The Instigator
GirlyPianist
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheFlyingPham
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is it orthdox(halal) to blame the rich for wealth inequality?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 12/31/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 84425
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (30)
Votes (0)

 

GirlyPianist

Pro

Definitions:

Halal: Any object or an action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic law. (antonym. Haram)
Orthodox: Conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church. (antonym. Unorthodox)
Wealth inequality: It can be described as the unequal distribution of assets within a population

This argument might seem economical at first, but it really has nothing to do with it and how wealth should be distributed.

My stand is, that it shouldn't be Unorthodox or Haram to feel a certain way towards a situation or a group of people. Of course using reason, it is not right to blame the rich for any inequalities, however reason and emotion are separate.

As the Victorian era philosopher said: Opinion is ultimately determined by the feelings, and not by the intellect.

And the opinion the poor have, will be based on their feelings of being deprived, sick and tired, envious etc.
Now should those feelings really be Haram? Unorthodox? No. Because it's something they can't control.

Thinking in a certain way shouldn't be forbidden or going against scriptures, innit? Those people shouldn't be considered as sinners for having an opinion.
TheFlyingPham

Con

Before I began I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting and clarifying everything before we started.

I am arguing that religion requires that opinions based on emotions should stay a sin.
I'll began my argument with the origin of worshipping any deity and the reason for their existence. They exist because mankind is always looking for answers. As society changed so too did religions, we all know how Greece used to worship the Gods of mount Olympus and the Nordics worship those of Asgard. And in these times people battled for their gods and wanted to convert people so that their gods would give them more favor. However it would surely prove difficult to keep peace amongst your people when people worship different gods secretly.

Now coming to my main point Christianity was created by the genius of the time, they created the one true almighty God. Why? To keep people content with what little they had so that they could harbor all the riches for themselves. And to be a true believer, means to be docile against the oppressor. And to have opinions based on emotions will ruin that system destroying the very foundation of religion in the first place. The Romans had their gladiator battles to keep their citizens happy in times of trouble, religion is all the same.
I look forward to your rebuttle
Debate Round No. 1
GirlyPianist

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for his curtsies.

First, the example of Greek gods is irrelevant as the terminology I used clearly showed that my argument was about the two predominant religions Islam and Christianity. BUT it could be argued that it is a valid one as the Greeks had the most obvious distinction between the rich/educated(Athenians) and poor/uneducated(Spartans) so I'll go with it.

Sparta was the first city-state in Greece to introduce land reform aimed at equalizing wealth among its citizens. (source: http://www.greek-gods.org...). This sort of action shows that the Spartans had those feelings I earlier mentioned, of envy and dissatisfaction, which led to them distributing wealth fairly. This in itself, shows that sometimes when people have negative feelings and opinions they could make an almost mythical footprint in history.

Seems like we are on different pages in relation to religion, because I don't see it as a genius creation by a human being but as a message from God. Now, let's get to the matter at hand. Unlike in the Roman times and Greek times, rich and poor aren't in complete different kingdoms or cities. Granted there are some fancy places and some slums, the interaction in modern days is much more apparent. And so the feelings would be stronger. Some take those feelings and make them negative, by crime. Others make them positive by aspiring to be like that/have that and so on. And life is never just full of positiveness, soo that shouldn't be sinful.

"And to have opinions based on emotions will ruin that system destroying the very foundation of religion in the first place."
Isn't faith in itself, emotional? On blind faith, like heaven and hell/Paradise and Jahannam, emotion proves to be a source of spiritual knowledge. Emotion strengthens knowledge, and thus systems. So how could it ruin/destroy the foundation of religion.

To conclude, blaming the rich for inequalities is unfair on them but that feeling shouldn't also make them feel guilty. As unhappiness is not a sin. Turning the negativity around to be positive will prove to be rewarding.

Vote Pro~
^_^
TheFlyingPham

Con

Thank you for not disregarding the the Greek/Norse gods but continuing to rebuttal, but I was merely using them to show an entire civilization lost their way of life because because they could not keep the majority/poor happy.

I'm gonna start with my conclusion which is
Blaming the rich and greedy for inequalities is actually fair, however institutions like religion wants you to practice peace through willful ignorance, by keeping people happy without question. Christianity needs to keep those negative emotions as a sin, because if people start complaining a new religion may take place, just as Greece lost its famous religions. Remember the 7 deadly sins of man Green, Lust, Wraith, gluttony, sloth, pride, envy. Too much of any of these emotions will destroy a person.
Debate Round No. 2
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GirlyPianist 1 year ago
GirlyPianist
kya.'^-^ Thought you did cause peepette - pipette.

And hankssss whiteflame! And moneystacker you can try again if you wantttt x)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: moneystacker// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were too far fetched and ludicrous for me. Grammar was good on both sides really so was conduct.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Voter doesn't explain sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to give specific examples of why Pro is winning the debate and why Con is losing it, not generalize problems as they see them.
************************************************************************
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Chemistry was never my strong area. I'm more of a history person.
Posted by GirlyPianist 1 year ago
GirlyPianist
This basically sums it up in a paragraph :'o
Thankyouuuuu Peepette! Ps: Do you like chemistryy?
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
RFD: Pro contends that feelings of the poor against the rich should not be sinful because it"s uncontrollable. Feelings of envy and dissatisfaction moved Sparta to a more equitable distribution of wealth. Con rebuts these opinions should remain a sin due to needing to keep the poor content with their lot and docile toward their (religious) oppressors; to have such opinions undermines religion. Pro rebuts that current juxtaposition in current society amplifies these feelings and results can be positive or negative, thus should not be sinful. Pro continues to rebut Con undermining principle stating that religion and faith in itself is emotional and unhappiness should not be a sin. Con essentially repeats the same rebuttal and cites loss of a previous religion as an example. Pro wins. S&G, Conduct and Sources tied.
Posted by GirlyPianist 1 year ago
GirlyPianist
Thankyou for voting moneystacker!
Posted by GirlyPianist 1 year ago
GirlyPianist
Oh! Thank you whiteflame! Now I know how to vote properly :'D (once my mobile provider is added T^T)

Themeaman909, try voting again with more detail c:
Posted by GirlyPianist 1 year ago
GirlyPianist
Ragnar it was exactly as you put it, I just had an idea of a topic I wasn't even sure if it would be good for a debate.

I should have made it more rounds true Dx But I wanted to start with something simple, argument and counter argument - should have chose a simpler topic haha I will keep in mind the title trick because I felt like I shouldn't repeat myself in the first round but I wanted to explain it further.
Kya... I was so focused on rebuttal. My English teacher would probably be rolling in her bed now. One source is pitiful. I'll do better next time! Thankyouuu so muchhhh! :'D
Posted by TheFlyingPham 1 year ago
TheFlyingPham
Thanks Ragnar I just reposted everything off the top of my head because we both knew the rounds were to short but gave it a shot anyways since we are still kinda new to this site.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Themeaman909// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: This was way to short. By the current arguments given, I would say con wins this one. They were both not very clear with their arguments, but con was a bit more clear at the end. If pro would have been able to make a rebuttal to cons ending statement, than she may have won.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to reference specific arguments in their decision and compare them within the scope of the debate as a whole, but this RFD only assesses the debate in vague generalities.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.