The Instigator
cheeto125
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NiqashMotawadi3
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

People should be able to choose whatever religion without being judged.

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 3 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 770 times Debate No: 48412
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

cheeto125

Pro

People should be able to choose whatever religion they want without being judged. You can choose to be a christian, satanist, or no religion at all without being judged about it.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

Pro has not specified whether the first round is for acceptance or not, but since he didn't provide any arguments, I'm assuming it is an acceptance round.

Pro has not defined the definition of judged, and so I take "judge" to mean "Form an opinion or conclusion about[1]."

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
cheeto125

Pro

What I mean by being judged is to be criticized about it. Because they have different beliefs. And I think that's not fair.
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro has not provided any arguments, but simply clarified that he personally thinks it is not fair. Therefore, I'm going to offer a rebuttal and then present reasons why people should be judged.

REBUTTAL

Pro remarks, "What I mean by being judged is to be criticized about it."

Rebuttal: This definition was not given in Round 1, so I'm going with "form a conclusion about." Moreover, such conclusions could be bad (as in being criticized) or good (as in being praised).

Pro continues, "Because they have different beliefs. And I think that's not fair."

Rebuttal: Suppose I joined a religion where I have to beat my children on a certain holiday to express a religious message. It is sensible for people to judge me as someone who commits domestic violence, because most(if not all) of the people who join my religion condone such religious practice. It is true that people can make false judgements and over-generalizations, but if I want to avoid that, I can simply keep my religious faith private, as in hidden from everyone else, or simply ignore the judgements others make and prove them wrong through my general demeanor and good behavior.

MY CASE

People should be judged because...

A1- Prejudice is often a good way to have possibilities about who a person could be, and then eliminate them as you know him to reach a proper understanding.

It is almost impossible to form knowledge about a person without any prejudice, as you need to put him somewhere at the start and think certain thoughts about him. It's much like learning a new philosophy and always having a prior expectation of what it could be, before you get to know what it really is. I'm sure that readers who are reading this debate have already formed prior judgements about the debaters from their display pictures, proficiency in English and different perspectives. It is meaningless to expect people not to make such prior judgements, which could be very useful in putting up options and then narrowing them down to better understand a person or a subject.

According to the peer-reviewed paper, "Advantages of bias and prejudice: an exploration of their neurocognitive templates," prejudice is good for the following reasons:

"Advantages of bias and prejudice as evolved tools may include their: (1) speeding of scrutiny and improving of target detection in changing or uncertain situations; (2) aiding of a rapid choice of practical short-term rather than optimal longer term plans; (3) allowing appraisal of a workable world by creating fairly stable categories; (4) motivating of exploration and completion of problem-solving which might otherwise be abandoned too early[1]."

A2- People who are public about their religious faiths are partially responsible of being judged.

That's because they publicly state that they adhere to a certain group which is depicted with certain traits. If they don't want to be judged, they can be private about it and almost nobody will judge them according to their religious preference.
...

SUMMARY

As I established above, prejudice is an important aspect of thinking which can't be avoided for epistemological purposes, and that being public about your religious faith is an incentive for others to judge you, as you publicly identify yourself with a certain group, and so it makes sense for people to judge you based on that.

CITATIONS

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
cheeto125

Pro

Just because people have different religion beliefs they are judged. Don't judge by their religion. Judge their character, and how they act. Lol. I enjoyed debating with you. Have a great day!
NiqashMotawadi3

Con

DISCLAIMER

Pro only used his last round to try and shift goalposts. The debate was never about people only being judged by religion.


I have not received any arguments. I'm not sure how this is a debate, but there is not much to say when Pro hasn't provided any arguments revelant to the resolution, or counterarguments.

I have given two reasons why I believe people should be judged if they publicaly adhere to a religion...

A1- Prejudice is often a good way to have possibilities about who a person could be, and then eliminate them as you know him to reach a proper understanding.

Prejudice is not limited to what religion that person chooses. It could also involve that person's appearance. For instance, hippies usually let their hair grow and wear clothes that are out of fashion, and so seeing someone with such traits could mean that he is a hippie.

A2- People who are public about their religious faiths are partially responsible of being judged.

I didn't get any response on that.


I'm not sure how this is a debate,
Thanks for reading.





Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by cheeto125 3 years ago
cheeto125
I agree with you, MysticMansion.
Posted by MysticMansion 3 years ago
MysticMansion
I agree that people should have a right to belong to any religion of their choosing provided that religion is not designed to promote lawlessness or murder etc.

Unfortunately the idea of not being judged is a slightly different case. In point of fact just about all human being do is judge. We judge who is tall or short, fat skinny, beautiful and ugly. We judge who is a good neighbour and who is not. who we trust who we don't. who we can leave our kids with who we shouldn't. Judgement is what man does. We judge ourselves and everyone else. There is nothing wrong with this it is how we exist and cope.

The judgement we have been warned not to make is against God. Each time we think and decide anything we first must judge God. We judge whether we believe what God has revealed, we judge if God is Good and should be obeyed. When people sin that is the problem they judge that God is false, a liar, a fool or incapable of promoting justice. In all cases they are making a huge mistake.

God has only told us the truth, He has only sought what is best for us and our eternal reward. It is when we choose to misjudge Him that we bring about sin, and merit punishment.

Judge not least thou be judged. Is about judging God to be untruthful, a tyrant, a fool, or weak. We misjudge God when we judge God's work and creation unfairly also. When we condemn His church or mock His adopted children. We all need to keep that space between our thoughts and our will open to avoid using our judgement in haste or imprudently.
Posted by MrDelaney 3 years ago
MrDelaney
Some clarification would be good on what exactly you want to debate.
Are you saying people should not be judged, or that their belief's should not be judged?

Also, what exactly do you mean by 'judged'?
Do you simply mean criticized, questioned or challenged?
Some definitions would help clarify the topic at hand.

I would gladly debate this topic with you, but I feel the topic is too nebulous right now to be productive.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
cheeto125NiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win is easy. Con presented rebuttals to Pro's argument and gave arguments of his own. While Con did give an argument he dropped it in round 3. He never addressed Con's contentions either. For that, arguments goes to Con. Con had a source showing judgement is good from a creditable scientific research website, giving him the source point. Conduct goes to Con for actually debating.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
cheeto125NiqashMotawadi3Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct and arguments, for refusing to argue. Con was the only one to have sources.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
cheeto125NiqashMotawadi3Tied
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: Only Con made valid arguments, Pro just stated his/her opinions.