The Instigator
TheOpinionist
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
shikha_badoga
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Humans could've lived without religion

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 2 votes the winner is...
TheOpinionist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 78098
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

TheOpinionist

Con

This beats discussing it in the comments. Let's debate for real.
shikha_badoga

Pro

yes and always yes
humans can live without religion........
Debate Round No. 1
TheOpinionist

Con

I will make my argument here, as my opponent failed to do.

Contention 1: The Political/Law Argument
Laws were based almost entirely on religion, as most of the societies in the past (and some today), were theocratic. Theocracies had a way of doing things way better than all of the other nations (see the British Empire, a theocratic monarchy). When religious countries were compared to secular countries, there was no question regarding who was more successful, Even secular countries' laws are rooted in religion. "Don't kill people"-Found in the Torah, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them"- Found in the Book of Matthew, The "Human rights" mentioned in the United States' founding documents are said to be endowed by a Creator. The list is endless.

Contention 2: The philosophical argument
Many of the great philosophers were religious and inspired by God. Here are a few [1]-

1) Thomas Aquinas
2) Immanuel Kant
3) Soren Kierkeggard
4) Emmanuel Levinas
5) Martin Buber
6) Alvin Plantinga
7) CS Lewis
8] Norman Geisler
9) Martin Luther
10) Francis Shaffer
1) NT Wright
2) Alister Macgrath
3) Ravi Zacharias
4) Tim Keller
5) William Lane Craig

Without religion, much of philosophy would be dead, as even atheist philosophers may not have been motivated to work because there was no deity to oppose.


Contention 3: The Moral Argument
Pretty basic.

  • Most charities are run for religious reasons
  • Religious people are nicer on average
  • Churches are places where addictions are cured, sadness is lifted, hope is given, faith is restored, and everybody can come together under One True God, no matter what their circumstances are. Religion is not "whites only." There are no signs saying "No girls allowed." Even gay people come to church (but that's for a different debate).

And my most important argument here: Religion has a civilising effect on people. Really, if there is no God, why don't we jut kill and rape as many people as we want? Is it because we have a conscience? No. Nothing happens after we all die, so why not live this life serving ourselves? That is the purely secular mindset. We'd all be screwed if that was how society was run.

I await my opponent's argument.


shikha_badoga

Pro

if you are talking about the law then i have also the list of few laws and about their religions here under
- Sati Pratha-The Bengal Sati Regulation, or Regulation XVII, A. D. 1829 of the Bengal Code was a legal act promulgated in British India under East India Company rule, by the then Governor-General Lord William Bentinck, which made the practice of sati or suttee"or the immolation of a Hindu widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband"illegal in all jurisdictions of British India and subject to prosecution.
- Mahabharata- Game of dice- draupadi gets insulted
- Ramayana- sita haran
- Jesus Christ- hurted by their own peoples

are few of the stories of religion...... which always hurted everyone...
Debate Round No. 2
TheOpinionist

Con

Please tell me you're a troll. The first law you bring up is completely plagiarized from WikiPedia. Since it's not your argument, I won't even address it. The rest of your argument is so unreadable that I can't interpret it enough to rebut to it. I ask the voters to take this into account when they score spelling/grammar. With that, my opponent didn't even bother to plagiarize rebuttals to everything, as he dropped contentions 2, 3, and 4.

Vote Con. Seriously.
shikha_badoga

Pro

aahahaha
I AM NOT A TROLL
and if you are supporting religion then it doesn't suits you to say troll to me
and argument is argument either is copied or self written...
And language I have used is Indian Terminology...
and one thing more the charities you know .....who use to serve poor, are how much loyal about their work ....???

I believe in the humanity.... which is the real religion....
not only laws will help people, world or universe.....
humans needs to get together for the welfare of society......
Debate Round No. 3
TheOpinionist

Con

I'll address my opponent's "arguments" as he made them, but before I start, I'd like to make sure we're clear that there are no new arguments in the last round, as we would be unable to respond to each other. I won't be making any new arguments, but instead will break down my opponent's statement point by point.

"I AM NOT A TROLL and if you are supporting religion then it doesn't suits you to say troll to me"

The derpiest of arguments...

1. I only called you a troll because your argument was so asinine that I couldn't interpet it. That's your problem, not mine.

2. No religion says "thou shalt not call out the obvious" Well, at least not the one that I follow. There are some weird ones out there.

"argument is argument either is copied or self written..."

Yes, and copying arguments without giving credit is illegal (dude, bold, italics, and underline This is some serious stuff)

It's called plagarism, and it's against the law.

"and one thing more the charities you know .....who use to serve poor, are how much loyal about their work ....???"

I'm not sure if you're familiar with a term called "Burden of Proof." Herein reffered to as "BoP," the burden of proof is normally put on the debater taking the affirmative side of the resolution (this is you). The burden basically makes you prove everything you say. You can't just be like "Christian charities are dishonest." You have to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that most, if not all Christian charities are dishonest. This is something you have failed to do, thus the statement is assumed to be proven false.

"I believe in the humanity.... which is the real religion."

Did you just defeat your own case? lol humanity can't survive without humanity. This satement is contradictory if Pro is correct.

"not only laws will help people, world or universe."

Are you suggesting we should have no laws? If you want another debate, I'd love to show you how stupid that is.

"humans needs to get together for the welfare of society......"

That's cute, but it has nothing to do with the resolution.

In conclusion:



  • My opponent dropped contentions 2, 3, and 4

  • My opponent plagarized his rebuttal for contenion 1

  • The rebuttal wasn't even good

  • My opponent made no arguments to support his case

  • My opponent resorted to a cheesy Hallmark statement to finish R3

  • My opponent has the grammar of a child


All of these things necessetate a Con vote. Also, I could care less about the conduct score at this point. I got arguments, spelling/grammar, and sources




Welcome to DDO


shikha_badoga

Pro

I am also not going to make any argument.
Conclusion-
My Opponent is calling me a troll,
but this troll knows how to respect other.

thanks
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOpinionist 2 years ago
TheOpinionist
Thank you
Posted by shikha_badoga 2 years ago
shikha_badoga
ok kid wish you best take care!
Posted by TheOpinionist 2 years ago
TheOpinionist
Uhh... No. I'm busy. Typing this on my phone an hour away from home at team policy camp. I've been out of the house for 10 hours a day for the last few days. I'll be getting surgery on Friday, and be out of commission until August 2nd, when I'm leaving to go to Alabama until August 5th. After that, I'll have to finish a report for school and prepare for the year to start on August 10th. Then I'll be out of the house 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, until May 2016. Rekt
Posted by shikha_badoga 2 years ago
shikha_badoga
And what about those who wants to debate with you like notatheist, you don't have time for him......?
Posted by TheOpinionist 2 years ago
TheOpinionist
You were providing your own arguments in a debate that had nothing to do with you. I would say that you were provoking a reaction.
Posted by shikha_badoga 2 years ago
shikha_badoga
@ TheOpinionist - i was giving my opinion ........ but you took it as a fight and that is not my fault kid.
Posted by notatheist 2 years ago
notatheist
Sounds good man hope to hear from you eventually.
Posted by TheOpinionist 2 years ago
TheOpinionist
I only challenged this guy because he was picking a fight in the comments of one of my other debates. This isn't necessarily a topic I'm too convicted on, as I only accepted the other debate with this resolution out of sheer boredom. I'm also currently very busy for the next two weeks, and have two other debates to finish up by then. I'd love to debate you sometime later, but I'm not sure when I could. I'll msg you if I find enough free time for a good debate.
Posted by notatheist 2 years ago
notatheist
Hello TheOpinionist- if you would like to re-debate this topic with me I would be very interested.
Posted by TheOpinionist 2 years ago
TheOpinionist
Read the about me section of my profile. I came here because my schools debate sponsor retired and I never got to join the team. I'm almost as new as you to this... I didn't know what a contention was until 3 weeks ago lol :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
TheOpinionistshikha_badogaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro drops all of Con's arguments, and fails to establish a link in their own. Pro's arguments primarily handle negative aspects of religion, e.g. the insult of Draupadi in the Mahabharata, laws of Sati, etc. But I'm not seeing how that links to the resolution. Pro should have been clearer in establishing a clear link, by showing *how* those impacts relate to the resolution. Debaters must presume that every voter is tabula rasa, i.e. has no outside knowledge. Voters -- under their obligation to act as blank slates -- should not vote on arguments that lack links to the resolution or are insufficiently explained. The drop of Con's impacts clearly shift the victory to Con. Nonetheless, I would like to note that debaters shouldn't accuse others of trolling merely because they can't interpret the other debater's arguments -- that is poor conduct, only not sufficient to warrant awarding a conduct point to Pro. Ergo, I vote Con on arguments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
TheOpinionistshikha_badogaTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized some of his content. This is bad conduct regardless of the veracity of the information plagiarized. Passing someone's work off as your own is poor conduct.