The Instigator
Happyfishguy322
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kbub
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points

Buddhism, for or against?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
kbub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,461 times Debate No: 45367
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

Happyfishguy322

Con

I am opposed to Buddhism for a few reasons although I respect it along with all other religions. Buddhism doesn't make sense to me, I don't like that it tells you you should follow a series of steps ( the eight fold path). I think you should find your own path that leads you to the place you want to go. You shouldn't be expected to follow something someone thought of while meditating. I don't understand why people think that Sadartha Guatama suddenly figured out the answer to suffering. He was sheltered from his father all his life and when he realized that there was suffering he was confused. He came up with something that made sense to him, something that explains everything. That is my argument for this round although I have many other points. I want to save them for later. Sorry if this isn't the best argument, I'm really new to this and still learning. And someone tell me how to get better please!
kbub

Pro

I'm going to assume first round is acceptance (this seems to be a tradition at DDO). I accept, obviously. Because I cannot be expected to prove every aspect of Buddhism, the Burden of Proof is, of course, on my opponent to show that one should be against Buddhism.

I will of course be unable to represent all of Buddhism since I am only an individual (or am I?), but will instead defend a particular "flavor" so to speak of Buddhist thought. I am looking forward to my opponent's arguments. I notice there are a few posted, but I wasn't sure if that was an introduction. I invite my opponent to expand on these points if s/he wishes to show how exactly they show Buddhism to be faulty.

Thanks Con! I'm looking forward to a great debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Happyfishguy322

Con

Happyfishguy322 forfeited this round.
kbub

Pro

My opponent, dispite initiating this debate, has forgeited her/his first round, and presumably the debate. There are a number of reasons why voters should be concerned by forfeit of the first argument:

1. It is rude. Forfeiting a round is disrespectful to myself who now as to argue to the walls, and to voters who can no longer see a good debate. This behavior suggests an attitude of apathy towards me, towards debate, towards DDO, and towards Buddhism. Without a debate format, the topic of whether or not Buddhism being justified becomes less of a productive dialogue and more of a quick, "dive-by" insult towards Buddhist practioners.

2. It is sneaky. (This only applies if Con has not forfeited the entire debate.) By forfeiting the first round, I am unable to rebut the arguments that would normally be made in this round. By waiting until the last minute to flood the debate with arguments, Con is using a sneaky tactic because I'd only have one round to respond to her/his argument instead of the expected two.

3. It sets a bad example. My opponent's forfeit sets an example for other debaters. If you do not mark Con down for arguments and conduct for this FF, other debaters might think that they can get away with forfeiting rounds and still win. It also encourages other debaters to break understood contracts between debaters. Lastly, this show of disrespect makes voters and debaters see these debates as both less serious and less valuable. If this were to be allowed, the quality of DDO would diminish, and this website would shift away from an exchange of ideas through dialogue and towards a platform for name-calling.

Rebutal:

Pro has not denied the Bourden of Proof.

I asked my opponent to please demonstrate exactly how the introductory speech showed that Buddhism was faulty. I was genuinely interested in seeing my opponent's responce, but my opponent refused to do so. My opponent's "arguments" are therefore left unclear to me an to the voters, since my challenge to explain went unanswered.

Thus, the only thing I am able to do now is try to guess what my opponent was trying to say.

a. " Buddhism doesn't make sense to me,"

I would be interested in finding out why that is the case.

b. "I don't like that it tells you you should follow a series of steps ( the eight fold path)"


The eightfold path is less like a series of steps and more like milestones on non-linear journey through life. I tend to think of the eightfold path as not being ordinal at all, but instead reflective of a realistic, cyclical understanding of the world. The markers of the eightfold path to me are like old friends waving to me as I pass on my way.

c. "I think you should find your own path that leads you to the place you want to go."

I agree. This is actually a major tennet of Buddhism.

d. "You shouldn't be expected to follow something someone thought of while meditating."

Yes, Buddhist philosophy was invented, not divinely inspired. The idea that Buddha is worshiped is a myth. However, I find this honesty attractive in Buddhism. Buddhism tends to coincide with realism, and attempts to find the best possible path through rationality and compassion. I'd say Buddhism should be evaluated more on it content, and not on it's origin anyway.

e. "He came up with something that made sense to him, something that explains everything."

Buddhism does not attempt to explain "everything," but only some important things. I think Buddhism did make sense to Siddharth Gotema, and it also makes sense to me.

Offense:
Really there is not much offense I need to win, since Con has the BoP.

1. Uninhibited thought: Buddhism tries very hard to acquire knowledge about ethical living. Independent of whether or not my opponent agrees with Buddhism personally, he should still awknowledge the fact that it sincerely tries to make the world a better place.

2. Historical advantage: There has never been a war faught in the name of Buddhism. The same cannot be said of most other religions. Buddhism teaches against war, and historically as a whole have tendended to follow these teachings [1].

3. Buddhism seeks happiness through ethical means. This is a practice we could all learn from: we should all realize happiness through ethics instead of being caught up in materialism.

Let's spread the compassion! Thanks for reading, and enjoy the videos! =D






[1] http://www.budsas.org...


Debate Round No. 2
Happyfishguy322

Con

Happyfishguy322 forfeited this round.
kbub

Pro

Well, that concludes the debate. Please extend all my arguments.

Sources: I have them, whereas Con does not.

Style: You know I've mad skills. What!? That's not a category, you say!?

Conduct: My opponent challenged me and then forfeited every round.

Grammar: It is a small thing, but Con doesn't use enough commas.

Arguments: I have rebutted everything Con said (a-e) and have some uncontested offense (1-3). Please extend all of that.

Thank you all for reading, and my opponent for the open challenge. Have a compassionate day!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Looks like I'm going to win by default.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@kc: did you know that ALL religions go hand in hand with rationalism?
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Did you also know that Buddhism goes hands in hands with rationalism?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Did you know that Buddhism does not conflict with most other religions, including Islam and Christianity?
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Oh, called it. That was very random.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
let me guess.. the earth
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
Natural, Neutral and Irrefutable Proofs on Truth of Islam
The Earth: (1)
The Earth is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. This obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The irrefutable proof on above commentary is that there are hundreds of fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay in their graves since centuries and years without used any chemicals. Once we had dug their graves for any reasons, we found them in above condition, our doctors examined them and there are thousands of eyewitnesses too. We will not dig their graves again for every person on his desire now because you non-Muslims are 5 billion at this time in the world.
So, if you are sincere for truth, but you do not trust us, then contact us with your doctors, researchers and media team about the research of these fresh dead bodies. If you refuted above research, we will pay you 1 million dollars and we will be ready for any punishment from you in front of world media otherwise accept our research and enter in Islam. Do not see condition of some bad Muslims because the Islam is perfect, but all Muslims are not perfect.
According to my research there is no fresh dead body with fresh blood of any Atheists and Non-Muslims that is preserved from decay under the Earth or on the Earth since centuries and years without used any chemicals. So it is 100% proof that there are no other Gods except Almighty Allah and the nature Earth doesn't support or obey any fabricated Gods (except Almighty Allah) or followers of fabricated Gods or Atheists.
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
The Air: (2)
The Air is a nature. It cannot tell a lie. It cannot favor or support wrong thinking or wrong beliefs or wrong lifestyles. It is 100% true and neutral. It obeys only true God or true followers of God. It doesn't obey any other fabricated Gods or any followers of fabricated Gods or any Atheists.
The 100% proof on it is that if you leave intact dead bodies of all soldiers on the Earth who fought against each other in the name of their Gods and religion, then after death only Muslim Martyrs will remain in fresh condition with fresh blood and their enemies will decay.
There are two questions to all Atheists and Non-Muslims:
1) The Muslim soldiers who are slain in the way of Islam, why their dead bodies remain in fresh condition with fresh blood? And, all Atheists and all Non-Muslims soldiers who are murdered in the way of their religions, why their dead bodies do not remain in fresh condition with fresh blood?
2) Why the God did not preserve your soldiers' dead bodies who sacrificed for Him and why the God of Islam Almighty Allah preserved the dead bodies with fresh blood of those Muslim soldiers who sacrificed for Him?
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
The Fire: (3)
It is perfect that the Fire is a nature. It does not have any capacity to save any human body in it. So, if a Muslim goes in it without using any chemicals and he is immune to burn, then it will be a miracle and a 100% proof on truth of Islam. And, look how intransigents are majority of Atheists and Non-Muslims that they do not agree to demonstrate such miracle and if we Muslims are ready to demonstrate such miracle (by the mercy of Allah) then they are not even willing to convert to Islam.
Dear Atheists and non-Muslims, I ask you that if a Muslim goes in Fire without using any chemical on his body in front of world media and he is immune to burn in it, then will you all convert to Islam or not?
If yes, then fix a time, date and place and start announcement in whole world because you are 5 billion and it is impossible that we enter in Fire for every Atheists and Non-Muslims for proving the truth of Islam.
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
The Water: (4)
The water is a nature. Our claim is that it only obeys the God of Islam or only true followers of God of Islam. So please study following research and event that is proof on our claim
Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) were escaping from Egypt. When they reached to the Red Sea, they prayed to Almighty Allah. Allah the exalted said to Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) to hit the Red Sea with his staff. When the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the Red Sea, then sea split in two parts and they found the open path to cross the sea. So, the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) crossed the sea.
The Pharaoh Ramesses and his army who were chasing the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them) reached to Red Sea. They found the open path, so they walked on dry ground following them, but when they reached in the middle of Red Sea, the sea joined back on them and they drown in it.
After this event, Almighty Allah saved the dead body of Pharaoh forever as a sign for Atheists and Non-Muslims.
So according to head of archaeologist and anatomical scientists the Professor Maurice Bucaille (who converted to Islam after his research) and according to Holy Quran, Pharaoh Ramesses died in the Red Sea following the Prophet Moses and his followers (peace be upon them).
For details on research of Professor Maurice Bucaille on this event please study "The Dead body of Pharaoh" in the article section on www.rightfulreligion.com.
Commentary on this event:
(1) This event is 100% true. So this event proves that there is existence of a God Almighty Allah (who is God of Islam and the God of Prophet Moses) because the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) hit the red sea via his staff by the order of Almighty Allah and the red sea obeyed the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) and his God Almighty Allah.
(2) This event also proves that water obeys the God Almighty Allah and His true followers because when the Prophet Moses (peac
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Happyfishguy322kbubTied
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: No contest due to forfeit.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
Happyfishguy322kbubTied
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: Con contested Pro's arguments with forfeits, which was largely unconvincing. Con needed to make arguments, rather than question the topic generally. Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeits. The source and the videos were relevant, and thus source points for Pro on that basis.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
Happyfishguy322kbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: FF + Con did not argue
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
Happyfishguy322kbubTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F/F
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Happyfishguy322kbubTied
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: Forfeit all points applicable to pro. Pro had sources and actual arguments.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Happyfishguy322kbubTied
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: Forfeit after creating a debate is beyond me. Points to Pro.