I Carried My Debate Team To Victory...

[eagle_eye222001]

So for various reasons I took a class this semester on "History of Christianity" at a secular university.

 

This past week, we had a debate...and I had too much fun.  :crusader2:

 

The debate was over a statement on whether Christian teaching and tradition supported using violence to convert pagans/heretics and solve religious disputes with the backdrop of medieval Christianity.  I was on the affirmative side where basically I had to argue that violence did justify solving religious disputes and converting pagans.  

 

Well, this should be a loss for the affirmative side, right?!  At the very least, Christianity should come out looking a bit sore thanks to some idiots back in the day who used Christianity to justify needless violence...

 

 

The negative side began their argument by quoting a bunch of Bible verses like "turn the other cheek" and many other similar sounding verses that on the surface make Christianity to be a pacifist religion.  The rest of my team had a few verses they were going to sling back, but I had a better idea.  I basically said that "In response to biblical citations, note that in the explanatory paragraph of the debate prompt that this debate is to be looked through medieval and historical Christianity.  Any biblical citations should only be legitimatized if it can be quoted from the perspective of historical and medieval Christianity flow of thought."

 

In essence  I pointed out that any biblical citation was a personal interpretation of a passage and therefore could not be rendered legit in the debate as we could sling verses back and forth all day but we wouldn't get anywhere.

 

After this, I carried the team by changing the frame of the debate to where I said my side was not out to justify atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, but rather we were only going to argue that violence could sometimes be justified (such as self defense or just war).

 

And it worked!  The other team failed to punish us for focusing away from using violence to convert pagans and tried to chase us on self defense and just war with the Crusades.

 

I really wish it was recorded because I (yes I am cashing in my humility) ended up speaking 90% of the time for my team because my teammates generally had no idea what to say.......whereas I did....so I ended up with golden moments like this.....

 

Challenge Question: "Where does Jesus in the gospel justify violence?"

 

Eagle_eye: "Since this debate is based on Christian teachings and tradition, we are not restricted to sola scriptura and therefore not obligated to restrict ourselves solely to the literal quotes of Jesus in the gospels."   BAM!

 

Challenge Question: "What about EVENT A where PERSON B pointed a sword at pagans and said convert or die?"

 

Eagle_eye: "We are not going to justify that event but we will defend the principle that violence can be justified in Christianity in situations such as self-defense or just war."  SHOCK and SILENCE.

 

Challenge Question: "Since the popes were so corrupt, they went outside their power in offering a straight path to heaven if they died in battle in the name of Christianity."

 

Eagle_eye: "The popes in the Medieval Age did not make martyrdom up as it was already recognized in early Rome when the Christians were persecuted and fed to the lions."  OOPS.

 

Challenge Question: "The corrupt popes made up purgatory so as to be able to offer up rewards for time off for doing what they wanted"

 

Eagle_eye: "We are not here to debate whether purgatory was a made-up belief of Christianity and we are getting off track.

 

 

After the debate, the class took a vote, and my side (the affirmative) won 18-16.

 

 

Granted no one took this debate that seriously, and since the question I felt like was unfair I didn't have a problem smoke-screening a bit to the defend able position of just war and self defense.  I thoroughly expected and probably should have lost the meaningless debate.

 

This debate has reinforced my thought that it is not so much the facts, but rather knowing logic and having quick wit with it.

 

 

[dUSt]

Debating appears to be like an interview. Questions are only to be used as a way to segue into your prepared talking points.

 

Example:

 

Question: "Scientific evidence suggests a fetus can feel pain during an abortion, what are your thoughts on this?"

Obama: "I think abortions should be rare, safe, and legal."

CNN: "Best answer of the night! Obama wins debate!"

[eagle_eye222001]

Debating appears to be like an interview. Questions are only to be used as a way to segue into your prepared talking points.

 

Example:

 

Question: "Scientific evidence suggests a fetus can feel pain during an abortion, what are your thoughts on this?"

Obama: "I think abortions should be rare, safe, and legal."

CNN: "Best answer of the night! Obama wins debate!"

 

Pretty much.

[Guest Raz]

So, basically, the debate was about Christian teaching and you claimed that Christian teaching was "up to interpretation" and therefore any argument about Christian teaching should be dismissed. Then you guys had an entirely different debate.

 

This is why debating can be silly sometimes. Sure, somebody won, but nothing was accomplished. Especially not the original goal.

 

Still, nice move, man. Very legit strategy.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Raz

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

I would say you were correct in defending that Sola Scriptura is not the only basis of evidence especially in context of a medieval time period based debate. However verses like

Luke 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."

could have been used, and the historical understanding of turning the other cheek is not a pacifist one which could have been pointed out as well. I seems like you were afraid (at least from just what you posted) to deal with the scriptures which was a lost opportunity on part, BUT the fact that your side won the debate may also prove to point out to people that their crystal clear view of how bad the Church was in the middle ages may not be so crystal after all.

 

The backdrop of the middle ages also gives incredible support for practices based upon a social norm and understanding as well. It's not to say everything they did was right and correct, but that in that backdrop if you understand the HISTORY then the cases can be made to defend their practices in that context.

[Papist]

But can you put debate on the hook?

[4588686]

But can you put debate on the hook?

 

 

WINNNNNN