The Instigator
Lexicaholic
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
slobodow
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Only religion prevents disharmony

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
Lexicaholic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,117 times Debate No: 8626
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

Lexicaholic

Con

Baggins made the following statement in this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"Human beings would indeed descend into great disharmony and oppression on its own. Only the presence of religion can prevent that."

I challenged Baggins but he declined. As a result, I have opened this debate to the general public.

I would like to argue with my opponent about the belief that religion alone prevents disharmony. As I would like to debate this topic seriously, there will be no syntax or semantics arguments, except to the extent necessary to clarify a logical oversight (such as a failure to recognize that other forces besides religion prevent disharmony). If there is any disagreement over the proper definition of terms, we will rely on Merriam-Webster online. http://www.merriam-webster.com... If there are any other concerns about semantics or syntax related issues, we will discuss them in the comments section as a side bar before continuing.

I will be acting as the CON side of this debate. My opponent will be allowed to post his argument first in this first round.

My thanks to my opponent should he choose to accept this debate.
slobodow

Pro

i disgree
Debate Round No. 1
Lexicaholic

Con

I think my opponent has failed to realize that he is the Pro side of this debate, and may not simply disagree but must posit why religion is the only thing that prevents disharmony. With no proof, he has presented no argument, and his assertion should not stand.

We all know that crime causes disharmony. That is part of the reason why we try and punish it. Here's some fun research:

Refutes correlation between religion and harmony:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

Also refutes correlation between religion and harmony:
http://home.uchicago.edu...

Apparently, religion is doing nothing to prevent crime. Does it prevent civil unrest?

http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu...

Nope.

There is no evidence that religion actually does anything. At most, it gives people a rallying point. What they do from there, is entirely dependent on the culture and the times those people are living in.
slobodow

Pro

I wont even bother to read your agruement
this whole arguement is baised on an opinion
that is not a fact but an opinion
All i have to do is prove something else creates disharmony
Human instinct through evolution to protect the young found mostly in mothers, that stops disharmony and teaches the children to be in harmony.
Schools prevent disharmony by giving an area of interaction.
two other things that prevent disharmony and now there is no more point in agrueing
youve chosen a very unspecific arguement, next time specify
Debate Round No. 2
Lexicaholic

Con

My opponent has just proven my case for me. I am not Pro. He is. His duty is to argue, in the affirmative, that ONLY (as in solely, alone, by itself, etc.) religion prevents disharmony. Instead he has provided me a heaping handful of resolution negation and absolutely no attempt to debate. Disharmony is measurable in a variety of social exchanges, including criminality. Where it can be witnessed that another thing prevents disharmony, the resolution is negated. Where it can be witnessed that religion has no effect on disharmony, the resolution is negated. My opponent has said that numerous other social institutions prevent disharmony. I concur. Many things could be responsible for harmony. Education. Medicine. Secular peace movements. http://www.slhg.adm.freeuk.com... http://www.nonviolence.org...

My opponent doesn't want to argue. This is not a website to not have an argument on.

I WANT AN ARGUMENT!!
Debate Round No. 3
Lexicaholic

Con

If that is a concession, I accept it and extend all of my prior arguments. Please vote Con. I think we all know it is the right and proper thing to do.
slobodow

Pro

Vote con i accepted this debate on false pretences i agree with my opponant im even voting for him
vote con
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
"And CON, I'm sure this was a massive disappointment for you."

:/ Sorta.

Ah well, it's not like anyone was going to successfully argue the resolution anyway.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
lol Aric.

And CON, I'm sure this was a massive disappointment for you.
Posted by Aric 7 years ago
Aric
Dude, I yearn to vote for you.

But DDO says I'm not real.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
No, I'm arguing against the statement: "if religion didn't exist there would be nothing else preventing disharmony ..."

So I'm arguing that other things besides religion prevent disharmony
Posted by KeithKroeger91 7 years ago
KeithKroeger91
Hey, lexaholic just for clarification are you arguing that if religioun didn't exist there would be harmony?
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
You would also have to show that the person you are speaking of was affected by the religious proposition and not merely a value that the religion held in common with the individual. You could not argue, for example, that an atheist do-gooder was inspired by a moral prevalent in a theistic system. You would have to show how the do-gooder's adherence to that system resulted in his application of the moral.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
I think you would need to show a causal link between the value system that the religion recommends and the actions that the given individual undertakes.
Posted by amcclinton 7 years ago
amcclinton
Lex, are we not only able to discuss how religion is effecting disharmony? Meaning we are using the word "religion" instead of a person or persons. If someone is a Christian or religious (i.e., Gandhi) then it would be accurate to state that religion has effected Gandhi who has effected disharmony - more precisely the Civil Rights Movement in South Africa. Yes? No?
Posted by symphonyofdissent 7 years ago
symphonyofdissent
The absolute position here makes the pro sort of impossible to defend. I think an argument saying..On Balance religion prevents disharmony might be fun. Then the question would be whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that religions leads to harmony or to chaos/war/violence/death.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Challenge DAT.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by abromwell 7 years ago
abromwell
LexicaholicslobodowTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
LexicaholicslobodowTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
LexicaholicslobodowTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
LexicaholicslobodowTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
LexicaholicslobodowTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by slobodow 7 years ago
slobodow
LexicaholicslobodowTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70