The Instigator
Renascor
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
WriterSelbe
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Religion can be considered important

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Renascor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,090 times Debate No: 19345
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Renascor

Pro

I am new to this website. I am also interested in Religion. I thought that for my first debate, religion would be an interesting topic.

My argument:

1. Religion can provide a sense of security

2. Religion can present support

3. Religion gives its followers purpose

Ergo, religion can be considered important.
WriterSelbe

Con

Thank you for suggesting this debate! Best of wishes! Now let us begin.

"1. Religion can provide a sense of security

2. Religion can present support

3. Religion gives its followers purpose

Ergo, religion can be considered important."

Firstly, I will dissect the resolution that is, 'Religion can be considered important.' Can: 'be able to,' 'ability to.' Important: 'Of great significance or value; likely to have a profound effect on success, survival, or well-being.' So, basically, the resolution is that religion is capable of having a profound effect on someone or something.

My opponents first contention was that religion can provide a sense of security, but first we must decide whether or not an idea can provide security or if it is the person's perception of a certain idea, religion being considered an idea. Because an idea has no definite or tangible effects, it is impossible to tell what the effects of a said intangible thing are. If one cannot see the effects clearly, one cannot tell if the effects made were important. If you cannot tell if something is important, then it remains unimportant.

My opponent said that religion provides support, which is very similar to his first argument. However, support is a state of mind just as security is, and since it is not tangible one cannot know if it is important.

Lastly, my opponent said that religion provides purpose. However, it is a person's perception of something and own will that provides purpose. So really, importance is derived from a person's own perception of things, not religion itself.

I now await the further arguments of my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Renascor

Pro

Thank you for accepting! I know we will have a great debate!

Your arguments can be summarized simply as "my resolutions are not being fulfilled by religion, but by the mindset that accompanies religion".

In this case I should simply say that I agree with the attributes of mindset you presented, however, I should point out that the cause of that mindset is religion. Ergo, religion is considered to be important. If it was not for religion, the individual would not be able to develop such a powerful mindset on life.

Since those few premises I presented in round one have been accounted for, I should now present a new premise:

4. Religion is important to the individual by:

a. Something is important if one will guard or share it with others.

b. People will defend their religion with their own life.

c. Ergo, religion is considered important because people will guard it with their life.

I thank you for your time and attention in this debate! And I look forward to your next argument!
WriterSelbe

Con

'4. Religion is important to the individual by:

a. Something is important if one will guard or share it with others.

b. People will defend their religion with their own life.

c. Ergo, religion is considered important because people will guard it with their life.'

Thank you for your punctual response! I shall continue with my arguments. My opponent said in his opener that religion is considered important because it caused a person to have that mindset, but as stated before, importance and religion itself is an idea, so my opponent would have to prove that importance itself is real, that things can really be 'important.' Again, because you can't prove something is important and importance isn't tangible, you can't prove its existence.

For the point my opponent provided in the previous round, they stated that religion is important if you are willing to share it with others. However--if at this point we consider 'importance' a real thing--in most cases things shared are unimportant. Statistics show that less than 50% of Catholics attend weekly Mass, and--again, in this point considering that 'importance' itself IS real--then a majority of people don't care enough to go to Mass, and if going by majority rules, then religion itself isn't important.

http://cara.georgetown.edu...

People will defend their religion with their life, my opponent states, but if a person is willing to give up his/her life, then his/her life wasn't very 'important.' Who is to say that this person wanted to live any longer? It would be his/her will not to live that was important, not the religion in the matter, or in their mind, it was the idea of religion that was 'important,' not religion itself.
Debate Round No. 2
Renascor

Pro

Thank you for a great response!

It seems my opponents first case rests on the existence of "importance". Anyone outside of a mental ward would agree with me that importance does exist. This is evident by the way we feel. Con in this case is exercising an act on the basis of "importance" by simply arguing against me. He establishes priority, which is a clear indicator of importance, therefore, importance exists.

My opponent then took this "importance" clause to a new level. My opponent assumed importance to be real, and then presented an example of this in a Catholic Mass. This theory is false due to the bandwagon fallacy. Just because the majority rules in one scenario, doesn't mean its true.

So now that Importance has been established as true, my arguments can carry forth as sound.

I will now present another add-on to my original arguments:

5. Religion is considered important because it has been defended by the Constitution.

I thank my opponent for his time and look forward to his next argument!
WriterSelbe

Con

Firstly, I thank my opponent for his response and wish to clear up a few things: firstly, many famous scientists had ideas that were considered crazy at the time and were deemed psych ward material, but they turned out being right. Also, I find the abruptness and subtle insult to my sanity rude. Secondly, I myself am female.

Secondly, my opponent states that he has proven the existence of importance, but truly he has not. As I had stated before, if something is intangible, we cannot truly prove its existence, just as we cannot prove the existence of God or religion.

My opponent also states that religion is important because it is protected by the Constitution. The Constitution can misrepresent things and though it is a guide to live by, a lot of the time we do not follow it. The Constitution stated that all men were created equal, but African Americans were enslaved for years. So, there was falsity within the consitution, and as anyone avid in math or logic knows, if there is one bit of falsity in something, the whole itself is false.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Renascor 5 years ago
Renascor
Hey, I didnt mean anything to be taken in a negative way! I was just having a conversation! Thanks for the great debate!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
RenascorWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's only defense of the negation was that 'importance' itself was not tangible and therefore it cannot be proven to exist. However, Pro correctly pointed out that there are indicators of importance to individuals such as priority. By Con posting an argument he is establishing priority over everything else at that moment i.e. importance. Since imortance was shown to exist, Pro's arguments hold.
Vote Placed by Viper-King 5 years ago
Viper-King
RenascorWriterSelbeTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no sources and made rude comments about Con but Pro made good points which were too hard to make rebuttal about.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
RenascorWriterSelbeTied
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 don't know why Con accepted this debate, she had almost no chance to win so defeat should not be a surprise. Anyway, Cons entire refutation rested on the fact that importance can not be proven. This is nothing more then claiming victory because Pro had no answer to the problem of infinite regress, which is very abusive. In reality any sane human being understands what importance is, and Pro showed how some people consider religion important. Resolution affirmed.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
RenascorWriterSelbeTied
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: Pro had the better arguments. Con's arguments were relatively weak. That's why Pro wins. But Pro almost had to win, given that the resolution was unrefutable. Some people do think religion is important, therefore it is possible to think religion important. There's no way around that. So my point is this: One technique of winning debates is to avoid accepting debates that you can only win if your opponent is grossly incapable.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
RenascorWriterSelbeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro had some very good arguments for his first debate ever and Con didnt really show how religion could not be important. Also the last line of cons third argument was a deal breaker so arguments went to pro. good debate though