The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

In the current world we live in, religion is not necessary

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 76629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)




First round for acceptance.


I'll play, because you make the proposition and because you do not specify, you have the burden of proof, please continue.

Debate Round No. 1


To the judges:

I humbly request the judges to judge this debate with an open mind, dropping your personal biases and give a judgement based on who has made better arguments and ergo has given a superior case.


Burden of Proof:

The question of who has the burden of proof in this situation rests in the resolution itself and not, as CON claims, on the person who proposed it. Let’s take a deeper look into the resolution,

‘In the current world we live in, religion is not necessary’

The keyword that requires attention here is, ‘not necessary’. So let’s question ourselves, when does something become ‘not necessary’? It is when the absence of it creates positive or negligible impact to the situations and things that were connected to it.

So in accordance with the resolution, my burden is to show that the present world WITHOUT religion would be better or be very much the same as it would be WITH religion.

And my opponent as he is against the resolution, to do justice to his position, will have to bear the burden to show that the outcomes of a world without religion would be largely negative.


And with that made clear I move on to make my case.

As of now I have five contentions to support my stance and they are as follows:

C1. The laws that govern religion are archaic

C1.A Religious laws are man-made rules that were tailored for a different set of circumstances

Religious laws weren’t made by a supreme omniscient, omnipotent being but by men ourselves. And no matter how ideal it might seem, religious texts would inevitably be, riddled with opinionated views and biases on situations.
Say for example, homosexuality might be prohibited in many religious teachings but if this is imbibed and followed we would then compromise the freedom to choose life partners for a segment of the population.
And the worst part is that religious rules are not amendable and staunch followers would end up committing immoral and unethical activities in the name of religion. Examples like the caste system [1] and the practice of untouchability in countries like India are few of the many negative social practices that were sprouted from religious laws.

C1.B Science right now does what religion did in a better way

Yes, maybe a thousand years ago, when the knowledge about nature and natural phenomenon known to mankind were limited, religion served a purpose i.e., to explain those natural occurrences and to eradicate fears in the minds of the common masses caused by ignorance. But in today’s world science has progressed enough to have the actual reasons as to why things happen as they do and therefore religion is no longer needed.

C2. Religion offers a false sense of comfort

People claim that religion provides us hope and gives us the strength to tackle our problems. But this is just a delusion of comfort that results as a cause of blind faith.
We only become stronger when we are tested i.e., when we go through hardships in our lives. Situations of crisis helps us push our limit and makes us know what we are capable of. Believing that an imaginary deity can solve our problems could in many cases render us incapable of confronting the problem on our own, due to lack of effort from our side. The comfort that religion offers us compromises the belief that we have in ourselves and makes us less prepared.

The argument that a religious person is happier than a non-religious person is like saying that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

Hence, religion blinds us from seeing our problems as they actually are and in the long run would make us weak and less prepared to face problems in our lives on our own.

C3. Religion can be misleading due to misinterpretation

Since the policies of religion relies on wordings and scriptures written many hundreds of years ago, the possibility of those texts getting misinterpreted is unavoidable.
A simple example might be the use of the words ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’. Words as such are purely subjective and can be associated to a wide variety of things based on a person’s opinions. Thus, this might tempt religious fanatics to undertake immoral or illegal paths or practices and justify them with their religion.

C4. Religion promotes irrational thinking

All around us we see people making several sacrifices, wasting precious time, money and energy on tedious undertakings just to stay true their religion.

Being maimed, burnt, killed in the name of religion is not history. The apparent 'progressive' world we live in still practises some horrific brutal rituals, which in spite of being banned by governments worldwide see a large number of participants even today.[2] Due to the brutal nature of these rituals I have refrained from posting them here but interested readers can very well check them out by following this link:

Also a lot of time and money gets consumed for temples and places where deities get worshipped, which could have been used for other productive purposes.

“Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes.”[3]

In the U.S alone people give more than $82.5 billion a year to religion [3] and what do we get in return? Practically nothing. So we must ask ourselves is this really necessary?

C5. Religion divides us and breeds violence

Religion blinds us from our collective identity as human beings and separates us into different categories based on our beliefs.

When you call yourself a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or anything else, you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind.

History has shown us that when you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, etc. it eventually breeds violence when they clash against each other. Religion has a bloody past where it has caused a huge number of small and large scale wars. Some of them have even continued for years and killed many. [4] So is such a price worth paying for whatever significant advantage that religion has to offer for us?


This is perhaps the strongest suit for my cause. So in this hypothetical world of mine where religion doesn’t exist what takes its place and fills the void? Well the answer is two words: Education & Awareness.

Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.[5] If at least half of the energy, time and money invested to religion, if not all, is channelled for enlightening the public with education and awareness then we would see mankind progressing rapidly with perfect harmony and peace!

And with that, I believe that I have convincingly shown that religion is not really a ‘necessity’ in the current world we live in and thus have upheld my case. I look forward to my opponent’s arguments

Over to you CON.






5: Quote by Nelson Mandela



I accept the burden even though I shouldn't and I will defend the following arguments from[1]:

1.Religion provides mental peace

Human life is uncertain. He struggles for his survival amidst the uncertainties, insecurities and dangers, Some-times he feels helplessness. It is the religion which consoles and encourages him in all such time of crisis. Religion gives right shelter to him. He gets mental peace and emotional support. It encourages him to face his life and problems.

2. Religion explains individual suffering

Man does not live by knowledge alone. He is an emotional creature. Religion serves to the emotions of man in times of his sufferings and disappointment. On God religion puts faith and entertains the belief that some unseen power moves in mysterious ways to make even his loss meaningful. In this way religion gives release from sorrow and release from fear. It helps man to bear his frustration and integrate his personality.

3. It inculcates social virtues:

Religion promotes the major social virtues like truth, honesty, non-violence, service, love, discipline etc. A follower of the religions internalizes these virtues and becomes disciplined citizen of the society.

4. Religion promotes social solidarity:

Religion gives rise to the spirit of brotherhood. Durkheim viewed that religion strengthens social solidarity. A.W. Geen also pointed out that religion has the supremely integration and verifying force in human society. It is true that common belief, common sentiment, common worship, participation in common rituals etc. are the significant cementing factors which strengthen unity and solidarity.

5. Religion converts the animal qualities to human qualities:

Religion inculcates the spirit of self-service. It demands that people should be charitable and benevolent. Through various religious experiences he forgets the worldly life and problems. This experience suppresses the animal desires and converts the animal qualities of man to human qualities.

6. Religion is an agent of socialization and social control:

Religion provides a model for living. It upholds certain ideals and values. The believer imbibes these ideals and values in his life. Religion can help youth generation to become moral, disciplined and socialized citizens of society. Organization like temples, mosques, church, Gurudwaras etc. also control the behavior of the individuals at different level.

7. Religion promotes welfare:

Religion teaches to the people to serve the masses and promote their welfare. It gives message that "the service to humanity is service to God". For this reason, people spend money to feed poor and needy. Great religions like Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity etc. put emphasis on aim-giving to the poor and beggars. With the influence of religious belief different religious organizations engage themselves in various welfare activities. Like spreading of education and opening up many charitable institutions like hospitals, rest houses, temples and to help the poor.

8. Religion gives recreation:

Religion plays a charming role in providing recreation to the people. Religious rites and festivals are more or less performed in every religion which gives relief to the people from mental exertion. Similarly religious lectures, shamans, kirtans, musical concerts followed by the utterance of hymn etc. gives much more pleasure to the people and provides eternal recreation.

9. Religion comes as a source of social cohesion

Religion is the ultimate source of social cohesion. The primary requirement of society is the possession of social values by which individuals control the action of self and others and through which society is perpetuated. Science and technology cannot create this value. Religion is the foundation upon which these values rest. Children should obey their parents, should not tell lie, women should be faithful to men, people should be honest and Virtuous, are some of the social values which maintain social cohesion.

10. Religion influences economy:

Sociologists like Somber and Max Weber rightly established the relationship of religion with economic system. Weber observed the influence of Protestant ethics in the development of capitalism. Somber found this spirit of capitalism in Jewish norms. For the distinct religious principles present in Christianity, capitalism grew in protestant countries but not in the country like India, Pakistan etc. The Hindus lay great stress on spiritual progress than on material progress. Hence, materialism could not grow in India

11. Religious influences political system:

Religion has played a significant role in political system in the ancient and medieval society.Even in modern times in many countries of the world the religion directly and indirectly also influences political activities. During ancient and medieval period, the monarchs were treating themselves as the representatives of the God or ruling the society in the name of God. Even today, Political leaders take oath in the name of God. The political system of the countries of the world like Bhutan, Pakistan, Italy, Germany, England etc. are influenced by religion.

12. Religion Strengthens Self-confidence:

Religion is an effective means to strengthen self-confidence. There are certain beliefs like 'work is worship', 'duty is divine', 'result in predestined' etc. which is found in various religions gives strength to the individual and promotes self-confidence.

One last reason that we need religion is that it gives us something to believe in. People need to believe that there is a reason for what they are doing and that there is a reason for life. Religion provides this for them. This is what gives people the desire to go out and work every day and to try to make the world a better place. They do it because they believe there is a meaning behind it all. This is largely down to religion


Debate Round No. 2




CON has plagiarised his entire round 2 from this site:

Of course he has given the link from where he took it all, but that doesn’t justify his actions and they are still unethical because he is the one participating in the debate and he should be making his own arguments.

I’m thereby not at all obliged to respond to his ripped off arguments but, just for the sake of formality I’ll tidy up any loose ends he might have created in my case with his copied arguments.

So upon briefly analysing CON’s case one would see that he has clearly not read what he has copied. Either that or he has a very poor judgement because most of the arguments in his case were mostly just iteration and reiteration of the same point. It seems that CON’s source was probably an article written by an over-biased teenage magazine writer. Nevertheless, I have condensed his main case into the following basic premises

i) Religion provides mental comfort and caters to the emotional side of humans

ii) Religion promotes social unity

iii) It inculcates values and virtues in the society.

Other points in his case excluding these three main ones, like ‘Religion influencing economy’ were either absurd claims or didn’t have enough evidences to be considered as arguments.

So in this round I’ll briefly be focussing on countering those valid claims and ergo, will conclude my case.

i) Religion provides mental comfort and caters to the emotional side of humans

As I had already dealt with the first part of the argument in my contention C2. Religion offers a false sense of comfort , I will skip it and address the second half of his argument, which claims that religion caters to the emotional side of humans.Yes, it may be partially correct in saying so but the argument goes both ways. Religion has also been known to push the emotional side of humans, negatively. This has gone to extents where large scale wars like the Eighty Years’ War, Nigerian Civil War, German Peasants’ War etc[1] getting caused because of religious reasons.

ii) Religion promotes social unity

I believe my contention C5. Religion divides us and breeds violence more than adequately addresses this argument. Religion may unite a few people in the same cult but ultimately it divides our whole identity of mankind into bits and pieces.

iii) It inculcates values and virtues in the society.

This is perfectly correct but what’s not correct is assuming that religion is the only way through which society can learn values. Education for example can do the same without the extra hassles of religion.

And CON has failed to address my counter-proposal or any of my arguments for that matter and hence the points in my case stay undisputed.

Thus, I have shown that religion is not a necessity in our current world and therefore have upheld the resolution.

Vote PRO!





Before I being I would like everyone to know that I was of the understanding that 2nd round would be for presenting opening arguments. Pro said that I also have a burden to prove, which implies I have to have my own case, which means that round 3 would be for refutation and rebuttal, so please do not consider any of my points conceded.

I would like everyone to understand that plagiarism is Not against any rules here on DDO, and it only makes sense as an arguing tool. To say that every time someone debates they have to make new arguments that have never been said, is absurd. I clearly said that “I will defend the following arguments from[1]”….‘FROM source 1’, meaning I am using their arguments, I told everyone that these weren’t my arguments and I gave credit to the source, that doesn’t even fit the definition of plagiarism anyhow. Are you going to say that if you use the Kalam cosmological argument in support of god, then you have plagiarized the creator’s work? No, or course not, because that is beyond crazy. I have presented arguments and as I clearly stated, I would and will defend them. There has been no error on my part and any voter who thinks plagiarism is against the rules, please find me some quoted evidence from the cite rules, you will not find it. In any case I had no other option but to use someone else’s arguments because the opponent submitted their own arguments when it was about 1am and I refuse and should not be forced to stay up all night to craft a 10k response to this case, I also have a life and a job you realize.

So, this is going to be unfortunate for Pro as she must now lose the round automatically. She has not refuted all of my arguments, only a few and thus she concedes them because, as in any debate setting, silence to an argument is compliance with the argument. Thus even if the judges consider most of the arguments I presented as “redundant”, Pro herself has admitted that she will not refute the argument on ‘Religion influences economy’ nor on ‘Religious influences political systems’ nor on ‘Religion promotes welfare’….and thus, because these are conceded I must win the round automatically after I provide my refutation to her own arguments. But first, to defend my case.

i)Religion provides mental peace, explains suffering, and strengthens self confidence

I will deal with C2 here shortly. The only argument pro gives here is that because religion starts wars that it actually causes suffering, but this argument uniquely forgets that suffering and happiness are not mutually exclusive, in fact that’s one of the whole points of religions, that in times of suffering someone can explain their pain. Furthermore, to suggest that religion is the cause of those listed wars or any major war is a common and widely accepted idea, that is simply untrue. Pro provides no evidence in support of that conclusion.

In reality most wars have never had a religious tag attached to them and what’s more, of the ones that did, religion was not the actual motivating factor for starting the war. If we look at what is really going on, in any major war you could cite, we can see that the cause is always political in nature and never religiously motivated.

“Pope Urban II let the knights of Christendom loose on the Muslim world to extend the power of the church eastwards and create a papal monarchy that would control Christian Europe. The Spanish inquisition was a deeply flawed attempt to secure the internal order of Spain after a divisive civil war, at a time when the nation feared an imminent attack by the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, the European wars of religion and the thirty years war were certainly exacerbated by the sectarian quarrels of Protestants and Catholics, but their violence reflected the birth pangs of the modern nation-state.”[2]

These are just a few examples, but other things directly suggest that war is political and almost never religiously based, such as the fact that the 100 years’ war, supposedly the last war of religion, was fought between two catholic nations, or the fact that Protestants and Catholics have repeatedly fought on the same side, against Catholics. Now, is it true that those in power could use religion as a catalyst? Sure, but even if religion didn’t exist the political problems would still arise in almost the exact same way and thus getting rid of religion would not decrease suffering because the same amount of wars would happen due to inevitable political conflicts, yet those who fight those wars would surely experience suffering from lack of an explanation of suffering, and the idea that what’s dead is truly dead, that there is no after life…ect.

To support this point further, I would like everyone reading this to step outside of their comfortable 1st world lives for just a second, and imagine the great mass of those who live in poor nations. It is no doubt that most people do not live comfortably. Most people on this earth are impoverished without escape, ignorant of most of the world, starving, and abused by government and disease. For these people religion is a fundamental part of their lives. Religion is not just an idea that someone magical is watching you, religion is quite literally culture and identity, and even as an atheist I can recognize this. The resolution at hand basically asks whether or not culture and identity are necessary in a modern world, to which the answer is a shockingly obvious yes.

ii) Promotes social unity, keeps social peace

con’s statement here is overtly offensive, to assume that all people within a religion are in a cult shows a supreme amount of ignorance and blatant stupor. Other than her offensive statement here, pro merely cites her C5 to which I will address momentarily. But as a note, to state that religion divides us, even if true, would not apply to this contention because it means that within a certain religion there is unity, not everyone in humanity, I thought this was apparent. Thus this argument itself conceded, please add it to the conceded bucket.

iii) Religion instills social virtues

In what way does learning calculus teach you not to kill? Education is solely the acquisition of new skills, at best you can learn from education offhand, by developing your own morality, but education in no way teaches morality or social virtues. This will be confronted more in your counterplan below.

C1.) Archaic laws

Right off the bat let me make it clear, the only contentions with any relevant or plainly stated impacts are C4 and C5; the rest are basically meaningless. This contention for example has no impact…What is inherently bad about having archaic laws? Once the constitution of the United States or the UK becomes too old should we throw out of system of government for being ‘archaic’? Of course not. The only thing pro brings up is homosexual exclusive from marriage, which she never even establishes as a right. Sorry but that’s a different debate. That was her only impact to this contention and it is now null. She makes a few other, unrelated, claims as well. This is another claim from ignorance about religion, that those who are religious commit unethical activities in the name of god, first point, being that pro does not believe in god, where does he get the right to declare anything as universally immoral? Second, this is clearly wrong, 84% of the entire world’s population has a faith, yet where are all of the crazy and immoral actions being taken out in religions name? The best you can give is outlier examples. Refuted.

C2.) Comfort

There is no such thing as false comfort. Comfort is comfort, and it is perceived as 100% real by those who experience it. Your second and final point is basically that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, nope. This idea probably comes from those first world issues, like when you pop your tire on the side of the road and you locked your phone in the car so your stranded and no one stops to help, sure after your vigorous 2 mile walk to auto shop you may well feel stronger, but I don’t think this applies to real issues. Issues like having your husband and children killed as a fatality of the Iraq war, in a predator strike. Or having your leg shot off, or being politically oppressed by your government, forced to work in a sweat shop...ect. These things are real issues, and it is simply cocksure to state that because they didn’t die, they have somehow become stronger. Religion helps people like this in a tremendous way, and prevents absolute loss of hope. I know it’s a hard idea for us to get, but there is a breaking point to all people. God serves to eliminate human suffering and dramatically extend the ‘breaking point’ if you will, as well as provide identity, culture and morality to specific groups of people and is thus dramatically necessary, even in a modern world.


This operates on the assumption that what is illegal is good, and that the original wording of a given religious ‘policy’ or scripture is bad, really people use religion secondarily.


Even if we got rid of religion these practives would still be there, ingrained in culture itself. You agree that what is legal is good, it has been legally agreed that churches shouldn't pay taxes, if you think this is incorect, then it still goes to show that religion is a large force in politics.


This has no impact, because religion hasn't started any modern wars since the 100 years' war, so clearly even if it divides us this has no harm. Besides there are other things which truely divide us such as ethnicity, gender, attractivness. If anything religion serves to mend current division like those I just mentioned and getting rid of it causes their resurgence.


This operates on the assumption that science and religion are at odds, when in reality they are not. So the answer? Do both. You operate under the false dilemma fallacy here, these two are not competing ideas. So, increase education and keep religion, culture, identity, and unity.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
The debate that spawned from TinyBudha's claims in this comment section:

He does a much better job than "You'rer all utterly retarded" and "fW46;ck off, you're wrong about plagiarism and too stupid to see it."
Posted by Topher1989 1 year ago
I think that religion harbors many things with which we can use and better our lives. For example, Buddhism came up with meditation. Meditation has psychological benefits. However, just because a religion harbors something useful, doesn't mean it should be followed, fully practiced, or believed. There is no evidence to believe that Jesus Christ turned water into wine or that he arose from the dead on the 3rd day. There is also no reason to believe in a high power. So in the end, yes, the world would be a better place without Muslims suicide bombing infidels. This is just nonsense.
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
fW46;ck off, you're wrong about plagiarism and too stupid to see it, that's not my problem.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
"You'rer all utterly retarded"
First of all, please make use of spellcheck. It's atrocious to make unwarranted accusations, when resembling said accusations.

Second, DDO in addition to having clear rules against plagiarism (if in doubt, read, it also has rules about insults. Spelling out why someone's thinking is flawed is actually encouraged, but what you did causes people to infer such lack of thought as to not comprehend what people said.

My advice: You're probably going to stick around, so figure out your core mistakes, then make a new account (you really don't want to be connected to your correct behavior).
Posted by TinyBudha 1 year ago
You'rer all utterly retarded
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
First, two rounds seems inadequate for this topic; also the statement of BoP and note to the judges probably should have been in R1.

Second, credit to pro for handling the conduct issue with dignity; however both sides would benefit from reading the following
(pro used a quote without quotation marks around it; not nearly as bad as con, but still something to be careful of).

Well I can't pretend to be a true blank slate voter who doesn't know basic English concepts like religion, war, plagiarism, why logical fallacies mean whoever says "I must win the round automatically" has not automatically won, or for that matter who Nelson Mandela is; I'll pretend not to know the problems with plagiarism and explore this vote with con suffering no penalty for it.

In R2 pro made something called a case, composed of various contentions (The laws that govern religion are archaic, Religion offers a false sense of comfort, Religion can be misleading due to misinterpretation, Religion promotes irrational thinking, Religion divides us and breeds violence, and a counter proposal).

In R2 pro accepted the BoP, and provided a single link. His whole case fit into a single line.

R3 pro reminds us that con has neglected to make a case yet, and goes on the offensive against the single source, and tidies up what he calls lose ends.
R3 con claims "She has not refuted all of my arguments" yet there were none to refute, unless accepting the BoP was an argument? He then goes on to defend his source, even explaining that it was a Gish Gallop pro did not address every single point within ( Really no contest.

ARGUMENTS: Pro had one.
SOURCES: There is no question of pro's significant lead on this; having both vastly more sources, and refuting con's single
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
I'll give the argument points some thought. I'm not sure who I'll award them to, or even if I'll refrain from awarding them yet.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5 // Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con plagiarized.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Plagiarism was an actual argument in the debate. Con wrote his case whole from one site but he also cited the source. Pro and Con further argued about whether it was plagiarism which makes it ambiguous enough that it warrants a voter explaining his reasons for the vote beyond a two-word RFD. The vote lacks an actual explanation for interpreting the argument as plagiarism.
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Didn't expect such a shameful behavior from someone who has Buddha in his username.
Posted by Cotton_Candy 1 year ago
Okay changed the resolution.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments... But regarding the Gish Gallop (con's central claim), for pro pro to have lost due to having not responded to everything within a source to be valid, means that con must rise to the same standard and respond to every single thing in pro's various sources (which would need to include who Nelson Mandela is, and why we should not listen to him), as this is not done, by con's own logic con would have to lose. ... Never Gish Gallop.
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
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 gets conduct for con's plagiarism. The plagiarism defense in the last round, had no opportunity to be countered by pro. Plagiarism is not merely forgetting to credit somebody's work. You can't just put quotation marks around the entire text of 50 shades of grey and profit off of it. When citing a work, it is important to mostly use your own words to explain their argument and to cite word for word as a last resort, but even when putting it into your own words, it still must be cited to not be considered plagiarism. Here is an explanation of what you did wrong by "copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules" If more than 50% of what you write is in another's words (cited or not) it is plagiarism, and ideally no more than 25% should be words of others.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 1 year ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD @