The Instigator
zipper68
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dkice4
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Does religion have a negative or positive impact on society?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 81218
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

zipper68

Con

Religion has a very extreme negative impact on society, as shown in recent and old history. It is supposed to teach how human behavior should be managed, but it can be interpreted in so many different ways, which cause strife and even lead to wars. These aspects have been shown in recent and old history, proving that religion causes more harm than good. It has always caused conflict and always will cause conflict because religion is such a influential, misunderstanding and serious power in society.
Dkice4

Pro

I accept your debate as a Christian. The most striking part of your argument is your claim that "it [religion] has [ALWAYS] caused conflict and [ALWAYS] will cause conflict...". The simple fact of the matter is, this is not true. Frankly, using ALWAYS in an argument is fallacious, and secondly, religion does not ALWAYS cause strife. It is impossible in my judgement to deal with your indictments unless one intends to deal with them as a follower of a religion- Christianity in my case. Indeed, religion was the cause of the Crusades. Similarly, radical Islam was the cause behind 9/11. The entire number of wars throughout human history are too numerous too number, however, the wars fought over religion are countable. They comprise the minority of this statistic. An irreligious society, like Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, is more responsible for violence- up to 49,000,000 lives lost! Perhaps, a re-evaluation will show that your unction against religion is utterly irrelevant when you do not support your arguments as well.
Debate Round No. 1
zipper68

Con

It seems as if you have already started my 2nd debate for me. Yes your right, the nazi empire, Islamic battles and crusades are all large conflicts that happened in world history, and the order of these events proves that religious violence won't stop happening and will always continue. One of the most deadly wars in recent society was over the Nazi's religious aspect and I hope I don't have to remind you that around 50 million lives were lost in this war. That is more than the death count from the bubonic plague, or black death, which diminished most of Europe and Asia. The Jewish religion was almost wiped out, and over 60% of the Jewish population in Europe was demolished. Doesn't this prove that religion causes more harm? Like you also said before, Islamic states are in battle right now, proving that these conflicts won't stop. When I stated in my 1st debate that religious conflict will ALWAYS happen I think my opponent and I knew that what was stated was what I have just said. That these conflicts will always continue and will always cause extreme damage to society and that they will never cease. My opponent, here, has already proven my point of the amount of harm religion has produced in society. I would like to give advice to my opponent, that he/she should stop arguing over debate structure, and that they should spare themselves from arguing the un-reasonable , senseless and foolish topic of how religion has a positive impact on society.
Dkice4

Pro

I do not think that the death toll of the Second World War is an insignificant statistic, but the motives behind this war, which accounts for the highest death tolls in the entire history of the world, did not include religion. Your withering toward my first statement that is suggested in your claim "doesn't this prove that religion causes more harm" following your Second World War discourse was none other than a tangent. Like I have stated before, an irreligious society, such as the former Soviet Union, or, say, North Korea, are prime examples of the evils of not having religion. Even an atheistic North Korea has created a form of worship, to their beloved leader, and the nation is a mortifying hell hole. Should Christianity come to North Korea, the nation would be, to some extent, a more livable place. In the deepness of this debate, however, is the inherent flaws of man. Man, regardless of how irreligiously moral he is, will still cause violence and war. That is an elementary fact of life-the evolutionary instincts of which you may be familiar? Religion seduces these useless vices: greed, jealously, or anger, that, to some, were once survival instincts. That is the pith of this argument here. Religion, according the Oxford Dictionary, is "faith, belief, worship, etc." How degrading one would be being devoid of faith! My opponent has done a considerable amount of calling religion's positive impact on society "foolish" but has done so by forgetting the very morals that religion itself teaches. Therefore, my conclusion on his most recent argument is that his attacks on religion are not on ALL religions, but on Christianity and the like. If that were not the case, he should explain his arguments to a few Greek monks in the mountains of Athos, and their effect on society, or, perhaps, the Bhikkhu of Thailand and the evil that their religion has wrought on the world.
Debate Round No. 2
zipper68

Con

zipper68 forfeited this round.
Dkice4

Pro

It appears that my opponent has forfeited this round, therefore, I will continue my views on why region has been a positive force on society. We need to ask this question, "what, in fact, has religion done positively on society?". For instance, we need to eliminate the psychic humiliations of my opponent's view that "religion has a very extreme negative impact on society," of course. Frankly, religion's positivity is hardly articulated in our modern day society. The easiest and most known impact of religion on society is the principled texts of hundreds of years of ascetics. I will use the Bible, for example, for the sake of my knowledge and clarity. The Bible teaches man to refine his inner morality into a form of love. Religion, put simply, provides hope to the hopeless, and faith to the faithless. Is this something that needs to be so adamantly devoid of people and slandered by people of the likes of an atheistic group? If atheists denounce even the possibility of God, then why are they so adamant of disproving him? That is not only a paradox, but a hypocritical notion. The best selling book in this world is the Bible; that speaks volumes about its positive effect on society and the family- the family is the foundation of society, as a matter of fact. Therefore, is religion in the wrong when it comes to violence or is man? Is a fork in the wrong when someone becomes obese, or is the person? I believe it to be the latter.
Debate Round No. 3
zipper68

Con

zipper68 forfeited this round.
Dkice4

Pro

I am upset that my opponent continues to forfeit, perhaps he is busy. I believe then, that I have all deliberate rights to win this debate. Considering my opponent's only argument, of which I eloquently argued against, is proper enough to leave me in the right. Sorry that it did not continue as a proper debate should have.
Debate Round No. 4
zipper68

Con

zipper68 forfeited this round.
Dkice4

Pro

It's a shame. I was looking forward to a great debate! In summary, religion does far more good to society than negative. I have proven this throughout my arguments with the examples that I have provided concerning certain areas of the world that are destitute of religion. Any evil that befalls a society, for the most part, is due to the foolish character that is inherent in men without religion. My opponent is thanked for allowing me this opportunity.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Dkice4 1 year ago
Dkice4
That's very kind of you zipper68.
Posted by zipper68 1 year ago
zipper68
Id like to deeply apologize to my opponent and the audience of this debate. Yes I am a very busy person and I had not been able to continue my debates on this current account. This debate could have been very interesting and fun, and their is not a good exuse for my absence. Hopefully I will have more time in the near future to have a new or similar debate with Dkice4 because he has shown to be a understanding and skilled debater. I had a great time debating with the time I had and I hope I will have another chance in the future.
Posted by zipper68 1 year ago
zipper68
Id like to deeply apologize to my opponent and the audience of this debate. Yes I am a very busy person and I had not been able to continue my debates on this current account. This debate could have been very interesting and fun, and their is not a good exuse for my absence. Hopefully I will have more time in the near future to have a new or similar debate with Dkice4 because he has shown to be a understanding and skilled debater. I had a great time debating with the time I had and I hope I will have another chance in the future.
Posted by WileyC1949 1 year ago
WileyC1949
Sorry... I have my pros and cons mixed up in the previous comment.
Posted by WileyC1949 1 year ago
WileyC1949
Even wars which have been defined as having a "religious" nature most often were fought in reality for non-religious purposes. While the banner to attract warriors in the Crusades was to "Save the Holy Land!" its underlying purpose was to seize control of the Asian trade routes through the fertile crescent. Control of Jerusalem was key to controlling that trade.

Pro overlooks the fact that "religion" does not fight wars. People do, and yes sometimes they are deluded to do so for religious purposes. To place the blame for people's violence on a religion which teaches non-violence is a non-sequitur. Place the blame where it belongs... on people.

Con however is correct that Pro's use of the superlative "always" dooms him to a logical failure as all Con need do is to point to the good that religion has done for various societies.
Posted by DTS 1 year ago
DTS
I disagree with you both. I think all wars are started for financial gain. Gold, Silver, etc... Religion is just a way of gathering money and willing slaves. For capitalists it is the worship of money. For Religion it is swindling of fortune from those afraid of death and will believe any story that continues their being.
No votes have been placed for this debate.