The Instigator
shaancl_716
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Interval
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Christians oppressed in the US

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 3 votes the winner is...
Interval
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,298 times Debate No: 71377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (3)

 

shaancl_716

Con

Thank you to anyone who accepts my debate.

Here is my opening argument:

A recent Pew study found that white American evangelical Christians think they experience more discrimination than blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists or Jews. Really? Christianity is the majority religion in the U.S. Many kinds of legally ensconced religious privileges are on the rise including the right to woo converts in public grade schools, speculate in real estate tax-free, repair religious facilities with public dollars, or opt out of civil rights laws and civic responsibilities that otherwise apply to all. I have personally experienced being discriminated against because I am an atheist. A woman at work flat out told me I wasn't because I was too nice of a person, and when I came out to my mother and told her she blew me off and said, "I wish to have a pleasant evening." In America, you are labeled as a Christian until you say otherwise. There are schools dedicated to Christianity, magazines, television shows and channels, magazines, the ten commandments are being displayed around public places. And let us not forget how Christians are the majority in the United States.
Interval

Pro

Christian oppression is fully possible and does happen in the modern world. That's not to say that it is common, but as the resolution makes no specific statement that it has to be the status quo, any amount of christian oppression proved by my side means that I must win the round. And there is in fact christian oppression. Obviously not a lot of it, but it does exist. The same pew study that my opponent referred to was misinterpreted by her. The entirety of the study basically argues that christian oppression occurs, but on a global scale. Specifically they talked about North Korea and a few other areas where christian oppression was particularly strong. However, as the resolution specifically deals with the US we can not look to these examples for winning the debate. Fortunately, at the end of the article the Pew Research center posted a graph in which they showed the median social hostilities in a number of countries. At the bottom of the graph is the Americas. They were rated with a index of .4 which, although small, allows my side to win. Again, as the resolution does not specify we can assume that ANY oppression which occurs proves my side correct. And the evidence which I provided clearly does just that.

Here is the link if you would like to see: http://cnsnews.com...

Additionally, my opponents primary argument against the resolution was personal examples that she brought up. Evidence of this kind is completely subjective and therefore can be disregarded. It is impossible to prove a point only using personal examples, you must have actual evidence.
For these reasons and many others, I urge votes in favor of my side of the argument.
Debate Round No. 1
shaancl_716

Con

My opponent pointed out that I have addressed personal reasons why I feel the way I do about my stance on the matter. I am taking a course at my college in which my professor has stated, in order to have a well balanced argument you must incorporate examples of having a strong ethos, logos and pathos. Pathos includes having personal examples and reasoning's as well as stories. Therefore I wish voters to discredit my opponents demand for votes. My opponent also fails to see the other points I have made. Christians in the United States have a privilege above all other. No other religion in America is as glorified as Christianity. If you take a look at the checklist I have provided you can see exactly what benefits you will receive from being a Christian. I will have to state however, I disagree with number 19. "You can travel to any part of the country and know your religion will be accepted, safe, and you will have access to religious spaces to practice your faith." Now it is true that most countries will accept Christianity but specifically I am referring to the Middle East where Christians are not looked favorably. But I am also arguing for the fact there are a lot more advantages of being a Christian in the US. Not globally.

Here is the link:
https://humanities.asu.edu...
Interval

Pro

My opponent has not addressed my interpretation of the resolution, nor has my opponent attacked or discredited my evidence , so we can assume that these must flow through. To reiterate the points that I previously brought up, I said that because the resolution states nothing about the status quo regarding Christian oppression, any instance of christian oppression that I bring up, so long as it is in the United States, must win the round. In order to satisfy that requisite I brought up median social hostilities in a number of countries, including the US. As the US does in fact have an index at all, it must mean that there is some level of hostility against Christians, hence oppression. Additionally, the resolution makes no provision for time; it only states Christians oppressed in the US. Thus, we can infer that any incident concerning oppression of Christians at any point in the history of America must make the pro win. So, I would like to cite two instances: "In Massachusetts, a convent"coincidentally near the site of the Bunker Hill Monument"was burned to the ground in 1834 by an anti-Catholic mob incited by reports that young women were being abused in the convent school." As well as the Mormon persecution with instances throughout the 1830s and 40s. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...) This evidence empirically proves that there was, and is Christian Oppression. Admittedly, there is extremely little in the modern day, but the resolution does not restrict the debate solely to the modern time.

My opponent basically stated that because there is a lot of Christian privileges that there is no oppression. This is inherently fallacious logic; simply because there is a surplus of Christians being pampered by no means proves that there is no oppression. There are a lot of rich white people, but just because some are rich does not mean that all are. My opponent is making an enormous generalization, and has not provided any evidence that there is no oppression. The only argument she has brought up is a weak inference that oppression might not be there. As I have provided evidence that there is in fact Christian oppression there can be no other ballet but that of the Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
shaancl_716

Con

I would like to post another poll on the percentage of Americans who feel Christians are oppressed to appease my opponent.
http://www.wnd.com...
My opponent believes even though there are countless privileges that Christians have still means that they face oppression. I would love to have an answer for my next question.. How can the majority of a country be oppressed? Also, my opponent failed to realize that this debate is referring to Christians in the present. I do not believe that an incident in 1834 has any relevance to this argument. However I will accept it. Christians on a daily basis deny liberties such as women's reproductive rights, the ability for the LGBT community to be wed and even in certain states not allowing someone who is atheist to run for office. Christianity is shoved in the faces of children in school (ex. the pledge) and it is on our money (In God We Trust) Clearly pro realizes that Christians control the United State especially in politics. There is a fabulous quote by Jon Stewart which captures Christian oppression exactly, "Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively."

My opponent believes that stating a few acts against Christianity can prove it's oppression. However, more recently there have been several acts of great violence that have been committed by Christians.
Click the link below to view such atrocities:
http://www.alternet.org...

Also referring to my opponents examples of Christian Oppression in the past I would like to bring up these instances:
http://markhumphrys.com...

I believe that I have brought up several more examples than Pro. So please take what I have stated and my evidence into consideration while voting.
Thank you
Interval

Pro

My opponent has failed to understand the resolution. If the resolution specifically stated that "The majority of Christians in the US, during the present time period, are oppressed", THEN her arguments would be valid. Fortunately this resolution is extremely broad, and as such, a wide variety of arguments can be made. Based on this resolution, the burden of proof falls upon the Pro (me). That means that I must prove the resolution true, and my opponent must disprove me. As I have brought up twice before, the way in which the resolution is phrased allows for the Pro to win if they can prove ANY instance in which Christians were/are oppressed. Because of this the only way that my opponent can win is to either disprove, discredit, or otherwise find a way to show that ALL of my instances of Christian oppression are false. My opponent has completely failed to make any attack of the kind and as such, the pro MUST win this debate.

I will answer the question that my opponent brought up, "How can the majority of a country be oppressed" in two different ways. First, I will directly answer the question. There have been numerous cases in the past in which the minority oppressed the majority. Think dark ages, when kings (who were a minority) ruled over peasants (the majority). Since my opponent also seems to think that the past is irrelevant, here is a modern day example: North Korea. The present dictator rules over the working class, which far outnumber the single ruler. I think that my opponent would agree with me when I say that the working class in North Korea is oppressed. Now for my second response: this question is irrelevant. As I have been explaining throughout my arguments, the resolution does not require majority oppression for the pro to win; only any example of Christian oppression.

The primary attack that my opponent made against my case is that Christians oppress others. I am not going to debate as to whether this evidence is an accurate interpretation of the facts. This is because all of the evidence she brought up doesn't matter. Now, as calloused as that may seem, it's true. If we were debating as to whether Christians oppress others, then her evidence would actually be applicable. Unfortunately, we are debating as to whether there are cases of Christian oppression, not if they oppress others. Read the resolution carefully. "Christians oppressed in the US" I think that we can all assume that it basically means "Are Christians oppressed in the US". Notice that the resolution does not specify a time period, or whether we are weighing the acts of non-Christian violence against the acts of pro-Christian violence. The resolution is only asking if there are ever acts of Christian oppression. Because of this, it doesn't matter how many times the Christians caused harms. The way the resolution is designed means that we are ONLY looking at whether there is, or is not Christian oppression. Which I have empirically proved in my past arguments. To reiterate the past arguments: there were a number of cases of Christian oppression. I only cited two, but if you look at the article, there are much more. These two instances were when a mob burned down a Catholic building due to anti-Catholic feelings at the time, the other was the persecution that the Mormons suffered (frequent tar-and-featherings, destruction of property, and murders of Mormons). If this isn't enough, in my first argument I brought up the fact that the United States AT THE PRESENT TIME has a measurement of social hostility against Christians, thus oppression.

The main issue that has been brought up throughout this round has been the interpretation of the resolution. My opponent has not offered any actual reasons for her interpretation for the resolution; instead she only stated that the resolution refers to present day (which it doesn't, for reasons that I have gone over several times in my argumentation). For unexplained reasons my opponent also assumed that the resolution is "on balance" which it clearly does not state. "On balance" means that we have to take into consideration all factors, in order to determine whether the resolution is upheld. If this resolution was "on balance" THEN it would matter if she had more evidence than I did. The resolution does NOT state that "On balance, Christians are oppressed in the US". It only asks if they are (or have been) oppressed. Again, the burden of proof falls on the pro, and I have upheld the resolution. The only way in which my opponent could have won, is if she had attacked my actual evidence of Christian oppression. She completely failed to do so, and for these reasons I urge you to vote in favor of the Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by reece 2 years ago
reece
@Daktoria You're Appealing to consequences?
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
This is especially in academia where the goal is to be deliberately irreligious and give haven to atheists, even to the point of letting atheists act up. Liberals don't care about personal responsibility, retributive justice, or holding people responsible for their actions, so their haven for atheists ends up being the type that abuses religious people who believe in universal principles. On top of that, liberals engage in historical, not analytical, interpretations of prejudice. For example, liberal feminism and multiculturalism don't consider who people are as individuals on the inside that counts based on universal principles, but rather they judge people as collectives and assume that prejudice and privilege take place. On top of that, academia is where said feminism and multiculturalism is taught and initially practiced in your history and English classes as well as how authorities administer discipline.

Put simply, the fact that you're still going to college should very easily give you exposure to how Christians get discriminated against, and we're not talking about those Christians who appeal to folk community common sense just to be anti-intellectually stuck in their ways and constantly appeal to dogmas. We're talking about those Christians who genuinely believe in objective morality and reason just like rational atheists do. They care about context-free principles, yet they get discriminated against by wise guys, lazy bums, and spoiled brats who form cliques because they want to get something for nothing and bully others around into doing their dirty work.
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
Maybe, but it's your fault for not informing us about that. When you make an appeal to personal experience (which you shouldn't since just because you experience something doesn't mean you experience everything), you should be grateful for any investigation done on your background such as reading that you're going to college in Virginia. Yes, it could be read that you like New York sport teams, but it doesn't have to be. On top of that, where someone's going to school is a more serious commitment than the sport teams someone's a fan of.

On top of that, if you're from New York, then you should know that all Catholics aren't Evangelical, and you should know how liberal New York is, so it should be very easy to understand how Christians are discriminated against.
Posted by shaancl_716 2 years ago
shaancl_716
I am from New York, my family is Catholic.
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
Lastly, Con seems to be generalizing a belief based on the fact that she lives in the south. Virginia is a rather religious state, but if you were to compare Virginia to New York or California, you'd see a huge difference. On top of that, she's ignoring how all Christians aren't evangelical. For example, in New York, you have a huge Italian Catholic population. In Massachusetts, you have a huge Irish Catholic population. In Illinois, you have a huge Polish Catholic population. These groups don't relate with what she's talking about whatsoever.
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
Also, I was seriously tempted to vote bomb because MrJosh's RFD makes no sense at all. He sympathized with statistics when discrimination isn't about statistics yet it manipulates statistics as an excuse, and tolerated Con lying about the name of the debate. Con advertised the debate as something, but then in her opening statement, argued a different point. MrJosh then said that Pro referred to historical oppression, but the fact is Pro also referred to present oppression. In essence, Pro's argument is a compromise with how Con carried on tangents, but MrJosh didn't appreciate that.

In other words, it appears that MrJosh is a wise guy, identified Con as a wise guy, and voted against Pro in a sense of fraternity among wise guys.
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
Con probably would have done better if she understood how all Christians aren't the same, and that the discrimination some endure isn't the discrimination everyone endures. For example, some Christians are about conforming to norms for the sake of anti-intellectual folk community common sense, so it's rather ridiculous to believe these people are discriminated against. If anything, they discriminate against others. On the other hand, other Christians believe in universal principles instead of absolute practices, and these Christians can be easily discriminated against by wise guys who just want to screw around. Unfortunately, Con generalized all Christians as one and the same group, so it was very hard to sympathize with much if not anything she said.
Posted by reece 2 years ago
reece
Type in "churches" on Google maps and then zoom in on the border Between Canada and the US. It's interesting.
Posted by logicinlife 2 years ago
logicinlife
Voice-of-Truth, it is funny that you mention that. Whenever I converted I became more aware of discrimination of Christianity, but of course it is not as severe in the USA as it is in other countries, which I think is an obvious statement. Interestingly away, the discrimination I have noticed in the last year against Christians would be the same-sex-marriage advocates shutting down bakers and photographers who specialize in weddings. The advocates end up shutting down these small town businesses because the owners don't wish to participate in a wedding that they believe is wrong. I think discrimination in the USA has become more of a psychological war opposed to physical violence that we have seen in the 60's-70's and so forth. That isn't to say, though, that there still aren't physical acts caused by discrimination.
Posted by Joss_Whedon 2 years ago
Joss_Whedon
Everybody hates everyone that doesn't agree with them. Until that hatred harms you or denies your rights, just sit down and shut up.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
shaancl_716IntervalTied
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: The primary reason for this decision, as PRO pointed out, is that CON wasn't able to support her position because of the wording of the resolution. The arguments made by PRO are indeed of valid nature because the resolution states, "Christians oppressed in the US." This is neither strictly present or past tense, so arguments from the past ARE valid. Secondly, CON's arguments continually insinuated a fallible cause-effect situation. She stated that because Christians have religious freedom (i.e. her examples), then the effect is no possible way of discrimination or oppression. Yet, this is not the case. While Obama has liberty to be in office and a lot of power, that doesn't mean he is not oppressed. Furthermore, we must see the Christian religious basis of the founding of this country, and the laws that were set into place during its founding. Other than the flawed resolution and invalid arguments, CON did do pretty well. Criticisms aside, great job to both debaters! :)
Vote Placed by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
shaancl_716IntervalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's problem is she doesn't understand what discrimination is. In fact, statistics are often used to rationalize discrimination by stereotyping people and claiming that exceptions to the rule are statistically insignificant. By making this a numbers game, Con ignored how discrimination is a qualitative, not quantitative action. It doesn't matter how often something happens. What matters is whether it happens or doesn't. Furthermore, the debate wasn't about whether or not Christians are more discriminated against than others. It was just about whether or not Christians are discriminated against. Con confused an absolute debate topic with a relative one.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
shaancl_716IntervalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO tried to lawyer his/her way to a victory by citing that US Christians experience "Social Hostility" at a rate of 0.4%. However, CON's resolution is not that US Christians experience zero oppression. While somewhat vague, CON is really arguing against the claim that Christians are oppressed more than "blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists or Jews." PRO also tried to cite historical oppression, which fails because the resolution, although vague, is obviously in the present tense. Also, PRO loses conduct by trying to lawyer a win instead of focusing on debating the topic at hand.