The Instigator
tyson
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Pitbull15
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Reiligious People Can Cause More Harm To Society Than An Atheist

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 4 votes the winner is...
tyson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 499 times Debate No: 48330
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

tyson

Pro

In this debate, I can prove that religious people are more of a danger to society.
Pitbull15

Con

I accept. I look forward to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
tyson

Pro

A internet website decided they wanted to figure out how many religious people were in prison compared to atheist. Here's a link:http://www.patheos.com...

They found out that only 0.2% were atheist, while the rest were involved in a religion. But that percentage was invalid so they wanted to know an updated percentage. In this update, only 0.02% of prisoners were atheists, and the rest were religious. That's even smaller than the first percentage!

I have provided evidence for my claim and I give my opponent time to respond to this.
Pitbull15

Con

Well, I don't think this counts as evidence as you're making the claim that theists commit more crimes just because they're theists. I was under the impression you would provide an argument as to why theism would cause people to commit crimes. Simply asserting theists cause more harm to society just because more of them are locked up isn't really proving anything; You also have to give evidence that theism would cause them to commit the crimes in the first place, and something tells me that's not why they did. It doesn't take a theist to know that something is a crime. Burden of proof is yours to show me why.
Debate Round No. 2
tyson

Pro

I apologize. I was trying to simply state what you said in your argument. I will provide better evidence to support my claim and use pure logic.

Religion causes war. 9/11 was taken place because of religion, because Islamic/Muslim terrorists committed these horrible acts because it was supposedly the "Word of God". Religion s centered around one god but humans are stubborn and they will claim that their religion is the right one. The argument will go on and on, and this will cause wars. And with the type of warfare today, atrocities will be upon us. Thousands, if not millions, will die, including innocents.

I will now use evidence from a website I came across that explain why religion cause brain damage. I advise the user scan the whole website: http://truelogic.wordpress.com...
Pitbull15

Con

"Religion causes war. 9/11 was taken place because of religion, because Islamic/Muslim terrorists committed these horrible acts because it was supposedly the "Word of God". Religion s centered around one god but humans are stubborn and they will claim that their religion is the right one. The argument will go on and on, and this will cause wars. And with the type of warfare today, atrocities will be upon us. Thousands, if not millions, will die, including innocents."

Well, if you're going to say religion in itself is responsible for that I can go ahead and say Josef Stalin murdered because he was an atheist. I believe that the Islam religious followers are the problem, not the religion itself. Let's say you had a school that upheld great standards, and there was a group of bad students in it. If they did something wrong, would the school be seen as the sole cause of the problem? Of course not. The students are the problem, and the same logic applies to religion.
And even if religion was the cause, Stalin and other people like him would still have a much higher murder count than the Muslim terrorists and the Taliban.

"I will now use evidence from a website I came across that explain why religion cause brain damage. I advise the user scan the whole website: http://truelogic.wordpress.com...;

Actually, despite its name, the website's nothing more than an unintelligible rant against religion. It's a biased source, and therefore it's probably not going to be credible in the eyes of the voters. You need to get your information from an unbiased source. I've never heard of such a study outside of websites like these, so that could say something about its credibility.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
both blaming muslims or islam for the atrocities like 9/11... it was a political reason not religious poor debate, if muslims/islam were the problems there are 1,5 billions muslims and you know what will happend with such amount of people...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
tysonPitbull15Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't really have a case of his/her own. I don't think con fully understood pro point, and did not negate the base logic behind pro argument.
Vote Placed by bettabreeder 3 years ago
bettabreeder
tysonPitbull15Tied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Madness is one bad Atheist compared to the religious people
Vote Placed by amik10 3 years ago
amik10
tysonPitbull15Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: What won PRO this debate was the 9/11 example. Con never fully refutes this. He tries to use Stalin as an example but that is a completely different circumstance. And 9/11 WAS done for religious reasons which goes un-refuted. Also CON spends a considerable time attacking PRO's sources rather than his case. Thus, PRO WINS!!
Vote Placed by oculus_de_logica 3 years ago
oculus_de_logica
tysonPitbull15Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: First off: 180 days of voting time? That's rather long. anywho: Pro didn't really defend the resolution. His cites where biased but they where sources none the less and to a neutral spectator would seem rather convincing. However, Con used his arguments in a better way and refuted Pros only valid point rather nicely. So he'll get the argument point. S/G and conduct was rather even so I'll leave that one tied.