@pangloss:

I disagree--it wasn't unfair of CA to try and use things I'd said on the forum against me...if we were having this debate "for real" in a nice fancy hall with podiums and a listening audience and all, the way Hitchens debated, it'd be completely fair to call Hitchens out (or attempt to) for something he'd written previously in his career as a journalist and author.

@All:

Oh well, if I lost, I lost...tried my best, and could probably do a better job today, but if I lost, good debate, CA.

I will say one thing in my own defense, however--

I DO disagree that I missed the topic...I still say there's a difference between Christianity the set of ideas and what a Christian might do with (or in spite of) those ideas...in the same way you'd need to have some understanding of what Communism IS and SAYS to answer "Is Communism a Force for Good in the World?" I think you need to address the problems of scripture in asking that same question of Christianity.

If the question had been "Are Christians a Force for Good in the World?" I'd have agreed and taken a less scripture-heavy stance...

From my understanding of the question, however, "Christianity" refers to the religion, and a religion, at its core, is a set of ideas, so I tried to discuss the ideas and arguments which I found in to be in error or otherwise abhorrent to argue that Christianity the idea is NOT a force for good in the world.

The Achilles' Heel of that, as has been mentioned, is real and fair--I hadn't read the whole Bible then, so that does damage the credibility of my making the argument (though it doesn't damage the credibility of the argument itself, at least in my view.) That's a fair point to make, and a real tactical problem with the argument I posed.

I maintain that if it's OK for most Christians to call themselves Christian and thus count as Christian when they haven't read the whole Bible then presumably a non-Christian should be allowed the same arguing rights with relation to the text, since if they don't need to read it all to have their pro-Christianity points count, it seems a bit hypocritical to say I should have to read it all to be afforded the same courtesy.

But that IS a real problem with my position, and in retrospect, if I could do things differently, I'd probably still use some quotes (I maintain that the passages I have are not isolated in nature and that, again, to truly discuss whether Christianity the Idea is a Force for Good you have to discuss...well, Christianity the Idea, which means going back to the text and seeing what those ideas are and if they're good or not) but I'd have talked a lot more about those atrocities I was quick to just mention and leave alone. I took it for granted that that was an elephant in the room and didn't need elaboration...in retrospect, I should have elaborated on those points more, if for no other reason than to keep a better tactical advantage.

I shied away from that partly because, again, I figured those atrocities kind of went without saying and didn't want a "Oh, you knew THAT was coming" sort of response to them, and partly because it seemed like a cliche point to make...it's not really an arguable point, and the response then is to either list the crimes of secularism and have an Atrocity-Off, which seems an odd way to decide goodness, based on which has killed the fewest amount of millions, or else devolves into arguing that said crimes were not the fault of Christianity but people "abusing" Christianity or using it to commit atrocities and not really acting "in the name of Christ," which leads me back to the text and why I spent so much time trying to argue a scriptural point and that it's not abusing or misunderstanding Christianity in those cases.

Either way, I should've either argued the "Christianity as an Idea" angle better, or else stuck to the atrocities and other real-world examples, since arguing without the full text puts you out there with two strikes to start, so that was a bad strategy...

If I could do it again, I'd be able to answer that question with "the vast majority of the Bible, at least," which is better than what I had...

So maybe I could have more credibility on that front, and I STILL argue that there's a difference between Christianity and Christians and so I really think this question begs more of an examination of doctrine and ideals rather than simply actions...if you wanted to make it "Are Christians a Force for Good in the World?" I'd take a different line of approach and skip the scriptural argument almost entirely, but "Christianity" implies the ideas, which I tried to use and attack, albeit unsuccessfully, apparently.

So I'd either try that with more knowledge and hope for more success and credibility, or else interpret Christianity as equaling "Christians and their actions," as most seemed to, and go on that.

So...yeah...I didn't pick the best strategy and saw a different connotation to "Christianity" than my audience and failed to adjust and correct that, so I didn't do a good job as a rhetorician in either sense.

Oh well...I can at least say that was, at the time, my best try given the format, so if I lost I lost fair and square--better luck next time, I guess (and there's always a next time with me.) ;)

Good debate again, CA, and thanks to everyone who read.