The Instigator
PryorPirate93
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
SportsGuru
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,190 times Debate No: 3016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (19)

 

PryorPirate93

Pro

Jehovahs Witnesses think they are the next best thing to God. they immediatly shut out people that show no interest in their religion. They think they are the #1 religion and that if you aren't one of them you aren't going to inheret an everlasting life on earth. They think all temptation is the Anti Christ.
SportsGuru

Con

Before I begin, I would like to make a few "public service announcements". I am not a Jehovah's Witnesses, so any arguments considering bias for that branch of Christianity are not valid. If you are a Jehovah's Witnesses and you really wanted to take this debate, you are free to create another debate concerning this subject. This might be a mind-blowing concept to some, but I debate to debate. Essentially, I am asking the voters and my opponent to not crucify me (no pun intended) for defending a religion I am not a part of. I also request that arguments of this sort are not brought into the debate: "i am right becaus God created man teh bible proves this peopl who disagre are stupid beacuse they dont undestand how much god lovs everyone but prolly hates you. even look at jesus that is proff"

Finally, I wish by opponent good luck and ask the voters to base their vote on who did the better debating not which side they agree with.

First, I urge the voters to take look at the resolution. It states "Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion." Although there is the obvious fact that "Jehovahs Witnesse" do not exist (a fact which I am willing to look over, if my opponent is willing to), there is something else that must be paid attention to. My opponent is advocating that with certainty that "Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion". As I can argue against this any way I so chose, I will counter this with possibility. To put it simply, I am advocating "Jehovahs Witnesse POSSIBLY are not the perfect religion." Thus, Pro must prove with significant evidence that "Jehovahs Witnesse" are beyond a doubt not the perfect religion.

For clarification in this debate, I offer the definition of religion

religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Hence, what must be debated is whether the set of beliefs that Jehovah's witnesses have are not perfect. I will show you the significance of this later in my argument.

Now, I will analyze my opponent's round 1 statements.

"Jehovahs Witnesses think they are the next best thing to God"

Until my opponent shows that this is part of their set of beliefs (perhaps some religious texts could help), this is irrelevant. Also, he fails to show how this makes the religion "not perfect"

"they immediatly shut out people that show no interest in their religion."

Once again, my opponent has not shown that this is part of their beliefs and fails to show how this makes the religion "not perfect".

"They think they are the #1 religion and that if you aren't one of them you aren't going to inheret an everlasting life on earth."

Not to sound redundant, but please see above reasoning for why this quotes are wrong and apply it to this sentence.

"They think all temptation is the Anti Christ."

Once more, apply my earlier reasoning to this quote.

Thus, as you (the voters) can see, my opponent's entire round one argument is irrelevant until further notice. As such, he as failed to fulfill his burden of proof and must automatically lose the debate.

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
PryorPirate93

Pro

Okay dude obviously you haven't had any experience with these people at all.
I've been forced to go to their 'meetings' for 14.5 years of my life!!!
I think I would know what the heck I'm talking about. Infact if my mom finds out what i'm doing I'm grounded from the computer for a month.
Immediately when i mention that I wanna invite a friend over from school my mom says no, why because none of my friends are JW's. My mom thinks she's protecting me from Satans clutches but in case my opponent didn't know people are raped inside the walls of their places of worship.
Infact one of the elders was on the FBI's most wanted list for child molestation.
Furthermore, they are completely against gays and education.
They see gay and bi people as an abomination of god or rather as a disease that must be cured at once. Otherwise you aren't in the religion. But being bi or gay isn't a freakin' disease that can be cured.....
So they commit hate crimes!!!
And as far as religion goes they would rather see you give the company in New York your college funding then see you succeed in a future that will get you somewhere in life.. So until you can tell me what grounds you have to debate me then try to come up with some good arguments dude....
Thanks for accepting this debate though yo!!!!!!
SportsGuru

Con

Note: JW = Jehovah's Witness

Before I analyze my opponents statements, I would like to define the burden of proof that I alluded to last round and the fallacies of "appeal to emotion" and "red herring" that my opponent commits numerous times.

Burden of proof- a rule indicating that the affirmative has the responsibility to establish the validity of the claim made by the resolution; the resolution is presumed invalid until the affirmative establishes otherwise. (http://www.geocities.com...)

Thus, Pro must provide decisive evidence that proves "Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion" in order to fulfill this burden.

Appeal to Emotion: Using emotionally manipulative techniques to persuade someone that a position is correct, regardless of the logical value of the argument. It's an extremely prevalent practise in advertisements and politics; this is because it's highly effective. Appeals to emotion
are often used in conjunction with other fallacies to enhance their persuasiveness.

Red Herring: When someone attempts to change the subject in order to divert attention from an argument, it's a red herring. This is often achieved by introducing an unrelated but emotionally charged topic.
(http://www.lsnk.org...)

Now I will analyze my opponent's argument sentence by sentence.

"Okay dude obviously you haven't had any experience with these people at all."

This is true, as I stated in round 1 that I was not a JW. However, this is irrelevant to the topic and cannot be considered when voting, as this has nothing to do with the "perfectness" of the aforementioned religion. As such, this is a red herring and should be ignored.

"I've been forced to go to their 'meetings' for 14.5 years of my life!!!"
Folks, this is a red herring and appeal to emotion. Notice how whether or not he has been to "meetings" is irrelevant to the "perfectness" of a religion. He is also trying to appeal to your emotions by using exclamation points and using words with dark connotations such as "forced". He also gives no conclusive proof that he has been to these meetings. Thus, this statement should be thrown out along with the bathwater (but not the baby).

"I think I would know what the heck I'm talking about."

First off, that does not mean you are right. As humans are flawed, your thought process for concluding that you know "what the heck you are talking about" can certainly be flawed. Furthermore, to fulfill your burden of proof you must provide evidence such as the religious text I alluded to earlier. Baseless conjectures do not count as evidence. Moreover, this is a red herring and should be ignored by the voters.

"Infact if my mom finds out what i'm doing I'm grounded from the computer for a month."

Another red herring and appeal to emotion! The punishments of his mother have nothing to do with the "perfectness" of a religion and thus this is a red herring. He also attempts to appeal to your emotion hoping you can relate to the punishments you were dealt, feel sorry for him and vote for him. Furthermore, as there is no proof of this given, my opponent could easily be lying. Because of the fallacious nature of this statement, it must be ignored.

"Immediately when i mention that I wanna invite a friend over from school my mom says no, why because none of my friends are JW's."

Voters, please see how my opponent makes no connection between religion and his mom's actions other than religious affiliation. As my opponent has not shown any connection between his mom's action and the set of beliefs of JW's, you must assume that there is no connection and see how this is a red herring. Once again, my opponent tries to appeal to your emotions by hoping you can relate to him because of punishments given to you. Once more, he gives no conclusive proof of this and could be lying. Consequently, this sentence must be disregarded.

"My mom thinks she's protecting me from Satans clutches but in case my opponent didn't know people are raped inside the walls of their places of worship."

My opponent does not prove that his mom's thinking comes from the JW religion thus this is unrelated. He also uses the appeal to emotion by attempting to associate rape with JW. However, he does not even specify as to which religion the rape occurs in thus the connection fails. Even if he made the connection, he offers no evidence that this rape occurs. Thus, because of the fallacious nature of this statement it must be ignored.

"Infact one of the elders was on the FBI's most wanted list for child molestation."

Here the connection becomes more clear. However, he still offers no proof that one of the elders is on the FBI's most wanted list much less for child molestation.

"Furthermore, they are completely against gays and education"

Until my opponent can provide conclusive evidence that supports this, this must be regarded as an appeal to emotion and be ignored.

"They see gay and bi people as an abomination of god or rather as a disease that must be cured at once."

See my analysis of the quote this one and apply it to this one.

"Otherwise you aren't in the religion."

Please provide evidence for this. Otherwise, this statement must be ignored.

"But being bi or gay isn't a freakin' disease that can be cured....."

Until my opponent fulfills his burden of proof on certain statements above this must be regarded as a red herring and appeal to emotion and be ignored.

"So they commit hate crimes!!!"

Again, this is an appeal to emotion and has no conclusive evidence to back this up. Hence, this must be ignored.

"And as far as religion goes they would rather see you give the company in New York your college funding then see you succeed in a future that will get you somewhere in life.."

Although my opponent finally addresses the religion, his statement commits the fallacy of reification and logically fails (Reification: This is inappropriately treating abstract concepts such as relationships or arbitrary groups as if they have the properties of definite, 'solid' entities. Fine for illustrative purposes in writing, but not for logical arguments. For example, an advertisement announcing that you should "Use Natural-Herb X, because nature always knows best." Nature doesn't know anything; it's a concept that encompasses a wide body of things, not a sapient being. Inappropriately anthropomorphizing an entity is also a form of reification http://www.lsnk.org...). As defined earlier, a religion is a set of beliefs a.k.a. an inanimate object. As an inanimate object cannot want this statement commits the above mentioned fallacy, logically fails and should be ignored.

"So until you can tell me what grounds you have to debate me…"

What grounds do I have to debate you? The fact that I accepted your debate. It is not my fault that you made the debate open to everyone. You had the full option to challenge one person.

"…then try to come up with some good arguments dude...."

I am sorry if I appear rude or condescending in my response to this, but I am responding to a personal attack. My opponent suggests that I come up with some good arguments. However, I have conclusively shown why all of my opponent's statements should be ignored, fulfilled my burden of refutation and revealed 18 fallacies that you have committed. Please tell me what else I need to do. Voters please notice the fact that Pro effectively has not fulfilled his burden still and still automatically loses.

Back to you.
Debate Round No. 2
PryorPirate93

Pro

But yo??? i would know what's what in this religion!!!!
Go to a meeting once in a while!!!
There is a huge assembly hall near where you claim to live.....
Go talk to one of those people on the street corner once in a while!!!
I'll bet you that they will avoid conversion about the guy that started the religion in the first place..
Why because he is the guy that could profisy when the end was coming and when the end didn't come what happened to all the idiots that sold their cars, bought land they couldn't afford, and just enslaved themselves to debt because they followed the original JW.....
I really want people to focus on what i'm trying to say 'cause I'm not good at all this new debate stuff....
So please when voting try to focus on my main points!!!!!
1. WITNESSES ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS
2. JW'S ARE AGAINST ALL OTHER RELIGIONS AND THINK THAT IF THEY QUIT THEIR JOBS TO GO TO A MEETING THAT THEY'LL BE BLESSED FOR ETERNITY
3.JW'S ARE AGAINST EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER SEE COLLEGE FUNDING GO TO THE MAIN COMPANY IN NEW YORK NOT TO HARVARD OR FSU!!!!!!
thanks to my opponent and all voters!!!!!!!!!!!
SportsGuru

Con

I will begin my closing round by analyzing my opponents closing round statements.

"But yo??? i would know what's what in this religion!!!!"

Here, my opponents states that he knows what's what in the religion. However, he gives no conclusive proof that he knows "what's what in this religion". Even if he did, his baseless conjectures concerning the religion still cannot be considered valid without evidence to back it up. As this statement is unrelated to the perfectness of the religion, it is a red herring and must be ignored.

"Go to a meeting once in a while!!!
There is a huge assembly hall near where you claim to live.....
Go talk to one of those people on the street corner once in a while!!!"

My opponent advocates that I go find out about the religion. However, not only is this unrelated to the topic, but it is not my job to. Pro is the one whose has the burden of proof to bring evidence that shows that "Jehovahs Witnesse are not the perfect religion". I just need to prove all of my opponents arguments wrong to fulfill my burden, which I currently have done without taking the actions my opponent suggests that I do. Furthermore, this is a red herring and should be ignored.

"I'll bet you that they will avoid conversion about the guy that started the religion in the first place..
Why because he is the guy that could profisy when the end was coming and when the end didn't come what happened to all the idiots that sold their cars, bought land they couldn't afford, and just enslaved themselves to debt because they followed the original JW....."

My opponent goes on to attack the founder of the religion. However, as he offers no evidence to back up his claims, they are simply baseless conjectures, which cannot be considered valid in the debate. Moreover, this is a red herring as the perfectness of a religion has nothing to do with the founder. As long as the set of beliefs is perfect, a drunken hippie that was still high could have created the religion.

"I really want people to focus on what i'm trying to say 'cause I'm not good at all this new debate stuff...."

This is a red herring and appeal to emotion as this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and tries to get you to feel sorry for him and hence should be ignored. However, if my opponent wants comments and ways to improve based on this debate from me, he just needs to request it in the comments section. I cannot guarantee the best advice possible though, as this is only my 5th debate on this site.

"So please when voting try to focus on my main points!!!!!
1. WITNESSES ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS
2. JW'S ARE AGAINST ALL OTHER RELIGIONS AND THINK THAT IF THEY QUIT THEIR JOBS TO GO TO A MEETING THAT THEY'LL BE BLESSED FOR ETERNITY
3.JW'S ARE AGAINST EDUCATION BECAUSE THEY WOULD RATHER SEE COLLEGE FUNDING GO TO THE MAIN COMPANY IN NEW YORK NOT TO HARVARD OR FSU!!!!!!"

My opponent urges you to focus on his main points, but what he fails to mention is that I have proven all of his arguments invalid. Without evidence to back up his "points", they are just baseless conjectures. These baseless conjectures cannot be accepted as valid in a debate without evidence to back them up. Hence, you must ignore my opponent's points while voting.

To sum up, vote Con as Con has fulfilled his burden of refutation, shown that all of Pro's arguments should be ignored, shown that Pro has not fulfilled the burden he needs to fill in order to not lose, and has shown 23 fallacies that Pro has committed.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by stevencho 6 years ago
stevencho
How about some sources Pro? Instead of a bunch of anecdotes.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Although I do lean toward the L-D style of analysis and have a bad habit of using semantics, I have not actually competed in a debate round outside of Student Congress yet(if you can call that debate). Online, it just depends on the debate. In this one it was more beneficial to go line-by-line. In real life debate, I honestly cannot say
Posted by watermellon123 9 years ago
watermellon123
Disclaimer: I am not JW.

Con gets the win in my book.

Pro didn't use one fact, but only oppinions. Sorry kid, but children's oppinions don't matter. You're experience is limited, as do I, so don't misinterperate that as me sounding like I'm trying to be omnipotent nor omniscient. As my debate coach says, "No one cares about a little kid's oppinion, so just don't give it. Give facts or oppinions of people that matter to the world". Pro didn't refute one of con's arguments thoughtfully. It was all "well this is what happens to me and so it has to be fact". Pro didn't back anything up with solid, hard evidence. Pro simply could have said that there is no way to prove if a religion is true and perfect so thus JW cannot be perfect. It might not have held up but, it would have sounded better than "But yo??? i would know what's what in this religion!!!!".

Good job Con. You sound like a debater. What's your style normally?
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
Eh. Depends on what you consider perfect
Posted by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
What a silly debate topic. Perfect religion? No such thing.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
edit:

disregard my comment to agent D. I failed to read the previous comments and probably seemed like a real a**h***
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
@ jinzy

Actually, (assuming I am interpretating the topic correctly) my opponent just needs to prove that Jehovah's Witnesses are not the perfect religion, not that a perfect religion exists. In fact, he could of used the argument of "there is no perfect thus JW cannot be the perfect religion".

@ Agent D

Yes, this had the potential to be a great debate, especially since you have at least one side who won't use the "i am right becaus God created man teh bible proves this peopl who disagre are stupid beacuse they dont undestand how much god lovs everyone but prolly hates you. even look at jesus that is proff" sort of argument as I am not even part of the religion. Unfortunatly, my opponent just used baseless conjectures and fallacies and mooted the potential of this debate.
Posted by jinzy 9 years ago
jinzy
I think for PryorPirate93 to prove his point he would have to prove that there is a religion out there that is perfect. If there is no perfect religion, then he has no bases for an argument.
Posted by Agent_D 9 years ago
Agent_D
Well this would be a good topic for a debate. But im afraid we both end into nothing. Truth are revealed not only to catholic church but to all.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
They're not all the same, but I never said they were. While I can't prove to you that Catholicism is in fact also made up, perhaps you ill consider the following for me:
What is it about Catholicism that makes you know it is truth? Does it not have the same amount of evidence to stand on as all the other religions? How would a person, such as yourself, know that Catholicism is in fact truth?
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 1 year ago
KingDebater
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by stevencho 6 years ago
stevencho
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by slammin 9 years ago
slammin
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by WeaponE 9 years ago
WeaponE
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by watermellon123 9 years ago
watermellon123
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by PryorPirate93 9 years ago
PryorPirate93
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by jinzy 9 years ago
jinzy
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
PryorPirate93SportsGuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30