The Instigator
Rezend
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
n7natnat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Irreligious people are more moral than religious people in general?

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: 3/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 71867
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Rezend

Pro

First round for agreement, second for refutal, third for agreement, fourth for refutal, fifth for conclusion.
I will start with my main thesis:
Irreligious people act good because they think it is good to be good, while religious people do it because they are scared of a god, meaning irreligious people are more moral.
This supposes that morals exist.
I hope for a productive argument.
n7natnat

Con

I accept. Here is my opening argument:
First off, not all people are afraid of God. I am atheist, but I come from a christian background and have study other religions such as Judaism and Islam. When I went to church, I've seen people literally crying while singing. And when I asked them why, many responded, "Because my God loves me and he will never forsake me". Does that sound like a person afraid of their God they "choose" to belive in????? Plus immorality and morality depends on the subject in question. You know that there have been plenty of non-religious people that many have deemed as immoral. Such as Ted Bundy, one of the most menacing serial killers ever in America. Many people found what he did to be immoral: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even Atheist! But, Ted Bundy was also an atheist. He saw what he was doing as good. But others saw it as bad. How can this be? Isn't it thought that all acts are inherently either good or bad; right or wrong???? That is not the case. Let's discuss the origin or morality to better understand why the Pro is entirely incorrect. Isn't it odd how for 4.1 billion years nothing was right or wrong until human kind came into existence? Hmmmmm. Is that just a coincidence or not? Well good and bad originates from the subject that defines what they want or desire as good or bad by their means. Say a person "wants" to help somebody. They help and like what they see, so they deem it as good. Or say a terrorist killed many civilians. They like what they see and deem it as "good", while the others who are repugnant of the act seem it as "bad". And you know babies aren't born with the inherent ability to deem what is right or wrong. It has to be taught to them. See how different parents give different rules for their kids? What each parent deems as necessary or moral is subjective. Nothing has an inherent morality. It is decided by the individual or it is taught to them what is moral and immoral. That's why different religions with different morals call the opposing religions immoral, and themselves as moral. Even atheist don't have the same morality. If atheist/non religious people had the same morals, we'd basically have the "Bible of Atheism". We don't have that now do we? You will probably never find two non religious people/atheists who think "exactly alike" when it comes to morality. I literally had a debate at school about how I think killing isn't wrong or right, but the atheist before me (who is also my friend), said he deemed it immoral because of his desires and intent. That's how morality is decided. It's then incorporated into religion, philosophy, and even politics. You ever wonder why it's okay to stone a woman in some middle eastern countries, but not in America? It's because our morals are even incorporated into our governments!! Itsnt it crazy?!!!! Plus the unnamed Middle eastern country would see our laws of America immoral (a country not founded on religion. It is stated that "state and religion do not mix". This means that our country's government is "non religious/atheist".). But we as the American Government would see the Middle Eastern's laws as immoral. Whaaaaaaaa???? How can we both be immoral to each other, but moral to ourselves????? Again that's because not everyone in the world is "definitively" moral. We all either see someone as immoral, and they the same to us. But somehow, despite how they see us as immoral (or bad/wrong), we continue to see ourselves as moral. You don't have to be non religious or religious to be considered moral or immora. That's not how morality works. What's right and wrong depends on who is asking. Just look at the world. It's pretty clear. There is no inherent morality that came along when they world was made (unless of course you are religious and believe in your text for your religion. Though I do not share your beliefs fellow creationist, I will not call you moral or immoral because again as I have shown not everyone sees right and wrong the same). Plus, if you do believe in God, you know God himsef decided what was right and wrong???? He himself was an existentialist! If he was real, he created the universe, life, "and" morality since nothing else before him existed. Isn't crazyyyyy?????? Even animals have shown signs of morality. Apes like to share and won't take a banana unless their fellow mate would get one too. And wolves find it okay to kill the pack leader as long as a stronger individual takes the alpha's place. Seeee??? Even non religious animals wouldn't agree on the morality they create for themselves. As shown through the examples, I hope to of shown you, my gracious readers for taking time out of their day to read this, that you yourself can be right "and" wrong at the same time, even if you are non religious. It all depends on who is asking. You can trust my examples as I am unbiased and currently hold no moral or immoral standards for myself or for society. I partake in moral nihilism, political nihilism, and existentialism (though everyone is an existentialist, thought that is not for the topic on hand). I have spent years research on this and am aware of what my opponent might try to contradict with and am prepared for it. I myself am obsessed with the topic to the point it takes time out of my work. But overall, I hope what you take to heart, and to all you religious readers and non religious: we still all share a dream whether you know it or not: it is the be the best we can be. I hope you take that not as something to debate, but as something to bring you and your aquaintances in life closer together. We all want what is moral for the world. It's just that not everyone sees it the same.

:)
Debate Round No. 1
Rezend

Pro

Con claims I don't understand the concepts of morality, saying it is relative. I agree with this, but in my first round I said we were meant to argue as though morals existed.
This is not an argument over moralities. I am supposing that morals exist and that they are more or less like the majority of today's society people. Anyway, you seem to think my previous argument doesn't count because not all people are afraid of god. Fine. Moving on. You also say there are immoral atheists. Couldn't agree more. But the debate is on whether the religions themselves tend to make their followers immoral on today's patterns, and they do.
Take, for instance, this homophobic quotes from the bible in this link: http://www.lesbian-crushes-and-bulimia.com...
The quotes clearly state that homosexuality is punished with death. Considering homosexuality is natural ( view this site http://www.exposingtruth.com... ) and that death penalty is mostly unacceptable around the world, then the bible obviously leads to immorality. There are also ambiguous quotes, sexist quotes and contradicting quotes on this link here: http://www.evilbible.com...
So you see, according to today's moralities, someone who wholy believes in the bible's teachings is immoral, while someone who doesn't isn't. There can be good people on every side, but this doesn't mean the religious arguments and morals aren't old and outdated.
If you contradict me, you are being homophobic, ethnocentrist and sexist, because all religions (with some notable exceptions) have immoral teachings.
My argument remains.
n7natnat

Con

Today's moralities? Your comparing acts to other people's morals to say that they can be immoral or aren't moral. Someone can still say homosexuality isn't moral, even if it is natural. They don't have to go by nature's laws. That's why philosophers say that science does not belong in the realm of morality. Morals arent bound by the laws of reality or nature. They're abstract. And the bible is only immoral if someone considers it to be because they don't like how it conflicts with they're desires. Like muslims aren't gonna consider the bible moral because it conflicts with their desires and beliefs. But a christian says that it is moral because it goes on with their beliefs. Again, I am arguing moral nihilism. You speak as though things have intrinsic value and morality. That isn't the case. Before life ever existed, there was no morals, purpose, or meaning not value. Not until the first organism form do morality come forth. Even if your a creationist or not, it still aligns. If God isn't real, the concept still works. If God is real, it still works because when God made water, it didn't have a purpose quite yet. But when he created life, water had the purpose of being a habitat, a source of wonder, and a given value for survival. And you just said "if I have evidence to prove you wrong or contradict you, that I'm inmoral". Well I guess I would be by your standards. But not everyone has the same standards. Plus just because I say being gay isn't right or wrong, doesn't mean I'm a homophobe. Just means that being gay is just part of life. You decide if it's right or wrong. Plus that's not how being homophobe works. You can still say you believe gay is immoral, but have gay friends. My dad for instance. He is a devout Christian. He believes homosexuality is a immoral life style. But! He still has gay friends though at work. They literally had a cook out today and made all this weird coffe food together. Homophobe is just being afraid of gays or have anger towards them. And even though one may find an act immoral, doesn't mean they're always mad at the immoral person.
Also, you said "today's morals". What do you define as "today's morals"? The whole world doesn't share the same morality, so you can't genealize that to "today's morals" cause they don't corrlate for everybody else. You are incorrect. And the religion is only immoral because "YOU" find it to be to yourself. Im sure that there are plenty of people who don't see it as immoral, and that they find your rant to be illogical. Same with me. But you and I both find out logic to be right. How can it be wrong to them? Again, what you define as right is subjective. Not everyone sees morality how you do. So if you say that "if you try to say I'm wrong even though you have evidence to do so, your immoral!" Well. I feel pretty confident that a fellow reader would find that comment your comment to be immoral too because they believe homosexuality to be wrong. Plus I can give you a list of 78 countries that say gay is a illegal crime. So by today's standards, gay is still bad in some countries, but okay in some. So. You know. Your example was pretty invalid. Not to mention, I'm not allowed to say you are wrong unless I want to be considered immoral "by you". I also feel confident that not everyone will find your whole argument to be moral. Same as me. Going back over and over again, morality isn't definitve by world standards, science, or the universe. It's decided by you what is moral, and you can teach it to others in hope your ideals spread. That's how the Roman Empire, the one that used to persecute chrisitans, adopted the religion itself! The guy in charge got baptized and said that he liked the morals of the religion. Then, he made it a permanent part of the empire itself. That's also returning to what I said about the government putting morality into its laws as well like in the middle east. My argument is that nothing is inherently wrong or right. It's decided by the observer. Obviously you find the sexist quotes and homophobic behavior to be immoral. I have a friend who would disagree with you. In fact, I know a lot of people who would disagree with you and say what your saying is blasphemy and is immoral against them. So whose correct? Your both claiming to have the right morality. How do we know for sure that one of them is the "right way to live the right way?" We don't. It's up to you. I'm literally going in circles here. I've already contradicted your whole argument. I know for a fact that unless you stray away from your original thesis, that I'll just repeat what I have been saying. It's, in my logic, rediculous. I'm sure other readers will concur. I hope the reader will appeal to my sense of reason and thoughts on the topic as I have found them to be unable to be refuted or disproven "currently". Just like with God: he hasn't been disproven, or proven. But you can decide for yourself if he is or not. You can decide what is right or wrong. You choose for yourself. Just like you choose to wake up and go out and play, or wake up and watch tv. It's up to you my reader. I hope you appeal to your senses and decide your morality by how you wish, not by how others say. Oh and by the way, I have been to evilbible.com lol. It's saved as one of my favorites. But I only use it in theological debates. The bible doesn't really have a say in abstract morality, especially when people see right and wrong different. You either choose to accept it's moral, or you accept it as immoral. It's allll up to the user of his/her will. It's amazing really how someone can be "superman" as Friedrich Nietzsche would say and decide the morality of their standards. It's almost like having a power which you actually have: the power to decide right and wrong and pass it down to your legacy. It's exhilerating to realize that you are the one who decides what to teach your children right and wrong and your children will teach their children. You can literally change the future of their beliefs. You have that power. But I will finish this portion of the argument with this statement: just because it's immoral to some people or even yourself, doesn't mean it is or applies to everyone either. Morality isn't a universal law such as gravity. It, unlike the laws of physics, can change and adapt.
Debate Round No. 2
Rezend

Pro

OK, think of it this way then: the bible discriminates gays/women, the government and the constitution forbid discrimination, therefore the bible is, at the very least, illegal. Any follower who agrees plainly with the bible is thus being unconstitutional. Those are the morals imposed by law today in our country. Laws are nothing more than morals put up by people. If you don't accept them, move to another country. But, from the moment you stay, you are bound to those morals. There are bibles in the U.S, and the bible discriminates, therefore the bible is immoral.
Moving on, your father is a christian. He believes gays are going to hell. Yet he doesn't try to stop them from being gay (according to you). He obviously thinks homosexuality is a choice, so it can be changed. Yet he doesn't try to change them he doesn't care whether they go to hell or not then. Even though they are his friends. That is not very nice, especially since it says in the bible itself that you must try to convert others.
And how do you know who is right, con asks. Simple. I am not the one discriminating in a country that forbids it. He is. Therefore he is immoral.
Now THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MY ARGUMENT, SO PLEASE, VOTERS, YOU DON'T NEED TO READ EVERYTHING BUT PLEASE READ THIS PART:
In my challenge, I proposed certain rules. One of them was that me and whoever accepted my challenge would agree to argue as though morals existed. Con accepted those terms. Yet in his last arguments he clearly states morals don't exist and are only perspectives. This means he disobeyed the rules that he had agreed upon. This mean he either gives up his argument or looses.
Con, you have lost for disobeying the rules we agreed upon.
n7natnat

Con

I would like to correct my opponent first off by saying the government does not illegalize discrimination. Discrimination against you because you are "you" is perfectly legal. Look it up. Plus the people of America have a right to enact their religion as mentioned in the 1st amendment. Any laws or other amendments contradicting this are technically unconstitutional. There was actually a case about this way back when a Mormon community was reported against for allowing polygamy, under aged marriage, and disrespect to woman. The government had to decide whether or not it was constitutional or not to go in and stop this because if they did, they would be breaking the 1st amendment. Ultimately, they were only able to convict the main pastor their because he left the community because he was fearful of being arrested, and the government took that as he didn't believe in his morals/religion. He is currently serving a life sentence. BUT. The rest of the community is still there, practicing their religion and there morals which they deem "not" to be immoral.
My opponent also claims that "laws are nothing more than morals put up by people". Would you consider paying bills and taxes to be in the "morality" realm? Yes I claimed that morality is mixed into governments today, but "not all" laws are based on morals. I would like to stress that to you.
And I would like to also include that the bible is allowed to discriminate as long as it doesn't infringe on the person's rights and practices of religion. There are many KKK parades and marches every year and they discriminate against blacks, gays, and etc. BUT. They do it in a peaceful manner because it is their right to "freedom of speech" in the first amendment. As long as they do it in a peaceful manner without infringing on other's rights, it is allowed. The bible isn't mixed with the government and it doesn't limit others rights because it isn't mixed into the constitution, thus what ever "press was written into it with the freedom someone was allowed to have" is perfectly fine. That's another thing: freedom of press is another right we have. As long as there is no slander, or defamation. Defamation is also prohibited by law in specific cases. Defamation is the injury of an individual's reputation either by written or spoken word. Defamation by the press is called libel. In the landmark 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court ruled that the press is not guilty of libel against public figures unless the injured party can prove actual malice -- knowingly and recklessly publishing false information -- rather than mere reckless reporting. The ruling lifted restrictions on the press that had prevented it from reporting fully on the civil rights movement in the South. However, the Court ruled in later decisions that the press can still be found guilty of libel in defamation cases involving private citizens and private matters without proof of actual malice. So only if it is malice against an individual, it's unconstitutional. BUT. If it's against whole race, religion, cult, or etc, it is okay.
And back to my father: he has tried to take them to church, but they refuse, and he accepts that. If he tried to force them, wouldn't that be unconstitutional? Isn't that infringing on their rights? He believes they are going to hell yes, but he also believes they deserve to live how they want. He believes that people in this country and everywhere should decide how they should live because he believes god gave everyone free will. In whether there is a god or not, we all technically have free will. The fact that my father is letting them live how they want: wouldn't you yourself find that to be fair in this country since that is right is protected under the constitution? He does try to convert, BUT, he does not force them because that would go against his morality of loving everyone no matter what and would infringe upon their protected rights. And I don't know how my father enacting his freedom of religion and beliefs is discriminating against a country that says he has the right to do so. It seems as though your just looking for ways to twist it to where there is a definite point of morality, to which there is none.
And back to you claiming that I said "morals do not exist". If morals did not exist, then we would not have our own senses of right and wrong and how justice can be defined. I only explained that morality is abstract and their is no definite way to view it. Just like how we claim that one color is better than the other. There is no definite better color because we all have different opinions. Just like we all have different moralities. Morality is real, we just have different versions of it because going back to what I said and my opponent said himself: its in perspective. I have not infringed upon the rules the pro has declared for this debate. It is obviously clear that morals are present in this world as we have "created them" from ourselves and others. All I am saying is that since no definite concept of morality can be made, that it is impossible to declare someone as a "definite immoral individual" as morality is subjective: Some people being gay is fine, some believe it's immoral. It all depends on the person's perspective. And no government can declare someone immoral either as their sense of morality is subjective as well. And when we go to court, we don't declare someone as "immoral". We declare someone as "guilty" or "not guilty". Morality plays no part in court. You follow the constitution and laws given to you and determine then. If you went off morality, then no one could ever decide if someone is guilty or not because morality is subjective. Rules are not. They are made to be definite.
And it is obvious that the pro is very much bias against religion. When it comes to debate, you have to be as unbiased as one possibly can. Have you noticed that I myself have not brought up my own morals? I have not declared any set morality as immoral or moral as well. I remain unbiased, while my opponent continues to declare that the bible is immoral based off his "personal" opinions and others. He also deemed my father to be "not very nice", which is his personal opinion. If you asked my father's homosexual friends, they would deem my father in "their" personal opinion to be a nice man as I have discussed with them about it before. And in a way, since my opponent deemed my father immoral, does that mean he is discriminating against my father????? And with no other evidence to support his claim but his opinion and his own set of morality??????? Morality is apparent and in existence, but it is abstract and subjective as repeatedly told over and over again. That means my father is not a "definite immoral man", because morality is subjective. But going back to the law, my opponent is allowed to discriminate against my father for he is and individual. He is allowed as long as it is not defamation which is injury to an individual's reputation. BUT WAIT! HE CLAIMS MY FATHER IS IMMORAL! IS THAT NOT HARM TO HIS REPUTATION?????? AND HE MAKES THE CLAIM OFF HIS OWN PERSONAL OPINION AND SENSE OF MORALITY, NOT OFF DEFINITE EVIDENCE! BUT THE IRONY IS HE CAN FIND NO DEFINITE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT MY FATHER IS IMMORAL BECAUSE MORALITY IS ABSTRACT AND SUBJECTIVE!
This means that my opponent just committed defamation against my father based off his own thoughts without any hard evidence that can be brought to court and used for. I rest my case that my opponent is bias, and bias is not allowed nor is it efficient in a debate. I will not bring my opponent to court over this though because that would, in my opinion, be silly. Though technically, he has just committed a civil crime to which I will ignore and forgive him for. Why? Because this is but a simple debate that my opponent was not adequately ready for, for he is using his own bias sense of morality, rather than reason. All I can fit in. Thank u.
Debate Round No. 3
Rezend

Pro

The debate is on whether religious tend to make people less moral or not. I said we were meant fo suppose especific morals exist. You agreed with me, but then your main arguments against me were that morals were inespecific. You are just one of those people who find debates they think they can find a way to win. You are not arguing for the sake of arguing. You just want victory.
To get a few points clear:
You can't send me to jail for saying your father is immoral;
If discrimination is not a crime, why do (some) racists end up in jail for that reason?
Yes I would consider tax paying morals because with them the government helps the poor and gives me service;
You say that you can discriminate as long as the other person's rights are not hurten. Well, the bible discriminates and hurts other's rights. Why do you think gay marriege isn't legal? Because Christians would be offended if it were. Christians do limitate gay rights.

Last but not least I would like to say that I will stop arguing. My opponent clearly doesn't respect me, my opinion or my views on society. He merely came here to gain points. Vote in him if you want. But if aomeone sticks to an argument over and over again and insults the other person, you have to ask if it is worth it.
Take that point, I don't want it. I wanted to open my world view, even though I failed.
n7natnat

Con

Well first off, if we went by "your" standard of morality, then of course religious ideals would be immoral. If we said that we would judge religion off of your bias morals and nothing else, that would be suicide to take the opposite side (con). WHY WOULD ONE ARGUE FOR A SIDE THAT CANNOT WIN??? THE PRO MADE RULES TO ENSURE THE CON WOULD LOSE! IF WE WENT OFF THE BASIS OF HIS UNDERLINING OPINION OF MORALITY, THEN ALL I WOULD BE DOING IS TRYING TO FIND A SCAPE GOAT FOR RELIGION TO HAVE BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY BE FOUND IMMORAL BY HIS STANDARDS! WHAT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE THE PRO WOULD HAVE!
He said we were to argue that morals exist, and we have. BUT! He didn't say whose morals we are to abide by, he said "today's morals". And today's morals are very variant. Can you look at the world today and say that we all have the same set or morality "today"???? The answer is no you wouldn't, because again, morals are existent but are abstract and subjective. If we were to abide by the morals he would wish to have, then religion would of course be immoral. But that wouldn't even be a debate. It would be me trying to say sorry on religion's behalf that religion is immoral to the pro. It would not be a fair and equal debate and one not worth having. I would not of taken the debate if this was the case. It would be a waste of time for me and the reader because why watch a debate that was already going to win from the start because of it's biased rules?
And he claims I am not arguing for the sake of arguing and that I just want victory????? Is that not his opinion???? He cannot read my mind as to my intent of taking time out of my personal time to debate with him. In fact, this is my 3rd debate ever on the site. I am not even aware of how this all works. I just wanted a place where I could have share view points with other people and maybe argue some "subjective perspectives" of mine and maybe connect with people by it. I have no intent of winning just to win. That's not the point of a debate. A point of a debate is to get people to try and see things a different way; a way they may of never considered before. I find that to be a very passionate mind set "for myself" because life is all about change. I embrace it and I hope others can too.
And no you wouldn't go to jail for defamation of my father: you would just be sued. Pay a fine. That's it. No jail time. You made a claim that did not have any "definite" evidence for and that would be slander. That harms a individual's reputation and is illegal as already mentioned before. What if my father's boss read this debate and found my father to be immoral too and fired him by discrimination for it (which is legal. You are allowed to fire people based on the discrimination of the "individual", not there race, religion, etc). You harmed my father's reputation and put him out of the job. That is defamation and illegal. I find that "myself" to be disrespectful. I don't know what my readers are thinking, but I can assume that some will concur with me. And noticed how I said "cant know what my readers are reading", unlike my opponent is seems know exactly why I am here.
And then he makes the irrational claim "why do some racist end up in jail for that reason"? You can't go to jail for being racist. My aunt and uncle are racist. They use the "N" word quite often (which I myself am not affiliated with), but they can't be put in jail for using the "N" word. They have freedom of speech. It's when they act on their racism and anger towards the race they despise can they be charged, such as inciting a riot. If it causes a "public disturbance", then yes you could get arrested. But you can't be arrested for being racist or hateful towards others. If that was the case then many of the population would be arrested and charged with it. Just like how recently Ben Carson made the claim, "People come out of jail gay; that's why gay is a choice", my opponent makes a comment in the similar process as well alluding that just because there are racist people in jail, they're there for being racist or being discriminate. That's like saying that most racist drug dealers aren't in jail because they sold drugs, but because they were racist and that is illegal (which it is not).
Also paying taxes has nothing to correlate to the realm of morality; it is a legal obligation. Congress will have to pass a tax law and we will pay our taxes as is our legal duty. I would agree that is a moral duty: to serve and protect the rest of society, to give us services and to help those in need. But if government makes taxation a matter of moral choice, then what of the law? Where is the certainty that both companies and individuals require to plan their lives if we are held to some unwritten standard? Where is the certainty of government revenue to do its work if taxes are a matter of taxpayers" judgment? In an age when borders are increasingly meaningless, when citizens can organize themselves, and when new and stateless armies of hackers bear new but damaging weapons, the authority of governments is being challenged on many fronts. Here governments challenge even their own authority.
And back to the bible: the bible does discriminate but does not, within itself, infringe on others rights. The bible does not say that a black man cannot work at a certain establishment and his right to work there. Why? Because the bible does not decide the law and the rights that are given. As stated before, in this country "state and religion do not mix". This means the bible has no dictation over someone's rights, thus, meaning that the bible cannot infringe on a person's right.
And why some states haven't legalized gay marriage yet? It's not because of religion because "state and religion do not mix", remember? It's unconstitutional if that was the case. Why is it not legal in some states though? Because in the bill of rights, it is stated, "all other rights not stated in the bill of rights belong to the states and the people". That's why state laws vary amongst each other. In Alabama, marriage is written as law to be, "Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children." and in Arizona its, "A marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." Why would that be? Because how does this government work amongst state and national policy? As a "DEMOCRACY", the majority rules. That includes the in state laws. Since the Bill of Rights gave the state to make laws concerning rights and other policies not stated within itself, the state can decide by majority vote/through the political figure the majority voted for how tax works in the state, how employment works in the state, and how "marriage works in the state". And yes since morality can and does sometimes affects laws, in some states it is voted by the majority to be illegal. But as people change their ideals over time, they vote "differently" now. That's why gay marriage is starting to make its way to be legalized nationally around. It's not unconstitutional; it's literally how designed the government to work.
Finally, my opponent claims I do not respect him: that is not true and is his opinion. I respect him as an individual to decide himself what is right and wrong. It is within his inherent and legal right to do so. And he claims I only wish to gain points? I am new here and do not know the point of these "points". I accepted the debate expecting a challenging argument. Instead I get an opponent (who I do not hate) who seems to know my every thought without me ever explicitly saying them. He is again, bias. It is not an insult; rather, it is a fact. And he discredits me for sticking to my argument. He criticizes me for being against him. Is that not the point of a debate? End
Debate Round No. 4
Rezend

Pro

Sorry for spelling mistakes in my previous comments, I didn't bother to check the spelling. Now con, if people believe that discrimination, sexism and homophobia are right, they will vote for you. If not, vote for me. After all, not once did con try to say religions are not sexist, homophobic, etc, so therefore he agrees with me on that. His argument is that these things are not immoral. All ends up on this. Decide for yourselves, voters.
n7natnat

Con

So apparently my opponent claims you are here to vote on the side you find most moral: me or him. But ironically enough, he's pinned me as the side of discrimination, sexism, and homophobia when I have not even stated my own morality yet. Again, my opponent seems to know what I am thinking and my morality, which again I have not stated as it is not inherent or correlating to this debate. Now my opponent seems to think his own "personal and bias" morality is the side of "righteousness". The side you should vote for. But the debate isn't "Does the Pro or the Con have better morals and who do you agree with". The debate is "Irreligious people ore more moral than people in general". The fact that he is making you choose sides by trying to make me appear the "bad guy", which is also subjective, shows that he has nothing left to argue to support his motion and is relying on "guilt tripping". I thought that was only a tactic that mothers used to get extra hugs from their kids? Apparently not. Plus these religions he claims to be homophobic, sexist, and etc. are religions he shows he has no great knowledge of. Though the bible does say gay is wrong, in the new testament that you are still to love these sinners. Is that not what attracts people to Christianity in the first place? And Buddhism is a religion that allows you to achieve enlightenment and to disperse yourself from all you considered wrong doing. Though these religions have some points that you may find wrong or "immoral", does not mean they are to their core "evil" as you would might decide them to be. Plus even evil and good is subjective as pointed out in the book "Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche. And see how I have sources that are unbiased and have evidence to support them unlike my opponent using biased material to support his claim including his own opinion???? I thought we were to leave opinion out of a professional matter????? I guess my opponent forgot to acknowledge that, since he used a source called "evil bible". Is not evil subjective? Is not good subjective? That means the source in which he used is opinionated and not definite on the declaration of what is "evil and good".
He also claims since I did not speak about sexism, discrimination, and homophobia to a personal level, I agree with him on that. THAT IS ABSURD! HOW CAN HE KNOW MY OPINION WHEN I HAVE NOT SPOKEN IT?!!! HE GOES AND DEFAMATES MY REPUTATION!!!! HE HAS NO EVIDENCE TO HIS CLAIM!!!! I CAN AGAIN TAKE HIM TO COURT!!! But I will not. He is innocent of knowledge obviously, and in my "personal opinion" that would be quite silly to bring charges on an innocent mind. He has been biased the entirety of the debate, while I have remained unbiased as one should.
He even gives you a biased choice on the debate winner: "Pick pro if you want to look good, pick con if you want to look bad". Is that not bias choice decisions????? Plus you are supposed to vote for who presented the most valid points, unbiased evidence, and non opinionated points to support your side. My opponent in the 4th round said "he was done arguing". He in the 5th round proves that he did stop arguing by giving bias choices to "GUILT TRIP" you into voting for him. My dear reader, this is not a case about gay marriage, discrimination, or sexism: it is a debate about whether atheist or religionist are more moral than the other. I have given plenty of evidence that it can be neither since no one will ever see right and wrong the same. You can still decide for yourself what you believe, but your beliefs are not to influence your decision. You are supposed to vote for the side that was clearly unbiased and gave actual "valid evidence" for their argument.
And again he takes his thoughts and put them in "MY MOUTH"! He says my argument is that discrimination, homophobia, and sexism are not immoral, after I have repeatedly addressed this by saying that my opinion is not once stated in this matter and that morality is subjective. That means that those things are both moral and immoral, depending on a person's perspective as I have explained many a time to my opponent and to you my readers.
My fellow readers, if you vote for my opponent you are not voting for what is moral: you are voting for a side that claims that religion is immoral, which cannot be definitive since morality is subjective. You are not voting for what is illegal: you are voting for what you see as the better argument. You are not voting on opinion: you are voting on reason. Reason that is not bias, but is logical and proven to be fact.
BUT! If you wish to vote for my opponent, so be it. I will accept the loss. BUT! If you wish to vote on according to how a debate is supposed to work, vote for reason instead of opinion which so many people do anyway.
My opponent has given you the bias choices of which you can vote. He claims that my side supports discrimination, sexism, and homophobia; even after I have called him out for discriminating against my father, he claims I support it. WHY WOULD I SUPPORT SOMETHING I SPOKE OUT AGAINST?????? YET MY OPPONENT HAS THE GUTS TO ALIGN ME WITH WHAT I FIND DISRESPECTUL????? HAS HE THE NERVE TO DO SO???????? HE CLAIMS ME TO SUPPORT SOMETHING OF WHICH I DO NOT! HE ALSO CLAIMS I SUPPORT SEXISM AND HOMOPHOBIA EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NEVER GAVE MY OPINION ON IT!!!!!! THE NERVE OF IT ALL!!!!!
I would like to end this showing how my opponent disrespects me for he aligns me with things he "himself finds immoral". That shows how much he actually respects and how much he shows malice against me. I shall still respect my opponent in theses last statements, though he did not do the same for me as he puts me on a biased side that he finds "evil". "I myself" find this to be insulting and wish not to debate with him again. I do not despise him, but I wish not to debate against someone who based of "opinion" and not "fact" places me in a category that he finds to be "immoral".
I would like to end this with how I began: you cannot give a definite answer on this topic because morality is abstract and subjective. That means the answer to this is all based on the reader, not the hard evidence. WHY? BECAUSE THERE CAN BE NO HARD EVIDENCE IN MORALITY BECAUSE IT IS "ABSTRACT AND SUBJECTIVE"! My opponent has disrespected me by putting fake claims of my morality and my opinions, and puts me on a "biased side" as to "guilt trip" the reader into voting for him for he has no argument after "round 4" where he claims "he will stop arguing" which he did. He instead went to trick the reader into voting for him. DOES TRICKING YOUR READER SEEM MORAL OR IMMORAL TO "YOU" MY READER????? IT IS TO YOU BECAUSE IT IS SUBJECTIVE! HA! THE IRONY OF IT ALL!
I end this with the most respect for my opponent, though he has none for me as he has deemed me to be on a side of "immorality" though I have not once stated my morals except concerning discrimination but only because he went on to use defamation against my father which I find insulting personally. I hope the reader votes for reason and logic rather than bias opinion and made up sides to trick you into voting for Pro. In fact, if the Pro does not care so much about winning and rather about opening up world views (as he claimed in the 4th round), then how come he goes on to say opinions and bias claims in the 5th round to get the reader to vote for him? HYPOCRITE? OR NOT????? You decide reader, for again, it is in all perspective! ;)
Thank you for Taking time out of your day to read this--
Unbiased Con
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.