The Instigator
sweetbreeze
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
devient.genie
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Devient.Genie Is Unnecessary

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 3 votes the winner is...
devient.genie
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,139 times Debate No: 37180
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (3)

 

sweetbreeze

Pro

Let's move on, devient.genie. This debate is about how you should stop attacking religion and start acting like a true 41 year old.

First round for acceptance only. This should be a clean and fun debate. Here we go. :)
devient.genie

Con

I accept. However, I want to point out an argument you used SweetBreeze in your previous debate " why wasn't jesus necessary? I mean, it's like saying that I don't need to exist, but I feel that I DO need to exist. And it's like saying that some random person out there doesn't need to exist"

So why isn't DevientGenie necessary? I mean, it's like saying that I don't need to exist, but I feel that I DO need to exist. And it's like saying that some random person out there doesn't need to exist :)
Debate Round No. 1
sweetbreeze

Pro

I had never said Devient.Genie didn't need to exist. I just said that his actions based on religions are unnecessary.

Devient.Genie is the one that should learn. I do not hate anyone. I know what he means, but he's saying it in an offensive way that causes everyone to be cheesed off with his immature, ignorant and aggressive behaviour. We're all just trying to help, so if he'd be pleased to listen to us PROPERLY, he will realise that he should take action in a more non-aggressive way and try not to offend anyone. Everyone (except him) knows that the way he says things show that he doesn't really want to help. I know he's only trying to inform people, but he shouldn't do it like he does now, because nobody will listen. He has his own beliefs and others have their own beliefs. If somebody comes up and calls science "nonsense" and attack Atheism and their beliefs, how would you feel, Devient.Genie? How would you react? The way you react about others' beliefs are all violence. It seems to me that you would react aggressively when others attack Atheism and science. Keep your cool. Please listen to me. Just keep your cool. Count quietly if necessary, but just calm down. It's not the end of the world. You shouldn't care about what others believe. Just worry about what you believe and live a peaceful life on this site. We're not going to force you to go, but your actions are simply unnecessary. Try to find a more non-aggressive way to take action than what you do now. Don't say that you do this because of brainwashed people. We are not brainwashed. You haven't learnt respect, so you really haven't learned anything. That is called brainwashed. You should take debates seriously.

Listen to us. Attacking religions is not the key to solving this. The only way to solve this is to wait until people prove religion wrong. Until then, just mind about your own stuff. It's not the end of the world that people think differently to you. As I said, if everyone thinks the same way, people would still think that the Earth is flat and that's just complete nonsense.

Yes, saying that Devient.Genie doesn't need to exist means that some random person out there doesn't need to exist, but they feel like they do. I have never said that Devient.Genie didn't need to exist. I only said that his actions on religion and beliefs are unnecessary. "Why wasn't Jesus necessary? I mean, it's like saying that I don't need to exist, but I feel that I DO need to exist. And it's like saying that some random person out there doesn't need to exist." Those words were said by me. Devient.Genie was trying to reject me by by pointing that out, but he hasn't clearly understood what I was trying to say in THIS debate. "This debate is about how you should stop attacking religion and start acting like a true 41 year old." THAT was what I meant by "Devient.Genie Is Unnecessary".

Now, it is my opponent's turn to defend his case.
devient.genie

Con

Im glad your offended. I am offended by the poison of religion that teaches children they are under the watchful eye of a god who drown his own children.

Freedom of speech was granted to those who say things that others dont like to hear. If you dont want to be offended, quit supporting religion, the single most destructive and divisive invention in the history of mankind.

It doesnt matter what I say, you will be offended, tell her what I mean Daniel:

There is no polite way to tell someone they have dedicated their life to a folly--Daniel Dennett :)

I have said it before and I will say it again, I will stop attacking religion when religion agrees to my terms:

1) Stop lying to children

2) Stop denying equal rights to children born with biological differences in sexuality or any other denial of equal treatment of humans

3) Stop disempowering women. Misogyny is as common in all religions, as sand is to all beaches

4) Get the (f)(u)(c)(k) out of our schools with your creationist nonsense

5) Get over your separation anxiety between church and state

6) Stop impeding the advancement of stem cell research because of your childish belief there is a soul in a 4 day old blastocyst

7) Pay taxes on your corrupt poison factories that you call churches, synagogues and mosques

8) Give up your circus events with your book. Meaning get your stupid book of filth out of court rooms and quit having our elected representatives swearing on that vile trash as well

9) Admit you dont need religion to have morals. If you dont know right from wrong, you lack empathy, Not religion

10) Admit its more important for mankind to grow up instead of being born again.

Until all 10 demands are met, I would suggest religious leaders get comfortable in their dresses and any government elected officials that attempt to proliferate the agenda of a cult, all remain seated until ride comes to a complete stop.
Debate Round No. 2
sweetbreeze

Pro

I thank my opponent for trying to throw a rotten egg at me. :)

Once again, you were rejected. I was not one single bit offended. I know your goals for this debate; to offend your opponent and to make people agree with you on religion.

You don't know what's best for the world. You were not offended by the "poison of religion". There is no such thing as "poison of religion" or "religion poison". Allow me to clarify the word "poison":
1. A substance that causes injury, illness or death, especially by chemical means.
2. Something destructive or fatal.
3. Chemistry & Physics A substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction: a catalyst poison.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;

"Freedom of speech was granted to those who say things that others dont like to hear. If you dont want to be offended, quit supporting religion, the single most destructive and divisive invention in the history of mankind." I don't need to "quit supporting religion" if I don't want to be offended. It's not me that should quit suporting religion, but you should stop attacking religion and get on in life. What is your problem? Why do you think you know what's best and we don't? I know, you're older, but that doesn't make you any "smarter". Younger people can be just as smart or even smarter. A smart person would know that. Another thing, you fail too much logic, which is why you always get rejected.

"It doesn't matter what I say, you will be offended" Rejected again! I am fine, thank you very much, now stop trying to get me offended, because you achieve nothing. "Haha, in you face! You're offended!" Are you serious? If you're the one who's offended, then would you care? You need to grow up! You're 41 now and you're that immature? It's time you thought about others' feelings, Devient.Genie.

"Stop lying to children." You do not care about children. Don't use that as an excuse.
"Stop denying equal rights to children born with biological differences in sexuality or any other denial of equal treatment of humans." You don't seem to care about us at all. All you do is say that so you can attack and attack so you can say that!

And all the things you've pointed out, you just use them as an excuse for attacking religion! You should know that you can do all those demands by yourself and you're non-religious friends! You don't have to tell everyone to do it. You're not the king of the world, and besides, all humans are equal, so you're not the boss. Stop thinking that you know everything that's good for the world and not us. We have our rights, and we keep them.

These are beliefs, so how are you 100% sure that they're all fake and science is always real? You don't know at all, you believe.

Remember, scientists are normal people like all of us. They're are not "Mr Right"s. it's not like their hypothesis is not always correct, Just like when Galvani thought that there was animal electricity, that was not real.
devient.genie

Con

I will fight ignorance and stupidity that infects government, and schools until either the ignorance and stupidity dies or I die.

I will hold religion in contempt until either religion dies or I die.

I am not interested in incessant whining about coddling ignorance that has poisoned society so much, that childish beliefs about a sky daddy are dividing people.

People should be ashamed as a 21st century human, but shame wont enter their feeble mind because they treat research and education like its a venomous spider and avoid it.

The sheer fact that humans in the 21st century do Not understand that homosapiens evolved over billions of years is because they turn a blind eye to evidence.

Religion impedes science and tells children Not to question life and to accept that they were created by a bully who ordered people stoned, committed the greatest act of genocide by flood in storytelling history and organized a human sacrifice in the middle east to show forgiveness.

Its pathetic and a disgusting insult to human intelligence.

When it comes to the truth, your beliefs, my beliefs, nobody's beliefs matter. Its whats we know and what we have evidence for that matters.

We have evidence of Evolution by natural selection, its a basic tenet of all biology.

Inability to comprehend biology, does not validate other beliefs, it only validates ignorance of biology :)

Deism and the idea of a creator, or intelligent designer, is one of the greatest illusions of all time.

A true intelligent understanding of evolution and science, is so corrosive to religious beliefs, that John Scopes went to trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution in school, just 88 yrs ago.

That same level of ignorance, caused by the poisonous effects of religion, that took John Scopes to trial, is why equal rights in a court of law are even an option in 2013.

If there is No religion, then marriage in a court of law is as controversial as eating a Snickers bar on break :)

Denying scientific evidence of cumulative evolution by Non random natural selection, is the equivalent to denying water is H20.

This isnt a joke. Here is a mere microscopic number of references.

Evolution in action: Lizards moving from eggs to live birth-- National Geographic 2010...Its happening today!!

Cornell University 10 Mis-Understandings of evolution.

Everything you need to know about evolution University of Berkley

Baylor University (baptist college) FAQ page on evolution

The Smithsonian Institute: Evolution

Due to billions of years of evolution, humans share genes with all living organisms. The percentage of genes or DNA that organisms share records their similarities. We share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us.

Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.

DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago.

Through news accounts and crime stories, we"re all familiar with the fact that the DNA in our cells reflects each individual"s unique identity and how closely related we are to one another. The same is true for the relationships among organisms. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the molecule that makes up an organism"s genome in the nucleus of every cell. It consists of genes, which are the molecular codes for proteins " the building blocks of our tissues and their functions. It also consists of the molecular codes that regulate the output of genes " that is, the timing and degree of protein-making. DNA shapes how an organism grows up and the physiology of its blood, bone, and brains.

DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another " and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule " about 0.1%, on average " study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes " we are one.

It is far more beautiful and magical when you see life thru the gorgeous eye of nature :)
Debate Round No. 3
sweetbreeze

Pro

"I will fight ignorance and stupidity that infects government, and schools until either the ignorance and stupidity dies or I die." Don't you mean "until ignorance and stupidity dies"? You don't want yourself to die, do you? You just want religions and religious beliefs to die, don't you? By the way, what do you mean, "ignorance and stupidity"? People have their own beliefs and they don't care if it's not proven. It's THEIR beliefs. They choose what they believe in, not you. It's good that people think differently, because if people all think the same things, by now, people would still think that the Earth is flat and it's just complete nonsense. Anyway, if religion is bad for the government and schools, shouldn't it be banned by now?

"I will hold religion in contempt until either religion dies or I die." What is it with you and religions? Like I said, it's THEIR beliefs and THEY choose what they want to believe in, not you. You are not them. Lots of people get cheesed off by people pretending to be them. You don't know what's best for the world. Stop thinking that you do. We were not born yesterday.

"I am not interested in incessant whining about coddling ignorance that has poisoned society so much, that childish beliefs about a sky daddy are dividing people." You don't care about people being divided. If you're so not interested, why are you talking about it anyway? I mean, why are you keeping your mind on it? It doesn't make any sense that you're not interested, but keep your mind on it.

"People should be ashamed as a 21st century human, but shame won’t enter their feeble mind because they treat research and education like its a venomous spider and avoid it." People do not "avoid research and education". It's not because they think like that, that they're uneducated and lack logic. It’s THEIR beliefs. Having beliefs is not called being uneducated. How about if someone calls you uneducated for relying on science and for being an Atheist? That’s exactly how it is with religion and religious beliefs. By the way, you made a grammatical error. "it's", not "its".

You’re 41 now, and you start acting like a mature adult, not an immature and intolerant 10 year old.

"Its pathetic and a disgusting insult to human intelligence." Religion doesn't affect human intelligence. How about if someone says that science is an insult to human intelligence? It's just like it is with religion.

"When it comes to the truth, your beliefs, my beliefs, nobody's beliefs matter. Its whats we know and what we have evidence for that matters." You chose to believe in science. It's fine by me and everyone, but you're simply not respecting others' beliefs. Respect is a main key in life. If you haven't learnt respect, you really haven't learnt anything. Like I said before, it's THEIR beliefs and they don't care if there's no evidence to it. How are you so sure (like 100% sure) that religion is false? How do you think you know so much? More evidence? There's no evidence to religion (yet), but Evolution and Big Bang are theories, just like the Creation. So, would you consider Big Bang and Evolution fantasies, just like it is with Creation? Look, they're all theories. Evolution and Big Bang are theories of scientists and Atheists. Creation is a theory of Christianity. How are you 100% sure that Big Bang and Evolution are real and The Creation is false? You don't know, you believe. Science is not always true. A scientist is not a "Mr Right". Well, religion has evidence too. The Bible, Quran, etc. Why can't they be used as evidence? Because they're more illogical than science evidence? You can't say that religion OR science is logical.

"A true intelligent understanding of evolution and science, is so corrosive to religious beliefs, that John Scopes went to trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution in school, just 88 yrs ago." Look, science and evolution are beliefs of Atheism. You can't compare it with religious beliefs. A true intelligent, really? True intelligence isn't based on religion, OK? Religion and religious beliefs do not affect people's intelligence.

People choose to believe science because it seems logical because of evidence. Evidence - that's the thing isn't it? People think that science is always right, so if someone doesn't believe in it and chooses religion, then they are considered "uneducated." Well guess what, religion does have evidence, and that evidence is historical texts such as the Bible, Quran (or "Koran"), etc. Why can't those be considered evidence? Were they not written by people who experienced, saw, and felt God? One might argue that the people who wrote it had no interpretation of the world like science does, but science doesn't truly interpret the world either. Science is a set of beliefs on the small factors that make up the world and beyond, but isn't it all a set of ideas based on what they believe is evidence? It's illogical to say religion OR science is logical. Neither of them are logical. Is it logical to say a supreme being made two humans from dust and a rib to reproduce and create the world's population? No. Is it logical to say that apes somehow developed human emotions, feelings, and physical features over time? Not at all. But that's what they are; beliefs. To call someone uneducated and ignorant for being religious is just hypocritical and therefore, meaningless. By the way, no-one can say science is always right, considering scientists haven't even been able to explain what gravity really is yet.

People are not brainwashed, uneducated or ignorant for being religious. Science is a set of beliefs itself. If science is validated, why not religion?

To conclude, Devient.Genie is the one who should learn. He should find a different way to take action than to attack religion. Attacks and violence is never the key. He's been told this by many people, many times, but he ignores it. Sometimes, I wonder if he even reads properly...

Well, nice debating you, Devient.Genie. :)

devient.genie

Con

We've all heard many intellectuals inflict and support, ridicule and contempt for religion.

Now knowing that knowledge, that interestingly enough, the elite of the intelligentsia have a huge tendency to support the ridicule and contempt for religion, you can ask yourself why? and then simply dismiss it because its beyond your understanding. However, you should ask why, you should keep asking until you figure it out.

If you cant answer what came before nothing, you can either keep asking questions, discovering and learning with new tools, called sciences or you can stop asking questions and say "god did it", "its gods will", god works in mysterious ways"

Sciences, like any other tool, comes with different types. Each tool, or science, contributes something to our understanding the reality of the world we live in.

Math is the language of the universe, everything is either a variable or a constant. In the equation of life, the constant in religions mind is god, god is always the answer to every equation.

So now when you already have the answer, yet remember its life, youre gonna learn new better answers or you should be learning new improved answers when the variables are ALWAYS changing.

If the variables continue to change and change with the more we discover, you should naturally have a different answer, even if that answer is "I dont know" with the unlimited number of variables in life, thats an intelligent answer.

By having god as the answer to every equation, you will simply find a way to make the variables = god, instead of letting the variables = what they equal.

Instead, the religious mind takes the same book, but when confronted with a blatant contradiction, found a way to make the variables fit the answer, god is real.

This delusion is often defended by using labels like, allegories, parables, metaphors, or simply stated, opinions. Religious labels mean nothing. Labeling the space time continuum with BC and AD, prove nothing other than labels inspired by opinions :)

So if I plug all the variables that are in the many many different opinions of the bible, I will get different answers, called interpretations. Different interpretations are called religions for short.

Each religion is a different interpretation of how life on earth came to be, and why things are the way they are.

I dont want to JUST believe, I want to know. Since nobody knows everything, and its impossible to know everything, I can only go on probability. Science and I have that in common, we like to think in probabilities based on logic, reason critical thinking, and our secret weapon, EVIDENCE

Its more probable that the magnificent and beautiful universe is Not under the watchful eye of a celestial dictator that made an appearance in the middle east to let people know they shouldnt work on a certain day or it's a death sentence (exodus 35:2)

The same skepticism that killed Santa, is the same skepticism that kills the boogeyman, and tooth fairy, and when you have the courage to turn that skepticism up a notch, the intellectual honesty it bears is called atheism.

So if you want to stick your chest out and proliferate a poison, there is No John McCarthy to stop the fight. When I ridicule and hold religion in contempt, there's no referee stopping the fight because of that split in your head right above your eyebrow, Im gonna cave your whole face in :)

"I have been called arrogant myself in my time, and hope to earn the title again, but to claim that I am privy to the secrets of the universe and its creator " that's beyond my conceit. I therefore have no choice but to find something suspect even in the humblest believer--Christopher Hitchens

Geology is the study that shows us that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows us a fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the EXPLANATION that threads it all together! Creationism is the practice of squeezing your eyes shut, stomping your feet crying, "Does Not!"

Many scientists have described evolution as fact and theory. A fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.

Each of the words 'evolution', 'fact' and 'theory' has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time;t can also refer to explanatory theories such as Darwin's theory of natural selection which explain the mechanisms of evolution.

Fact can mean to a scientist a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can mean something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition.

To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture, but in the scientific world it is a "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people often end up talking past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested.

The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
he is aggressive coz he loose in debates. only age doesn't matter there is intelligence and also knowledge which u must be able to use and apply in correct way then u can do very well.
when u fail u try to destroy every thing else coz u are failed, and u want to see other also failed.
i don't think devient would be same guy when he had joined the site. coz if his failure he turned out to be what u see now.
Posted by Kumquatodor 4 years ago
Kumquatodor
I disliked what devientgenie said... but... I have to agree with him... At least partially.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Your definitioN of theory is for everyday use, in science a theory is backed up by facts. You are Not a science teacher, you are a flat out lying religitard virgin lover who says that someone disproved Darwin's evolution but has yet to say who that person was.

YOU ARE A FAKE LIAR!
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
bye bye
//:)
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
why should i take things in ur point of or in ur way.
u are giving me meaning of theory what u understand about theory.
but what those peoples says why not i take that meaning.
i gave u examples on which ur definition does not apply.
ok
i know there will come so restarted insane comment what u can do is call peoples with bad name and do mockery which most of u atheist do which is ur key.
u dont have any thing all shiit theories and guesses.
but u make and show them like real thing with the spice of mockery.
i already know how it sounds like.
lol
u behave like kids.
who when cant do against some body make monkey faces and make bad names and abuse and like that.
but cant do any real think.
grow up king of shiiit gene.
its completely wastage of time to mess up with the guy who have intellect of kid.
sorry for u.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
now today u are trying to discuss about theory.
hahahahahah.
hahahahahha.
peoples like u understand things next day indeed.
since when u start feeling to answer the question with and try to give logic.
which sucks so badly.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
i told u whatever stphen and richard says u believe blindly.
but whatever we say u behave like retarded.
its bull shiiit.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
u understand my shiit.
how do u know water is H2O when u cant see it.
have any body seen hydrogen atom.
its only believe and guesses.
water is right in front of u but u cant see thing yet believe but ALLAH is so far beyond ur reach n any sense still u reject his existence.
its non sense.
can u tell me from which microscope u can have seen water molecule is H2O.
its guess.
different phenomenon gave us some conclusion and on them whole science is based on.
man.
i am not saying water is not H2O but i am saying u believe we believe its H2O coz chemical reaction suggest that.
and its chemical and physical properties suggest that.
but when we say about GOD.
man why u start behaving like restarted saying we cant see him so he is not there.
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
borrow a brain from some one.
ok.
its 41 almost u have reached 60% of ur brain capacity.
in ur case coz of ur depression and desperateness u may have lost most of ur brain cell which expires in whole life other wise.
lol
Posted by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
our GOD is not on sky coz there is no direction in reality.
means infinite direction in three dimension.
coz the earth is round and sky is around it like shell.
so GOD is every where.
no in the sky.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
sweetbreezedevient.genieTied
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: Sweetbreeze presented a primarily emotional argument and chose a misleading title. From the vague opening statement, the central claim was never made clear, and "uneccesary" was never qualified. Sweetbreeze failed to meet her BoP, and her statements were riddled with unsupported claims, false analogies, hypocrisy, self contradiction, and outright lies. She never listed any of d.g's actions or argued for why they were unecessary. She was condescending ("count down..") and claimed that d.g does not care about the groups of people he mentioned and insulted him. She was off topic for much of the debate and used an irrelevant and weak semantic argument to try to dismantle d.g's phrase "the poison of religion." Conduct to d.g. On the other hand, devient.genie provided a decent explanation for why he feels his attitude towards religion is justified. He was off topic at times to, but arguments still clearly go to him.
Vote Placed by makhdoom5 4 years ago
makhdoom5
sweetbreezedevient.genieTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: really
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 4 years ago
TheAntidoter
sweetbreezedevient.genieTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: nac