The Instigator
ReeThoughts
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Religion is preventing societal progression

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...
ReeThoughts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 368 times Debate No: 91663
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

ReeThoughts

Pro

My faith in faith is diminishing. Though I am not opposed to the existence of a god of some sort, I am finding that religion is holding back societal progression towards equality. Women in strictly Islamic countries have virtually no rights and are oppressed by sharia law. Christianity is, on the whole, against abortion and gay marriage. Religion is becoming, in my eyes, synonymous with ignorance.
ViceRegent

Con

Perhaps it is you who are the ignorant one? Provide an objective definition of progress as opposed to regression?
Debate Round No. 1
ReeThoughts

Pro

Forgive me, I was not specific enough. I meant to say that religion is holding society back from progressing towards equality. It is by no means the only reason that equality is such a distant prospect, but it's certainly a big part.

noun: progression; plural noun: progressions
1.
the process of developing gradually towards a more advanced state
(sourced from Google)

Just a few examples are:



    1.Gay (wo)men are not given the same freedoms as straight (wo)men in regions that oppose gay marriage- coincidentally, this tends to be places where religion is at the core of society [1]. Conclusion: religion is preventing the gay community from getting equal treatment/rights to heterosexuals.

    2.Women are unable to get an abortion without medical reason (even in cases of rape) in Ireland because of the condemnation of abortion by Catholicism[2]. Conclusion: religion is preventing Irish women from getting abortions. This conflicts with bodily autonomy.


    3. Women are not allowed to become Pope etc, simply for being born with the wrong genitalia, and are therefore not being given equal chance to hold high-up positions, even in their own religions [3]. Conclusion: gender inequality exists in religion itself
    .


    4. Boys of certain faiths are circumcised as babies in order to meet societal expectations of 'purity', and can be ostracized for non-conformity [4]. Conclusion: boys are non-consensually circumcised on religious grounds, which goes against the right to bodily autonomy.

    5. The idea of chastity is (mostly) fuelled by religion [5]. Conclusion: sex outside of wedlock is seen as dirty or immoral mostly down to religion. In fact, Again, this conflicts with bodily autonomy.



    ViceRegent

    Con

    Hey, moron, I am not interested in what you think is progress. I want an objective standard by which we can judge whether an idea will lead to progress or regression. And tell us where this standard comes from, which is to ask how you know it is right? If you cannot, you are simply wasting electrons.
    Debate Round No. 2
    ReeThoughts

    Pro

    "Hey, moron"

    Backatcha, buddy.

    "I am not interested in what you think is progress"

    Fair enough, but I gave a definition and stated that I was saying religion holds society back from acheiving equality

    "I want an objective standard"

    The standard is a fair society where everyone is free to do as they wish so long as it doesn't non-consensually harm others (e.g dealing drugs, murder, assault etc.) which is, I think we can agree, is what society wants on the whole. Who doesn't want to live knowing they're just as invaluable and entitled to do/say what they want as the next person?
    ViceRegent

    Con

    You are irrationally begging the question. Who are you to define harm for me? And why cannot I define sodomites as non-persons and kill them like you think it is fine to do the same to babies?
    Debate Round No. 3
    ReeThoughts

    Pro

    I'm using far more logic than you, in actual fact. I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, but that is irrelevant to the to debate. I don't kill babies nor do I condone it, but a baby is different to a foetus. As a semi-sodomite myself (bisexual), I hope you know that your blatant intolerance to myself or other members of the LGBTQIA+ community will not make me feel any sort of hatred towards myself- in fact, it merely makes me pity you. Have you nothing better to do than to harass a 17 year old on the internet because she agrees with a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and also finds people of her own gender attractive?
    Also, seeing as you are incapable of understanding my arguments without consulting a dictionary every two seconds, here is a definition of harm:
    Harm


    NOUN





      1. physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted:
    ViceRegent

    Con

    Not only are you irrational and narcissistic, but now we see deluded and a sexual pervert. But you ran from the Q as I knew you would. You are unable to tell me why it is ok for you to harm a child but not me a sodkmite. Of course you cannot, for your position is hedonistic, not rational. Only a moron would want society based on self-love and hedonism. That is not progress, but destruction.
    Debate Round No. 4
    4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
    Posted by Kalleth 9 months ago
    Kalleth
    Oh Vice is an expert on hedons. After all, if you don't have repeated twelve hour sex sessions with only your married woman, you are of course a hedonistic sodomite. Now Pro sort of got carried away with explaining her identity and not continuing to argue the point, but there is still only one obvious winner here.

    The hedon.

    :D
    Posted by Goobo 9 months ago
    Goobo
    I was suprised by the crass tass here but then again, ViceRegent. He'd think me liking girls with glasses is a sin(what can i say? I love a girl with (eyesight)problems). I imagine your sexuality gives some interesting experiences rather than limits it, no? I personally think we will eventually get there with equality. But i can only hope but it's the best weapon of the spirit. Religion can either hold you back or improve your life, your decision is your responsibility. Embrace that freedom.
    Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
    vi_spex
    as if the bible is somehow a good foundation for anything other then wiping my but
    Posted by vi_spex 9 months ago
    vi_spex
    evil=division of man
    5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
    Vote Placed by VelCrow 9 months ago
    VelCrow
    ReeThoughtsViceRegentTied
    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:70 
    Reasons for voting decision: Con does not have any arguments, points, rebuttals, examples or sources. Auto win for Pro
    Vote Placed by David_Debates 9 months ago
    David_Debates
    ReeThoughtsViceRegentTied
    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:61 
    Reasons for voting decision: I think this is quite obvious. ViceRegent is a poor debater when it comes to the realm of conduct, as he called his opponent "moron," "ignorant," and "a sexual pervert." For this, all points except for spelling and grammar, go to Pro. Con is a bad example of religious people, and I hope he is more respectful to his opposition in future debates.
    Vote Placed by kyleflanagan97 9 months ago
    kyleflanagan97
    ReeThoughtsViceRegentTied
    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:60 
    Reasons for voting decision: The Pro's point, that religion halts the progression to equality is affirmed by his statements on woman, sex, and homosexual equality. It is quite obvious that Con results to personal attacks that have no bearing, very common from ViceRegent. As for spelling and grammar, both had small errors but it did not distract from their points so thats tied. Pro had arguments with supported evidence, while con simply challenged Pro with no point being made, so convincing arguments go to pro, and con had no sources while pro had multiple, so that too goes to pro.
    Vote Placed by BenD 9 months ago
    BenD
    ReeThoughtsViceRegentTied
    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 Checkmark2 points
    Total points awarded:40 
    Reasons for voting decision: Con, your behavior has ridiculous and wrong. If you had nothing to say you should have left it for those of us who do. As Con's arguments were entirely made up of insults, he lost both conduct and arguments without Pro saying a word. Pro, I would like to try this same debate if you want an intelligent discussion of this interesting topic.
    Vote Placed by Leugen9001 9 months ago
    Leugen9001
    ReeThoughtsViceRegentTied
    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 Checkmark--3 points
    Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
    Total points awarded:40 
    Reasons for voting decision: In R2, Pro argued that religion was conflicting with rights to bodily autonomy and equality, and provided examples of that. In R3, Pro argued that an equal, free society is better than an unequal, unfree society, so change to a free society is progress, ergo religion prevents social progression. In response, Con claimed that Pro had no objective definition for progress or what is harmful because Pro's definition of progress; Con said that if Pro was able to define his terms, then he could define them as whatever he wanted to too. Con's argument didn't make sense because in debate, the opp team's arguments are supposed to be under the debate as modeled by the prop team. Con's request was unreasonable and not an actual point. Pro won arguments. Conduct: Instead of responding to Pro's points directly, Con called Pro a "moron", "narcissist", and "pervert". This disrupted actual discussion.