In my debate class i am assigned to the team who is for the policy of school using the bible. however, the opposing team can attack me with a wide range of flexibility. they can call me out on science and history. all i got to back me up is literature and poetry how can i advocate this?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
help with my debate? should colleges be required to study the bible?
- Thread starter san
- Start date
nicholas j
New member
This is a tough one especially since I would find it absurd to teach out of the bible outside a seminary school..
But we can win this.. Pathos, Ethos, Logos...
Let's talk logic first. The bible has some logical values going for it. It is the most widely read and distributed book in history. By a lot. At the high school level, Jane Ayer and Great Expectations are required reading. And why? Because they are classic books by American authors. It doesn't matter whether you liked Great Expectations, or if you believe Mrs. Haversham was a real person - it is required reading because it is an immortal classic. Whatever personal arguement you would make to keep those books in our education system are equally if not more valid for this piece of literature. To deny or remove these ancient classical texts for reasons of personal bias is simply censorship and contrary to the very spirit of a university. BTW that would be a touchstone of my argument, that the opposition is attempting to censor books based on personal belief and opinion..
This university is a place of learning - it is an institution in which 85% of the curriculum is based on the collective knowledge and wisdom accumulated through history. And what is the bible but an encyclopedia of wisdom and knowledge - collected by scribes from the greatest minds of a previous time. Do we consider ourselves so modern than anything written before the renaissance is invalid? How arrogant and superior such a mindset would be to simply disregard the labor of philosophers and great thinkers from these ancient times. Clearly the language they use is foreign to us living now - but the messages are undeniable. This is an encyclopedia of life - these stories contained in the bible were crafted very specifically to communicate ideals and concepts which are undeniably valuable.
Your opposition will likely take the position that the bible was written by men and not by God. Which is good for you - you can counter with the question of who were these men? I submit they were the most wise and respected of their tribe. These were the socialogists, economists, psychologists from another period of time. They laid the groundwork that all social sciences are built upon. To disregard this book is to disregard every form of ethics or study of mankind.
Notice how the argument is transitioning to pathos.. Can your opposition deny the ethical intent of the bible? They will be hard pressed to argue against the validity of the 10 commandments. Which by the way, you should have a copy of. Because those phrases are rock solid. Are they open to interpretation? Yes! Just as every book in this building is open to interpretation. It is not my intention to convert people to Christianity but to pretect common sense from biases and from prejudice. To protect a book. A book read by billions of people throughout history. Would our university refuse to let their students learn about heiroglyphics for fear we would be converted to Egyptian followers of Ra..? This is history. There is no history book written by some publisher out of Toledo that can compare with the real living history found in this book.
Finally hit them with Ethos.. This is where your 10 commandments comes into play. Nobody can deny the ethics of the bible, or the Quoran, or the Bhagavad Gita.
Make your judges ask themselves to remove their own political prejudices and fears and look at this issue with plain common sense.
Notice how in my arguements I keep referring to bible as ancient literature of grave importance? That's so the the opposition can't use religous belief (or non-belief) against you. However, the fact that millions of people believe this is the living word of God is still at the least something to take into consideration. If you do believe this then I win the debate the right away - there is no arguement which can trump word of God if that is what you believe (which one or more of your judges may).. However, even if you don't believe that in no way detracts from the sheer number of people who do. i would probably leave this point until closing arguements. Work the logical sides of your argument first.
Keep the burden of censorship and bigotry on them. If the opposition wants to argue about religion you can end up making them look like the zealots defending their own belief system and prejudices. While you are the innocent common sense guy. This debate is not new. Research it on your own and cherry pick the points that support your argument from debates found in the supreme court, etc. No matter how passionately and logically you argue - you still need citable references and quotes to create an informed argument.
You got this..
But we can win this.. Pathos, Ethos, Logos...
Let's talk logic first. The bible has some logical values going for it. It is the most widely read and distributed book in history. By a lot. At the high school level, Jane Ayer and Great Expectations are required reading. And why? Because they are classic books by American authors. It doesn't matter whether you liked Great Expectations, or if you believe Mrs. Haversham was a real person - it is required reading because it is an immortal classic. Whatever personal arguement you would make to keep those books in our education system are equally if not more valid for this piece of literature. To deny or remove these ancient classical texts for reasons of personal bias is simply censorship and contrary to the very spirit of a university. BTW that would be a touchstone of my argument, that the opposition is attempting to censor books based on personal belief and opinion..
This university is a place of learning - it is an institution in which 85% of the curriculum is based on the collective knowledge and wisdom accumulated through history. And what is the bible but an encyclopedia of wisdom and knowledge - collected by scribes from the greatest minds of a previous time. Do we consider ourselves so modern than anything written before the renaissance is invalid? How arrogant and superior such a mindset would be to simply disregard the labor of philosophers and great thinkers from these ancient times. Clearly the language they use is foreign to us living now - but the messages are undeniable. This is an encyclopedia of life - these stories contained in the bible were crafted very specifically to communicate ideals and concepts which are undeniably valuable.
Your opposition will likely take the position that the bible was written by men and not by God. Which is good for you - you can counter with the question of who were these men? I submit they were the most wise and respected of their tribe. These were the socialogists, economists, psychologists from another period of time. They laid the groundwork that all social sciences are built upon. To disregard this book is to disregard every form of ethics or study of mankind.
Notice how the argument is transitioning to pathos.. Can your opposition deny the ethical intent of the bible? They will be hard pressed to argue against the validity of the 10 commandments. Which by the way, you should have a copy of. Because those phrases are rock solid. Are they open to interpretation? Yes! Just as every book in this building is open to interpretation. It is not my intention to convert people to Christianity but to pretect common sense from biases and from prejudice. To protect a book. A book read by billions of people throughout history. Would our university refuse to let their students learn about heiroglyphics for fear we would be converted to Egyptian followers of Ra..? This is history. There is no history book written by some publisher out of Toledo that can compare with the real living history found in this book.
Finally hit them with Ethos.. This is where your 10 commandments comes into play. Nobody can deny the ethics of the bible, or the Quoran, or the Bhagavad Gita.
Make your judges ask themselves to remove their own political prejudices and fears and look at this issue with plain common sense.
Notice how in my arguements I keep referring to bible as ancient literature of grave importance? That's so the the opposition can't use religous belief (or non-belief) against you. However, the fact that millions of people believe this is the living word of God is still at the least something to take into consideration. If you do believe this then I win the debate the right away - there is no arguement which can trump word of God if that is what you believe (which one or more of your judges may).. However, even if you don't believe that in no way detracts from the sheer number of people who do. i would probably leave this point until closing arguements. Work the logical sides of your argument first.
Keep the burden of censorship and bigotry on them. If the opposition wants to argue about religion you can end up making them look like the zealots defending their own belief system and prejudices. While you are the innocent common sense guy. This debate is not new. Research it on your own and cherry pick the points that support your argument from debates found in the supreme court, etc. No matter how passionately and logically you argue - you still need citable references and quotes to create an informed argument.
You got this..
P
Ptolemy Zidane Lange
Guest
Tell them it is impossible for the college's to make a field dedicated to the bible. This would not only 1. bias over other religions aka the first amendment 2. take forever because there are so many versions of the bible and they all differ from one another, and 3. totally go against the Lemon test. The lemon test is what the government uses to make sure that anything that would tie the government to religion.
This totally contradicts the first amendment, also contradicts the government's ruling of the 3 lemon test rules, and lastly would just not be an ideal thing to study. The bible is used for reason throughout history, and it is for what it was used for is what is significant. The bible itself does not contain any viable information that is either backed up or cited. The school using "the bible" would have to stop due to government actions and probably have to condense the course or way they use the bible. the bible overall is not a reliable source
This totally contradicts the first amendment, also contradicts the government's ruling of the 3 lemon test rules, and lastly would just not be an ideal thing to study. The bible is used for reason throughout history, and it is for what it was used for is what is significant. The bible itself does not contain any viable information that is either backed up or cited. The school using "the bible" would have to stop due to government actions and probably have to condense the course or way they use the bible. the bible overall is not a reliable source
Lordpercywooster
New member
the society we live is based on jedeo christian values
our culture laws and cosntition are based on these values
it is irrelevant if you believe the in the bible or not as society is still based on the values subsequently all course except science courses are effected by the bible
you can make history your Strong point can be history look at who wrote the Constitution, founded the country , supreme court
our culture laws and cosntition are based on these values
it is irrelevant if you believe the in the bible or not as society is still based on the values subsequently all course except science courses are effected by the bible
you can make history your Strong point can be history look at who wrote the Constitution, founded the country , supreme court