The Instigator
KibaWhiteWarrior
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

People have no right to judge someone based on their religious beliefs.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,566 times Debate No: 31431
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

KibaWhiteWarrior

Pro

In my personal opinion, religeon is not something that effects someone to the high degree that they should be shunned or accepted in an educated group. It doesn't matter if your are athiest or catholic, in my opinion. This has NO efect on your ability to do a certiain job.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I'd like to thank KibaWhiteWarrior for this debate challenge.

He asserts that someone ought not be judged for his religion.

On the contrary, if someone professes to be a baby-killing Satanic warlord, I think we all have an obligation to keep our children away from him.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
KibaWhiteWarrior

Pro

I correct my previous argument because it seems like my message was slightly unclear.

"People have no right to judge someone upon their religeon as long as the practices are not heavily wrong morally or legally."

I was mostly referring to getting jobs, making friends and other such activities.

(kudos for your answer, though)
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

My opponent has not yet presented an argument. However, I will still rebut stuff, since that's what I do here. Now. Yes. Let's get to it, then.

Pro: "I correct my previous argument because it seems like my message was slightly unclear."

➤ Well, there were obviously no defining parameters in the resolution. I wouldn't have accepted the debate had I known my opponent would have conceded that infanticidal pagans (or paganic infanticides) ought to be judged.

Pro: "People have no right to judge someone based upon their religeon as long as the practices are not heavily wrong morally or legally."

➤ But there's no such thing as objective morality. For instance, if you were an Aztec priest, then your day generally consisted of shoving other Aztecs from the top of a pyramid. [1] Clearly, this Mesoamerican sacrificial anecdote proves that morality is a byproduct of socio-religio-biologico-cultural factors. Consider the following fancy logic.

1. If Aztecs shoved Aztecs off pyramids, then there's no such thing as objective morality
2. Aztecs shoved Aztecs off pyramids [1]
3. Hence, there's no such thing as objective morality

Try deconstructing that. I think it's pretty obvious there's no such thing as "objective" morality. Since the new argument explicitly concerns morality, there's no reason to accept my opponent's altered case.

Pro: I was mostly referring to getting jobs, making friends and other such activities.

➤ Case defeated. Glory be to Quetzaltechnocitlialn.

Conclusion

A simple survey of pre-Columbian ethical theory obliterates my opponent's argument.

Sources
1. City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization by David Carrasco
Debate Round No. 2
KibaWhiteWarrior

Pro

KibaWhiteWarrior forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Science is done thru a process of thinking called the scientific method, religion is done thru a process of Non thinking called faith.

If you believe with all your heart and soul that the sun revolves around the earth, and then Copernicus comes along with the Heliocentric Theory that states the earth is the one revolving around the sun.

If your feelings are hurt, or your not going to be able to sleep knowing that youre delusional, is not the concern of the earth. The earth is a natural phenomena, nature doesnt care about your "feelings. Nature is Not evil for this, nature is simply indifferent to your beliefs, concerns, love, faith, hope or inspiration.

Nature is concerned with just itself, it is completely selfish to its own benefit. That is the only sense, and only time nature and religion are identical :)

The Theory of gravity isnt up for debate. Why? Because the theory of gravity is explained quite well by Isaac "christian superhero" Newton, and even explained better in Einsteins Theory of Relativity.

The Theory of Evolution is not up for debate. Why? Because the theory of evolution has been scrutinized by the most intelligent humans on the planet ever since Darwin cracked the code in 1859 :)

You can challenge the scientists and say, "thats just not how I see things", things wont change because of your "feelings"

CheckMate 6:25--Original sin? The only way it can carry the word original, is in the one of a kind way of using the word "original" There is no equal in lunacy, original sin is definitely one of a kind lunacy, the lunacy that humans are born inherently bad with sin is a very original way to be delusional so original, ironically it is now in fact unoriginal to be religious, there are churches everywhere to prove the unoriginality of religious indoctrination available for our children's minds :)

Birth defects, natural catastrophes?

Is your pansy impotent, evil, lazy, or fake?

Which is it, choose carefully :)
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
LOL this debate! XD
Posted by samurai 3 years ago
samurai
if you consider yourself an extremist muslim, im going to judge you.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 3 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
It's just Pro. I have plenty of room for my infallible case.
Posted by Smithereens 3 years ago
Smithereens
Is the character limit 500 or is it just pro?
Posted by Lizard 3 years ago
Lizard
The lizard will take it. Let me in!
Posted by rjacobson 3 years ago
rjacobson
Can you clarify your position? Are you arguing stereotyping people based on their faith is not useful, or that people should not be allowed to do it?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
KibaWhiteWarriorNur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro qualified the resolution after it had already been accepted as is, and he didn't defend the resolution, and he forfeited the last round, so conduct and arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
KibaWhiteWarriorNur-Ab-SalTied
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: Conduct to Con because of Pro?s forfeit. Spelling and grammar to Con because of Pro?s numerous typos and arguments to Pro, as all he needed to win was the point about baby-killing satanic warlords.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
KibaWhiteWarriorNur-Ab-SalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments to Con for the last round forfeit.