The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

All Religions are Communes, therefore Communism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 87315
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




That's what religion is, communism. Communism is suicide.


Thank you, Max.Wallace, for instigating this debate.

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.[1]

Commune - the smallest French territorial division for administrative purposes.[2]

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.

Debate Round No. 1


Do you fancy yourself to be the god of definitions? Really you have told us nothing. Please continue.



"That's what religion is, communism. Communism is suicide."

This argument is a bare assertion, which is logically fallacious.[4] 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.[5]

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.[6] I suppose if all religions were communes, no one would believe in theism except for people who are located in France.

Debate Round No. 2


touche'. So what?


Final Rebuttals:


I assume that my opponent intended to write touché, meaning that I made a clever argument.[7]

"So what?"

I assume this means that my post is irrelevant to the debate, or that it's unimportant in and of itself.[8]

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.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ssadi 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
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.