The Instigator
Korezaan
Pro (for)
Tied
19 Points
The Contender
FiredUpRepublican
Con (against)
Tied
19 Points

Debate.org should implement "open boxes" instead of "drop-and-select" for religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,151 times Debate No: 3110
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (12)

 

Korezaan

Pro

By "open" I mean the boxes where we can type, like for the "Favorite Quote", "About Me", and "What I Believe" sections. Personally I think it's really discriminatory against people that are of "minor" religions, like mine, I'm part of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and I also believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.... but I can't pick that out of the list!!!!

Why shouldn't people of minor religions be able to speak their own? :(
FiredUpRepublican

Con

Your reasons are one of the main factors as to why we don't have open boxes for religions.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Unicorn are products of Atheists taking an aim at Christianity. The "religions" are a farce and work to only bring attention to how ridiculous they believe organized religion to be. To say you "believe" in such ridiculous rhetoric is just adding fuel to the fire in terms of being offensive to those who do believe in God and follow a religion.

Debate.org is apparently a place that is supposed to be a cut above as far as intelligence, respect, and debating. Why promote such blatantly offensive things to get a rise out of opposing views and cause an all out verbal war?

To say that you are a "member" of an internet "church" that isn't even serious is just baiting for a Christian to come to this debate and debate Christianity. But I refuse to do so, I will only go this far with it:

Your argument will most likely be that Christianity is made up too. Christianity has had more evidence going for it than the Flying Spaghetti Monster will ever have. Christianity is the number one religion of the world, the most controversial religion in the world, and the most studied. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just childish Atheist tactics to take a shot at Christians and other religions. It accomplishes nothing as far as validity, and isn't really funny as most educated people reject moronic behaviors.
Debate Round No. 1
Korezaan

Pro

You know the things I said about me believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) last round?

I lied. I'm just a guy that doesn't believe in any supernatural powers. Drop those points. Since they are no longer advocated in this round, he can't make any impact whatsoever out of those args by turning them. Anything in this round that is based off of my "belief" in FSMism or IPUism is no longer relevant. This debate, as all of you can see by the topic, is about whether or not Debate.org should implement open boxes for religion instead of a drop-and-select option. With that said,

The thesis of his case to negate the resolution is that there is potential abuse. I have several other responses which I'll place in the line-by-line respones, but this whole idea of "abuse is the reason why we shouldn't have this" doesn't make sense at all. It's not a reason to negate at all. (These next two arguments are to the thesis of his case, therefore they are counted as overviews. If he does not respond to these refutations, he has necessarily lost the debate.)

1) Absolutely everything can be abused in some way. Impact turn: His thesis is that we shouldn't be going PRO on this topic because it can be abused. Under this line of reasoning things would become extremely insensible, because absolutely everything has the capability of being abused. His usage of the precautionary principle is bad because everyone would end up just not moving at all due to Chaos Theory (the Butterfly Effect).

2) There's a price for everything we do. Allowing users on this site to create their own debates, create their own topics, and create their own arguments, necessarily opens up this site to abuse; having people throwing profane words at each other, and using personal insults. This is the cost of creativity. This impacts into the debate in 2 ways: First, he needs to prove that by going PRO on this topic, that the people offended by the people on this site that are going to be offended by abusers of the system somehow outweigh, or are better than, the people who will benefit from being able to say what they truly are, and Second, if he's going to keep his position on this topic, he will need to show why the use of the precautionary principle on this specific topic will create specific effects, otherwise, we'll just have to assume that he wants us all to sit on our beds, close our eyes, and do nothing because we're inevitably going to make SOMEONE feel bad. Of course, if he advocates that I'd be happy to debate that as well.

Line-by-Line. ("You" is now my FiredUpRepublican)

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Unicorn are products of Atheists taking an aim at Christianity. The "religions" are a farce and work to only bring attention to how ridiculous they believe organized religion to be. To say you "believe" in such ridiculous rhetoric is just adding fuel to the fire in terms of being offensive to those who do believe in God and follow a religion."

1) It doesn't matter if the history and the beginning of this religion is abhorrent; heck, Christianity advocated the stoning of people that work on sundays and women not being able to speak in church! You don't see me saying that suddenly we shouldn't let Christians do X Y and Z actions just because their church used to do it.
2) Who are you to say what's a farce? Why are you dehumanizing those of minor religions???
3) Prove it. Prove that I'm just "adding fuel to the fire".
4) Ridiculous? I think a lot of people think that a burning bush, a great flood, the Ark, and the notion that the world is only 4000 years old are really ridiculous. So what? It doesn't mean we should not go PRO.

"Debate.org is apparently a place that is supposed to be a cut above as far as intelligence, respect, and debating. Why promote such blatantly offensive things to get a rise out of opposing views and cause an all out verbal war?"

1) What does "a cut above" mean???
2) Why does this link?
3) Or matter?
4) So opposing views are bad? Why are you on debate.org?

"To say that you are a "member" of an internet "church" that isn't even serious is just baiting for a Christian to come to this debate and debate Christianity. But I refuse to do so, I will only go this far with it:"

1) Who are you to say what's serious and what's not?
2) Uhh I didn't make this debate to "bait a Christian".

"Your argument will most likely be that Christianity is made up too. Christianity has had more evidence going for it than the Flying Spaghetti Monster will ever have. Christianity is the number one religion of the world, the most controversial religion in the world, and the most studied. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just childish Atheist tactics to take a shot at Christians and other religions. It accomplishes nothing as far as validity, and isn't really funny as most educated people reject moronic behaviors."

1) I never argued this.
2) Not a reason to negate.
3) I would like to see this "evidence" for Christianity
4) FSMism has their own holy text as well. Equal evidence.
K) Do you mean "evidence of truth"??? Cause I would love to see your citations.
5) I responded to this already
6) This does not negate the topic, all you're doing is insulting everybody that honestly believes that there is a flying spaghetti monster and there is an invisible pink unicorn.
7) STRAIGHT TURN: HE'S ADVOCATING A SYSTEM WHERE ALL WE CAN DO FOR THE FAITH INPUT IS A DROP AND SELECT, EITHER "Christian" OR "OTHER". HE'S SAYING THAT "CHRISTIANITY IS THE NUMBER ONE RELIGION IN THE WORLD" THEREFORE WE SHOULD ACTUALLY INSTEAD HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE THIS SITE BASICALLY GLORIFIES CHRISTIANS. THIS ARGUMENT IS TRUE BECAUSE HE NEVER PROVIDES ANY BRIGHTLINE FOR WHAT RELIGIONS SHOULD BE ON THE DROP AND SELECT SYSTEM AND WHICH SHOULDN'T; HE JUST SAYS "MORONIC RELIGIONS ARE WHY WE SHOULDN'T GO PRO". BUT "MORONIC" IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE; WE DON'T KNOW WHERE HIS BRIGHTLINE FOR A RELIGION IS AT. IS IT AT 1,000,000 BELIEVERS? IS IT AT 2,000,000? HMM? HE PROVIDED NO DEFINITIONS SO AT THIS POINT WE MUST ASSUME THAT HE ADVOCATES A CHRISTIAN/NONCHRISTIAN SYSTEM. AT THAT POINT WE'RE DEHUMANIZING PEOPLE EVEN MORE THAN WE ARE NOW; WE'RE SILENCING EVEN MORE PEOPLE.

Because "abuse" and "offended" are not reasons to negate,
And because none of my advantages have been sufficiently refuted,

You vote PRO.
FiredUpRepublican

Con

FiredUpRepublican forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Korezaan

Pro

I await my opponent's defense of his case.

Extend all of my arguments and responses from R2; they stand until they are refuted. If he brings up any new arguments other than the ones he presented in R1, don't take them into account when deciding who's won the debate, since any arguments presented in the last round are ones I cannot respond to and therefore that would be unfair.

Since I have shown that his points are not sufficient in order to not have open boxes for religion on this site, and since open boxes would allow people to define for themselves what they are exactly, and since this is a unique advantage to the affirmative case,

you vote PRO.
FiredUpRepublican

Con

FiredUpRepublican forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
whenever I *need, my bad.

I just find it really funny how people vote for dropped rounds.
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
I come to this page whenever I get a good laugh.

Conservatives.... hilarious, every time.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
cut it with the conspiracies hoosier....

as for the debate, I think it would be useful to know if someone's satanist or zoroastrian or ba'haii or whatever :D
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Voting Korezaan for obvious reasons. I want to have a theory debate with you Korezaan.
Posted by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
Listen guys, this is a fact.

The webmaster of this webpage obsessively monitors these debates, and pays particular attention to debates that ridicule the webpage, to see what users are saying.

If a user criticizes the webmaster, creator, or anyone affiliated with the website for the way it is run and the rediculous practices employed by said people involved with this site, the comment is immediately deleted, and the user's account is deleted.

This has happened to countless individuals I have spoken to on chat groups on aol, google, yahoo, and youtube.

This isn't a rumor, or a vendetta against anyone; it is an absolute fact. The people who run this site want you to debate certain things, by their rules. If you want to debate something even slightly controversial, outside of their conservative parameters, your account is immediatley deleted. If you bring up religion in a negative light, criticize a group (particularly a conservative group), discuss sex, even in responsible ways, your account is deleted and comments erased.

This apparently happens so many times that it cannot be attributed to a few malcontents who are goofing off online. I run multiple discussion groups on the afore-mentioned websites, and this group repeatedly comes up as a source of anger, dissatisfaction, and an example of something that peaked and is now in decline, because word is spreading that the people who run the site are absurd.

This comment itself will likely be deleted, if what I hear is true. In fact, I counted how many different people I have heard comments from (two separate discussion groups about the problems associated with debate.org have been started on google and yahoo). As of right now, 22 different account names, and presumably people, have told various stories, most of them quite different, about negative experiences with this website.

If you do not play by the conservative ideals & avoid criticizing the people who run this site, you get deleted.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by roycegee 8 years ago
roycegee
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 8 years ago
ronnyyip
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by FiredUpRepublican 8 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 8 years ago
wooferalot101
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Gear 8 years ago
Gear
KorezaanFiredUpRepublicanTied
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