The Instigator
LogicalThinker
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jm_notguilty
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Religion as a form of worship should be banned

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...
jm_notguilty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,164 times Debate No: 18102
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

LogicalThinker

Pro

Accept my challenge?
jm_notguilty

Con

Challenge accepted.

I leave you with your opening arguments.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
LogicalThinker

Pro

Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.


Foundation of religion

Religion has existed for some 30000 years[1]. At the start it was most likely a way for people to answer questions such as: who are we? Where did we come from? What is death? What is this planet? Etc. But, importantly, it was creative. We know they produced art[2] for example and this art illustrated the stories that they must have told. We also see this in the bible, the Koran and the Torah. They have beautifully illustrated chapters and imaginative proverbs and moral tales. That is why I specifically stated that it should be banned as a form of worship. I'm all for creativity.


Dogma

Heb 11:1 (NEB) "Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see"[3]. In other words you are told to believe something that has not been proved. Now what does that remind you of? "As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks: to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party and to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible"[4]. Yes; we all know how well that worked out for Hitler. The way to combat events like that is for people to think logically, and not have 'faith'.


So; can the church ( unlike Hitler ) be trusted?

Well; the catholic church in Ireland greatly took advantage of their power in Ireland over the last century. Up until just thirty years ago, I.E. 1980, It was illegal to sell or import contraception in Ireland[5], such was the strangle-hold the church had on the state. Even ten years ago there was only one shop in the country that sold condoms.

You may say that something like that would not happen again but the fact is, while people take the church's word for everything, it can happen again. I can only come to the same conclusion that I came to under the last heading, which was: people must look at fact, not at ancient texts.


An external view point

Imagine an alien looking at our planet. What would they think? Why do those people congregate en masse to sing chants and light candles in stone buildings? They would be concerned for our sanity!

What I'm saying is; it's OK to hypothesise and try to imagine how our universe came into existence, but we must also use maths and logic to explain to ourselves who we are, where we came from, what death is and what our universe is.
jm_notguilty

Con

I thank PRO for his response.


Rebuttals:

“Foundation of Religion”

“....They have beautifully illustrated chapters and imaginative proverbs and moral tales... I'm all for creativity.”

As you defined Religion in the previous round via thefreedictionary.com, you defined it as a belief, and another definition from that same site relevant to that quoted statement is that Religion is a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship; it is a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Religious worship is Religion in general, there is no such thing as Religion without worship, because without Religion being an honouring and glorification to a higher supernatural being, then Religion is nothing. If we just make Religion all about creativity, then it’s useless, and soon the creativity will vanish as artists or people cannot find inspiration from Religion. What influenced and inspired the artists who made beautiful Religious art? They’re faith and tremendous belief to Religion, and for them and a huge number of people, religion is a highly important and positive part of their everyday lives, forbidding it can be counter-productive, unreasonable, harmful and highly prejudicial and unlawful to them and I will support these claims in my following arguments.


“Dogma”

“Heb 11:1 (NEB) "Faith... makes us certain of realities we do not see"... In other words you are told to believe something that has not been proved. Now what does that remind you of?”

‘Faith’ is such an overrated word, some people misinterpret it, faith is a trust in something, faith in God and faith in yourself is an important aspect of human nature, like ‘I hope I pass the exam to make it to the next grade’ or ‘Please, please, let my father live and survive the surgery’. Faith is considered to be one of the most important values to have in life.

There are lots of evidence and arguments supporting the existence of God, but that’s another topic, and if you say that you do not believe in something that hasn’t been proved, then you shouldn’t believe in extraterrestrial beings as you stated in your external view point in the previous round, because there are no evidence that they exist.

Just because people have faith is not a reasonable reason to deprive them of Religion.

"...Yes; we all know how well that worked out for Hitler. The way to combat events like that is for people to think logically, and not have 'faith'...”

I can’t seem to understand your point in this matter, but as the website say, those events were a propaganda, and a propaganda is an art of persuasion - persuading others that your 'side of the story' is correct. If you say the Hitler’s atheistic, genocidal and disgraceful way of dictating others on logical and critical thinking is acceptable and an OK-way of enforcing an anti-Religion law, then we would live in an apocalyptic and an ominous society where we human rights is ignored and abolished.


"So; can the church ( unlike Hitler ) be trusted?”

“...You may say that something like that would not happen again but the fact is, while people take the church's word for everything, it can happen again..."

Yes, it’s highly unlikely for those things to happen again, and good news that the law has been abolished.

You say that people will take the church’s word on everything, but that’s not true, we must consider other Religions and other people’s belief, since most countries are secular ones, where the separation of church and state policy is enforced, there may be times where the government can overrule the church’s objections based on religious grounds since the state has a higher authority, but that doesn’t mean that religion should be banned. Prohibiting religion is entirely and grossly undesirable as I said above, it is also a fundamental right for someone to have it. I will argue further about the secular issues in my arguments below.


“An external view point”

“Imagine an alien looking at our planet..."

That statement somewhat suggests thate you believe in extraterrestrials, but there are no known full-proof evidence of life outside Earth. So why believe something that hasn’t been proved? You are also assuming their psychological state and on how they think, how do you know they think like what humans do? And how will you know that they’ll question our sanity, If aliens judge us with what we do in masses because of our gestures, won’t they judge us on how we eat, sleep, talk? Do you know for a fact that aliens do not worship gods or that aliens are against worship?

And the whole concept of an alien observing Earth is such an unreasonable and ludicrous way of arguing that Religion should be banned.

As I said, there are numerous arguments supporting God’s existence and that saying that it’s imaginatory is naive. We already have a number of people like scientists and philosophers to do those things, examine life, and we do not need to brainwash people and force them on thinking scientifically while their beliefs are ignored and left behind, because it’s such a shameful tactic considering that we live in a society that values morals and rights.

But let me ask you this even though it’s rhetorical, will your view on this topic be different if you were raised by strict Catholic parents in Ireland, or raised in a religious Hindu community in India?

Arguments:

Freedom of Religion

As I said in my previous statements, banning Religion is undesirable, harmful and best of all, unlawful. In accordance to International Law, signed by a vast majority of countries, the freedom of religion is protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). [1][2] [2] Article 18 of the ICCPR specifically states that everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to manifest his/her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

It also states that “no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”.... Making it Banned from the public and forcing people away from it is illegal and may be subject to legal action by the ICC.

A notable example of states protecting the freedom of Religion is the USA, under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and prohibits any law interfering or violating that right.[3]

In my previous rebuttal about Ireland, I mentioned that there are secular countries [4], and there are secular laws concerning the separation of Church and State, where the separation policy is enforced according to most countries. We have Secular Laws even though it conflicts with Freedom of Religion, as long as it is necessary to protect society, which is according to the ICCPR, that there are limitations when Religion is in conflict with the state. [5]

When we disregard these rights and ban Religion, then a responsible government can be liable for violating these rights and legal actions will be filed, the legal outcome would be bad, and who knows, the United Nations would probably collapse causing a great conflict on nations, these causes a negative impact on society, rallies and protest will increase, non-stop mayhem will happen and possibly, a massive world war can occur.

Banning it will cause no good, it may worsen the situation but believe it or not, people will still have faith and will still worship their God no matter what.

So, in conclusion, I’ve said it numerous times and I’ll say it again, Religion is an important and fundamental right, its values and morals are an important aspect of life to a huge majority of people and depriving them of Religion is unlawful, illegal and highly prejudicial, it is considered a discrimination to people and a violation of human rights and can cause a negative impact on society when it is banned.

I end my arguments for now, good luck to my opponent.

Sources:

Please See Comments.
Debate Round No. 2
LogicalThinker

Pro

Foundation Of Religion


"...If we just make Religion all about creativity, then it’s useless, and soon the creativity will vanish as artists or people cannot find inspiration from Religion. What influenced and inspired the artists who made beautiful Religious art? They’re faith and tremendous belief to Religion, and for them and a huge number of people, religion is a highly important and positive part of their everyday lives...".

Why would people not be able to find inspiration from religion if worship was banned? I'm not suggesting all religious books be banned as these are the where all the inspiration is. Con can't even prove that these ancient artists created these works simply because they believed in a supernatural being. What we know is that their works depict scenes from religious scripture. We don't know that God had anything to do with their inspiration and for the purposes of the debate we can't assume something that we don't know to be true.


This is a list of some of the most influential artistic atheists[1].



Dogma


"‘Faith’ is such an overrated word, some people misinterpret it, faith is a trust in something, faith in God and faith in yourself is an important aspect of human nature...".

My opponent has left the task of defining faith to me. Faith, as defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary: n. 1 complete trust or confidence

I understand that as this definition is not printed on the Internet it is not readily available for most voters (and, of course, my opponent) to verify but I trust that you will have faith in my definition.

"...like ‘I hope I pass the exam to make it to the next grade’ or ‘Please, please, let my father live and survive the surgery’. Faith is considered to be one of the most important values to have in life".

According to the Oxford English Dictionary you are using the wrong definition of faith here. When you say "I hope I pass the exam to make it to the next grade" you are not having faith but rather hope. You say this yourself. Similarly when you say "Please, please, let my father live and survive the surgery" you do not know that he will survive; therefore you have 'hope' and not 'faith'. You would like to have faith, of course, your father has just had surgery but you simply do not no that he will survive.

"Faith is considered to be one of the most important values to have in life".

Please give evidence to suggest that this is true as you only demonstrated that hope is an important aspect of live.


"There are lots of evidence and arguments supporting the existence of God, but that’s another topic..."

Please do not state a fact that you are not willing to prove.


"...and if you say that you do not believe in something that has’t been proved, then you shouldn’t believe in extraterrestrial beings as you stated in your external view point in the previous round, because there are no evidence that they exist".

I do not state that I have a belief in extra-terrestrial-beings and I shall make this very clear to you later in this round.


"Just because people have faith is not a reasonable reason to deprive them of Religion".

I have set out to prove why religion as a form of worship should be banned and I have given reasonable arguments in relation to why this should happen.


"I can’t seem to understand your point in this matter, but as the website say...".

I assume you are referring to this website[2].


Do not, under under any circumstances, accuse me of being a Nazi or a supporter of Hitler in any way, what-so-ever! I made no suggestion that I support him and he has nothing to do with atheism. He was a Catholic!


Now that we're clear on that; I shall explain propaganda and faith.

Propaganda, as defined by Google: Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Now; propaganda and faith are clearly to different things. One is a personal assumption of something to be true and the other is the art of persuading others that something is true. Hitler had faith in his belief that Jewish people where inferior to every-one else. The problem was that he used propaganda to spread this belief. You only way that you can prevent this from happening would be for people to question what they are told (most people didn't question Hitler). This would also involve questioning religion, which can't be done as it is based on faith. I stated this in round two and my opponent still hasn't provided an alternative method for preventing propaganda.


"You say that people will take the church’s word on everything... since most countries are secular ones, where the separation of church and state policy is enforced, there may be times where the government can overrule the church’s objections based on religious grounds since the state has a higher authority, but that doesn’t mean that religion should be banned".

Yes; the state can intervene but it shouldn't have to. People should know when the church is going a step to far and choose not to follow it. The problem is people grow up accepting what the church has to say and they don't build up their own opinions.


"You say that people will take the church’s word on everything, but that’s not true, we must consider other Religions and other people’s belief..."

Considering other peoples views doesn't have anything to do with people taking the church's word for everything. I'm not biased though; I think all religions should be banned as a form of worship.


An External View Point


"'Imagine an alien looking at our planet...'

That statement somewhat suggests thate you believe in extraterrestrials"

Maybe it would help if I defined the term 'alien'.

Alien, as defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary: n. 1 a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.

In other words an alien is an outsider. In this context a hypothetical outsider capable of studying human's and their practices. The fact that I was not referring to extra-terrestrials rubbishes the rest of my opponent's argument, so I will not bother quoting it.


"...We already have a number of people like scientists and philosophers to do those things, examine life, and we do not need to brainwash people and force them on thinking scientifically while their beliefs are ignored and left behind, because it’s such a shameful tactic considering that we live in a society that values morals and rights".

The point is: science isn't brainwashing. Science isn't a thing like religion is. It is the practise of coming to a conclusion based on factual workings. People don't have to take some-one's word for something; they can ask a question and set out to find an answer by studying the facts that they have. I'm simply asking that people be forced to think for themselves; a paradox, though, it may seem.


"But let me ask you this even though it’s rhetorical, will your view on this topic be different if you were raised by strict Catholic parents in Ireland, or raised in a religious Hindu community in India"?

Actually; my parents are protestants who attend church every Sunday.



My opponents arguments

Actually; my opponent has no arguments!

"As I said in my previous statements, banning Religion is undesirable, harmful and best of all, unlawful".

Yes; banning religion would, currently, be unlawful. I am arguing as to why these laws should be taken away and religion banned. Con should be arguing as to why these laws should remain in enforcement. He goes on and on about the different laws that make banning religion illegal but does not state why they should remain in place: as per his task. His only sources relate to the previously mentioned laws. The closest he gets to a bona fide argument is where he states that "
non-stop mayhem will happen and possibly, a massive world war can occur". This, however, can be disregarded as non-sourced, fanatical rubbish.

Please see comments for sources.

I thank my opponent for a wonderful debate.



jm_notguilty

Con

REBUTTALS

First, I’d thank my opponent for his response, and well, sadly, he has failed to accurately refute my arguments and went off course and decided to play semantics and unreasonable technicalities.

There is a big difference between prohibiting religious worship (which is the resolution) and abolishing a civil rights law.

Let’s define the resolution more accurately, when we say ‘Religion as a form of worship should be banned’, we can automatically assume that Religion in general should be prohibited in all places, which CON argued on R2, but, my argument is that, banning Religion under a specific jurisdiction, with the support and protection from its local laws which are correlated with the international laws, is unlawful.

Since the beginning, CON hasn’t mentioned anything in his arguments against refuting the argument supporting the law of religious freedom. In fact, I was the first one to introduce these arguments in the debate.

The Burden of Proof of both sides is clear since the beginning. CON has disregarded them and decided to try and change it, which is unacceptable since we’re already in the clash and climax of the debate.

To clarify, as PRO, my BOP is not to argue that the laws supporting religious freedom shouldn’t be abolished or taken away, no, my BOP is to argue that religious worship shouldn’t be banned and give reasonable and legitimate/legal arguments supporting these claims. I have done it in the previous round by arguing and supporting laws for religious freedom and by arguing that there could be a negative impact on society if we ban it.

CON’s BOP is to prove that religious worship should be banned and prohibited regardless of religious freedom under international law, not to argue as to why the laws should be taken away, because if this is his BOP, then we’d see him argue and give evidence as to why freedom of religion laws are unbeneficial, unnecessary, nonessential and undesirable, but he didn’t, all he did was to give baseless arguments with irrelevant sources and complain on the negativity or Religion in general, not laws on religious freedom.

As I said, the BOPs were clear on both sides since CON failed to clarify both positions and the BOPs since the beginning, so, CON is wrong on saying that my arguments are invalid, because they’re valid, acceptable, legitimate and reasonable ones negating the resolution, which basically means that my argument still stands.

Now, to proceed with my opponent’s responses on my previous rebuttals, he gives various definitions on words which is a small thing and is irrelevant, which brings the debate off course.

He goes around trivializing what 'faith' is, and as I said in the previous round, there are many definitions of faith, and I’ve defined faith as a trust in something or someone, faith can also mean hope but they have no differences, some people consider faith as an important aspect of life, William James, a philosopher regards faith is important and that life is impossible without it. (SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Next, CON then counters my statement of the possibility of God’s existence saying it isn’t a fact but he previously failed to give factual evidence on his assertion on denying God’s existence.

Now, about the propaganda issue, it’s still unclear on what he’s talking about, but having propaganda like what Hitler can’t happen again so violently like what happened then. Oh, and I, in no way, accused him of being a Hitler supporter and CON saying so is purely insane. I'd also like to point out that Hitler’s Religion and his ways of conquering and governing is argumentative and therefore irrelevant.

CON states: “The problem is people grow up accepting what the church has to say and they don't build up their own opinions.”

We have secular laws, where the church and state are separated in most countries, and the church is accepting it, most people aren’t robots who are controlled by the church, they have minds too, they can choose to believe in the church’s teachings or not, it’s their right to do so and no one has the right to deprive the people of their beliefs.

CON states: “I'm simply asking that people be forced to think for themselves; a paradox, though, it may seem.”

Again, as I said in the previous round, no one has the right to coerce or force people into leaving their faith and belief, because the people have their right to choose on what to believe.

Most of CON’s rebuttals lead us to another discussion, which makes them irrelevant to the debate. He states that I do not have some sources to my implications, but he’s talking about some of my hypothetical and logical reasons, they don’t need factual sources.

Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, I’ve clarified my position and my BOP and argued thoroughly and CON failed to refute them and instead, turns this into a play on technicalities, which means that my opponent still needs to refute my argument that freedom of belief, conscience and religion is a fundamental right, a human and civil right protected by international law and other laws worldwide and that he should argue that it should be prohibited regardless of the laws, which CON needs to prove using credible, legitimate and reasonable arguments. CON also needs to negate the fact that freedom of Religion is not a fundamental and well-deserved right to have.

If CON can't decently and convincingly argue his position, then it's okay to assume PRO has won the debate.

I urge the readers to extend and consider my previous arguments, thank you.

I await my opponent’s response. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
LogicalThinker

Pro

I shall start by thanking my opponent for the time he must have put into his far from satisfactory answers. Also; my opponent refers to me as 'CON'. I am not Con: I am Pro!


First, I’d thank my opponent for his response, and well, sadly, he has failed to accurately refute my arguments and went off course and decided to play semantics and unreasonable technicalities.

This is an unbelievable blow bellow the belt. My opponent hasn't even bothered to give an example of the 'unreasonable technicalities' so that I can refute this ludicrous claim.


There is a big difference between prohibiting religious worship (which is the resolution) and abolishing a civil rights law.

My opponent goes on for several paragraphs about this, continually repeating himself, but this sentence sums up what he was saying. I made it quite clear to my opponent in the last round that I understand the laws protecting religious worship. My resolution clearly states that I think that these laws should be removed, not that they can be removed. Enough said, I hope not to have to repeat this in the next round.


Faith And Hope

He goes around trivializing what 'faith' is, and as I said in the previous round, there are many definitions of faith, and I’ve defined faith as a trust in something or someone, faith can also mean hope but they have no differences, some people consider faith as an important aspect of life...

I clearly defined both faith and hope using bona fide dictionary definitions. Their philosophical definitions carry no weight in a non-philosophical debate.


God's Existence

Once again my opponent is putting words in my mouth:

Next, CON then counters my statement of the possibility of God’s existence saying it isn’t a fact but he previously failed to give factual evidence on his assertion on denying God’s existence.

I did not suggest that God doesn't exist. What I stated was that my opponent can't state things that he is not willing to back up. He stated in round two: "There are lots of evidence and arguments supporting the existence of God, but that’s another topic...". I must repeat that I did not suggest that God does not exist as my opponent claims. That has nothing to do with this debate.


Dogma

My opponent claims that he does not no what I am talking about when I compare the dogmatic nature of religion to Hitler's propaganda. I think this is an excuse for him not to argue against my allegation but I shall reassert my allegation against opponent so as to make sure he has no excuse to ignore it.

...having propaganda like what Hitler can’t happen again so violently like what happened then.

I'm afraid my opponent hasn't backed this up with either proof or a logical argument. Therefore we must assume, even if just for argument's sake, that that kind of brainwashing can be abused again.

Is that clear to my opponent? Either prove me wrong or accept the fact that brainwashing can be used again for the sake of provoking racial, sexual or gender hatred, etc.


In fact; in the catholic church; both gender and sexual hatred are encouraged. Neither homosexual people nor women are allowed to participate in the hierarchal system of the church[1][2].


We have secular laws, where the church and state are separated in most countries, and the church is accepting it, most people aren’t robots who are controlled by the church, they have minds too, they can choose to believe in the church’s teachings or not, it’s their right to do so and no one has the right to deprive the people of their beliefs.

There are vulnerable, uneducated, people in the world (mostly in Africa) who are exploited by the Catholic Church. The biggest lie: condoms don't prevent AIDs[4].


Hitler's Religion

I'd also like to point out that Hitler’s Religion and his ways of conquering and governing is argumentative and therefore irrelevant.

I'd like to point out that:

Hitler was a Christian because he was born Catholic, he never publicly renounced his Catholicism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf, "By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".[3]

The catholic church considers all people who are baptised in the catholic church as catholics. They therefore must embrace Hitler in the same way. Also; I didn't mention hitler's methods of conquering and governing. That has nothing to do with the debate.


Conclusion

As I have already pointed out: there are currently laws that protect religious worship. My BOP is to prove that religion as a form of worship should be banned, not that it can be banned.

Now that my opponent is clear on this I hope that he can respond to my claims.
Thank you.


jm_notguilty

Con

Well, I'd like to clarify that I made a minor yet ignorant mistake on which side is PRO or CON, please accept my apologies, I am CON and my opponent is PRO.

"My BOP is to prove that religion as a form of worship should be banned, not that it can be banned."

I haven't said anything that it can or can't be banned, but either way, I've proven my point, Religious worship being banned is also Religion in general being banned, and it SHOULD NOT be banned because it violates human and civil rights which is fundamental and banning it is against international law.

My opponent failed to refute this argument, and as he said, he's BOP is to prove Religious worship should be banned, he still needs to give legitimate arguments on this. All my opponent has to argue to abolish this right is that Religion 'brainwashes' people into believing in myths and fairytales, instead of critical and rational thinking, which is not fair and not enough to abolish a right. He also argues the probability of a dangerous propaganda (like theb Nazi regime), but that does not mean that RELIGIOUS WORSHIP should be banned.

Please extend my arguments, and again to the readers, please accept my apologies for not double-checking the positions.
Debate Round No. 4
LogicalThinker

Pro

LogicalThinker forfeited this round.
jm_notguilty

Con

Too bad my opponent forfeited his last round, so I’ll just wrap this up with a summary of my arguments.

- Religion as a form of worship relates to Religion entirely.

- Banning Religion (worship) affects Freedom of Religion (the individual right to conscience, belief) per se.

- Banning said right would be up to the state proposing it.

- Freedom of Religion is protected and valued under international and various state laws.

- Banning it would be unlawful.

-Therefore, Religion should not be banned.

I will repeat, what is being debated here is if religious worship should be prohibited, not if the laws supporting Religion should be abolished.

And even if he would argue that the laws should be abolished, I did not see anything legitimate on his rebuttals against my arguments, so, my arguments still stand, and they are were not refuted by PRO.

All his previous arguments I’ve already refuted in R2 (and some in R3), his responses were just to clarify and define the terms a bit accurately which is irrelevant and doesn’t make any difference to my rebuttals.

His arguments, as I’ve read it:

- Religious worship promotes faith.

- Faith tells us something that hasn’t been proved.

- Meaning that faith makes people blind on the realities and doesn’t let people think logically, rationally and critically.

-Therefore, Religion as worship should be banned

I’ve explained this in my rebuttals, faith is important to people, and this isn’t a reasonable excuse to deprive them of their right to religious worship, which affects Freedom of Religion itself. Who are we to force them to let go of their Religion and look things differently, we do not have the moral, ethical and legal right to do such things.


- People go to Church.

- The Church teaches its followers about their religious teachings and values.

- People will take the Church’s word for everything.

-The Church could probably have propagandas against the government, like what happened in the Nazi regime.

-Therefore, Religious worship should be banned.

It’s very unlikely for this to happen, and as I said, we have secular laws that separate the church and state, and with the law enforcement today, having propagandas like what happened in the 40s is very unlikely. I doubt the Church would commit genocide just to coerce people to follow them.


- If we do not think rationally, scientifically and logically, aliens might question our sanity.

-Therefore, Religion should be banned.

Huh?

- - - - -

In conclusion, I’ll say it again, religious worship shouldn’t be banned, banning it is unlawful, as a world who values the freedom of Religion, we need to protect it and stand up for that right.

Vote CON, thank you.

Note: In some parts of the debate, my opponent seems to take one of my arguments personally, if you are offended by it, then I apologize, it was not my intention to offend, just pointing out your flaws and mistakes. I thank my opponent again for this wonderful debate.

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
jm_notguilty
I apologize on my stupidity, I misunderstood and referred my opponent as CON, instead of PRO, I hope that does not make a major (God forbid) issue on the voting.
Posted by LogicalThinker 6 years ago
LogicalThinker
*win voters
Posted by LogicalThinker 6 years ago
LogicalThinker
I clearly explained the context in which I was using the term 'alien': "In other words an alien is an outsider. In this context a hypothetical outsider capable of studying humans and their practices. The fact that I was not referring to extra-terrestrials..."

Please: do not accuse me of playing "semantics and unreasonable technicalities" and then try to in voters by mis-quoting me.
Posted by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
jm_notguilty
Just wanna point this out just for the fun of it, even though it's irrelevant:
CON in R2:
"Imagine an alien looking at our 'planet'..."
CON in R3
"Alien... a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living."

Self-explanatory, you're statement in R2 obviously defines alien as an extraterrestrial being, not a human immigrant, tourist or outsider. No point of making a semantic loophole in R3 just because it wasn't defined in R2.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
LogicalThinkerjm_notguiltyTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
LogicalThinkerjm_notguiltyTied
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 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: LogicalThinker, you never defined what faith or alien was, thereby giving Con the right to define them, in spite of your semantical games...The entire debate revolved around the arguments over the word 'faith', 'should'/'can', and so on, that had little substance. Pro merely dismissed Con's arguments and played the hitler card (Why?) as well as other fallacies in his arguments. Even if he didn't forfeited, he would have already lost the debate, since he hadn't fulfilled his BOP........
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
LogicalThinkerjm_notguiltyTied
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: For now, forfeit. Didn't read it in detail, but I might come back later.