The Instigator
qopel
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chicken
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Is it wrong for atheists to try and dissuade theists?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 8 votes the winner is...
Chicken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,653 times Debate No: 30727
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)

 

qopel

Con

People who believe things without evidence, do not help advance science. Science is mankind's only hope of long term survival. If Atheists continue to stay quiet and tolerate the nonsense brought about by faith, mankind will be doomed. It is imperative for the survival of the human race that Atheists eradicate the people's ignorance of evolution and science.
Chicken

Pro


10 Minute 1 Round Debate. Here WE GO!!!


Resolutional Analysis:


1st) BOP lies on Pro, but because it is a 1 round debate, all Pro must do is refute con.


2nd)Vote on this debate from an UNBIASED Perspective.



Now onto the Con Case


FIRST is the con case:


There are a few problems with this.


1) There are no warrants for Con’s argument,


2) TURN CASE- “People who believe things WITHOUT evidence, do not help advance science.” Con does not HAVE ANY evidence on any of his claims, he’s essentially just helped Pro, because the resolution is not about science, it is about whether or not it is wrong for atheists to try and dissuade theists.


3) Ranting argument (All opinion)- Con has turned this debate into science vs religion, but has failed to actively negate the resolution. He upholds a stance that essentially critiques his own resolution, by implying that atheism is science, and theism is not. This is not necessarily true in all circumstances, and this speculation is rooted in personal bias. Don’t buy the argument, reject the debater on face, for 2 reasons


1) He’s destroying the purpose of this debate. His own resolution.


2) He’s not upholding his burden, and it would therefore be unfair to vote for him



Now onto the PRO case:


Contention 1- Attempts to impose order upon others leads to a totalitarian regime in which ethics and morality are put into question. This imposition hinders freedom and rejects the unique identity of the individual.


Sub Point A-


We are all entitled to our own beliefs. While this may not be true worldwide, we can see through a system of ethics, that we as a human species are not all living under “One roof”. According to Heidegger (An atheist), language is the absolute vehicle of existence, of knowledge. [1] Heidegger was not simply referring to physical words that are spoken, but those within books of knowledge, within theories and beliefs. Therefore, in order to actually uphold a system of ethics, and uphold human beings as individuals, we must allow ourselves to express our thoughts and actions while respecting others’ as well.


Sub Point B-


STOP- Pro is not saying persuasion is bad, only that the imposition of persuasion for a personal gain justifies totalitarianism, which in a system of ethics, does not work. The reasoning behind the argument is justified in response to con’s argument, which downsizes theists and creates an evil mindset of theists. Con is spurring a bad form of discourse and upholding totalitarianism (Not EXACTLY the form of government, moreso it is the act of forced imposition by a certain elitist group upon others), in which a select group (The Atheists) attempts to impose order on what they believe to be entirely false. While the others (The Theists) who are forced to conform, may also disagree with atheism, but not bark out and lash out against atheists.


[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...


Quick Note: I understand there are A LOT of responses to these arguments, but I am only responding to my opponent. DO NOT BRING PERSONAL BIAS PLEASE.



VOTE PRO- The resolution is affirmed.


Debate Round No. 1
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Beginner 3 years ago
Beginner
You seriously lack parametric versatility. Nothing against you personally, just a bystander's observation.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
I doubt Chicken typed all that up in 10 minutes. It had to be cut and pasted from somewhere else.
Very unfair.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
I would appreciate it if Chicken stopped voting on my debates. It seems that Chicken has not voted on any other debates, except mine, and has never given me any points. I feel bullied, because my debates are being singled out and voted on. I don't want to have to report this, but I will if this keeps up.
Thank you.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
Prove she's really 100
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Respect your elders! If she lived to be 100 she deserves to put whatever she likes as her profile pic.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
A liar who states they are 100 years old and female with a male profile picture hopes I get banned?

You disgust me.
Posted by qopel 3 years ago
qopel
Sure, gang up on me. Vote bomb me. Bad mouth me. You're all just s perfect and think you own this place, right?
Posted by Chicken 3 years ago
Chicken
I agree tras. I hope he is banned very soon, he's giving us a bad rep.
Posted by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
I'm beginning to think that qopel is actually an account made by a theist to make atheists look bad. If not, this defies belief.
Posted by Chicken 3 years ago
Chicken
Changed my age just for you so I could accept your other debates. You make atheists look AWFUL. I am an atheist, and you make me sick. You also know nothing about Camus, don't even try to justify knowing even the slightest bit about him. Please just stop these 1 round debates, or I will keep accepting and winning EASILY. If you want a real debate, don't bring your little ranting and jargon into it. Also, man up, and create a 3-5 round debate with no stupid rules.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
qopelChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con, of course. I don't believe it's wrong to state your point of view and try to argue persuasively to convince someone of their position. Especially if it's on important worldview issues. However, Con didn't make much of an argument. Pro effectively refuted Con's argument and made a persuasive one of his own.
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 3 years ago
lit.wakefield
qopelChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't understand why people have one round debates and expect to win.
Vote Placed by kingsjester 3 years ago
kingsjester
qopelChickenTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Devilsadvocate's statement.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
qopelChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Qopel, this is not a vote bomb, you actually put forward a very weak case and expect everybody to roll over and not vote against you, even atheists are in agreement with this. I myself am a theist, but if I put myself in the arena with an adanaced debator and get out classed, I wouldn't moan about it. For the record, I agree with the resolution but just not in the style in was conducted.
Vote Placed by famer 3 years ago
famer
qopelChickenTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons are pretty obvious here. 1Devilsadvocate basically said my RFD already.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
qopelChickenTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Chicken again with the win! Silly 1-round debates. They give the instigator no chance to rebut the contender. Chicken rebutted Con's arguments and made arguments of their own. They were not responded to.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
qopelChickenTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I have yet to see a one round debate in which the instigator wins. The opening statement was handily refuted with no chance for rebuttals. Arguments Pro.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
qopelChickenTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's basically impossible for an instigator to win a 1 round debate. Con said nothing substantial that relates to the resolution. He just makes a bunch of random irrelevant assertions & makes a non-sequitur conclusion. Con did not (could not) respond to pros' arguments, thus pro wins. (this is why 1 round debates are dumb.)