The Instigator
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Perussi
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Religion is horseshit:

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 1 vote the winner is...
Perussi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 99523
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (1)

 

RonPaulConservative

Pro

Religion is horseshit. Let's do this thing.
Perussi

Con

Easily you can find the word horseshit defined as nonsence. Pro is to prove that religion has no sence. BOP lies on pro because pro has to identify a flaw in believing religion. I await arguments from pro to do this.
Debate Round No. 1
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Religion pertains to the belief in a revelton supposedly transmitted from God to man. The flaw is that you are just taking a supposed prophets word for it without proof, prophets who likely never existed.
Perussi

Con

1). Even if it isn't true what is a weak minded person HAS to believe in an after life? There is sence there. Either that or they would stress and stress and be unable to sychologically function.

2). At least religion believes that everything came from some cause and not absolutly nothing or the "singularity's" self. And i do assume you are on the side of the Big Bang Theory just so you know. A lot of my reason is leveling how bad all ideas of creation are then isolation christianity as the most reasonable. Christianity models a perfect god and can be interpreted as non random.

3). You asked about religion, not christianity. All through history. Religion. Every society ever pretty much. Religion makes things happen. "Manifest destiny", "god" wanted the pilgrims to spread to the west coast. Does anyone believe that now? Now if the christian god existed then i guess it is plausable but seriously. I'm pretty sure we had gullibility there. But we are a country this large because of it. The crusades. People commit suicidal terrorist attacks in the name of their religion. Religion has a purpose. Religion is not for nothing. There is sence in religion however it is used.
Debate Round No. 2
RonPaulConservative

Pro

I said religionis horseshit, and showed how- you thus far have not responded to that. You do know I'm a deist?
Perussi

Con

What you said had to do with if religion is actually true or not, not about it not making sence, what we are debating about. And your beliefs are irrelavent to this debate. All of my points still stand. You have not refuted anything, just a note.
Debate Round No. 3
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Your response was irrelevant to the debate, but regardless, let's start over:
Horseshit means nonsense, religion is full of nonsense (dead men rising, talking donkeys, angles, God), therefore Religion is horseshit.
Perussi

Con

(see round 2)
Debate Round No. 4
RonPaulConservative

Pro

I couldn't even understand your round 2 "argument!" You just forfeited basically.
Perussi

Con

Not my problem.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MagicAintReal// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: No definition of horseshit makes this really tough to vote on. But both sides agreed on nonsense being the definition. Pro's only argument is that "belief in a *revelton* supposedly transmitted from God to man" is based on anecdotal evidence from some prophets therefore nonsense. Pro never explains what revelton is, but I assume he meant revelation. Since this mitigated his only point's comprehensibility, the misspelling hurt his argument, so S&G to Con. While I didn't find Con's defense of religion compelling, Pro never gave me any reason to reject "everything comes from a cause" or "religion has a purpose" Because Pro never directly refutes Con's defense of religion, I have to accept them, indicating that religion is not nonsense because it has a purpose and mentions cause and effect reasoning, which isn't nonsense, per say, so arguments to Con. I'll gladly clarify any of my RFD if asked.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter does sufficiently explain argument points, S&G is insufficiently explained. The voter does point out spelling mistakes from one side and explains why that affected the strength of that argument, but the voter still has to compare that to Con"s S&G, which also appears problematic. This could still be justifiable, but it has to be justified.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Theguy1789// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con essentially forfeited in round 5 by saying "not my problem," [that he didn't respond to Pro's argument] My RFD for arguments will be in the comments section.

[*Reason for removal*] While the argument points are thoroughly explained, conduct is not. Dropping points in the debate is not sufficient reason to award this point, and stating "not my problem" is not a clear forfeit.
************************************************************************
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
FYI voters pretty much all dictionaries define "horseshit" as "nonsence".
Posted by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
A claim that ones own reading difficulties means the other side secretly forfeited... wow, just wow.
Posted by MagicAintReal 11 months ago
MagicAintReal
@RonPaulConservative
You really just phoned this debate in, and it hurt your case, so it's not a clear win for you.
Posted by Theguy1789 11 months ago
Theguy1789
RFD for arguments:
Pro said that religion is horseshit because sly taking someones word for that they received a revelation without real evidence is illogical. Con's response to this didn't seem relevant, and I couldn't understand it at all.
Pro then responded by saying that religion is horseshit because religious texts are full of horseshit, something that Con didn't respond to.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 11 months ago
RonPaulConservative
This debate was a clear win for me.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave short little arguments without backing them up. Meanwhile, con made arguments. Pro didn't even make arguments. The closest thing he had to an argument was in Round 2, and that was a mostly a definition, not even an argument. He did say how following the words of one prophet is wrong, yet ignores the fact that there were many prophets, and was easily rebutted by con's argument that our country could not have happened without religion. And to top it all off, pro was too confused by con's argument he tried to say he automatically wins, like a little baby!

[*Reason for removal*] Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter must provide a reason why the debater was either insulting or show that they forfeited a round. Pointing to a declaration of victory is not sufficient reason to award this point.
************************************************************************
Posted by PowerPikachu21 11 months ago
PowerPikachu21
Alright. To be honest, I don't mind if this debate ties. Again, neither side had arguments with a clear impact to the resolution.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: PowerPikachu21// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was alright from both sides, though they derailed off the subject in Round 3. Con's grammar made it difficult to understand what he's trying to say. He also kept misspelling "sense". S&G to Pro because of this. Pro says, I think, that we can't trust the fact that God created humanity. Con's first point is that weak minded people believe in afterlife, or their stress would make their brain cease to function. I don't really know what he's getting at. Con's 2nd point is that everything has a cause, creation is bad, and God is perfect. But Con contradicted himself right there, saying creation is bad right after "At least religion believes that everything came from some cause". Con's 3rd point was that people act according to their religion. That was the strongest argument made in the debate, but the debate was about whether or not Religion makes sense, not whether it does things. See comments for the rest of my RFD.

[*Reason for removal*] If the voter wishes to award S&G, they must point to specific instances where there was difficulty in understanding. Merely misspelling "sense" is not a clear reason to award this, as it doesn"t make clear what was difficult to understand.
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 11 months ago
Ragnar
RonPaulConservativePerussiTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has a three tier case showing why religion is a logical state, pro just has asseted profanity... Pro refused to respond to cons case because of his reading hardships, while I will not call this bad conduct, I'm also not one to give pity votes; as con put it, pros literacy level is "not my problem." Were the resolution literally about feces, con would still win for having reminded us of the historical basis of motivation (unlike any pile of dung), whereas pro would have a self refuted argument due to describing non-dung based stories (plus I've never heard of that much information being encoded in dung). We do have the information that pro dislikes religion, and that it's probably fictional, but also that it makes perfect sense rather than no sense as pro had the duty to at least infer... pros refusal to debate, left this as being no contest.