which suggests that there's wiggle room involved at minimum, nor that there are clear benefits to drinking alcohol, which suggests that it may be unclear what is even optimal or why.
As for sexual activity, there's not much to say here. Pro tried to alter one of the terms in the resolution after the fact and calls out Con for sticking to it (by the by, I'm giving Con conduct because of the repeated statements that Con's arguments somehow signified that he is autistic. If you don't like the argument, fine, but making a personal attack like that isn't going to net you points). Even absent that, Con effectively demonstrates (and Pro never responds to this point) that married couples are encouraged to perform sexual activities with each other that are not just intercourse. Pro kept responding to this by saying it was wrong out of wedlock, which is not responsive. The resolution says "any sexual activity other than sex," and Con provided other sexual activities in detail that fit that description.
Ergo, Con wins on both these points.
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:
This one wasn't even close. I'm willing to give leeway to Pro on the whole wife vs spouse issue, but that still doesn't come close to changing the outcome of this debate. Pro did very little to actually try and prove his case, mainly referring to a verse about the body being a temple, a study about the effects of alcohol consumption, and a statement from Jesus about "fornication". Con, however, points out that even Jesus himself, who was sinless, drank wine, which Pro eventually concedes is true. Con also points out that there are sexual activities other than actual sexual intercourse that are not necessarily forbidden for Christians, which Con never really addresses. Smoking is not contested by Con, but they didn't have to, as winning on the point about alcohol or sexual relations is sufficient, and Con definitely wins on both.
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:
This is a massive BoP failure.
Con was wise to immediately show the three separate resolutions pro took the duty to prove. I personally am ok with the clarification of husbands or wives (not quite the same as spouse, even while it’s used as such), even while it should have been in the description. Of course pro did excel at showing other activities besides the missionary position married people may engage in without it being a biblical sin.
Alcohol was a pretty massive failing due to over specifying. Even one drink meant it applied to church wine. Also, it’s quite common knowledge that grape juice is a fairly modern invention from the year 1869. To dispute this common knowledge, would need a strong source implying otherwise (there are many sources for mistranslations in the Bible, but to claim Jesus turning water to wine was a mistranslation requires one to be cited).
The whole alcohol is piss she shit point was destined to go nowhere. It makes about as much sense as saying you shouldn’t wash the temple with water, since some of those water molecules at some point passed through a dinosaur thus making water dinosaur pee.
Also it must be said that Jesus was preaching that R.Kelly should embrace cannibalism, since he is after all a gay fish.
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:
This was an interesting debate. I found the Con side's arguments more persuasive because they seemed better grounded in both reality and the Bible. The Pro side's claim that wine could somehow be non-alcoholic is anachronistic, as such a concept didn't exist during Jesus' lifetime. Furthermore, the Con side correctly pointed out that the biblical version of Jesus did engage in social drinking, albeit with moderation.
I also award the sources point to Con, since Con demonstrated that Pro's sources relied more on personal interpretation than the material itself. Additionally, I awarded conduct points to Con because Pro behaved very poorly, resorting to personal insults.
I've thanked people for voting before even when they voted against me. Reading and voting requires a big time commitment. In this case, I didn't thank AnonYmous_Icon, since his vote was removed and I thought it might come across as backhanded.
"thanks for sucking my cock, I will now suck yours too!"
Thanks for voting!
Didn't mention it in my RFD, but while the point about alcohol being yeast urine made me giggle a bit, asserting that that makes it "unclean" is pretty strange, especially when you consider that alcohol is such an effective antibacterial. The ick factor of where it came from doesn't make the end product unclean or poisonous (though it is the latter in large enough amounts).
Thanks for the vote!
Thanks for voting!
Was smoking even mentioned by anyone in debate???
>Vote: AnonYmous_Icon // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to Pro (Arguments, Sources)
>Reason for Decision:
I c that our Pro , align his arguments with Christianity as it is while our Con try to blend rational logic and science with his religious interpretations , that's goes in diff direction , Even both consider Christianity as a legitimate source for debate
Reason for Removal: The voter explains neither point allocation clearly. To award argument points, the voter must explain why one side's argument was more successful than the other, but all I see here is a brief overview of the general strategies of each side, not what made either successful or unsuccessful. The voter similarly only states that both sides consider a given source legitimate, not why one side should win source points as a result.
**************************************************
No, I need him to vote on my debates.
anonymous_icon should be barred from voting.
Please vote!
Dont worry. The Dark Gods accept everyone. They are not as judging as Jesus is. 🤘
Least obvious rage bait lol
I find it okay that you say that. I have been trying to convert some followers from Christianity to polytheism, and that helps.
You also claimed that Jesus and the Bible never made any direct statements concerning LGBT or virgin marriage, which is simply false.
Who are you do declare that it's a "barely relevant issue"? Who are you to declare that telling people what the Bible says is not worth losing potential followers? What you essentially said is we should intentionally not tell people interested in Christianity things that conflict with their lifestyle. If someone is only a 'Christian' because they don't know that the Bible says they have to change their lifestyle, then they are not actually a follower of 'Christianity' but a follower of 'some of the Bible's rules'. If you don't accept all of what the Bible says, you are simply not a true Christian. You can not pick and choose which rules to follow. Obeying just SOME of God's commandments doesn't make you a Christian. If I wanted to disregard every rule in the Bible except 'do not murder', would you say I am a Christian because I followed that commandment? Of course not! To be considered a genuine Christian, you must regard all of the moral laws set in place by God
sue me, I should have put "spouse" but what's done is done. Now it's up to con if he will play word games or debate as intended, and if he chooses to play word games I am armed with enough sexism to combat it.
"you excluded 50% of the population by assuming a male pov"
Historically, that did happen often.
?
No you excluded 50% of the population by assuming a male pov
This is not about political correctness, it's failing to see a perspective that is not your own
Good thing this isn't a debate about political correctness
*implicitly
It's not exploiting your wording when it's implicity sexist
Only asexual nuns can be real Christians and go to heaven.
lmao I might use that if he tries to exploit how I worded it
I am a bit confused with how "or" will be understood in this debate by voters. Does it mean Pro just has to prove one of the three things he mentioned to win?
RIP straight women
"Does the title of this debate assume that the Christian in question is a man. . ?"
Well, it cant be a woman, because that would make the last part very awkward.
Its not worth to lose followers over such a barely relevant issue. Most people are never going to read whole Bible, and informing them on this issue, which Bible is even very unclear about, to such an extreme level would make many people who would otherwise be somewhat decent Christians instead become atheists who dont care for anything what Bible says anymore. Sure, you can go around saying things like gay and trans are wrong in what they do, okay, that was mentioned, but fact remains that Bible and Jesus and his followers didnt mention anything directly about the very specific issue Christians today want to impose. Christians today talk about it all the time. There are way more important issues than the one which Bible doesnt even mention directly anyway.
That's not how religion works bro. We can't lie about the rules in the Bible to get more followers. The purpose of Christianity is not to get as many followers as possible, but to teach people what God says is right and wrong and how God says they should live. It's up to people who hear about what the Bible says whether they want to follow its rules or not. Therefore intentionally not informing people on certain things that the Bible says defeats the purpose of telling them about it in the first place.
Does the title of this debate assume that the Christian in question is a man. . ?
I am just saying, you dont exactly want to go around saying masturbation is horrible sin because you are making people less likely to become Christians, and it conflicts with science. Its not worthy to lose followers over that issue.
Unfortunately God doesn't want any sex or cooming for people outside marriage, even if they struggle to find a partner.
I agree with smoke and alcohol, but how will you defend that masturbation is bad? My balls would explode if I followed that.