Religion is predominately a positive for humanity
2nd Round: Arguments (No Rebuttals)
3rd-5th Round: Rebuttals
The argument is fairly simple. Religion; historically and presently, on the whole, has been a positive force for humanity.
I'll be arguing against that point: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force.
There appears to be some confusion about the motion of the debate being an "affirmative position" and then the Instigator taking the "Con" position.
If the motion is: Religion is predominately a positive for humanity (and you intend to argue for this motion) - then you should be Pro of the motion.
I'm assuming that the statement, "I'll be arguing against that point: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force." means that you are Pro of the motion even though you have selected the Con (?)
Clarification needs to be made.
I selected this debate in opposition of the motion and yet found myself to be "PRO" when I do not take this stance on the motion.
No, it is not a mistake on my part.
Isn't it you who said, "I'll be arguing against that point: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force."
This indicates that you should have made yourself "PRO" of the motion then.
Again, the motion was issued on the AFFIRMATIVE - in which case you have indicated that you wish to argue AGAINST the point that religion isn't and hasn't been positive.
Contrary, you have set-up the debate incorrectly.
If you intended to be CON of the motion then you would be arguing in favor of the point.
So which is it?
It looks like you have confused yourself.
I said "I'll be arguing against that point: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force."
If you knew how grammar worked you might have recognized that I used a colon and more importantly that the "that point" I stood against was clearly the mentioned in the previous sentence, not to mention the headline for this debate.
If the point is "Religion is predominately a positive for humanity"
Then CON position would be that religion is in fact NOT a positive force for humanity.
It"s logical. You made a mistake. Stop using confusing language to spin and belabor this point.
I don"t want to debate whether or not you correctly accepted this debate.
I agree, I too did not want to argue about how the debate was set-up, language or punctuation.
I would have much rather preferred the debate.
But here is the deal, I didn't set-up this debate, you did.
Specify being AGAINST the point : ""religion "hasn't" and "isn't" a force for good.""
...is to confuse your position.
Because if one takes that position (being AGAINST the point : religion "hasn't" and "isn't" a force for good) that means then you are against religion NOT being a force for good! You're then basically saying that it is a force for good.
(AGAINST : hasn't and isn't)
Think about it - DUH!
(AGAINST : hasn't and isn't)
At best its unneeded wording that cluttered and overly obfuscated your position on the motion.
Now you're tying to play with colons to try and save face and say how your use of language is correct.
But you have to understand what you've created by the way you stated your little additional point.
Its as if you have taken two separate positions. One on the motion and then a second on the point you added. You have taken a one position on the motion but then your use of language on the additional point is the opposite - even though you'll say otherwise.
Had you not added your additional point and worded wrong - we wouldn't be in this predicament.
I'm taking a firm stand on specifics; accuracy and principles here.
And here is why:
1) If you are to instigate a debate it should be made clear and concise (this one of yours wasn't).
2) If you cannot communicate and instigate a debate properly and smoothly and that is well thought-out, a price should be paid (at the very least responsibility should be accepted on the instigator's part when errors do occur when a debate is not clear as in this case). In this case you haven't once but have instead offered to debate your use of the colon.
3) Instigators and initial debate format should be held to a high standard to maintain a better quality of future debates so these issues do not continue to happen.
Frankly I just don't have time to discuss sentence structure and true intentions and so on. I'll admit that I really don't care either way. If it's clear to the commenters (which it is) and it is clear to me what I said and what I meant then that's more than enough proof for me.
And yet this was a 5 round debate... (?)
Sure, I don't have time either... as we both had intentions of this being a 5 rounder...
Admit that your "additional point" was off key!
I don't concede that I was wrong or even vaguely unclear.
What does a diiferent debate have to do with this one in that regard?
And I hope so; I hope you will strive to be more clear in future debates if you instigate them!