The Instigator
Pro (for)
1 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Christianity is Beneficial to Everyday Life

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 67789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I'm looking for an opponent to debate the benefits Christianity has on everyday life.

I'll start off by stating that Christianity promotes the family unit and the presence of a father and a mother in a family. This is a problem in real life. There are too many children living with only one parent. Most of the time, said parent is struggling to make ends meet. Christianity also promotes waiting till marriage to have children. Children born to parents out of wedlock often times end up with a single parent.

The next point is Christianity's opposition to the media's constant output of sexual and provocative content. The content is not beneficial to the consumer because they believe that having pre-marital sex and the consumption of pornography are good and should be practiced. If a person is raised on Christian morals they will realize that this is not good and that it is degrading to a person's character.

My final point is Christianity's urge to practice such morals as tolerance, love, self-discipline, piety, and trustworthiness. These morals are greatly needed in our world today. These morals are very beneficiary to our world. A devout Christian should practice said morals. Therefore, a devout Christian is beneficial to our world.

Thanks for debating! Have fun.


Though you never discuss it in your opening statements, I assume you are taking the burden of proof as pro, which means that you have to prove to an extent that Christianity is beneficial to everyday life and all I have to do is refute your arguments to win.

So, to summarize your position, you believe Christianity to be beneficial for a few reasons, including: the promotion of a "family unit", waiting until marriage for sex, its against pornography, and Christianity promotes inclusivity in its individuals. Let me discuss each example.

Promotion of a "family unit": You defined a family unit as a mother and a father. You haven't actually shown that this is beneficial for society to have a mother and a father, instead of, say, a father and a father or a mother and a mother. However, even if it is somehow a bigger advantage to society than homosexual relationships, it doesn't matter. The Bible, the foundation of Christianity, isn't supportive of a purely monogamous relationship.

Here are the people known to have participated in a polygamous relationship in the Bible(1):


I do not mean to suggest that a polygamous relationship is negative or bad in any way, but rather the assertion that Christianity proposes a man and a woman is false. Not to mention, the god in Christianity is not the best when it comes to raising children. For instance, he told Abraham to prepare his child for sacrifice. Of course, Abraham never actually killed his child, but... there must be some mental scars that occur when your father holds a knife to your neck.

But, Jesus himself didn't really care about keeping the parents together. Such as in Matthew 19:29 when he said, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life."

And while single parents may struggle to make ends meet, it isn't always beneficial that they stay together. Parents that fight can lead to emotional damage for the children (2). Not to mention the whole economic thing could be helped with some simple welfare but that's just none of my business.

Waiting until Marriage to do the do: I'm going to be completely honest, I don't know where in the Bible this is mentioned but even if it is I find this abstinence only way of life to be utter crap. Studies show that abstinence only education actually leads to higher pregnancy rates (3). As it turns out, the best way to lower rates isn't to instruct someone not to have sex, it is to teach them how to do it safely.

PORNOOOOOOO! (its a pun): There exist many arguments for and against the morality of porn, and whether or not it is good. I would say that modern porn is intended more for male audiences and can be objectifying to females. However, porn as a concept isn't bad. Sex is overused in advertising, but this conclusion is unfounded in the Bible and doesn't require Christianity to come to.

Morality and Christianity: Here's a list of organizations that are considered hate groups, and are also Christians (4):
Abiding Truth Ministries
Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute
Christ The King Church
Faithful World Baptist Church
Pilgrims Covenant Church
Providence Road Baptist Church
The Pray in Jesus Name Project
True Light Pentecost Church
Truth in Action Ministries
Tom Brown Ministries
Windsor Hills Baptist Church
9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero
Aggressive Christianity
Christian Action Network
Christian Guardians
Christian Phalange
11th Hour Remnant Messenger
Abundant Life Fellowship
America's Promise Ministries
Christian Identity Church – Aryan Nations
Church of the Sons of YHWH
Covenant People's Ministry
Ecclesiastical Council for the Restoration of Covenant Israel
Fellowship of God's Covenant People
First Baptist Church and Ministry
First Century Christian Ministries
Holy Order Ministry
Identity Nation
Kingdom Identity Ministries
Kinsman Redeemer Ministries
Knights of the Holy Identity
Mission to Israel
Non-Universal Teaching Ministries
Our Place Fellowship
Scriptures for America Ministries
Shepherd's Call Ministries, The
The Church of Jesus Christ Christian / Aryan Nations
The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord
Thomas Robb Ministries
United Identity Church of Christ
Virginia Publishing Company
Watchmen Bible Study Group
Weisman Publications
Yahweh's Truth
Christian Anti-Defamation Commission
Christian Books and Things
Chick Publications.

As you can see, being a Christian holds no meaning to whether or not someone will be accepting and open-minded. This isn’t even mentioning all the damage that the Catholic church has done unto the world. The AIDS epidemic in Africa is largely due to the fact that the Catholic Church is teaching against the use of contraception and for the failing method of abstinence only. So, we still have two rounds left to go, but right now, I just don’t see how your conclusion can be supported. Perhaps there are Christians that are good, but to suggest that Christianity itself can help a person become this way, despite the Catholic Church child molestation scandal, despite the existence of the KKK, despite the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church, despite the part where God orders Moses to rape virgins… Well, let’s just say I’m left wanting a little more.


Debate Round No. 1


I uphold burden if proof on pro. You seem to believe that all Christians everywhere take everything from the Bible. They don't. Just because there are examples of polygamy in the bible, doesn't mean that it's suddenly "ok" (in a Christian's eyes) Instead of taking every word from the bible, Christians follow the teachings of their respective church. I also don't mean to say that homosexual relationships are not beneficial as are heterosexual relationships. A husband and a wife can be the same thing as two parents.

You then site many polygamous relationships in the bible. If you had read the bible, you would know that most of these were punished or not faithful to God in the first place. You then say that Christianity does not emphasize the relationship between man and woman in marriage. This is once again absurd. The churches emphasize the marital bond. Especially the Catholic Church. Your statement that Christians are polygamous, or that they teach it (it isn't quite clear) is completely false!

You then site the Bible story of Abraham and Isaac. Although this story is absolutely and completely irrelevant, if you had read the story, you would know that God ordered Abraham to kill his son to prove his faith in Him. How this relates to Christians negatively affect modern-day society, I have no idea.

You then state a bible passage that states, "and everyone who has left houses of brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and inherit eternal life" I don't know about you but to me Jesus isn't saying leave your family because you don't want to be responsible for a child like you are implying. Jesus is simply stating that if you sacrifice for Him, you will be rewarded.

Of course this is true, some parents should not be together. I'm saying that parents that left their respective families for their own selfish desires are thoroughly in the wrong. There is no proof situated behind this statement, but if the parents were fighting, it is sometimes the best to separate.

Just because the bible doesn't come out and say something straight up doesn't mean that Christians don't practice it. Your statement had no proof behind it, but if it is true, why are there more teenagers getting pregnant at public high schools than Catholic high schools? At the public high schools, the program emphasizes safe-sex. At Catholic high schools they emphasize no sex. Just saying.

Sex and sex symbolism is overused in the media. Pornography objectifies women. If a person was exposed to these things young enough, they could begin to think that beating and raping women is the norm in real life.

This part is a slippery slope straight on. If what you're saying is true these are all still a incredibly small group of people compared to the roughly two billion Christians throughout the world. Then you say that the Catholic Church single-handedly caused HIV. This is almost laughable. Maybe AIDS in Africa was mainly affected by the lack of contraception there. Not the Catholic Church's teaching not to use said contraception.

Your conclusion is once again assuming the worst. What about the nuns that care in the orphanages. What about the large amounts of Christian missionary work across the globe. There are many things that Christians have done that helps society. You just choose to ignore them.


P1:I know that many churches have elements to their doctrine that is found outside the Bible (and good thing too that book is really immoral) but there must be some way we can analyze Christianity in general. We could either evaluate every single denomination of Christianity, which would be impossible to do, or we could try and summarize the incredibly complicated and nuanced differences between the denominations into ONE MEGA CHURCH! Or we could recognize that the Bible is a similar link all Christian churches should have and look at what it teaches. But no, fine, okay, I will leave my Bible verses out of this.

P2:I know that polygamy isn't accepted by most Christian churches, but why? Why not? You point towards a single parent problem that we are having, but in polygamy you have spares.

P3:The Abraham and Isaac story was included because it shows God being immoral and causing child abuse. But yeah, we're not using stories from the Bible, so let me retroactively fit this story to the real world: Faith healings. Faith healings are when children get sick and are not taken to a doctor, often dying (1)(2). A person trusted God to do the right thing, or that a right thing was being done, and the only difference is that God didn't kill Isaac.

P4:Intent is a cute thing, but to have it as the end all justification is... wrong. Perhaps Jesus saw this sacrifice (of a family life) to be valiant, but the results are still the same. Tell me, what is the difference between a child being raised by one parent because the other didn't want responsibility, and one that is the result of a parent going into service of the Lord?

P5:Are you new to this website? It's just, you make a lot of bold assertions out of left field and don't give any sources. If you noticed in the sources I listed, there was a website explaining that when parents fight there can be emotional damages brought onto the child. I did give proof because I gave a source confirming the conclusion I listed.

P6: One, I listed a source talking about how states in the United States that teach abstinence only in high schools result in higher teen pregnancy. But since you don't seem to even be reading those, here's an excerpt, "For example, take the states with the highest and lowest teen pregnancy rates. Mississippi does not require sex education in schools, but when it is taught, abstinence-only education is the state standard. New Mexico, which has the second highest teen birth rate, does not require sex ed and has no requirements on what should be included when it is taught. New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception."

Two, where's your source? You claim Catholic Churches have low levels of teen pregnancy (included with a snarky "Just saying" but whatever) and give no evidence of this claim, RIGHT AFTER SAYING I GAVE NO EVIDENCE!

P7: Okay we got another wild and wacky story out of left field. Porn makes people want to rape people? I... I have no idea how you reached this conclusion. Even if it is true, is this somehow different from when the Catholic priests raped children? I mean, is there something about the religion that orders the rape of virgins that causes someone to go, "Yeah, I was going to beat and rape somebody, but Jesus."

P8: Wha-... Okay, let me just delve into, frankly, the oddest paragraph so far. First, how is this a slippery slope argument? Yes, these members are in the minority, but Christianity has not helped them to be a good and open person. If you check my sources (and please do), source (3) will have a list of the denominations that are opposed to same-sex marriage. That's not an open minded and accepting position.

Um, if you are going to put words in my mouth like "the Catholic Church single-handedly caused AIDS" please, at the very least, give a quote. The Catholic Church didn't cause AIDS, but their doctrine against the use of contraception in an area that DESPERATELY NEEDS IT is, you know, COMPLETELY F*CKING TERRIBLE.

P9: Ah yes, missionary work. Let's talk about that. The work that basically says "Yes, you're hungry. Yes, I have food, but do you have Jesus?" A truly caring organization wouldn't require forced conversion to hand out food.

While you point out missionary work, how about the negative contributions Christians and Christianity from the West has brought Africa? Look at Uganda, where they recently tried to pass legislation that would allow the country to arrest members of the LGBT+ community. Originally, LGBT+ members could be put to death, though now the harshest sentence is life in prison. Fortunately, this law was struck down by the Ugandan Supreme Court. There's a man in America that is largely believed to be the influence of this law: Scott Lively. If you need to know more about him, he thinks gays caused the Holocaust (especially offensive, as gays were another large group that were killed by Hitler but I guess we have a self hatred complex or something) and the president of a registered hate group. He talked to the Ugandan legislation for five hours about the evils of homosexuality, and openly states that the "public advocacy" of homosexuality should be a crime. The food, the buildings, the resources that missionaries bring are fantastic, but the ideas literally forced down the throats of starving children in exchange for those resources is disgusting, especially when it leads to situations such as these.

Debate Round No. 2


P2 Why not? Polygamy is considered immoral by most churches. There's no problem with polygamy. Your polygamy argument has nothing to do to prove Christianity's negative impact on society.

First of all, God did not come down and rape children, like you seem to be implying. I have trouble understanding your link between faith healings and the bible story. You have yet to bring up a point that comes close to proving Christianity is negatively impacting the world.

The difference is quite easy actually. If a parent leaves a child because they don't want to support them or be responsible for them, they are leaving the child for personal benefit. If a person leaves their family to pursue God the churches consider it to be holy.

I recognize that you have given sources. However, this is just one study. I consider this not to be definitive evidence at all. You must realize there must be more evidence for these topics to become "proof".

First of all, you are saying Catholic Churches. I don't really know what you mean by that. If you mean Catholic Schools I can begin to decipher your response. The dropout rate in public school is about 8.1% as of 2012. Catholics once again preach against pre-martial sex. Therefore Catholic schools have a pregnancy rate of x<8.1%. There is no exact number for the Catholic drop out rate because of the significantly less amount of Catholic high schools.

You are putting words in my mouth once again. Porn does not make people want to rape people. It can lead to negative effects. There is no doubt that it objectifies women. How does not being a Christian, make you magically exempt from raping people? I can't really understand this sentence. Yes SOME Catholic priests have raped children. Does that mean that the whole religion emphasizes raping children and virgins? No. I don't understand stand this argument at all.

This is an obvious slippery slope. You seem to be implying that Christianity made the people bad. These people believe that they are serving "God". These groups are condemned by other Christians. Ok yes, most Christians oppose same-sex marriage. Not every Christian is like the Westboro Baptist Church. Catholics have become tolerant towards gays. The pope even said, "Who am I to judge". Yes, work needs to be done, but great steps have been taken by Christians towards equal LGBT treatment.

I didn't quote you that the Church caused AIDS. Like I said, it was due to the lack of resources in the area. We have no control over Church doctrines. The rule has been in place for many years. Should it change? Maybe. The Church is against people having sex for pleasure. They try to dissuade people from doing this by stating that contraception is immoral.

Is this the times of Columbus? Since when do modern-day Christian missionaries force their neighbors to believe in Jesus. You make it seem as if missionaries force Jesus open their fellow humans, which is completely untrue.

Ok this is unbelievable to me. Yes there have been wack-jobs doing things like trying to kill gays. However, this is a massive minority. God said "Thou shall not kill". I would not even consider this man to be a Christian. If he is trying to get the Ugandan government to kill gays, he is as far away from Christianity as you can get.

Thanks for debating with me! I had a blast!


"You have yet to bring up a point that comes close to proving Christianity is negatively impacting the world."
Hold the phone there friend. I do not have to provide evidence that Christianity is negatively impacting the world, you had to show that Christianity was positively impacting the word. You make the positive claim the Christianity is good, you have to uphold that. That's called the burden of proof, which you agree to. Also, whether or not faith healings are connected to a Bible story or not, though I think there are similarities, faith healings are evidence of a Christian world view necessarily impacting the world negatively. Faith healing is a misleading term because the child is never actually healed, and can often result in death.

"If a parent leaves a child because they don't want to support them or be responsible for them, they are leaving the child for personal benefit. If a person leaves their family to pursue God the churches consider it to be holy."
Okay, I admitted the intentions are different but the result is still the same. Is a child's life easier because a parent abandoned them for the church? The Church may consider it holy, but I call it special pleading.

"I recognize that you have given sources. However, this is just one study. I consider this not to be definitive evidence at all. You must realize there must be more evidence for these topics to become "proof"."
Would you like for me to list every single study? Common debate format does not require multiple sources for a single point, especially when you have offered none.

Catholic... Dropouts?
I can't even begin to understand what you are saying here. What does dropping out have to do with teen pregnancy? And why does the teen pregnancy rate of high-schoolers in Catholic schools have to be less than the number of dropouts in public school? What are you even saying???

The Porn Paragraph
To quote you, "If a person was exposed to these things young enough, they could begin to think that beating and raping women is the norm in real life." Yes porn can be objectifying, though there was that whole feminist porn movement so it doesn't have to be objectifying to women. I think there is something you either forgot or never really understood. YOU are saying that Christianity DOES make a person better. I am NOT arguing from a position that being a Christian makes you bad, but arguing against the proposition that it makes someone BETTER. By pointing out the rape perpetuated by Catholic priests, this is evidence against the idea that Christianity is a positive influence on someone's life, or that being a Christian makes you more moral.

"This is an obvious slippery slope."
Here is the definition of a slippery slope argument, "
In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question." I think you mean guilt by association fallacy, but I don't think I committed that. My mentioning of the Christian intolerance of gays especially was evidence that being a Christian or the Christian surroundings did not make a positive benefit. You kind of stopped arguing for your position after round one, by the way, even after affirming that you have the burden of proof here.

"I didn't quote you that the Church caused AIDS."
To quote you, "Then you say that the Catholic Church single-handedly caused HIV." You didn't quote me, but I was saying that, next time, please do. Also, this is pretty much an admittance, in this paragraph, that the Christian teachings and lifestyles is not, necessarily, beneficial or leaves a positive impact on the world. The doctrine is flawed, and because it is flawed any actions done following outdated, archaic, and down right hideous teachings are, themselves, outdated, archaic, and hideous. While we are talking about flawed Christian understandings, what about the impact the churches have had on teaching evolution in school? Or gay conversion camps? Or Christian terrorist groups? The Phineas Priesthood is an active Christian terrorist organization that has struck in Austin fairly recently (1).

"God said "Thou shall not kill"'.
He also said that any man that lieth with man as he lies with women (because lesbians don't exist) then he shall surely be put to death. If anything, this man is following Scripture more than you are. What about Sodom and Gomorrah? What about the Great Flood? God has absolutely no problem with murdering people in cold blood.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Moulder 2 years ago
Christianity is very beneficial to everyday life. Well, that is unless you're gay. Or if you identify with the opposite gender. Or if you had the fortune of being born out of wedlock, in which you will face countless discrimination from various Christian circles. I've met plenty of irreligious individuals who have morals, and their morals are a lot less destructive than the "god-inspired" morals of the Church.
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
Lovely, another person who thinks that religious people are somehow more moral than irreligious people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by chrisjachimiak 2 years ago
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate overall. Con, had great arguments, that's why I felt he won. Pro kind of got killed in today's debate. Good Job Con, even though I agree with Pro on a religious standpoint, you definitely won the debate.