The Instigator
Spock
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
jamestheawesomeperson
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Spock
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,867 times Debate No: 23747
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (4)

 

Spock

Pro

I would like to debate that Christianity, in it's current form, is detrimental to society (most specifically the United States, but also the world in general). I am for religion, in it's purest form, but feel that Christianity as it stands is hurting our society.

I will wait until a challenger accepts the debate before going in depth. This is my first debate, so please do not hold back and be very thorough.

I do plan to base my debate on historical and current events, society (both the Christian society and society in general), the bible, the idea of personal responsibility, the influence of religion in society, and the portrayal of God and Jesus.
jamestheawesomeperson

Con

This is also my first debate. I accept this debate, and hope that this debate will turn out great!!! Resolved: Christianity is not detrimental, but instead supportive for our society.
Debate Round No. 1
Spock

Pro

My apologies for the delay. School has been keeping me preoccupied and I had some trouble logging in. I do ask that you forgive me if I do not debate in the correct format, and encourage anyone with better experience than myself and my opponent to feel free to leave comments and suggestions whenever there is an error in the format we debate, or if there is something that we do that deviates from the norm. Onto the the debate ...

I have seen arguments posted in a sort of opening statement, followed by contentions that are numbered, in order to allow for the opponent to easily refute them, so I will use this in order to make things easier for my opponent and myself.

Opening Statement: Christianity, in it's extreme and strictly interpreted form, is detrimental to society. I am not very religious myself (though I am a practicing Buddhist and believe in the sanctity of mankind); however, I have seen the good that religion can do at certain levels, and value the pure ideas that are put forth by Christianity, however, feel that the religion should either be revised or depleted, based on the following contentions:

1. Christianity has gotten to a point in which it has begun to impede progressiveness in our society.

I feel that the God of Christianity has turned from a source of explanation, to a staple and an excuse. We have gotten to a point where people have stopped asking questions on how things occur and happen (on a scientific level), and simply throw God in and wipe their hands clean of the situation. The point in which God begins to deplete the need for scientific inquiry and research is the point in which God should be questioned. The same can be said for the political scheme in America today, where religion is influencing education, legislation, and actions in government, when it was intended to be separated. I have seen the things that religion can do positively, and admire them. But it is beginning to attack the ideals of humanity, and the American Dream here on domestic soil.

2. Strict Interpretation of the Bible is harmful to society.

The bible is a great and storied book (as I always say, the greatest book ever written ... Next to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), but recently we've seen people get too far into their interpretations of it; namely, I mean this to talk of campaigns against homosexuality and abortion and the like, things of that nature. Those Christians who use the bible and their religion to support their claims have fallen into trouble with "picking and choosing", so to say, which portions of the bible we should pay attention to, and which we should not. Obviously, there are problems that arise here.

3. Personal Responsibility

Recently, I have also witnessed instances of personal responsibility being absolved by "God's plan". I don't very much think that this is a positive direction for our (let's face it, mostly Christian) society. I have witnessed people take an overly conservative approach to their lifestyles and who rely to heavily on God's personal influence in their lives. This is harmful to society also.

Concluding Statement: For these previous statements, I deem that Christianity, as it stands, is harmful to society, and at the very least requires some revision. I apologize for any ambiguity in my response, and am open to all questions of clarification, and will give specific examples in my next round. I thank the competitor for the upcoming spirited debate.

"Live Long and Prosper"
jamestheawesomeperson

Con


Hello, Spock and the fabulous debaters who are reading this! I will now refute against my opponent, Spock, and explain why he was wrong.

Resolved: Christianity is not detrimental, but actually supportive for our economy.

My opponent had said, " 1. Christianity has gotten to a point in which it has begun to impede progressiveness in our society."

Christianity, which is still a famous religion, hadn't done anything bad to our society. Actually, our society is doomed without Christianity. According to Telegraph News, we imagine we can ditch Christianity and yet the good things we have inherited in our way of life will continue. They will not. Christianity formed Western civilisation and is so consubstantial with it that if Christianity goes, the lot goes with it. Without Christianity, the 78.40% of U.S. population will not have their free rights to believe who they want to believe in.

He had also said, " Strict Interpretation of the Bible is harmful to society." He explained why Christianity is unfair because it opposes against homosexuality, and it doesn't help people to "pick and choose" .

I disagree with your arguments/contention.

Spock stated that Christianity opposes against homosexuality. Yes, the bible goes against the homosexuality, BUT the homophile people has their own rights to believe in the rule of bible or not. I do not know why Chrisianity will affect the lives of homosexual people because the Christianity doesn't actually force the homoerotic people to become not homosexual. So, I do not consider that Christianity affects homosexuality.

My opponent had also said that Christianity doesn't help people to "pick and choose". His argument is untrue. I am a Christian myself, and I don't have trouble " picking and choosing". The Bible doesn't force people to not "pick and choose", it actually suports people's lives. I used be a dull guy, but after I became a Christian, I transformed into a bright, happy person. This proves that Christians who use the bible doesn't have a diffucult time " picking and choosing".

The Bible is not harmful to our society because it is a great and storied book (as you stated before). Bible is the holy book that made Christians change into better people (like it did to me).

He had also said that people rely too much on God, and this is harmful to our society.

Christians have their rights to rely too much on God or not. (Just like, homosexual people don't have to believe in the rule of Bible as I stated before). If you're not a Christian, let it be, don't rely too much on Him. I know a religion that will totally worsen our society if majority of people were in the religion. This religion is called Heaven's Gate. On March 26, 1997, police discovered the bodies of 39 members of the group who had committed suicide in order to reach an alien space craft which they believed was following the Comet Hale-Bopp, which was at its brightest. Heaven's Gate is the religion that will actually ruin our society.

I will now ask you couple of questions. Without Christianity, what would've happened to the western civilisation? Who or what caused the big-bang (The big-bang created the universe)?

My sources:

- http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

- http://www.religiouspopulation.com...

- http://en.wikipedia.org...(religious_group)

- MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE!!!



You could also read the 10 Commandments of the Bible:

http://www.bible-knowledge.com...

So, for all these reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate.

Debate Round No. 2
Spock

Pro

I had intended for my opponent to keep with the structure of my argument to make things easier on us both (since we are both first timers), but seeing as he has abandoned the framework, I will refute his argument, line by line.

1.) "Christianity is not detrimental, but actually supportive of our economy"

A bold claim. However, you give no evidence to support this, nor do you ever mention the economy in the remainder of your argument.

2.) "Actually, our society is doomed without Christianity."

My opponent uses an editorial to support this claim, and in and of itself this isn't very reliable. Even ignoring this fact, my opponent proposes that Western Civilization was formed by Christianity, which is false. The religion is deeply entrenched within it's roots, absolutely, but by no means formed it. Western Civilization was born of ideas; it was formed from the concepts of equality, democracy, and permeating the unknown. All ideas that are rebuked by strict Christian ideology (emphasis on the strict).

The statistic my opponent refers to, the 78.4%, is referencing the population of the United States that is Christian (also a shifty looking source, but looking into it I found the source they themselves pulled from:http://www.thearda.com...) is supposed to support is idea that without Christianity, the U.S. population would "not have their free rights to believe who they want to believe in"? It's a bit strangely worded, but taking it as it stands, it doesn't make much sense at all. My opponent is essentially saying that without Christianity, the people in the United States would not have the right to believe in what they want to believe in ...? However, Christianity is not what gives them that right, it is the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution.

If what my opponent says is true, then people of Christian faith would be allowed to believe in whatever deity they so please, breaking one of the commandments. There fore, this point is null.

3.) " He explained why Christianity is unfair because it opposes against homosexuality, and it doesn't help people to "pick and choose" . '

Firstly, he has taken "pick and choose" out of context. I was merely stating that those who choose to establish the foundation of certain laws and policies of the United States on biblical grounds choose only portions that provide for whatever policy they are attempting to influence. I was merely stating that they do not wish to allow all rules of the bible to be adopted into U.S. law and policy, only portions, which makes the entire notion ambiguous and unjust. So that claim is unfounded.

The opposition states that he is not sure why Christianity affects the lives of homosexual people, but the source of the injustice, discrimination, and harassment they face is founded in Christianity (and other religions, in other regions). If there was no Christianity, there would be no problem against homosexuality (unless people came out and said the real reason they are against it: "it's icky and gross and we don't like it."). But once again, I am not arguing for the depletion of Christianity, merely that it's form in society today is detrimental.

4.) "Christians have their rights to rely too much on God or not."

Absolutely true, and one of the few statements in my oppositions argument I agree with. However, the problem arises when this notion permeates the policies of government. When that reliance beings to influence economic or public policy in a secular nation, then a problem manifests.

As far as the Heaven's Gate religion ... I'm not exactly sure why this was brought up. Christianity is not ruining society, and I never said this. A strict, radical form of it is merely hurting it; it's pushing it in the wrong direction.

5.) A response to your question.

Without Christianity, I suppose Western Civilization would have continued down a different track. Possibly for better, and possibly for worse. Your sentiment is weak, however; you are claiming that because Christianity was influential in the formation of Civilization, it is perfect and requires no modifications or any downsizing. If you believe that because something is present and influential in the foundation of a society, it is forever and always beneficial, you are wrong. I would ask you what your position is on slavery? On women having a insignificant and unequal role in society? On education being kept out of reach of the poor? These are all ideals that were essential to the formation of Western Civilization. Do you believe these good? If not, then you must recant you're statement of Christianity being beneficial for society just because it influenced our foundation.

You ask me who or what caused The Big Bang? I must say that the question is a definite what, and the answer is not known by any yet. I'm a budding physicist and will tell you that the two most prevalent theories are either the clashing of subatomic particles, or that it was the result of spontaneous quantum fluctuation, proposed to occur whenever two conditions are met (I cannot be sure if these are the following, but I think they are an inflating space and empty zero energy fields). I suppose you weren't looking for a concrete answer though, merely trying to prove a point ....

And that point is precisely the problem that I am arguing against (at least from an educational standpoint). You don't know the answer anymore than anyone else does. However, you are content to merely say "God did it." and wipe your hands clear of the problem. This is impedes progressiveness. This impedes society. We have begun to plug "God" in when met with a question we do not know the answer to, and are not content to research and explore, to learn and grow as a society. If we were the society of old, that said "God did it, but let us figure out how", then I wouldn't have started this debate.

"It's only logical."
jamestheawesomeperson

Con

Salutations, Spock. I will now be explaining about why I'm still correct.

You said that my first claim was wrong. "Christianity is not detrimental, but actually supportive of our economy" was just my resolution. My whole speech was basically talking about it.

You also said that my argument ( which was our society is doomed without Christianity) used an editorial which was unreliable. Actually in most debates, you need a source. Also, if the editorial is unreliable and untrue, why are the unreliable news ( according to you) spreading? I mean if the editorial is spreading untrue news, what is the point of having editorials? Editorials and newspapers are created so that people know what's happening. The Telegraph News is a famous editorial/ news, and it is illegal to spread fake news. The reporter ( of the Telegraph) also probably researched more than you did, otherwise the editorial would've been way shorter.
You explained why the Western Civilization was actually born of ideas. Yes, the Western Civilization was born of ideas, BUT Christianity basically created Western Civilization. According to Yakima Herald News, " Biblical Christianity lifted Western civilization from barbarism and superstition, enhanced the role of women, ended slavery, built schools, hospitals, and orphanages, discouraged racism, formed the foundation for modern science, and brought social stability and morality resulting in financial betterment for the masses." Without Christianity, our Western Civilization would've been extremely weak or it would've been in chaos just like USSR.
Sources:

- http://www.kurzweilai.net...

- http://schreinerpatrick.wordpress.com...

- http://www.yakima-herald.com...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opponent had stated that the 1st amendment gives people rights, not the Christianity. Correct, but I don't think my opponent understood my argument. My argument meant that without Christianity, 78.4% of the U.S. Population will not find their right, comfortable religion. This is bad because many people will not find a suitable religion even though they want to find one ( making the U.S. citizens sad).

He also said " He explained why Christianity is unfair because it opposes against homosexuality, and it doesn't help people to 'pick and choose' " argument was wrong.
I think my opponent copied and pasted a wrong part. He accidentally put his own argument thinking that it was my argument... Anyways, he said that I had taken out "pick and choose" out of context. Yes, but that's because my opponent didn't do a nice job explaining ( no offense, Spock). Now, I will answer the argument. Yes, couple of rules they did not want, but most of the Bible's rules are helpful. The commandments states you shall not steal, lie, murder, and etc. I do not consider that these are bad, and that is also why 78.4% of the U.S. population are obeying the Bible's rules.

My opponent had stated that if there was no Christianity, there would be no problem against homosexuality. Untrue. There are several people who are not Christians, but dislikes homosexuality.

He also stated when the reliance beings to influence economic or public policy in a secular nation, then a problem manifests. Yes, it does, but think about the Great Depression. We survived through it even though U.S. was in a huge chaos. Christianity is not as bad as the Great Depression, so it won't affect much. Readers, think about my argument which was "Christianity created the Western Civilization". Without Christianity, the U.S. would have not been here or it would've been extremely weak.
He also didn't know why I brought up and talked about Heaven's Gate.
That is because Heaven's Gate is the detrimental religion, not Christianity.

In the paragraph, he put "Christianity is not ruining society, and I never said this. A strict, radical form of it is merely hurting it; it's pushing it in the wrong direction."
If it's pushing it in the wrong direction, and it keeps going and going ( worsening our society), you basically meant that Christianity is the ruining society. That is why I refuted against it.

So for all these reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you!!!

Fare thee well, Spock.
Debate Round No. 3
Spock

Pro

I would ask, again, that my opponent would structure his debate as to make it easier for me to refute his points. I will resort to the structure of my last argument.

1.) "You said that my first claim was wrong. "Christianity is not detrimental, but actually supportive of our economy" was just my resolution. My whole speech was basically talking about it."

This is incorrect. None of your speech referenced the economy at all I don't think my opponent fully understands what an economy is. An economy, as stated by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is "the management of household or private affairs and especially expenses" or " the structure or conditions of economic life in a country, area, or period; also : an economic system". My opponent did not even mention currency or goods or anything of economic importance in any part of his arguments.

2.) You also said that my argument ( which was our society is doomed without Christianity) used an editorial which was unreliable.

I do feel that an editorial is an unreliable source. That particular editorial had no relevant data, nor did it contain any source-able material. An editorial is an opinion, most often written by an outside source, someone who doesn't work for the paper (as it was in your case. In fact, a subtitle of that section of the Daily Telegraph was "Personal View"). Editorials are not created "so that people know what's happening". They are merely opinions that newspapers publish for entertainment. I would also like to state that the person who wrote the article was not a reporter for the Telegraph. And that, for future reference, my opponent not determine the amount of research a writer did by the amount they write.

3.) You explained why the Western Civilization was actually born of ideas. Yes, the Western Civilization was born of ideas, BUT Christianity basically created Western Civilization.

I see no basis of this. I still resolve my point that Christianity was merely a strong influence, not the actual agent behind the creation of Western Civilization. I would also like to point out that Christianity didn't really form the foundation of science, unless you would like to count those who did not believe what was in the bible and decided to research answers for themselves; if that is your case, then I agree. I also agree that Christianity was a force in ending slavery, building schools, and hospitals, and orphanages. However, it did not enhance the role of women; it hindered it. It also held back schoos, and encouraged and supported discrimination. Also, I only say that Christianity was behind the ending of slavery because abolitionists primarily came from that background. The Bible itself actually condones and supports slavery.

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

Those are direct Bible verses. You may look them up.

4.) My argument meant that without Christianity, 78.4% of the U.S. Population will not find their right, comfortable religion. This is bad because many people will not find a suitable religion even though they want to find one ( making the U.S. citizens sad).

That is another weak point that my opponent has made, and also poorly worded. If I am deciphering it correctly, he is saying that if there was no Christianity, no one in the United States would be able to find ... Christianity? And this is bad because it would make them sad? If I am interpreting this correctly all I must say is that if there was no Christianity, those seeking religion would just fall on another religion.

The case is weak. That's almost like saying that meat is mandatory in our society because a lot of people eat meat, and if it wasn't there they would be "sad". If they had not experienced meat (Christianity) in the first place, they would not need it, and would fall on the many alternative veggies (other religions).

5.) I think my opponent copied and pasted a wrong part. He accidentally put his own argument thinking that it was my argument...

I didn't.

6.) "Yes, couple of rules they did not want, but most of the Bible's rules are helpful. The commandments states you shall not steal, lie, murder, and etc. I do not consider that these are bad..."

This is the picking and choosing I am referencing. You choose only to follow the sentiments that are expressed in the bible that you deem good and you like, and you ignore the rest of them. The Bible is supposedly holy scripture from God himself, who makes no mistakes. Therefore, every sentiment expressed in that book should be followed to the T, because it cannot be wrong. Correct?

7.) He also stated when the reliance beings to influence economic or public policy in a secular nation, then a problem manifests. Yes, it does, but think about the Great Depression. We survived through it even though U.S. was in a huge chaos. Christianity is not as bad as the Great Depression, so it won't affect much. Readers, think about my argument which was "Christianity created the Western Civilization".

I don't quite understand what this is here for. Are you stating that the Great Depression is worse than Christianity, and we managed that, so we can handle Christianity? Please clarify or drop this statement.

My opponent still has not answered the questions I posed for him, so I will repeat them, and if he does not answer, assume he has none.

Without Christianity, I suppose Western Civilization would have continued down a different track. Possibly for better, and possibly for worse. Your sentiment is weak, however; you are claiming that because Christianity was influential in the formation of Civilization, it is perfect and requires no modifications or any downsizing. If you believe that because something is present and influential in the foundation of a society, it is forever and always beneficial, you are wrong. I would ask you what your position is on slavery? On women having a insignificant and unequal role in society? On education being kept out of reach of the poor? These are all ideals that were essential to the formation of Western Civilization. Do you believe these good? If not, then you must recant you're statement of Christianity being beneficial for society just because it influenced our foundation.
jamestheawesomeperson

Con

Hello, Spock. I will now be refuting against you. First of all, you had no sources to support your arguments. This proves that your arguments are false, and you put believable (but untrue) arguments to make the readers believe that you are correct. Also, you still put that my resolution is not the resolution. How do you know if it's not my resolution? Otherwise, I would've explained it like I always do.
I don't have time so, I will answer your most important argument.
Since you said that my resolution was not my resolution (even though I explained about it), I consider that your resolution is your argument which was "Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society." I have several sources that support my side ( the ones that I stated before). With several reporters going against you, I consider that I am correct. So for all these reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you, readers, who read my speeches.
Debate Round No. 4
Spock

Pro

1.) . "First of all, you had no sources to support your arguments. This proves that your arguments are false"

Just because I used no sources doesn't mean that my argument is false. I just preferred to use logic and reasoning in this case.

2.) "Also, you still put that my resolution is not the resolution. How do you know if it's not my resolution? . How do you know if it's not my resolution? Otherwise, I would've explained it like I always do."

I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about here. Searching through my argument I never used the word resolution, through the course of the entire debate. You are stating that I "put" that your resolution is not the resolution, and as how do I know if it is not your resolution ... I do not understand.

If you're speaking about the economy statement, I was merely stating that I didn't feel that you understood what an economy was, because you didn't speak at all on anything having anything to do with an economy. I would ask if my opponent knows what an economy is, to try and clarify things for those reading.

3.) Since you said that my resolution was not my resolution (even though I explained about it), I consider that your resolution is your argument which was "Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society."

You have, once again, befuddled me.

4.)" With several reporters going against you, I consider that I am correct."

Is your basis for whether someone is write or wrong contingent upon the number of reporters that are "going against" them? If so, allow me to give you some sources to peruse. These are all authors and reporters going against you:

Sam Harris, A Letter to A Christian Nation
Dr. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Dr. Lea Masiello, When Religion Hurts Society, http://www.english.iup.edu...
Bertrand Russell, http://www.positiveatheism.org...
Gregory Koukl, The Real Murderers, http://www.str.org...
Too Much Religion Hurts Society, http://www.progressnowcolorado.org...
Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great.

I thank James for a spirited, albeit confusing debate and ask that he use a portion of his final bout to try and clarify things for readers.
jamestheawesomeperson

Con

Greetings, Spock!
You said that you used logic and reasoning. Your knowledge isn't always better than those (reporters whom I stated before) who believe that Christianity is supportive, so your argument might be untrue.

You said that you didn't understand "You are stating that I "put" that your resolution is not the resolution, and as how do I know if it is not your resolution" part. I meant that you were saying it was an argument even though it was my resolution. Me and my research was explaining about it which proves that it was my resolution. Resolution means a formal expression of opinion or intention made. You also changed my argument, it was [I consider that your resolution is your argument which was "Christianity, in it's extreme form and in general, is detrimental to society."]. You changed my argument completely, trying to make me look "fresh off the boat". In debates, you are not allowed to tease your opponent.
You put that I befuddled you. It meant that since you thought my resolution was an argument, I want to think that his resolution is an argument ( and then I answered it). I hope that my opponent reads a little slower because he basically didn't understand half of all my arguments.

You also said that there are reporters thinking that Christianity is detrimental. Yes, and this is because of these " reporters" are probably non- Christian scientists or other religious (normal) people who dislikes Christianity.

{Our economy is the wealth of resource of U.S. ( You said that I didn't know what economy was. Well, I do.)}

I thank Spock for being a great opponent. ( I just hope that he reads more carefully and slowly.)
So for all these reasons, judges, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jamestheawesomeperson 3 years ago
jamestheawesomeperson
The things I said made me sound like an oaf...
:)
Posted by Spock 4 years ago
Spock
For any experienced debaters, may I inquire on what appropriate conduct is? I seem to lose a lot of points in this category, and want to make sure I'm not doing anything wrong. Any help is appreciated.
Posted by Spock 4 years ago
Spock
I only chose Christianity because it is on the forefront. The same can be said for just about every religion.
Posted by Spock 4 years ago
Spock
You're not disproving my argument. I see these people, and made not of them in my opening statement.

I'm merely saying that Christianity in strict contextual interpretation is hurtful to society.

Those people you mention do not follow the constructs of Christianity to the T. They are merely good people who believe in a form of God and do the right thing in his name. They use the Bible for spurts of inspiration and merely acknowledge it as holy scripture, not binding law that should be followed word for word.
Posted by MRShemery 4 years ago
MRShemery
All religions, including Christianity, are available for those that wish to participate and go by that religion's principles. All religions have some sort of book or guidelines for the followers to go by. There are people in every religion that are extreme in their beliefs and make their religion, and other followers, look bad. To say that one religion is detrimental to society is false. It's not the religion itself that's detrimental, but rather the extremists involved in that religion that are detrimental to society. All the world ever sees are the extremists. They don't see the every day people who include religion in their daily lives because it brings them peace of mind and helps them to be a better person.

For those reasons alone, I disapprove of the Instigator's arguments. I'm not saying the Contender has any better arguments, though, because I don't believe he does.
Posted by Truin 4 years ago
Truin
The past has shown the issues of this religion it stopped progress for 100s of years by stoping science to explain the world the church called those with the knowledge to he heretics and often put them in prison EX Galileo Some ever burned or beaten and stoned.
Posted by Spock 4 years ago
Spock
Finish strong then.
Posted by jamestheawesomeperson 4 years ago
jamestheawesomeperson
Hey, Bomb! I didn't have any time!!! Sorry!
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
This was a good debate until Con basically gave up in round 4 with whatever that was....
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Looks like it's gonna be a good debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
SpockjamestheawesomepersonTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: wow.....i would like to debate either of you on either side.......cons case was way more convincing
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
SpockjamestheawesomepersonTied
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: This was a rough read. Pro had tremendous difficulty establishing a causal link between Christianity and societal detriment. While Con's rebuttals were weak, they were more compelling than -what really amounted to- petty and unsubstantiated assaults from Pro. Neither side used evidence especially well. Neither side had better or worse conduct than the other. Both sides will benefit from additional debate experience.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
SpockjamestheawesomepersonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons: Spelling: I found less errors with spock than with james. Arguments: Not only did Con not do a good job of negating arguments, but his resolution was not supported by his arguments. If you're going to say it's supportive of the economy, then prove it's supportive of the economy :P Sources: As pro pointed out, the Con basically just used shaky sites and reporters which were biased and lost the vote.
Vote Placed by Hyperion1 4 years ago
Hyperion1
SpockjamestheawesomepersonTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Spock didn't make the best arguments, but james dropped most of them in the second to last round, so I'm not sure who won on the arguments. Spock had better sources, and james was a bit condescending.