The Instigator
64bithuman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SamHarris
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 72791
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

64bithuman

Con

1st Round: Acceptance
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.
SamHarris

Pro





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.

Please advise.
Debate Round No. 1
64bithuman

Con

It would appear that the acclaimed Political and Religious commentator Sam Harris (despite being well-versed in debate) has accepted the wrong side of this argument. Now begins the awkward back and forth until we can finish this debate.
SamHarris

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 2
64bithuman

Con

The attempt to use extended abbreviations (like it is not instead of it"s not) doesn"t impress and neither does your use of bold and underlining.

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.
SamHarris

Pro

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.
Debate Round No. 3
64bithuman

Con


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.


SamHarris

Pro

You don't have time?

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...

What gives...?

Admit that your "additional point" was off key!
Debate Round No. 4
64bithuman

Con

Incorrect: I had given time for a singular five round debate - which has since been filled by another debate, and another debater, who, incidentally, opened up his arguments by complimenting me on the clearness of my debate.

I don't concede that I was wrong or even vaguely unclear.
SamHarris

Pro

But isn't it conceivable that you could have been clear in one debate and not another?

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!
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hect 2 years ago
hect
derp... SamHarris is a moron
Posted by SamHarris 2 years ago
SamHarris
No, it is clearly indicated that a position AGAINST will be taken of a specific point and then that is what is specified after the colon.

It was just a bad use of words if that is what was intended.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
You are reading the colon incorrectly. There are two possible uses here:

1.) before a definition
2.) before an explanation

The same symbol (colon) is used in both situations following proper grammar. When reading, it is up to the reader to ascertain the correct meaning of a multifunctional punctuation symbol. In this case, it is clear: given the context, use #1 creates a contextual error while use #2 conforms perfectly with the context. Therefore, the second use of a colon should be accepted. It's all about the context.
Posted by SamHarris 2 years ago
SamHarris
""Debate Title: Religion is predominately a positive for humanity. Instigator is CON. He is against the Debate Title.""

YEAH - you would think!

I agree.... but then goes on to specify being AGAINST the point: religion "hasn't" and "isn't" a force for good.

If one takes the position that they are against the point that religion hasn't and isn't a force for good then they should be PRO for the motion.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
Debate Title:
Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

Instigator is CON. He is against the Debate Title.

First line (a restatement of the debate title):
"The argument is fairly simple. Religion; historically and presently, on the whole, has been a positive force for humanity."

Second line (replacing colon with appropriate meaning):
"I'll be arguing against that point [THAT IS TO SAY] that religion isn't and has not been a positive force."

The second line is CON to the first line and to the debate title. He is correct.
Posted by SamHarris 2 years ago
SamHarris
AGAINST the point

...hasn't and isn't a force for good...
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
"...: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force." is the stance that he is taking. It is opposed to "that" stance he previously described.

If you are using a colon and then naming things, you use the word "this", not "that". Since he specifically states the argument in the line before it, "...against that point..." refers to *that* point.

The use of a colon, here, means "that is to say" or "here's what I mean."
Posted by SamHarris 2 years ago
SamHarris
The issue is that he said he would be arguing "against" the "point" and then used the words "hasn't" and "isn't" ...a force for good.

..against "hasn't" and "isn't" ...a force for good..

So again, he reversed his wording.

Based on this one assumes he should be PRO of the motion as he as indicated he is now in favor or is defending the motion.

Its not my mistake - it is the Instigators'.

At best his "point" is not matching his position he intended to take on the motion.

I'm even offering a fun way to play it off.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
This is silliness...

64bithuman orignally said:
"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."

SamHarris said:
"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."

If he had said "...arguing against *this* point: ...", then perhaps I can see where one could argue, but that argument would have to ignore the statement that proceeded it. He use the word, "that", which is clearly referring to a different statement, not "this" statement which follows the colon.
Posted by SamHarris 2 years ago
SamHarris
...just make up a funny topic and the I will respond by ""waxing intellectual"" about it and it will be fun and good for a laugh...
No votes have been placed for this debate.