All Religions are Communes, therefore Communism.
Debate Rounds (3)
I will be using the following definitions in my arguments.
Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Commune - the smallest French territorial division for administrative purposes.
Religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
To win this debate, Pro will have to show both (1) how all religions are French territorial divisions and (2) how this relates to communism. I await Pro's opening arguments.
"That's what religion is, communism. Communism is suicide."
This argument is a bare assertion, which is logically fallacious. Even if this is true, I'm not sure how this affirms the resolution.
"Do you fancy yourself to be the god of definitions? Really you have told us nothing. Please continue."
This is irrelevant to the discussion of the debate unless my opponent wishes to dispute my definitions.
The burden of proof is still on Pro to reasonably show how (1) all religions are communes, and (2) that this relates to communism. However, I reserve the right to make arguments against the resolution.
Negative Argument 1: Communes are geographically located in France. Religions are not necessarily geographically located in France.
According to the definitions I provided, communes exist only in France. But some religions exist outside of France. I suppose if all religions were communes, no one would believe in theism except for people who are located in France.
I assume that my opponent intended to write touché, meaning that I made a clever argument.
I assume this means that my post is irrelevant to the debate, or that it's unimportant in and of itself.
But I do not see how my argument is irrelevant to the debate. The resolution is whether all religions are communes. My argument, which addressed the nature of both religions and communes, seems to be entirely relevant to the debate. If my opponent's rebuttal is to be taken seriously, my opponent must first show us how my argument is irrelevant to the debate.
If this is the only reply to my post, then it seems like my opponent has effectively forfeited the debate. No arguments were made in support of the resolution, and the one argument I wrote was barely addressed, if at all. Certainly the soundness or the validity of my argument was not questioned. The burden of proof is continually on Pro, and this alone warrants a loss in most debate settings.
Therefore, I claim victory. I thank my opponent for this learning experience.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ssadi 12 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Since there was nothing stated about BOP in the first round, then we assume by default that BOP was on Pro. Pro made no arguments at all, except what they wrote in resolution. On the other hand, Con convincingly refuted anything presented by Pro, given the definitions they provided. Pro didn't dispute definitions. So, A goes to Con. In addition, Pro showed a poor conduct by trolling the debate where Con showed a good conduct by seriously and convincingly negating the resolution and answering to what Pro said. Therefore, conduct goes to Con. Pro didn't use any source. Con's sources were reliable enough to support the definitions they provided and the arguments/counter arguments they made. Therefore, sources also go to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.