The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Luisthebraziliancowboy
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Christianity does more harm than good

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 5 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,507 times Debate No: 35636
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (5)

 

Mikal

Pro

I taking the pro argument will argue that Christianity causes more harm than good. I will go into details as to how it has impacted us through out history, and how it constantly is causing issues within our society. The con will take up the argument and provide evidence as to how Christianity is a positive influence on our society. What good does it do, and how is it helpful, and how has it positively impacted history. At the ends the vote will determine if Christianity is a good thing, or whether it causes issues and causes harm to us as a society.
Luisthebraziliancowboy

Con

I accept the challenge and look forward to a good debate with Pro. I would like to inform Pro that I am fairly new to this site and so I apologize for any mistakes in form on my part.

Pro has said that he will address how Christianity is constantly causing issues in society. I would like to point out that there is a potential that certain "issues" he may bring up are only viewed as issues from one side of the spectrum. If a statement were made that Christianity has oppressed homosexuality, the Pro will see it as harmful to society. However, on the other side of the fence, preventing the spread of homosexuality is viewed as a good thing. Therefore, I ask the Pro to only refer to issues that will be viewed as negative to society from both sides of the debate, or issues that are so irrefutably harmful, such as murder or rape, that no reasonable person could argue for its being beneficial. Example: 'Christianity has harmed the spread of homosexuality' should be inadmissible as evidence because the right disagrees with it. 'Christianity has led to the beatings of gay men' would be admissible, as it is an undeniably harmful thing.

Second, I would like to differentiate between Christianity and Catholicism. Catholicism is a branch of Christianity but it does not share all the same tenants of it. I would ask that the actions of Catholics be accepted as evidence, while their tenants that disagree with Christianity not be admitted. Example: 'The Christian ban on birth control is harmful' should be viewed as an invalid statement, as that is not a belief of mainstream Christianity. 'Christians caused many deaths in the Crusades' should be admitted as evidence, as it is referring to the action of Christians.

Third, I would ask that Pro recognizes the difference between people acting according to true Christianity and people acting according to a bastardized, deranged form of it. Cults may call themselves Christian but they are not. People may try to excuse their foul actions under the guise of acting according to Christianity, but if those things do not reflect true Christianity, I ask that they be mostly ignored. Example: 'The Westboro Baptist Church shows that Christians are hateful and intend to cause damage to society' would not be a valid statement because Christians denounce the WBC's actions and beliefs. 'Christianity has enabled groups like the Westboro Baptist Church to have a platform for their hateful actions' would be valid, because it is not an argument about Christianity supporting their actions.

Lastly, I would like to address the last line of Pro's opening statement. In it, he says that "the vote will determine if Christianity is a good thing, or whether it causes issues and causes harm to us as a society." I am not arguing that Christianity does not cause any harm. Any belief system will cause some form of damage. I am arguing that Christianity causes a minimal amount of harm when compared to the good it does.

Good luck, and let's have fun with this.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

Thank you for taking this debate and I look forward to a good discussion.

As you have stated earlier, i will try to stay away from saying Christianity can cause harm because of how one group of radicals may think(as you stated westboro would be an example of this). I will ask however that we do not overlook the implications of this. Any religion or any belief will have radicals within it, but remember the radicals are a product of that specific religion and are acting out of their belief structures towards it.

For this next part I will ask that we are debating under the assumption that Christianity as a whole is made of up many different secs. Where as Catholicism, Protestants, Baptists, Mormons, Calvinists and so forth may have a different foundation within their world view, they all accept that there is a God of the Christian Bible and that the bible is infallible.

I will start out by addressing points that everyone will see as wrong and that have occurred throughout history. I will start out with the point you mentioned in your opening statement, and that is the crusades. While one may argue that the people in that time period had a different belief structure, and it is not a reflection upon Christians today, we can not forget they acted out those massacres in the name of the Christian God. Countless people were murdered because of intolerance and bigotry, and that is unforgivable no matter what time period it occurred in.

I will even go as far as to state, that hitter was motivated out of religious thoughts. In Mein Kampf he states "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2. To add more to this point, a phrase was engraved on every Nazi belt buckle. The phrase was "Gott Mit Uns" which translates to God with us in modern English. Where as my opponet may state the actions of one man do not represent the beliefs of the whole, we have to acknowledge that he himself states that all acts he did was in the name of God.
This is not also just the beliefs of one man, everyone one of his followers believes this as well. They sincerely believe the were purging the earth of evil in the name of God.

My opponent also asked me to avoid the argument that it limits civil rights such as gay marriage. I will leave this point alone for the most part but must mention it in small regards to the fact that it influences state and federal politics. We took on separation of church and state for a reason, and still to this day intolerance is bred from belief.

This next point I will try to be careful with because it is a hard point to make and I have to do so by making my opponent and everyone understand how it effects us as a society. While individual acts of idiocy do no represent the church as a whole, when they happen in mass numbers we have to admit that people are acting out of belief in God, as Hitler did. In the past year alone there have been ten cases of murder within a family because kids admitted to their parents that they were homosexuals. There have been over 8 murders of people of different skin colors in the southern states because of religious intentions and there have been over 10 murders primary to Muslims with christian motives. I could pull these case by case but it would take an hour, and i am sure we can agree that is is a viable source just by news articles alone. Again my opposition may argue that these are individual acts, but we have to acknowledge when they happen in mass and noticeable numbers we cannot ignore the replications of them.

The next thing I will state is that Christianity is destroying our education system, in specific inference to science related fields. In multiples schools some parents were so outraged by the teaching of evolution that they protests, and the school went as far as to add creationism as a topic to be discussed in science class. Science is merely about facts, by implementing this into our education system, we are teaching our children false facts. Even the most serious and noticeable Christians now acknowledge evolution is a fact, they just believed God guided it, which is known as theistic evolution. I will assume you are catholic with the requests you made, and even note that the Arch Bishop of Canterbury believes this along with many other high ups in the Catholic church. Catholics have come to accept this more than modern protestants. There are multiple graphs and studies that show that people who are raises with faith based beliefs tend to be less educated than people who believe in science and facts

http://www.patheos.com...
http://www.christplagiarized.com...

I could cite over 20 different sources with this easily but i will leave it with the first two that I found.

In closing I have pointed out how religion has negatively impacted society. While I will admit that there are good teachings within the bible and the church, once you admit you are a christian you are just not accepting the good parts, you are also accepting the bad. I believe and have shown that Christianity has caused far more harm than good.

now back to my opponent.
Luisthebraziliancowboy

Con

I agree that radicals are a part of any religion and that they must be taken into account. I believe that we both are in agreement with the fact that they are not representative of a religion but can still be viewed as consequences of it. And I also believe that both of us, and any other reasonable person, would recognize that just because someone claims their actions are on the behalf of a God or a faith, that does not mean it represents the religion. If I commit a murder, I could claim that I did so to honor Mikal. However, that would not be true because you had nothing to do with it and would denounce it. The same applies to people who claim they act on behalf of religion when in fact, they do not.

Your choice of the word 'sects' is a bad one. A better word would be denominations. Sects are typically considered to have an origin in it but have departed from its teachings and are no longer considered a part of Christianity. Mormons are an example of this. They have created an entirely separate belief system, relying on The Book of Mormon, literature that Christianity disagrees with. Their dogma is entirely different from any form of Christian dogma, therefore they should not be considered Christians. The denominations you listed (Protestant, Baptist, Calvanist, and even Catholic) have certain differences in doctrine but the key tenants of Christianity are more or less the same in them, therefore they can be considered branches of Christianity. However, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, among other lesser known sects, are too far removed from the central beliefs of Christianity that they can not be considered representative of it. I will also inform you, although this is irrelevant to the debate, that I am not Catholic. I am non-denominational Christian.

Rebuttals

I address your argument regarding the crusades. There is no denying that murder is negative no matter the time period. I make a few points regarding how representative they are of Christianity though. Like you said, they were not representative of Christianity today, but I argue firstly that they were not representative of Christianity in the period in which they occurred either, and secondly that they were not as bad as people tend to believe. First, we must define what a crusade is. A crusade in this debate should not be considered any war with a religious purpose put rather the ones specifically recognized and ordained by the papacy. Unfortunately, much of what is considered "common knowledge" about the crusades is factually incorrect. Centuries after they had occurred, biased historians began to look back at them and when writing about them, portrayed a less than truthful account of what happened. The first common misconception that I will address is the notion that the crusades were an offensive attack by Christians on an unsuspecting Muslim populace. In truth, the crusades were a defensive, retaliatory action. In the early seventh century, Christianity controlled Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, as well as many parts of Persia and Arabia. By the early eighth century, Muslims had conquered Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France, while Italy was under serious thread of attack. It is important to realize that this new Muslim control was not due to converting the populace, but by physical violence and military conquests of those territories. The Christian territories in Arabia had been conquered and destroyed. More than two-thirds of previously Christian land was now under Muslim rule. These Christians were acting in defense of their lands that were stolen, not on behalf of their faith. If they acted in defense, they were not the aggressors. Therefore, the nature of the crusades was not a harmful one to society, as a group acting to defend their lands should not be viewed as something harmful to society. If you view their actions as retaliatory, not defensive, then they were markedly not a result of true Christianity, as one of the most recognizable teachings in Christianity is to turn the other cheek. Now, another frequent assumption about the crusades is that their goal, if not in whole than at least in part, was proselytization. If this were true, one could assert that Christianity was at fault for the crusades, as proselytization is an undeniable part of the Christian faith. However, that is not the case. Thomas F. Madden, widely considered to be one of the most prominent crusade historians stated in an essay the actual influence proselytization had, or more accurately, did not have.

"It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders' task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslim inhabitants far outnumbered the Catholics. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence."

I also would like to point out that there is a significant difference between Christianity, the religion, and Christianity, the political state that existed at the time. While you can argue that the religion is what led to the state, you cannot say that the actions of the state are representative of the religion, because the actions of the state frequently contradicted the teachings of the religion.

I believe I have shown sufficient evidence that the crusades were not, as is presumed, a terrible crime of Christianity's, but rather something whose negative aspects cannot be pinned on the Christian religion. If you are still unsatisfied, I have further evidence which I consider to be unnecessary as I believe my point to have been proven, but I will include it here without many arguments involved just to give you a hint of what they are.

Many people say the crusaders were greedy and rapacious. If this is true, they were not acting from a Christian basis, as Christianity opposes that, so Christianity cannot be blamed for those actions. One frequent criticism of the crusades is the massacres that occurred. I agree completely, as do all Christians. The issue is, Christianity cannot be blamed for the. The massacres of those who surrendered was undisciplined and unchristian, and as such it was hated by the leaders, both military and religious. The massacre of those who did not surrender was standard military practice at the time, used to intimidate future enemies into surrendering. In neither of those cases is massacring encouraged by Christianity nor its beliefs, but by rebellious soldiers in the former and by military leaders in the latter. The main method if recruiting soldiers to fight in the crusades was Pope's promise that they would be able to escape purgatory and go straight to heaven. This is a strictly Catholic belief, not a Christian one. Christians deny this particular dogma. Therefore, Christianity cannot be held responsible for Catholicism's ability to recruit soldiers. The actions of the popes during the crusades (granting pardons for sins in exchange for money, that type of thing) were denounced later by Martin Luther as being exactly the type of of unchristian actions that the Catholic church's failures arised from.

I am extremely sorry but I am new to this site and did not recognize there is a character limit. I don't want to throw away the rest of my argument so here is a link to it: http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

The first thing I would like to address is Cons argument for the word denomination instead of sect. I was well aware of what the word sect intended. I chose that word because I believe it to be true. Take the Catholic church for example, they consider modern Christianity a sec of Catholicism. The Pope himself has even been quoting that saying modern Christianity "is defective", and that he wants to return the Catholic church to its prior glory as being the one true religion. It is now just Catholics while Baptists, Protestant, and many other denomination of Christians can be called denomination, they also treat each other as a sect would. In no way does Christianity promote or encourage growth in humanity, in fact it does the opposite. With every different sect and denomination claiming to be right, it is easy to see how so many wars are started in the name of it. Where Con states, we can not judge the religion by radicals, I believe we can. As he states if someone where to murder in my name it would not be my fault. The error with this line of thinking is that would only be one person. With Christianity there have been countless and untold people who kill in the name of Christ. If there were that many people killing in my name I understand if someone wanted to blame what I was teaching, perhaps there could be something wrong. The bible promises land to Gods chosen people and different holy books do the same, it is easy to see why no one gets along and there is so many wars.

Immediately after reading Cons argument, we can see that he has made two fatal errors. One of the first things he argues is the crusades "were not as bad as people tend to believe." This statement is so illogical that it sends shivers of sympathy down by spine because of how inaccurate it is. He states that what most people believe is common knowledge is not. This is a fallacy, and quite arrogant I might add. Common knowledge is labeled as such because there are 10-20 sources who have been tried and tested and proven correct. By saying that how 90 percent of historians portrayed the crusades wrong is mind blowing. He then in turn offers up his interpretation of the crusades, without offering up any sources or credible historians to verify that this is accepted amongst other scholars. I could cite endless sources to show that the crusades where fueled by the desire for land and hate because of differences in religion, but I do not feel the need to so because anyone who is reading this will likely agree that there are so many sources to support this it would turn into a frivolous task.

He then spends so much time going over why historians were wrong, and his view of the crusades is right that he goes over his allotted limit of words within the argument(which he apologies for and this is quite humble and notable, I think you for you humility). The next argument he makes is that because Hitler acted on his accord and Christianity did not support it, that Christianity should be excused for it. I have stated earlier the beliefs Hitler held were not just shared by him alone, but by a nation under him as well. The loyal followers that he had, believed they were doing Gods work by purging the earth. This belief is similarly shared today by Muslims which is a sect of Christianity within itself. The argument that Christianity should be excused, is erroneous due to fact that Christianity was the main catalyst that sparked this belief. As I have stated previously if it were just a few acts that occurred because of Christianity it would be excusable, but this is very obviously a trend that occurs throughout history and still is occurring today. People who believe in the bible interpret in a way that leads to crime, murder, and wars. That has been the case sense the very beginning of Christianity as a whole and will continue to be.

He then argues that he does not accept my example of murders in the name of Christ because of no valid sources, which is a valid point and one that I accept. Since I still do not feel the need to go pull 10 articles about Christian radicals, I will rule the point that I made as invalid. I do urge you however to think about recent stories involving murders that happened in the name of Christ. I can think of a few off hand and I am sure you can as well. If I wanted to waste my remaining argument on this point I would, but again I think it is quite irrelevant.

The next argument Con makes is the point that I believe will sink his entire argument. He believes that Creationism should be taught in school so that there is a viable alternative. To be quite honest, if Christianity operated within its space and accomplished what is was suppose to I would have no problem with it. With all the teachings within the bible you would think Christians would be happy right? If they believed specifically the good parts and ignored the evil bred from it, they should be quite gleeful would you not think? So why are they not happy? They are not happy because the bible says they are not allowed to rest, until every knee bows before Christ. The entire central message behind the bible is the great commission. Go out and spread the gospel. This is where Christianity oversteps it bounds. If they went into their churches and worshipped alone I would be quite content. It is the fact they want their religion to have a say in our education system, government, and personal lives that makes me quite furious. Take a look at blue laws. They think drinking is bad on Sunday, so I as an atheist must uphold and respect that belief. For lack of a better word I would tell them to screw off. It is not just so with education, they want a say in our sex lives, our personal beliefs, and even in marriage. I will now go back the original point which is education. While education may have been founded on Christian values and as you have stated yourself, most educated Christians know that evolution is a fact. I along with countless others do do want a Holy book being taught to our youth. The argument you make is that is a viable alternative. It is not a viable alternative it is a cop out. Science has explained the origins of the universe and through the string theory and multiverse is even started to believe in alternative galaxies. Quantum physics teaches us this. Your argument is because there are holes still in the theories that we know for a fact is true, God did it. They say this is a viable reason all while offering not one shred of evidence that a God exists. God guided the big bang, he helped with evolution, he made the earth round. All of which are statements that would have got you killed at the start of the Church. Christianity has and always will conform to the laws of science. If science proves something to be true, the will find some way to work that belief in with their bible and prove that it is viable all while ignoring everything that the bible entails. As I have shown in the early centuries the beliefs Christians hold today would have got early Christians slaughtered. If they see the need to conform to science and explain it away with semantics, why not just eliminate the fantasy party of it(God), and then we would all be better off. In short I am not asking for to much, just to simply keep your illogical explanations of the Universe to yourself and do not teach it to our youth, do not impose your beliefs on me, and stay out of our government with your outdated ideologies.

In closing I have shown how Christianity has and never will promote humanism, how it is poisoning our education system, and how since the very foundation of it has caused countless atrocities and shows no signs of stopping. I have taken every one of Cons arguments and left them in shambles. As we can logically see the most obvious explanation is that Christianity has always caused more evil than good. I have shown and demonstrated this with factual evidence throughout this debate. Thank you for your time
Luisthebraziliancowboy

Con

Your insistence on the word sect only does you a disservice. If Catholicism believes it is different from mainstream Cheistianity, and you agree with that, then we must not even not even bother looking at the actions of Catholicism because it is not Christianity. My inclusion of Catholicism as a denomination was so that you would still be able to use it in your arguments and we would derail ourselves. The different denominations all coexist peacefully. The ones who do not are the ones who disagree with the basic tenants of Christianity, and are therefore not Christian, and are therefore sects. You are entirely clueless about what a sect is, and this is shown later when you refer to Islam, a completely differnt religion from Christianity, as a sect within it. Your notion that multiple people acting opposite of what one says somehow makes it the responsibility of the person is fallacious. Your reference to other holy books is irrelevant as we are only discussing Christianity. Your belief that the Bible promises Christians anything shows that you don't understand it. The Jews were God's chosen people and they were the only ones promised land. The only thing Christians were promised were trials and sufferings on behalf of Christ.

Regarding the crusades, Pro is so misguided that it makes me wonder if this is hardly worth debating. He assumes that common knowledge must be true and that it is proven by "10-20 sources," which is silly because common knowledge simply is what most people think they know about a subject. The crusades have been misunderstood by the majority of people and actual historians agree with what I have said. He claims I have ignored sources, when in fact he did not use any and I did. I cited undeniable historical events that occurred when Muslims conquered Christian lands and presented a quote by a renowned crusades historian. Then I presented other historical facts and logical deductions. I probably should have cited more sources but when compared with the total of 0 presented by my opponent, I do not believe that is a fair criticism. His argument here is one of dismissal, and as I've shown he is wrong.

Back to Hitler, my opponent addressed none of the points I made and instead harped on a point I have already refuted. I will not waste any more time on this. I will just mention that he said Christianity had been violent since its inception, when in reality, early Christians were routinely persecuted and murdered.

Pro said his own point regarding Christian murders is irrelevant, so I will say no more on it.

He says that I and other christians advocate teaching (Biblical) creationism in schools. I never said that. Pro is misguided and making ridiculous claims. He is not focusing in the least about how Christianity has caused harm but going on a tirade against any beliefs of Christians being represented at all. This is not an debate about if science is being taught properly in schools. It is about harm Christianity has caused and my opponent has entirely left the matter at hand for another one.

My opponent has shown nothing, has proven nothing, and has made extremely weak arguments. Even before I address the benefits Christianity has had, I believe I have presented more than enough evidence to encourage you to vote for Con.

I have already mentioned how Christians helped create modern science and mathematics. Christians are markedly more charitable than non-religious people as shown by the Hoover organization, who said they are "25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent)" while " 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics." A Forbes study has shown that in addition to having more charities than any other ideology, Christianity has better charities than other ideologies as well. The Catholic Church is the largest provider of healthcare and education in the world. After the Fall of Rome, it was the church that preserved the knowledge accumulated during that time period. Early in Christianity's history, its teachings were far more liberal than those that existed at the time. The Christian belief that murdering slaves was bad and that women and men were actually equal was completely opposed to beliefs at the time. Christianity is largely responsible for the occurrence of the Renaissance, as well as being of great importance in the creation of much of the world's art and music. The Catholic popes themselves have been key figures in world politics. It was a pope that created the calendar we use today. A pope convinced Attila the Hun not to invade Italy. A pope is credited with having been a key figure in the collapse of European Communism.

Christian teachings, if actually followed, create model citizens. They are not hateful, they are not spiteful, they respect others, they help their neighbor, they are peaceful, they act within the law, they are faithful, and they show that Christianity, far from being harmful, is helpful to society. You claim bad things have happened, and try to pin it on Christianity, when it reality they have been the fault of humanity's failures.


I'm growing weary of actually working hard to present evidence when my opponent is simply pulling things out of thin air, so I will end the debate here. I believe that I have presented more logical arguments, better evidence, truer sources, and have argued my side far better than my opponent. I urge you to vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 0roborus 3 years ago
0roborus
to respond to Mikal about the whole 20% or 30%. Show me that 20 or 30% of Christian's today or ever did things like that. Yes beliefs can affect the world in negative ways, but if somebody is actually following what Christ taught they would never murder. Also in response to the whole turn the other cheek in the debate. The fact is is that we christians are allowed to fight back and as a last resort kill in defense of our lives and others. We are told to turn the other cheek towards vengeance. We are not allowed to kill in vengeance, we are not allowed to murder, we are not allowed to fight back if the person asks for forgiveness. Also their is a huge difference between turning the other cheek when it comes to insults or theft, and somebody trying to murder you or another.
Posted by zigstum 3 years ago
zigstum
The foundation of Christianity is an ideology, that was inspired by the words and works of one man.
A man who taught his followers to love their enemies, and their neighbours, as G K Chesterton says, because they are often the same people.
He told them not even to retaliate to physical violence, and to pray for their enemies, and he walked his talk.
How could anyone kill in this man"s name?
An idea has no power in itself, it cannot make a single person do good or bad, it is simply words on a page until human will is exercised.
The child who says "He told me to do it", gets the response, "And if he told you to jump off a cliff would you do that too?"
We know from an early age that it is no good excuse to say that somebody told us to do it, or that someone else did it first.
As adults, we expand this idea to State and employer; "I was doing my duty" is not a valid defence for criminal activity.

If religion can not be used as an excuse for murder, how can we say religion is the cause of murder?

It is the human will that is the source of violence and murder.
If it were not so, we should not punish the violent, the fact that we do demonstrates our belief in individual free will and personal accountability.
There are murders at this moment, for many reasons, but greed, pride, and jealousy are some of them, whatever reasons the actual murderers give.
People will try to justify their crimes, it is a powerful human impulse to deny fault, and the most common way to do this is to place the blame elsewhere.
As George Aiken said: "If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and colour, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon."
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
O.Z
I agree, Mikal. This debate probably will go on forever, but I must also agree with the other guy. Just because one bad guy did something in the name of religion doesn't mean it's the religions fault. Religion is not the problem, it is the aggresive nature of mankind.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Just to answer your one statement about the Democratic party. If that scenario were to happen, perhaps the ideology behind the party could be questioned. In on circumstance, it would not be a viable argument however. Now if 20 or 30 percent of radical democrats were killing because of the ideology behind our party, then yes we could question it.

With that I will leave this argument be though. It will go on forever, just because of the nature of it. Once again good debate
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Luisthebraziliancowboy
You can argue that Christianity is more harmful than it is good. You can even win a debate about that. But you did not present many good arguments for it. The good ones you did present, such as the crusades, I refuted. But the major focus of your argument was that saying you represent Christianity and doing bad things is the same as actually representing Christianity and doing bad things.

Answer this. If a self-proclaimed Democrat decides to massacre anti-abortion activists, is that the fault of the Democratic Party and their beliefs or is it the fault of the person who decided to do it?

Let's take this one step at a time. Having some of the same beliefs and actually being of the same religion are two different things. Christianity says not to murder. It's a pretty big rule actually. If someone murders someone and says they did it because if Christianity, that is not valid, because Christianity says exactly the opposite.

And you say people kill in the name of religion, but they kill for reasons outside of religion as well. Hitler's holocaust was a racial cleansing based on evolutionary ideals. Should we say that science is harmful because of it? Stalin killed in the name of communism, which believes that atheism is correct. Should we say atheism is harmful?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I posted this earlier, but this literally is our debate in a essence. It just boils down to whether or not Christianity is more Evil than Good, With the all things that have happened under that badge I do not think It can be disputed. This video is similar to our debate, as I have posted below
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I said Muslims where a sect of Christianity. I am sorry if you feel that is insulting but it is a fact. Muslims believe in Jesus as well but they regard him as a prophet and not God. I also did not use Muslims in this debate, however I think that shows how religion is bad a whole. I used Hitler and the crusades. I have shown why fueled by religious hate and intentions. I did not even touch the effects the Catholic church had on northern Ireland. By your logic you are not a Christian, you choose to believe your own specific version of Christianity therefore anyone who believes and acts differently than you should be excused. You cold make this argument with anything, but it does not excuse the evil that has stemmed from it. The most viable response would be, that if the bible did not exist it would leave no room for someone to have the thoughts of purging the world or killing in the name of a Christian God. I would even extend this to the word religion and not bible
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Luisthebraziliancowboy
You gave only two links, both regarding the same thing, which I showed was irrelevant.

What makes somebody a Christian is subjective, but tere is a standard of it among Christians. It focuses on the accepted interpretations of the Bible. Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians. Christians do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christians. They are not denominations, they are other religions. You have shown you don't understand any of this because you said that Muslims are Christian. It's ignorant, and frankly a little bit insulting, that you would deign to pass judgment on what should be considered Christian when you don't even recognize the difference between the world's two largest religions.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
The flaw with that comparison. Saying that Hispanics would be Brazilians is generalization. Also you can not change your race that can not be subjective. You can not interpret what it means to be Brazilian, that is set in stone. Christianity is based of how you interpret scriptures. It is not a fact, the thought of what it takes to be a christian is subjective within itself.

He stated that I invoked common knowledge but I also showed links as well to support my points.
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Luisthebraziliancowboy
You don't understand what Christianity is. You generalize it. It's like grouping all Latinos together when they're actually full of differences. Your mistakes here are the equivalent of calling Brazilians Hispanic. I'm going to use a metaphor just do you can understand what I mean. Let's say Christianity is South Korea. North Korea launches a missile at the US. What you are doing is saying that South Koreans are responsible for this because Koreans are the ones who launched it. Sure, there may be similarities between the two groups, such as language or location, and they might both be called Koreans, but there are inherent differences between them and you can't blame the one because of what the other did.

I am not talking about my definition of Christianity. There are certain tenants of Christianity (God created everything, the three parts of God, Jesus is God made man who died for our sins) that are found in the Bible and are accepted by every denomination. Baptists won't fight Calvinists because of minor differences in doctrine. But when a group, such as the Mormons, claims they are Christians while following a different book and denying key tenants of Christianity, it is obvious to Christians that they are not. So when someone says they are doing something in the name of Christinaity, but Christianity actually says not to do that thing, Christianity is not responsible for what happened. Do you understand what I'm saying?

And everyone who has voted for you already agreed with your viewpoints. The three of them share your views. Whereas the ones who voted for me did not agree with me. One was agnostic, one actually disagrees with me, and one of their beliefs I can't tell. Regarding sources, I cited historical facts, a renowned crusades scholar, Hitler's own words, Goebbels, Einstein, a Papal edict, the Hoover institute, and Forbes. I could have had more sources, but you only had three, "common knowledge," Mein Kampf, and the Nazi uniform. I have more.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Shadowguynick
MikalLuisthebraziliancowboyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I am NOT reading the rest of the debate that con had, as it is a conduct point against him. I am basing the entire debate on what has been brought up. Pro made some spelling mistakes, so point to con. Pro had more convincing arguments, as con failed to address hitler until later, could not prove your knowledge about the crusades (a few sources would have been nice) and pro didn't provide sources, but he did appeal to my common knowledge as correct. I think I should give the reliable sources to Mikal, because I counted 2 sources to 0. Con claims to have posted sources, but if he did he posted them in the rest of his argument, which I am not using as proof. Therefore sources, pro.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
MikalLuisthebraziliancowboyTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G to Con, way less errors Conduct to pro: Con tried to overcome the character limit Sources to Pro, he had way more. Finally arguments to pro for several reasons: the Hitler argument Pro used against con was completely dropped and then picked-up again. Furthermore, as pointed out by pro, the merits of Christianity are in question regardless of sect. So all sects collectively are held accountable regardless, and furthermore, cons argument rests on a no true scotsman fallacy as pro points out. When does the identification (and with it) the identification of religion come into play with Hitler exactly? Part of Nazi'ism was to believe in a Christian God as he pointed out, and claiming they're "not real Christians" is crap when they identified as one either directly or indirectly. Arguments to pro as a result. Good job guys.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
MikalLuisthebraziliancowboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
MikalLuisthebraziliancowboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Conduct: nearly awarded to Pro because of Con's failure to stay within the character limit, but instead I decided to entirely disregard his outside comments. S&G: Pro made a number of mistakes, Con only one or two. Pro's grammar wasn't bad, but I felt Con's sentence structure was better. Arguments: Pro didn't really land any hits that I could use to reasonably justify an affirmation of the resolution. He used Christian wrongs past and present to little effect, and Con's counter that education, healthcare, and other charity work had large positive contributions to society. I think Pro lost the debate when he agreed with Con to essentially fight with one hand tied behind his back. Homosexuals are part of society. Therefore, any suffering imposed on them, even in the form of rejection or bullying - not just physical violence - does count against Christianity if that is the reason it is being done. Continued in comments.
Vote Placed by THElittleRISK 3 years ago
THElittleRISK
MikalLuisthebraziliancowboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Reason for voting in the comments.