The Instigator
NadjiGuemar
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Relgion, Philosophy for the Credulous and The Gullible

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 7 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,740 times Debate No: 32201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (7)

 

NadjiGuemar

Pro

The question is this: Is Religion For Idiots? Or, in search for less "offensive" terminology, is religion the philosophy of the credulous? My position is that yes, it very much is. Though, I mean to say that it is the philosophy of the superstitious, and is accepted by the credulous, because the only reason that they "believe" is that they're either afraid of the hell they've been promised, or that they haven't been exposed to real logic and rationality and science. I also say that religion is a pointless thing and belongs in the babyhood of our species; and it can cause pointless evil which would be avoided if we just got rid of this bullsh*t. We have to move towards science and logic, and away from nonsense and superstition. Good luck to those who wish to appose me.
Pennington

Con

I appreciate my opponent for starting this debate. We should have a very interesting exchange.

The resolution:


Religious Philosophy is for the Credulous/The Gullible


I will be arguing that religion is for more than just the Credulous and the Gullible. That the cause of belief in religion is for more than the fear of hell. I will show that many religious people are exposed to science, real logic and rationality. I will show that religion has a point and is very productive for the human species.


I will offer the definitions of those that supposedly only believes in religion:


Credulous- 1 : ready to believe especially on slight or uncertain evidence.


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Gullible- 1 : easily duped or cheated.


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


Most religious people will deny that they are unaware of science. Almost any field of work in the known world has had religious people at its core. I will offer a wide range of scientist who are religious and who undoubtedly have reason. On Wikipedia we can see historical scientist who were religious. The following link will also show modern religious scientist who have contributed to science and are considered very rational.


http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.jcsm.org...


I have shown that there are many religious people who are rational and know science. I will now show that religion does have a point. Religion is presented to explain unknown questions & problems. Religion has connected societies and divided them. Religion offers many a way to express their strong emotional feelings. Many religious groups offer a wide variety of charities and good-will making religion productive. The point of religion is to give society a moral guideline, while also giving answers to questioned that are unanswered by the normal world. Religion offers inner peace.


http://en.wikipedia.org...


Most religions in the world do not have a concept of hell, therefore making this point mute.


http://www.religionfacts.com...


I have refuted all my opponents points so far, so, I will allow him to address my opening round and to further explain himself. Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 1
NadjiGuemar

Pro

I appeal to the intelligence of our audience, that they should see through the transparent nature of your "rebuttal". Not to appear rude, but you know -and any person of any deduction ability knows- that you have intentionally distorted my claims, as well as provided equally futile and transparent "rebuttals".


There is absolutely no point, and it does you no favour, saying that "there are religious scientists" or "religious people are educated". I made no claim to the contrary, my claim was -if you took the time to read my point- that religion, in its nature , was a credulous and gullible philosophy. I made it very clear that I was not claiming the same thing for religious people. So, please, for the same of this argument, do not try to lie about what I claim.


Now, to properly rebut your claims. Only 7% of American Physicists believe in any personal god, 4% for Biologists (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...). Religious people are not at the "core of religion". Now, it would be same to say that pre-Darwin scientists (like Newton) where of faith, but that is easy to see in terms of it's reason. So much was left unanswered, but now, it is equally as easy to see why this superstitious nonsense has declined so much in the scientific community.


"Most religions do not have a concept of hell" There have been millions of religions. Name me, if most do not have a concept of hell, 10 religions that don't.


Now, in case you try your distortion again, to help you out a bit I will clearly explain my position. My position, and remember this, is: That religion, in it's persistence in the reward of Blind Faith, is directly apposed to scientific method. Since the very definition of "faith" is the belief of something without evidence. The monotheism's tell us that if we do not believe their hypothesis, we will be punished. This is not, as you've no doubt worked out, how a scientific theory tries to convince others of it's truth. It treats us like children, with a theme park of flowery happiness for those who are credulous- and the pain of eternal torture on the other side, if we dare to question (as we are instructed to do so, by science)


To the audience, I wish that you can use your mind and make it up with yourselves. I wish that you see through my opponents well organised paragraphs of well thought-out distortion. Good luck to my opponent, again, nevertheless.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round.

My opponent says that my last round was transparent and that I misrepresented his position. I think he did make himself very clear in his opening round. He said, "Is Religion For Idiots? Or, in search for less "offensive" terminology, is religion the philosophy of the credulous? My position is that yes, it very much is." My opponent clearly stated that he thinks credulous people use religion and its philosophies. He stated that religion is a philosophy that only credulous people believe in and that belief is based on fear of hell or they simply have not been educated. "I mean to say that it is the philosophy of the superstitious, and is accepted by the credulous, because the only reason that they "believe" is that they're either afraid of the hell they've been promised, or that they haven't been exposed to real logic and rationality and science." I showed last round that very creditable scientist do believe in religious beliefs and that they are educated.

My opponent says that this is not his claim and that I have distorted it. Well, he did not make his claims clear-cut in his opening round. By his wording it is clear that he thinks and approached this debate with the thinking that religious belief is useless and only gullible people believe in it. I have shown this is false. To just claim that religious philosophy is gullible and not the people who believe it, is, well, nonsense. Religious philosophy at its conception is from the people who believe in it. To say that religious philosophy is credulous and gullible, is to say the same for its believers.

The point of me to showing that very well educated scientist believe in numerous religions is to show the misconception of my opponent.



My opponent says that religious people are not at the core of religion, I ask, what is at the core of religion? Would religion exist if not for its followers? Is my opponent claiming from his link that only Physicists and Biologists have the reason to not believe in religion or are to educated for religion? The matter of fact is, is that there are alot of present day scientist in many fields that believe in religious beliefs. The link I offered in my round one shows this and I offer it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I offered a link showing many religion without any concept of hell but I think Pro ignored it. I offer it again:

http://www.religionfacts.com... I will also offer ten religions with no concept of hell

1. Wicca

2. Universalism

3. Taoism

4. Sikhism

5. Scientology

6. Rastafarian

7. Satanism

8. Buddhism

9. New Age

10. Aladura

My opponent also thinks this debate is about a select few of religions but it is not. Many world religions agree with evolution and any scientific method. If my opponent wanted to debate a select few, then he should have established that in his opening round. Many religions have no concept of actual faith in a God or things unseen. As for scientology itself, they require science and therefore have no need of faith without evidence. This is just one of many and if my opponent so chooses to keep this point I will show them all in round 3.

My opponent makes many assumptions and invalid points as I have shown. He has centered religion around one perception and ignored the many beliefs in the world. Many beliefs actually believe the very things he says religion ignores. He is incorrect about his religious concepts. I hope my opponent can offer us something in his final round.

Conclusion is that religion has offered many positives. Religion offers peace, unknown knowledge and moral guidelines. My opponent never challenges this point. Religion offers many acts of charity and good-will throughout the world and my opponent never addresses this point. Religion has had many very intelligent and educated people. Religion has many people who has reasonable beliefs. We are to conclude that the philosophy of religion is not for gullible people, though some are, that majority are not. To claim that religious philosophy is gullible is to claim the believers are also gullible. I have shown that there are many world renown scientist who in fact believe in religious causes and are not gullible. My opponents whole case is refuted.

Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 2
NadjiGuemar

Pro

Just a side-note: You don't need to keep thanking me for the rounds, nor do you have to keep saying "back to pro". I don't require your permission to make my case, thanks.

"He said, "Is Religion For Idiots? Or, in search for less "offensive" terminology, is religion the philosophy of the credulous? My position is that yes, it very much is." My opponent clearly stated that he thinks credulous people use religion and its philosophies."


Again, distortion will do you no good. Those who can be bothered will just read the very next sentence of my opening case, to find that I make the distinction between those who begin religions, and those who are merely brought up into them. Now, on to your "case."

"He stated that religion is a philosophy that only credulous people believe in and that belief is based on fear of hell or they simply have not been educated."


I'll have to put myself in the safe-keeping and intelligence of the audience, so that they can decide if you are merely quoting me and elaborating on what you think I mean, or if you're actually rebutting anything I'm saying. You're right, I do say that, but it will take more that just quoting what I say to disprove my point. Again, there is no point telling me about religious scientists and the such, because you know that my point was against the nature of religion.


We are expected to believe in the super natural, that which cannot possibly be known. Science, logic, the rational, and I say "we don't know" when asked on the origins of the universe. A religious person, on the other hand, says "I do know -though I can't offer any evidence- that there was a creator. In fact, I know what his name is. In fact, I'm on sort of personal terms with the guy". Now, you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem to really portray any type of scientific thinking. Respond to this point.


"By his wording it is clear that he thinks and approached this debate with the thinking that religious belief is useless and only gullible people believe in it. I have shown this is false."


Again, I trust the audience is intelligent enough to see that you have failed to show that my point is false. Simply stating my claim does not rebut it. You have not, and will not, and cannot show that religion, in its nature, is useful in the scientific realm, nor that it is meant for anyone but the credulous.

My opponent has sites Scientology as a "religion" to use as an example against me. I have to ask, are you serious? First, in Scientology, if you do not live a life devoted to seeking truth through the mediation of Lord Xenu, you will be separated from him in the afterlife.(if the audience should wish to check this fact: http://en.wikipedia.org...)


Buddhism also has a concept of punishment. If you are evil in a previous life, you will be cast forth with unfortune, or even torment, in the next. In 1943 the Dalai Lama, at that time, was questioned on the bombings of the Bombay Mosque's earlier that year, and if those who committed the genocide should be prosecuted. He replied, "Do not prosecute, forgive. Surely, those who have died have committed sins and atrocities in a previous existence"(Again, if you would wish to check this fact:http://buddhism.about.com...)


Satanism, at least Antonian Satanism, is not a religion. It is explicitly an Atheistic organisation, and a mimic of the Catholic church. Now, if you really even had a case, you would have at least been able to site 10, out of the millions of religions that didn't threaten you with punishment for not conforming to their beliefs. Especially since you claimed that most do not have a concept of it.


"Conclusion is that religion has offered many positives. Religion offers peace, unknown knowledge and moral guidelines. My opponent never challenges this point."


Hm, why could that be? Could it be because we are not debating that subject? But, if you wish, we shall. Is it, I ask the audience, moral that a god powerful enough to create the universe, doesn't appear to lift a finger in response to the massive destruction and death and rape that have plagued our species for millenia?

Palaeontologists agree that our species has been of this earth for 150-250 thousand years. I don't even need that to make my argument. I'll take 100, 000. So, in order to believe this nonsense you must believe that an all loving, all powerful god watched us - for at least 94,000 years of poverty and death and war, and illnesses of the teeth that took the lives of our children- with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago decided "Well, maybe it's time to intervene. And the best way of doing that is to have a filthy human sacrifice in an obscure part of the desert". Do you know see what I mean, do you begin to understand that you have absolutely no case to make against me. I will, again, put myself in the safe keeping and intelligence of my audience.
Pennington

Con

Thank you Pro for your last round.

On my opponents side note: It is customary to congratulate your opponent and to show respect to them. It has been obvious my opponent has no need for that.

I have did no such thing as distorting my opponents case as he claims. I have relied on the specific words that he typed and the impression he left. If that impression has been wrong then that is by fault of my opponent and not my own. The readers here, will, no doubt determine the intent of my opponent and also the rebuttals to that intent by myself.

My opponent should not need to be kept in safe keeping by the readers. He should instead provide a through argument. It seems though my opponent wanted to make claims about religion and not be challenged on the things he has claimed. The point is obvious why I showed highly respected scientist that believe in religion, they are not gullible or credulous, but instead have value in their thoughts and philosophies. Science has recognized them as valuable thinkers. This is a point that my opponent has made, that those in religion are not thinkers but instead are lead as lambs to a belief that is nonsense. I do not think highly repeatable scientist who's job it is to think, would involve themselves in a belief that is not for thinkers or is just plain nonsense.

What is the nature of religion?

Religion can mean many different things and in some places of the world, the word religion, has no meaning. Religion for the most part is a state of life that is bound by vows. It gives actions of how one should conduct themselves. It is devotion to a principle or rule or belief. Because of religious principles, we have many of the laws and morals we use today.

No one expects anyone to believe in the supernatural. Any belief should have a reason or cause for that belief. Many religions involve science and do not involve supernatural thinking. My opponent also leaves to think that science does not offer a reasoning for the origins of the universe but that is not the case. Science offers the Big-Bang as just one attempt to explain the origin of our universe. Also there is many ways to offer evidence for a supernatural cause, many will not accept them, but there is evidence for those who look. Religion is not science and does not claim to be a equal to science. Science and religion are from two different sides of thinking and can not be compared. My opponent is suggesting that religion should involve science but has given no reason why that should be. Religion offers answers and thinking that science leaves blank and therefore can offer ideas that science can not. Even if my opponent sees no need for that type of thinking does not mean everyone should also see no need for it.

My opponent says I have failed to prove his point false but I retort that my opponent has failed to explain himself properly. With the evidence my opponent supplied(which is minimal), religion and religious people are gullible. Then my opponent finally gives us his debate means, which is, religion offers nothing for science. Ahh, now we see my opponents true meaning and yet that is false. Yet again after such a claim he again says that religious people are credulous and furthermore proving that the direction of my argument has been correct all along.

What does religion offer science? Well what does religion offer that science can not? Science can not offer moral guidelines. Science can not offer interpretations to the meanings of life. Not to mention that science has shown many things in many religions that are true and false. Like I said religion is not science and does not suppose to be science. Religion is philosophy and philosophy is about thought and not physical means.

My opponent asks am I serious about offering scientology as a religion without hell, well yes, because it has no concept of hell and my opponent never shows us it does. Scientology believes in reincarnation and does not value hell at all. If one does not accomplish their goals they are reincarnated instead of joing the divine, this is not hell. From my opponents own link: "According to Scientology, its beliefs and practices are based on rigorous research, and its doctrines are accorded a significance equivalent to that of scientific laws. "Scientology works 100 percent of the time when it is properly applied to a person who sincerely desires to improve his life", the Church of Scientology says. Conversion is held to be of lesser significance than the practical application of Scientologist methods. Adherents are encouraged to validate the value of the methods they apply through their personal experience." http://en.wikipedia.org......)

My opponent thinks that punishment equals the concept of hell. This is incorrect. "Buddhism offers rebirth as a process whereby beings go through a succession of lifetimes as one of many possible forms of sentient life, each running from conception to death. Buddhism rejects the concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul, as it is called in Hinduism and Christianity. According to Buddhism there ultimately is no such thing as a self independent from the rest of the universe (the doctrine of anatta). Rebirth in subsequent existences must be understood as the continuation of a dynamic, ever-changing process of "dependent arising" ("pratītyasamutpāda") determined by the laws of cause and effect (karma) rather than that of one being, transmigrating or incarnating from one existence to the next." http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent is incorrect about Satanism, Satanist have a bible and a dogma that they follow, therefore making it a religion in every sense of the word. There is "theistic Satanism (also known as traditional Satanism, spiritual Satanism or Devil Worship) is a form of Satanism with the primary belief that Satan is an actual deity or force to revere or worship. Other characteristics of theistic Satanism may include a belief in magic, which is manipulated through ritual, although that is not a defining criterion, and theistic Satanist's may focus solely on devotion. Unlike the LaVeyan Satanism founded by Anton LaVey in the 1960s, theistic Satanism is theistic as opposed to atheistic, believing that Satan is a real being rather than a symbol of individualism." http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent has failed and every religion I have offered is a religion and has no concept of hell in their beliefs. My opponent ignored the link I that offered and it offered many more than I did.

My opponent has not offered us one reason to think religion is for the gullible. He has made claims and assumptions and not backed one of them. He instead tracks my remarks and never proves his own. He fails at even rebutting my remarks. My opponent also fails to guide us to the specific religion he wishes to debate that and that has been the problem here. He involved all religions and all religions do not fit his argument, my point and rebuttal. Also, if my opponent new about religions that offers a God or deity that is the creator, he would know they explain at length about the reason evil or pain is on the earth and why we live in it.

My opponent also says that all Palaeontologist agree with evolution, this is not true, I offered scientist who are in fact Palaeontologist that disagree. This being another reason why I offered the scientist I did. He never gives us a quote or scientist that agrees with him, I am sure there are ones that agree but that is Pros job to show us.

My opponent has failed. He gave no evidence what so ever. If a gullible person was reading his argument then they would believe him without any evidence and this being that exact thing he is arguing about. I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
proglib> "[W]hat I meant to say (and thought I said something close to this) was that I gave Nadji the agreed with before the debate vote as a benefit of the doubt type thing.

Ahh, I may have assumed too much.

proglib> "As to my preliminary vote, I have in fact speed read the whole debate. I'm pretty sure that changing your vote after a second read is OK."

Of course. I have done so many times. Peace, mate. :)
Posted by NadjiGuemar 4 years ago
NadjiGuemar
hurt*
Posted by NadjiGuemar 4 years ago
NadjiGuemar
Ha! No confidence in your points so you hope that sulking about your feelings being heart will help you out. I thought the point of debates was to get to a rational conclusion. That's why I enjoyed my debate with Pennington, he tried to bring up real evidence. Not cry about "name calling". How ridiculous.
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
Name calling is not a proper part of debate. It loses you conduct points, so that's at least one part I'll win.
Posted by NadjiGuemar 4 years ago
NadjiGuemar
"Skynet", this is a debate site. Don't cry.
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
likespeace

My apologies for misreading your comment about how much you'd read of the debate before voting.

As to my preliminary vote, I have in fact "speed read" the whole debate. I'm pretty sure that changing your vote after a second read is OK.

Finally, what I meant to say (and thought I said something close to this) was that I gave Nadji the "agreed with before the debate" vote as a benefit of the doubt type thing. That vote carries zero points and so is not meaningful for my overall vote. My overall vote reflects a fair (IMH0) reading of the debate.

You will notice that Pro got ONLY the convincing argument vote. IMHO Con argued a different case than Nadji's opening arguments set up. Con read much more into Pro's case than necessarily implied.

Thanks for pointing out what you did. Constructive criticism makes me a better participant on DDO.

Cheers
Posted by Skynet 4 years ago
Skynet
I'd like to vote, but I can't stand reading all the way through Nadji's debates anymore. I just finished one with him. Too many insults against the reader.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> I read much farther than likespeace, though.

I read the entire debate before voting. You are the only voter who has neglected to do so. Making "preliminary votes" because someone is "losing by a shutout" is not in accordance with the site rules.
Posted by NadjiGuemar 4 years ago
NadjiGuemar
I don't need routing for. I have already said that I would be prepared to change my mind if rational points were made against me. I have not changed my mind. But throughout the debate I have urged that the audience should only rely on facts to make up your mind. If that means voting against me, so be it.
Posted by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
Although I don't completely agree with Pro, I'm starting as a former atheist who is very skeptical of religion, and giving her the benefit of the doubt before casting my vote.

This is also because she is losing by a shutout, and I tend to root (sp?) for the underdog.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
NadjiGuemarPenningtonTied
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: Pro started out from an absolute position, and failed to demonstrate it.
Vote Placed by Trystanharpold 4 years ago
Trystanharpold
NadjiGuemarPenningtonTied
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: con had a better argument and had sources which pro did not. pro was exceptionally rude in my opinion and thus lost conduct points. props to con for the correct debate ediquette.
Vote Placed by proglib 4 years ago
proglib
NadjiGuemarPenningtonTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. Though Con is a much better debater overall, Pro makes a good case for religion being not for critical rational thinking.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
NadjiGuemarPenningtonTied
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: I'm awarding conduct to Con for the undefended 'idiot' comment, Pro's allegation that Con lied when he made a reasonable interpretation, and second of his snide start/end of round remarks. Arguments: I have read his title and opening statement multiple times. I conclude they do refer to religious people. Con used the obvious counter of pointing out educated/rational religious people, and showed the Hell justification doesn't apply to many religions. Pro backed off his initial statements. He'd have done better to make a case based on them since he had the burden of proof. Word your next resolution more carefully, and come back stronger next time. :)
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
NadjiGuemarPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I at least sort of agree with the resolution. Yet, I can award little to no points. I'm tempted to give arguments to the Con, as Pro had the burden of proof and made a lot of assertions and appeals to the bias of the voters, but precious few arguments. At the same time, this debate went quickly down a rabbit hole of squabbling about semantics, and I think that Con was as guilty of that as Pro. So, since I'm on the fence on arguments, and on Conduct, I'll award Conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 4 years ago
Nyx999
NadjiGuemarPenningtonTied
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: It was really close, but Con had the best arguments. Con refuted all of Pro's arguments perfectly and left Pro scrabbling to disprove something Con said (Pro trying to disprove Satanism and Scientology as religions) I believe that religion, although false, is something for humans to hold on to. Faith and religion has gotten many people through tough times, and without religion, and its rules, we may not have the kind of civilization we have today. Btw, I may be a little biased since I am religious, and I was very happy to see Wicca up there, so many people overlook it.
Vote Placed by errya 4 years ago
errya
NadjiGuemarPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to engage properly with cons arguments. Pro was also very condescending towards con and other religious people.