The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Vanish
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points

Religion: Driving force for good in the world?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,288 times Debate No: 24249
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

TheHitchslap

Con

I hereby challenge any and all to a debate on the topic of Religion as a force for good. In the memory of my idol Christopher, I shall argue 'No'. Terms are simply this: We will not argue about if God EXISTS or not, but the role in which Religion it's self has helped/hampered the World today. Everything else is free game so long as no one goes ad hominem. I eagerly await my opponent.
Vanish

Pro

Christianity actually has helped the world in different aspects. For example the Church is the largest single provider of health care in the world and they also created the first orphanages. They helped provide education and while there were those who were diseased and usually ignored, the Christians helped them and their lives were saved. In a way the religion is actually heroic and should be praised.
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Con

I would like to thank Vanish for taking me up on my offer and wish him the bets of luck. I hope we may have a mutually fun and exciting debate.

First we must know our history before we draw up to the conclusion that Religion was a driving force for good. I think anyone whom says that is ignoring several MAJOR historical events in which no person with apathy towards morals could possibly overlook. Lets start looking at the scroll shall we?
As evidence, I shall look at the date March 12, 2000 in which the Pope issued an apology from the Vatican. Due to the fact that this apology is far to long to possibly list on here I shall summarize the gross misconduct perpetrated by the Church.
1) For support of slavery during the European Slave trade, due to the fact that these slaves would be forced to convert.
2) Forcing world wide indigenous populations -particularly in North and South America- to surrender their culture only to be subjected to sexual molestation, battery, death, to even verbal abuse.
3) The admission that Galileo was correct, and his persecution unjustified
4) Various crimes against women (half of the world right there!)
5) Sexual abuses against orphans, including the Vatican Sex Scandals which even went as far as to try to cover up the events and negotiate a deal with the victims before litigation could come into play
6) For remaining silent during Adolf Hitler's final solution, in which even the Church was anti-semantic up until about the 1960's

Let us not forget that this comes from a group of hysterical, sinister virgins whom have betrayed their charge on a number of occasions in committing such nasty crimes, especially to those whom are the most innocent in our world: children!

Now my opponent has also mentioned the effects of healthcare; while it is true that religion was our first attempt to healthcare, because it was our first it was our worst. Furthermore, lets be more realistic I think it is a mistake to say religion does a lot for health. In hindsight religion is counter-intuitive to health, as even in Africa Religion fought AIDS/HIV, yet the only known cure for them -condoms- are seen as immoral. Is this a driving force for good? I say no.

Speaking of Africa, I think it would also be key to point out the genocide in Rwanda. Rwanda which fought the Tutsi vs the Hutu is the most catholic place in Africa, yet the genocide escalated faster than the holocaust it's self had religious preachers justify the killings of their fellow countrymen. Imagine a world without religion: The holocaust is gone, Rwanda genocide never happened, the Arab-Israeli war over, no threat of Iran attacking because of US support to Israel, the list continues. Who wouldn't want that?

Now for my end point in determining whom is more evil to the audience I ask you this and I will eagerly await your response in the comments:
Name me ONE moral righteous act that only a man with a religious affiliation may do that an atheist cannot.
Now name me an immoral act in which was perpetrated under the banner of any religion you care to name.

I think I have made my point clear for now, thank you for your time!

Sources:
sacredheart.edu/pages/12654_pope_john_paul_ii_asks_for_forgiveness_march_12_2000_.cfm
Christopher Hitchens, Intelligence Squared 2009 Debate
Vanish

Pro

I must tip my hat to my opponent, that was quite an astounding argument.
Now I shall take on your end point. You asked me to tell you one righteous act that only a Christian can do. The obvious answer to that is to become a Christian missionary. Christian missionaries work all over the world, helping and preaching the gospel. Atheists would preach only of God not existing and that is if they chose to preach at all. Now I shall acknowledge your second point. Have you ever heard of Joseph Stalin? Stalin was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee, from 1922 until his death in 1953. Under his leadership the Ukraine suffered a famine so great that many consider that it was an act of genocide on the part of Stalin's government. Estimates of the number of deaths range from 2.5 million to 10 million. The famine was actually caused by administrative and political decisions. Stalin also purged the Soviet Union of any person who was perceived to be an enemy of the state. In total, estimates of the total number murdered under Stalin's reign, range from 10 million to 60 million. His government promoted atheism in schools and they also held a terror campaign against the religious. He leveled thousands of churches and shot more than 100,00 priests, nuns, and monks between 1937 and 1938.
I believe I have answered all questions that you may have had.
Now I shall acknowledge the point you made on the first health care being the worst. You are absolutely right on that part but if the Christians hadn't come up with that health care people wouldn't have had health care at that immediate time. Health care would have come later and it would have either been the same or worse. Condoms, has you said are immoral if used in the wrong way but if it is for health care I think it is perfectly alright.
Now I would like to acknowledge the other points you made on the genocide in Rwanda. You are completely right if there wasn't religion none of this would have happened but some other things would have happened in their place. All the genocide and wars are pretty much just building up the countries and making them stronger.
I'll leave you with this. Religion has done some bad things but it has also done even better things in return. I eagerly await your reply and thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Con

I applaud my opponent for his attempt to answer both questions, and admire his respect.

To address the missionary answer:
The flaw with using the missionary as an example is simply this: Before the printing press was invented the Church has a monopoly on epistemology. In the literal sense here they had books. Not only did they stop any production on books counter-intuitive to those of the Churches idea's the individual would risk being dismissed from the Church. But isn't teaching Religion in this sense still moral? No, why? Simply this: once the printing press WAS invented the Church could no longer control book production. As a result in modern times, we see the Church throw on an 'ethical and morally superior' mask to hide from it's dark past of the pain and suffering it subjected their inferiors too. Therefore, it would be unethical to those whom had suffered under the theological fascism to claim that a missionary position (hehe I made a pun get it?) was admirable to the person holding the position and those whom suffered. In short the victims of the Church were screwed over. I shall await for another answer, although I will admit that was a good one and I tip my hat to Vanish.

Now to Address Stalin:
Today if Vanish went to jail I may want to accept his spot if he was particularly nice to me, I may even pay his rent in good faith, however the one thing I cannot rid in doing all of this is personal responsibility.
Christians in the ancient times would cast upon all their sins onto a goat and proceed to send it out into the dessert to suffer until they died, thus the term 'scape goat'. Not only was the person casting out the sins done of personal responsibility, they were then able to blame the goat. Now it should be made clear that morals does not come from religion, it is older than that stemming from the ancient Mediterranean times. Furthermore, at least Stalin can have personal responsibility for the death and suffering he caused as an individual and not by his association as an atheist. Allow me to explain: he did not follow the terms of a religion and did not take their ideology, whereas atheists have a tons of different ideologies, and so to hold one responsible for crimes and accuse atheism as a whole of being evil is a fallacy. Unlike the opposite side, with religion we can do so as the 'tyranny of the majority' is clearly seen through out the world, hence consistent opposition to contraceptives and homosexuality with it's members. Furthermore, this would strengthen my argument against religion as well, as Stalin had a cult of personality, and thus in the USSR would have been seen as a God figure; again the evils of totalitarianism.

Where do morals come from then if not religion?
Ever read the bible and come across the parable of the good Samaritan? Jesus educated his followers with the following message behind the story "undo to others as you have them undo to you". Literally meaning the traditional saying 'treat others the way you wish to be treated'. IF Jesus is telling the story he must have learned that somewhere, and in fact that saying has been said by Confucius. Religion did not get morals from the word of 'God'.

Also war does not strengthen a Country or a man. That closely resembles the 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger argument' which -if true- psychology would not know what Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is and we would have super-human soldiers. In the Afghan War we burn Opium fields instead of trading for it. It is not profitable. Again immoral religion as no one should cost men's lives to simply make an economic profit.

Now for my final point in proving Religion is evil: Take the story of Abraham, in which God comes to him to tell him he must sacrifice his son in the Lords name. Now the story praises this man as if his deed of murdering his son is justified just because God said so - a celestial North Korea it would appear - yet any half decent parent upon being told to kill their sons (regardless on if he did it or not) would have stared God in the eyes and said "Screw YOU". I say this is evil, immoral, illiberal, and were being forced to love someone whom can convict you of even so much as thought crime. Even for THINKING or trying to gain knowledge (Adam and Eve story) you can go to hell. The God may even tell you what sexual positions you may engage in, AND although cruel to humans, he loves you. I say again, this is not moral, it is theological fascism and we should meet religion with ridicule!

I eagerly await for my opponents response!

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hitchens, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hitchens, Where Do Christians Think They Get Their Morals From?, 2009
http://www.historyguide.org...
http://history-world.org...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
Vanish

Pro

Bravo! A remarkable argument indeed.

Yes, I do admit that there was a flaw in the remark about missionaries and again I fully applaud you for finding it out but that now totally destroys my comment and now I shall replace it with a new one. I believe that only those who believe in Christ can fully trust in him. All other religions have their beliefs and traditions but I find this to be something only a Christian can do.

You are also right on saying that it wasn't Stalin's religion that was supposed to be blamed but it was to be him. The thing that you should also realize is that without religion Stalin wouldn't have taught Atheism and also because you also acknowledged that it wasn't because of his religion that he committed his treacherous deed you should also agree with me when I say that it is possible that without religion Stalin would have gone out in the world and killed innocent civilians. The thing is Stalin targeted people and he killed 2.5 to 10 million people but if he was attacking anyone his killings could have possibly doubled in size.

Now I shall address what you said about religion not getting morals from the word of God. If you read the bible you will notice that there are a lot of morals inside it. The bible is also said to be thousands of years old and so I challenge you again about the morals. You also should not really bring Jesus into this because in the bible it clearly says that he and the rest of the trinity created the world. That means that they created morals too.

The part about war not making a man stronger is not true in a way. Of course you could come out of the war with all of your body burnt and also with you almost dying but then there is the mental part of it. You will get smarter and after they attach the other mechanical parts to your body you will hurt for a while but you will know so much more about the battlefield and you will probably also know so many new tactics for survival that you will actually be better than when you came into the war.

I will also challenge you about the story of Abraham. After Abraham almost sacrificed his son God told him to stop. God was just testing him. Of course so many brutal things might happen but in the end you will be stronger. There is also the part about tough love. Parents love their children but they still discipline them exactly like how God love his children but he still disciplines them and trains them. I believe I have completely covered everything you have said and I can't wait to hear you response to my argument.

Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Con

Thank you to my opponent for that flattering compliment

Whats the indication of a won debate? In my experience it was unanswered questions. The fact that my opponent is unable to think of one morally good act only a person with a religious affiliation could do that an atheist cannot is an example. I say to you good sir of course Christians believe in Christ, but as I have argued in previous posts this is not moral but evil.

As for the Stalin rebuttal, I shall say this: how many people do you know whom were killed in Russia under his regime that had a religious affiliation? I have no idea either of the exact number, however, assuming some were atheists that he killed as well, then it would be clear that atheism was not the cause, and even more proof of meeting religion with ill-contempt. You're forgetting that this man had an authoritarian dictatorship in which the state is above the people; it was his political ideology that resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians NOT religious ideology. Again he was able to get away with it simply because the people thought he was God-like. Even more evidence religion is evil.

Again, Jesus of Nazareth was born approximately 4-5 BCE generally agreed upon by historians. So, because the world is about 100-200 thousand years old Jesus did NOT create the world and thus could not have created morals. However, if you'd like to challenge me on it again then fine; the story of Moses taking the Jews to Mount Sinai is another perfect example of morality not religious. IF the followers being liberated did not in fact have morals, they would have killed, raped, and stole from one another, something the Bible never mentions. Again this also proves that morality was around before Christianity. The first known philosopher to talk about ethics was in fact Socrates.

In my final argument I shall continue to prove the so-called 'God's love' to be evil and not of good. Lets take a look at homosexuality, in which has been opposed by religion time and time again. It's very interesting to watch them become homophobic not because of what a gay man does but by whom they are. Apparently unlike the bible gay's are NOT made in the image of God and were born of sin!
Thought experiment here: IF EVERYONE was born IN THE IMAGE OF GOD ... why would such an all knowing all good being create something he loves ... all of humanity then proceed to hate against some? This is man made non-sense!

Religion has once again caused the Yugoslav wars, fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, the list continues. But even worse the most immoral thing of them all: in the Middle East where Women's Rights are simply null and void. No wonder they're in poverty. They continue to oppose the only known cure: that being the social transformation of women as baby factories to actual human beings. Time and time again history has proven the benefits of this. Even worse, in Afghanistan in about 2009 Kharzai – president of the War-torn country – imposed a new law to continue to have support from Muslim men, in which a woman even had to ask for permission to leave her house before she could do anything! The slightest show of ankles, or wrists in Iran may result in you being tortured by the courts for being a 'whore' and sent in a cell with a rapist. This is called Shariah law, and it is close to Islam. Again, upon learning about the moral police ... no one can refute religion's dark-side! For a divorce, a woman must go in front of a panel of judges before she may do anything. She has no control of her life. This is simply inhuman and cannot be ignored.

Good debate sir! I eagerly await my opponents response ..
Vanish

Pro

Wonderful and excellent. A magnificent argument. Good work.

I shall start by answering all unanswered questions.
As for the part that only Christians can trust in Christ I believe that miracles have been done by these people. The lame have been made to walk, the blind have been made to see, and many more. I believe that they perform these miracles in the name of Christ and no other.

I believe you're wrong on the part of Stalin getting away with murders because people thought he was God like. Stalin was only trying to apply a force of ruthless terrorism that would make people obey him. Essentially, dead people would not oppose him, and if there were millions of dead people, the survivors would be too afraid to oppose him. He didn't get away with it he was apparently God like, he got away with it because the people were too afraid to stand up to him.

On to the next argument. If you've researched Christianity and Christ long enough you would have picked up that there was a trinity. God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus is in fact God the son and he was sent to earth to save the people. God the father made the earth and after Jesus was persecuted he resurrected and went back up to heaven. God then sent the Holy Spirit to come down to earth. As I mentioned before God the father created the earth and everything inside it. He sent his son down to earth a bit later but that doesn't mean that he didn't create the world and morals. It also seems that you're getting quite a bit close to breaking your own rule about us not arguing about God not existing.

God created human beings and he loves them. He only hates the sin inside of them. If any of them were to return to him he would accept them with open arms. I believe this is not man made nonsense. I believe I have answered this questions.

All of the things you mentioned are truly evil. As you can see there is a dark side. I shall refer to the story of Saul in the bible. Saul had an evil religion and then God changed him into a good being. He saved many people after he had killed many of course. But the story of Saul is pretty much all bad but then because of one miraculous event his story changed into an all good story. Religion might be looking pretty dark to you right now but as time progresses the story will get better. Some religions might get destroyed but the ones that are good will survive. Only time will tell if this religion is good or bad.

An exceptional debate! I anticipate my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 4
TheHitchslap

Con

My opponent is the pillar of mutual respect and I wish him the best of luck in his future debates, good for you Vanish!

Religion makes you believe that the laws of nature and physics can be suspended in your favour only if you listen to them and them only. This is in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. If this is not morally irresponsible I have no idea what is. Only if you give some figurehead an immense amount of praise and worship. You cannot be moral according to religion without a Big Brother God looking down at you, nor can you think, or even use your favourite sex position. And even if Jesus really did preform miracles, why is blindness still here today? Why would God make us suffer? There is only one possible conclusion: that he WANTS us to suffer and thus still shows the darkness of religion. As an atheist I may also wish to heal others and thus become a doctor. SO, it is still an action a religion has done that an atheist can do as well and thus the question is still in the air.

As for Stalin, it was called his cult of personality, although you were right that he even purged his own troops and intimidation may played into it, it still does not tarnish the face of atheism as mentioned before; as no one atheist holds the exact same view as the other, only that God does not exist. Whereas religion forces you into a belief and spread it around the world (Hence aids is bad not as bad as condoms).

Again, as I have mentioned before it is unequivocal to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth did live. However, he was in fact born somewhere between 2-7 BCE, and that Socrates, Confucius, Aristotle, Epictetus, and Aristippus were all born before Jesus whom all spoke about ethics and morals in the world (as ethics is the study of morals). Again, Jesus, Moses, and Abraham must have learned these from somewhere and they did. That point has already been disproved earlier in this debate from a historical standpoint.

The story of Saul only furthers my argument again. As God abandons him after summoning the spirit of Samuel. This results in Saul committing suicide and his armies to be defeated. Not only does this prove God is evil for abandoning someone, but for also favouring another army over the human race as a whole. This is again evil. I know no one whom would wish to live in a world in which God takes sides, and abandons another. This is absurd to say the least. (1�Samuel 31:3-6;1�Chronicles 10:3-6 as proof)

To continue that religion is evil, one only has to read the bible to find that it is all about the destruction of the human race. It calls for a mass genocide when humans behave badly and only Noah survives. It also says that upon the rapture only Catholics will be sent to an eternal paradise for believing in God and the rest are sent to hell. Also proving a lust for the destruction for people. If the audience recalls a year or two ago, a radio-show host was calling for the rapture to happen (to which nothing did). You can also look at the scares of Y2K perpetrated by the Catholic Church as well.

But enough about the Catholics, even Judaism and Islam are evil as well. What man in his right mind believes that a freshly born baby was born in sin? What person believes in order to make that being 'perfect' we are justified in sawing off the skin of his penis with a rock, yet it is sinful to masturbate? This is immoral. Now it may seem natural to everyone else, but what would you think of me if I somehow justified female genital mutilation? It is the same thing! It could only be justified under the act of a Deity and rids the person of personal responsibility, thus proving that religion is evil yet again. That only evil can be committed under the banner of a religion.

And if all else fails, I think it's time to show you a product of religion. Meet this 14 year old radio-show host whom -in the name of God- claims that homosexuality is wrong.

I thank you for your time and I have enjoyed this debate. I wish my opponent well but I ask him whats his stance on homosexuality? What religion has the right to create gays, only to turn around and say 'Your born in sin, your a faggot and cannot join our church!' Or try to savagely beat these individuals in order to turn them straight?

Thank you for your time, I wish you the best, and I hope the audience took the time to read this and vote CON!
In the meantime here is what you can thank religion for: (see videos)

*Note: Kim Jong Il makes his people suffer, they think he is a God hence the argument against religion

Thank you!
Vanish

Pro

I don't think I can explain how much I love this debate. Thank you so much, Hitch slap, for making this debate as entertaining as it is.

I shall acknowledge your first argument now. Jesus really did perform miracles and now you wonder why there is still blindness in the world. People probably asked the same question in the time of Jesus and guess what? Jesus still performed miracles. Each miracle has its own time of manifesting itself in the world and just because the miracles haven't happened yet that doesn't mean that they won't happen. If every miracle came right now the next generations would seemingly be perfect and they would not get drawn into Christ. Some people might not receive their miracles and they might die. I imagine you might be asking why. The answer is that their time is up. It is finished. But the thing is that there are so many miracles that are being taken for granted. You being alive right now is a miracle, your hands being able to move is a miracle. There are so many miracles that so many people take for granted but that doesn't change the fact that they're miracles. People suffering right now might be because their time for their particular miracle has not come yet. The thing is that if you decide to become a doctor would you be able to perform miracles? Would you be able to turn water into wine? I didn't think so.

Religion does tell you to do things but it doesn't force you to do them.

The point I made was about the other Saul that was in the new testament. The Saul who got his name changed to Paul. I'll still argue the point of the other Saul though. The point you made about God abandoning him does not mean God abandoned him fully. That means that God took his miracle off Saul. God wouldn't give his miracles to people that would destroy his kingdom. Saul killing himself meant that Saul's time was over. His army got destroyed because it was time for David's army to rise. God doesn't take sides because he loves everyone equally as is said in his word.

With people behaving badly it was clearly evident that they would destroy the world sooner or later. God had to cleanse the world and then start it again. Not only Catholics will be sent up into heaven by the way. God doesn't have a lust for destroying people he does really want to heal his world though and to do so he might have to destroy quite a few things.

Circumcision is something that is meant as a form of baptism, it is not just God commanding people to cut off their foreskin. You mutilating a female genital wouldn't be the same thing because you are not God.

I'm quite sorry but the videos aren't working on my computer.

Like I said before God might have created homosexuality because he could use it to save and help other people. Also the thing is a proper church wouldn't turn their backs on people except if the people could play a part in destroying the church.

Thanks so much for you time. I thank the audience for reading, and please vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Come to think of it .. I should have bashed Scientology more LOL
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Ahh well then I guess I was wrong. However, there is still a few good religions out their.
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
The news article was to be fair, I know fox news isn't the greatest, but it was the only article I could find that talked about the Tibetan uprising of 2008 and it's crackdowns from both points of view
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Actually Buddhism has it's fair share of terrors
first it supported Japan in a number of wars despite being a pacifist religion.
Furthermore women take forever to reach enlightenment. It is sexist, Buddhists also feel that woman cannot be left alone when outside the house, and that more nuns in Buddhism should have far more rules. http://www.foxnews.com...
finally, if you want more info feel free to look up the Dorje Shugden controversy, Dalai Lama ties to India, and his CIA backing from the US.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Some religions are good such as Buddhism however, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the worst religions ever.
Posted by seraine 4 years ago
seraine
I think you meant anti-sematic, not anti-semantic.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Yes!
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Posted by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
Really? I didn't know that. Where may I read more of this?
Thanks!
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Fun fact, Con uses an argument about Healthcare used to counter Stalin's negative effects, but Stalin actually went to religious schools all his life and was going to become a preacher before finding out about Marxist literature.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Analytic, although I still feel that Pro didn't properly refute Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 4 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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: Pro's arguments weren't very good
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the resolution, but Pro didn't make the case. Religion is an evolving social institution; the force for good comes from evolving beyond past errors. Pro couldn't refute the errors, so he turned to the theological rationalization that because God is good, religion must be good. That's an unproven claim. the many videos seemed to be an attempt to get past character limits; they should be ignored.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: No official value was adopted by either debater to determine what is good and what is bad for society. Therefore the debate only focused on what the debaters personally thought had a good impact on society. Since no objective measuring stick was provided on which to evaluate the respective claims, epistemological concerns mean I must in good faith keep my vote tied.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: TheHitchslap made much more persuasive and germane arguments concerning the resolution, even if many of the phrases and lines are taken verbatim from Christopher Hitchens... He answered all of Pro's objections and points, and Pro conceded some of Con's arguments to varying degrees. Con had terrible grammar, spelling, and usage errors that made me want to behead squirrels. Con had sources.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Although whether or not Con conclusively proved that Religion has nothing but negative effects is debatable in itself, he did prove that Christianity (which is what the debate sort of boiled down to) certainly isn't a driving force for good through their negative effects, which is all he needed to prove.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that con managed to make better and more convincing arguments, while both of them did a good job. Con's arguments also really seemed to drive home the impacts that religion by itself has today. Furthermore, con supported his claims with far more sources then Pro.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
TheHitchslapVanishTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. I though it was pretty even. I think Pro had the better overall arguements but Con had better resources.