#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Yeshua versus Buddha: Who would you rather worship?
I choose Yeshua, because He died for me.
Yeshua.
Side Score: 48
|
 |
Buddha.
Side Score: 92
|
|
1
point
Neither. There is no evidence that either are existent in a superhuman sense (please, prove me wrong, I'd love to learn Buddha is real) so I have no reason to choose either. However, if I have to pick, Buddha all the way because Buddhism tends to be a little kinder to people who are different (i.e. the gays.) Side: Buddha.
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
It is not exactly ordinary for a person to be in an endless cycle of rebirth and karma only to escape through personal enlightenment (by honing spiritual (tr?) energy). I think the story is that he went six years eating one grain of rice or one sesame seed a day while meditating under the bohdi tree (also slept on a bed of thorns). Definitely not ordinary. Side: Buddha.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
First, people will never take you seriously if you say immature things like "butthurt". Second, nobody is telling you that you don't have the right to vote how you want, but that does not make it justified or reasonable. Down voting someone because they correctly tell you that you did not read their original post and should re-read it is not reasonable or justified. Side: Buddha.
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
You got off topic first. You are being very hypocritical in that you get off topic very quickly then yell at anyone who calls you out for it as being off topic. As for the debate, I would pick Buddha without a second thought. Yeshua threatens people with eternal damnation if they do not worship him, Buddha doesn't. I could go on regarding why I prefer Buddha's espoused philosophy, but it really isn't necessary, as that first issue is the main one. The second a figure says "Worship me or be tortured", they, to me, become an immoral tyrant worthy of scorn. Side: Buddha.
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Godwin's Law is a logical fallacy. . No, it isn't. At all. In any way. Sources: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin'sLaw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin'slaw http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/ What is a fallacy is saying that a view is refuted by the fact that it was shared by Hitler. Which was not what I said. Side: Buddha.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin'sLaw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin'slaw try actually reading these I know it's hard for you but do try. Side: Buddha.
1
point
1
point
First off, Godwin's Law is simply the idea that the longer an internet conversation goes, the more likely someone will bring up Hitler or the Nazi's. That is it. That is the entirety of Godwin's Law. Second, an appeal to emotion is an entirely different thing, and it isn't what he did. If anything, he was simply hyperbolic, which is not itself a logical fallacy. Side: Buddha.
1
point
2
points
You have been provided evidence and arguments as to why it is not. You keep repeating that it is a fallacy. Then form an argument as to how it is a fallacy. And don't say it is an appeal to emotion, as I have already demonstrated to you why that is not the case, and doing so would simply indicate that you do not read the posts sent to you. Side: Buddha.
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
2
points
1
point
1
point
4
points
2
points
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Not all left wing are loony. Just because someone has loony beliefs doesn't mean they are loony. To be honest I don't even think you are a loony you just have loony beliefs. But in terms of political ideologies you are so therefore the term "loony left" is a fair judgement. An example of this is the fact you don't think jihadists should be detained simply for having those views despite the lives doing this would save. You also think that immigrants are just as British as those who are actually of British blood and live a British way of life. Then again you are from a nation of immigrants. Side: Yeshua.
2
points
If I believed someone should be detained for beliefs without acting upon it, I'd say you should be detained for your extremist, overwhelmingly racist beliefs that include a desire to subjugate certain ethnic groups within specific parts of the world. But I don't, because I'm not an oppressive extremist :) Side: Yeshua.
1
point
That is different. My beliefs are not treachery towards the country that I live in. They are commuting treason simply by speaking of our country in that way and should be treated as such. I hate to break it to you but people's lives are more important than your precious moral high ground. Potential terrorists are a threat. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
That is different. My beliefs are not treachery towards the country that I live in. They are commuting treason simply by speaking of our country in that way and should be treated as such. First, provide treason statutes within the U.K. that back that up. If there are none, then they are not committing treason. Second, I would say your beliefs are "treasonous" towards humanity as a whole. I hate to break it to you but people's lives are more important than your precious moral high ground. Potential terrorists are a threat. Mindsets like yours have taken far more lives throughout history than Islamic terrorism. So yes, you are right, people's lives are more important, far more important than your hyper-nationalist cultural isolationism. Side: Yeshua.
I believe this is still in effect. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
If I'm not mistaken (which I could be), nothing in that would cause the "beliefs" he was referring to to be treason, unless they included statements pertaining to or calls for the deaths of the figures mentioned in said act. Edit: Or imagine said things, which seems tricky to prosecute. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
If you incite violence towards the state and society as a whole then that is treason. Why is it so bad that I do not want to live in a place that feels totally foreign and alien despite it being my own country? Why is what I am saying so deadly? I am not proposing that they are treated with any violence just incarcerated so they cannot harm anyone. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
If you incite violence towards the state and society as a whole then that is treason. Now you are changing the parameters. Before, it was simply holding views that you did not like. Almost everyone agrees that incitement of violence is right. Why is it so bad that I do not want to live in a place that feels totally foreign and alien despite it being my own country? Because you take it to a bigoted degree. You wish to evict people from a country that is, to them, their home, all because you don't feel comfortable around people that aren't exactly like you. Why is what I am saying so deadly? I am not proposing that they are treated with any violence just incarcerated so they cannot harm anyone. The idea that the West should go out and forcefully "civilize and colonize" "barbaric" people's has led to genocide, slavery, and untold massacres. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
I said jihadis should be detained. If you are expressing jihadi beliefs then you are inciting violence. If Britain is their home then why do they speak of it with such hatred. People like you are turning Europe into Eurabia. I have every right to want to fight the Islamisation of my country because if they do get the majority in Britain I, along with all other open LGBT people will be incarcerated or killed so fast it will make our heads spin. Isis have plans to attack my country. Obviously I would rather them get bumped off and be dominated by my country then allow the region to be a springboard for such attacks on the Civilized world. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
I said jihadis should be detained. If you are expressing jihadi beliefs then you are inciting violence. No, what you said is "An example of this is the fact you don't think jihadists should be detained simply for having those views despite the lives doing this would save. " Again, if someone has "those views" then they should be imprisoned, according to you. That is entirely different from inciting violence. One can hold views without expressing them. If Britain is their home then why do they speak of it with such hatred. People like you are turning Europe into Eurabia. Probably because of people like you. It's the same reason that many African Americans are very critical of the United States: Despite it being their home, many people are openly hostile to them, which will make them hostile in return. I have every right to want to fight the Islamisation of my country because if they do get the majority in Britain I, along with all other open LGBT people will be incarcerated or killed so fast it will make our heads spin. They won't get the majority in Britain. You and I have already been over this, and you even tried to bring up the birth rate which only further proved that they will never make up an ethnic or cultural majority unless something massive changes. Isis have plans to attack my country. They have plans to rule the world, that does not mean they have the ability to do so. Obviously I would rather them get bumped off and be dominated by my country then allow the region to be a springboard for such attacks on the Civilized world. If you forcefully colonize the Middle East, you will make it even more of a springboard for such attacks on the Western World. You will simply create more extremists with more resentment towards the West, and it will increase the prevalence of radical Islam. Side: Buddha.
1
point
But in order for us to know that they have those views they must have expressed them. If Muslims hate western world only because of prejudice against them then why are they against western ways in their own countries? They hate us because we seem decadent to them. They hate British people for similar reasons why the westboro baptist church hates America. They hate us for accepting women dressing in daring ways, for being either secular or Christian, for drinking alcohol, for tolerating gays and not conforming to sharia in general. I'm sure people in pre-Islamic Indonesia tolerated the spread of Islam because they to felt sure they would never gain a majority. They were wrong. Britain is 5% Muslim but soon we will be like France at 10% and from there onwards they'll gradually take over. It's pretty easy to believe that the terrorists will be capable of attacking the London underground as they plan to. It has happened before. If Isis have a caliphate in the Middle East to rule over then they will be a much bigger threat then if there are demonic army is wiped off the face of the Earth and their land taken. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
If Muslims hate western world only because of prejudice against them then why are they against western ways in their own countries? I never claimed that was the case, so leave the straw men out. There are a wide variety of reasons Muslims in the Middle East hate us. To some, we are "heathens", to others, we are a country that regularly invades their homes, to others, we are the "Great Satan", etc. You will notice, however, that Islamic countries in Asia (short of Pakistan) do not harbor the same Anti-American sentiment, and also have seen far less Western intervention. Think that is a coincidence? I'm sure people in pre-Islamic Indonesia tolerated the spread of Islam because they to felt sure they would never gain a majority. And I'm sure you haven't spent any time learning about the history of pre-Islamic Indonesia based on that statement. Britain is 5% Muslim but soon we will be like France at 10% and from there onwards they'll gradually take over. Based on the numbers that you provided, that won't be the case. Do you have any new evidence? It's pretty easy to believe that the terrorists will be capable of attacking the London underground as they plan to. It has happened before. Yes, once. That's 56 deaths. That's less than the number of yearly homicides in London alone. Not exactly justification for invading a foreign country. If Isis have a caliphate in the Middle East to rule over then they will be a much bigger threat then if there are demonic army is wiped off the face of the Earth and their land taken. A pointless hypothetical, because they won't. They do not have a sustainable internal economy, and they are seeing massive opposition from without. Side: Buddha.
1
point
Take a look at Nigeria. That has never had Western intervention there happen yet the Muslims there still hate us. The name of the prevalent terrorist group there means "Western education is a sin/not allowed". Pakistanis are another example that Muslims are just inherently western hating. Western intervention may have contributed to them hating us but the fact is we both know that they hated "infidels" long before boots hit ground in their ghastly countries. A single British death is a reason to invade. We cannot live in fear of them. Isis will have a caliphate. The pathetic Arabs show their inferiority through the obvious fact that they have no stomach to fight them. That is precisely why 2,000 of the Iraqi army fled from 200 Isis. Other Middle Easterners have failed to control the situation so the West must step in. Side: Yeshua.
Then again you are from a nation of immigrants. Hahahaha. You haven't studied history much have you? We have two words for most things because of the mix. Pork and pig for example. Pork from the French invasion and pig from the Saxons. Before that we were speaking Latin or Celtic. We are the ultimate nation of immigrants. Side: Yeshua.
1
point
Actually I have and that is how I know that the Saxons make up a remarkably small part of British ancestry. The majority of our ancestry is actually Celtic, contrary to popular belief. By "French invasion" you mean the Norman invasion. The Normans came from France but were actually Norsemans who were sworn enemies of the frogs. Language and ethnicity are completely different matters. Just because they had an impact on our language doesn't mean they made a significant one on the gene pool. Modern historians are coming to believe that it was only the ruling classes that were replaced by the Normans and Saxons. Side: Buddha.
1
point
I am no longer a Buddhist as I'm clearly just not the right kind of person for it as so many of my views and part of my personality in general is irreconcilable with it. Even when I was a Buddhist I didn't worship the Buddha. That's not even what you are supposed to do as Buddhist. However I would have freedom living by his rules such as my sexual orientation. Also Buddhist philosophy teaches you how to pacify and actually tackle harmful emotions whereas Christianity merely commands you to suppress them. Side: Buddha.
|
