The Instigator
Not.AName
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Religion is wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,256 times Debate No: 26444
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

Not.AName

Pro

This is my first debate.

My Religious Orientation can be left to your imagination. I would like to discuss this topic. Please excuse the broad topic question...

Considering that Religion is based upon faith.

Faith being a belief in something that has no proof.

Would it not be ignorant to accept other Religions or none at all?

Religion has constantly proved to have caused troubles within our history.

Considering there is no proof of the existence of God, Religion misguides society and splits it apart.

Thus it is wrong.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I’d like to thank Not.Aname for beginning this debate.

Introduction

My opponent makes the rather bold statement that “Religion is wrong.” Because several of his arguments pertain to what is right or wrong in the moral sense, I’ll assume he means religion is wrong in the moral sense. My opponent substantiates his claim with four distinct arguments: (1) religion is based on faith, (2) religions are dogmatically exclusive, (3) religion is the cause of unnecessary conflict, and (4) religion misguides society in superstitious nonsense. I’ll show how his arguments are either false or unsupportive of his central claim.

Faith

My opponent declares, “religion is based upon faith,” and defines faith as “a belief in something that has no proof.” Unfortunately, this is not what faith is. In a broad religious sense, faith is “belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.” [1] On a deeper level, within Christianity, the Bible teaches that we should test the claims of other people with reason to determine if they are truly from God: “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God” [2]. On this subject, William Lane Craig writes in Reasonable Faith (the title of which would be a contradiction in such a naïve and misunderstood definition of faith), “Reason is a tool to help us better understand our belief; as Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding.” [3] Faith is a strong belief that a certain proposition is true, and this can be supported with rational justification.

Let’s humor my opponent’s argument for just a moment, and grant that his definition is true. Even if the religious believed without evidence, how does this show that religion is wrong? How does this show that religion is morally impermissible? My opponent might rebut with the statement that we ought to not accept any unjustified belief. However, we trust our senses on a daily basis without any external justification, or evidence, for doing so – it’s just a basic belief upon which we structure more complex beliefs about the external world. Thus, religion is not morally wrong even if it did concern belief in that without evidence.

Now, let’s even further humor my opponent’s argument and grant his definition along with the conclusion that such an act of faith would be morally wrong. Religion is far more than mere unsupported dogma. The existence of God itself is a “subject of philosophical demonstration,” [4] even if that demonstration is not convincing enough for some. Basic belief in the divine is supported by many famous arguments that are debated among theists and atheists to this day. Further religious doctrine is also debated among philosophers.

Religious exclusivism

My opponent bases his second contention on the doctrine of exclusivism, or that one’s own religion is the only true religion, or that it is distinct in its truth. [5] Religion, and religious interpretation, can be either exclusivist or inclusivist depending on not only the religion but the adherent’s personal view. My opponent fails to demonstrate that religions are exclusivist. Indeed, many religions, even Christianity, which some would suppose is the most exclusivist of the Abrahamic religions, have both exclusivist and inclusivist followers. Christian inclusivism is the doctrine that “people actually appropriate God’s salvation only on the basis of Christ’s work but not always through explicit faith in him.” [6] Thus we see that religion is not exclusivist in nature.

Similar to my opponent’s last argument, he refrains from making the connection between exclusivism and moral impermissibility. Even if we supposed that religion was exclusivist in nature, how do we conclude it’s therefore wrong?

Conflict

This argument can simply be dismissed on the grounds that it is not religion that causes conflict, but dogmatic religious followers that cause conflict. Indeed, the belief in Christianity is not what caused the Crusades – that was particular followers of both Christianity and Islam. This is an example of guilt by association, through claiming that because religion is sometimes associated with conflict, religion is therefore inherently belligerent.

Moreover, religion is also a provider of peace in the world. The Economist has described the Catholic Church as “the largest single charitable organisation in the country” and that “Catholic Charities USA, its main charity, and its subsidiaries employ over 65,000 paid staff and serve over 10m people. These organisations distributed $4.7 billion to the poor in 2010.” [7] Once again, religion is not inherently belligerent.

Existence of God

My opponent’s next argument claims that “considering there is no proof for God,” religion misguides society. Let’s take a look at some of the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, mentioned earlier. I’ll state common versions here in sylllogistic format.

Cosmological

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause

2. The Universe began to exist

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause

Premise (1) is substantiated by the metaphysical Law of Causation, and through common sense, premise (2) is substantiated by arguments that demonstrate logical contradictions in the actual infinite proposed by an eternal past. The conclusion follows that a nonspatiotemporal cause brought the Universe into being.

Teleological

1. The Universe’s fine-tuning is either due to necessity, chance, or design
2. The Universe’s fine-tuning is not due to necessity or chance

3. Therefore, the Universe’s fine-tuning is due to design

Premise (1) is uncontroversial, unless my opponent brings forth an alternative theory. Premise (2) is substantiated because (a) reality and physics conforms around the fine-tuning being discussed, so physics could not have caused the fine-tuning, and (b) chance is an absurd hypothesis because of the infinitesimal scale the fundamentals of nature operate on. Thus the conclusion follows the Universe was designed.

Ontological

1. If a maximally great being possibly exists, a maximally great being exists

2. A maximally great being possibly exists

3. Therefore, a maximally great being exists

Premise (1) is substantiated my axiom S5 of modal logic, which states that possibly necessarily p, then necessarily p, or that if a maximally great being possibly necessarily exists, then a maximally great being necessarily exists. Because we’re discussing a maximally great being, this being would be necessary rather than contingent or impossible. Premise (2) is substantiated by the lack of logical contradictions in a maximally great being, thus rendering it possible. The conclusion follows that a maximally great being exists.

Conclusion

We’ve seen that my opponent misunderstands what faith is, fails to show that this would result in moral impermissibility even if he were correct, and is unaware of philosophical support for religious belief. We’ve seen that my opponent asserts that all religion is exclusivist without considering the doctrine of inclusivism, and how even if he were correct, this would entail moral impermissibility. We’ve seen that he’s fallaciously employed guilt by association in his religious belligerence argument. We’ve lastly seen that his last argument fails in that there are good reasons to believe God exists.

The resolution stands negated.

Sources

1. Faith. Dictionary.com. Retrieved 21 October 2012. (http://goo.gl...)

2. 1 John 4:1. Holy Bible.

3. Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith. p. 36. (http://goo.gl...)

4. Owens, Joseph, et al. St. Thomas Aquinas on the Existence of God: Collected Papers of Joseph Owens. p. 187. (http://goo.gl...) 5. Yandell, Keith. Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal pp. 106-107. (http://goo.gl...)

6. Craig, William Lane and JP Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. p. 617. (http://goo.gl...)

7. “Earthly Concerns.” The Economist. Retrieved 21 October 2012. (http://goo.gl...)

Debate Round No. 1
Not.AName

Pro

Thank you for your interesting response, and taking this debate.

I have decided to reference or quote as little as possible in my arguments. Sorry if this seems uneducated or annoying. This is something I may change my mind on.


Faith:

I ask the question: Does God definitely exist? The answer is no.

Thus no matter what the definition or thinking upon the word faith...It must mean that nobody knows the answer to God's existence.

I perceive that I Don't Know.


Wrong:

Here I take the definition of Wrong. I am not going to expand too heavily upon these points.



1.

Not in accordance with what is morally right or good: awrong deed.

Religion has many aspects within its teaching that are not morally right or good.

2.

Deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.

Religion also deviates from the truth and is questionable on facts.

3.

Not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as aperson;

Religions must be incorrect upon judgement, and opinion, considering there is more than one religion.

Many points to suggest that Religion is wrong.


Many Religions:

There have been many religions before the prominent modern day religions. The only existence of prominent religions now is the progression in education and mass media exposure.

What about all religions that do not exist anymore? What about future Religions?

Most likely Wrong.


Ethics:

If I was to punch somebody, and they cried. I would understand that they were upset. Having most likely experienced being upset me before; I would learn and understand not to punch someone.

Religion holds to claim fundamental laws in society. These laws were always innately within us.

Having held these claims of law and passing judgement upon its followers Religion merely tells people the obvious.

I would say the first human’s beings on earth would have known these rules. Religion only assisted in the promotion of rules and law.

Religion does not teach how to be good, it just enhances it.

I think Religion is Wrong because it dictates false information.

Sorry If my writing does not conform to usual debating literature.









Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I’d once again like to thank Not.Aname for his contribution to the debate.

Faith

My opponent states that “Thus no matter what the definition or thinking upon the word faith...It must mean that nobody knows the answer to God's existence.” I assume his argument is because we don’t know with epistemic certainty that God exists, we are unjustified in believing God exists. This fails in several ways, with respect to what knowledge is and how it is justified, what faith is, and how it supports his argument.

First, under my opponent’s view of knowledge, the only concepts we could know are non-sensory a priori truths, including mathematics (1 + 1 = 2) and logic (PQ, P, Q). [1] This is certainly an absurd skeptical view of what knowledge is. We are perfectly rational in believing our sensory experiences and intuitions to be true, until we have a defeater that contradicts them. For instance, if I see a mug in front of me, I am prima facie justified in believing there is a mug actually there, without knowing with absolute epistemic certainty that there is indeed a mug there. My opponent later in his response will discuss religious history; in his view, he is not justified in holding this because he came to it through a posteriori knowledge based on sensory experience. Justification in many theories of epistemology does not require absolute certainty; we are perfectly justified in trusting our senses and a posteriori knowledge without certainty.

Second, my opponent still misses what faith is. Faith can be blind or it can be based in reason – either way, it’s simply a strong confidence that a certain proposition is true. Thus, my opponent, if we accepted his view of justification as epistemic certainty, is using faith in trusting his sensory experience to correspond with reality. Such an odd view of justified knowledge is truly absurd, and faith would support the opposing view that he seems to simultaneously hold (knowledge of past religions through interaction with the external world).

Third, even if my opponent were correct in his view of epistemic certainty as necessary for justification, he still has not made the connection between this and moral wrongness.

Fourth, granting my opponent’s epistemic certainty view to be true, the modal ontological argument, for instance, argues for the existence of God on pure modal logic. That is, one can reject the external world but still come to the conclusion that God exists through modal logic. I’d invite readers to review the ontological argument in my previous round. Thus, one can still rationally conclude that God exists on a priori knowledge.

Wrong

My opponent has presented three definitions of what wrong is and affirms that religion satisfies each one. This is contrary to our first round where we argued moral wrongness. However, let’s take a look at each of his definitions.

• “Not in accordance with what is right or morally good.” – My opponent here asserts that religion has many aspects within its teaching that are not morally right or good. First, he fails to support this claim. Second, my opponent would have no basis for claiming what is right or wrong without God, as my opponent would not hold a belief in objective morality. Morality is not a fundamental law of the Universe; however, we all have a deep understanding of what morality is, in the same way that we have a deep understanding of basic mathematics, which supports objective morality. However, objective morality would not exist without a personal and moral God to command it. Thus, my opponent has no basis for this claim without first accepting that God exists. Third, I’ve shown in my last response that religion has done plenty of good in the world. [2]

• “Deviating from truth or fact.” – My opponent once again asserts that “religion also deviates from the truth and is questionable on facts.” Okay, how? I have nothing to rebut if my opponent doesn’t specify his contention with religious truth. Moreover, this wouldn’t equate to moral wrongness, and if my opponent is trying to force me into advocating omnism, I’ll simply ask for the conduct point, as he not only did not specify what wrongness he was referring to, but his arguments supported a moral sense of the word wrongness. I even stated in my Round 1 response that we would be arguing moral wrongness.

• “Not correct in action, judgement, opinion, method, etc, as a person.” – My opponent seems to miss the “as a person” condition of his own definition, and because religion is not a person, but is a collective of people, there’s no certain directed action, judgement, opinion, or method of the belief system as a whole.

I’d like my opponent to either stick with moral wrongness of religion, or, if he’d like to argue against factual wrongness as well, stick with one religion at a time, as you did not make it clear you would be arguing against factual correctness as well.

Diversity

My opponent still attempts to universally quantify all religions as exclusivist, but fails to substantiate why this is true. I’ll once again repeat that religions can also be inclusivist, such as within Christianity, where inclusivism is the doctrine that “people actually appropriate God’s salvation only on the basis of Christ’s work.” [3] Thus, religion is not exclusivist in nature, because there are inclusivist followers. My opponent should bridge the gap between his supposed exclusivism and moral wrongness.

Ethics

My opponent argues that morality is innately within us, that religion not only tells people the obvious, but enhances it, and then argues that it dictates false information.

This is pretty much an argument for my position. My opponent has conceded that “religion merely tells people the obvious,” obvious referring to ethical values, and that “religion does not teach about how to be good, just enhances it.” Well, if it enhances our understanding of moral goodness, then it does teach us how to be good, but that’s not my point. If my opponent concedes that religion teaches us obvious moral values, and then enhances them, he’s conceding that religion teaches us moral goodness, which is my position in this debate. Also, let’s humor my opponent’s argument and grant that religion merely tells people the obvious: if I came to you with a piece of paper proclaiming that one plus one equals two, which is obvious with mathematical knowledge, how is that wrong in either the moral or the factual sense? My opponent has not only conceded the entire moral goodness aspect of the debate here, but also fails to substantiate his implication that religion’s communication of the obvious is wrong in either sense.

Secondly, my opponent is basically arguing that objective morality exists. He says that “these laws are innately within us,” and that “the first human beings on earth would have known these rules.” This is fundamentally an argument that morality is not relative, but absolute. Because I’ve demonstrated earlier in my response that objective morality can only exist with God present, arguments from objective morality would argue for God’s existence. Thus, my opponent is basically implying God exists whether he knows it or not, which would support the factual correctness of religion.

Thirdly, my opponent contradicts himself within his argument. He states that “religion tells people the obvious,” which I take to mean both morally and factually obvious, because he’s arguing from objective morality, and then just a few sentences later that “religion is wrong because it dictates false information.” How can religion both teach right information and wrong information simultaneously?

Sources

1. Craig, William Lane and JP Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. p. 85. (http://goo.gl...)

2. “Earthly Concerns.” The Economist. Retrieved 21 October 2012. (http://goo.gl...)

3. Craig, William Lane and JP Moreland. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. p. 617. (http://goo.gl...)

Debate Round No. 2
Not.AName

Pro


Knowledge:



You say, to which I agree on some scale that “We are perfectly rational in believing our sensory experiences and intuitions to be true.”


Sensory Experiences:


Sensory experiences are a way of cognitively thinking and rationalising objects and outcomes. They can however be inaccurate or incorrect.


Intuitions:


“The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational process.”


“The sense of something not evident or deducible, an impression.”


Your example of the mug potentially not being there would also have to be included in my argument for the existence of God. The mug however is a physical object and can be rationally broken down into its components, it can be also analysed from a sensory point.


If were arguing against the actual existence of the mug, then we agree that we don’t know if it is really there.


God’s existence is not a constant for the whole of humanity whilst the mug is. It would lead to suggest that the existence of God is actually unknown.


In regards to Faith and Ethics, God’s existence is a crucial part to this debate. For it is the reason why Religions exist.


Ethically speaking in truth values is not based upon strong a posteriori knowledge. It is mainly upon sensory experiences and Intuitions that God is perceived.


On the basis that the existence of God is based upon a feeling, sense, or experience it cannot be justified to exist entirely.


Anyone on this planet can teach right and wrong at the same time. It is humans after all conducting sermons and teachings across all religions, based on the back of previous human perceptions and feelings.


Where faith and wrong come in, is that Religion itself cannot prove the existence of God. That is why they have to have physical and tangible objects to reinforce the mind.


For me this leads to suggest that Religion is wrong to influence people’s lives based on a far as I’m concerned very little truths. Its teachings are wavering in modern day society, issues on contraception and homosexuality for instance. People die from direct religious laws such as stoning every year, from a result of Religion, and a result of the unanswerable question of does god exist?


For something that cannot be definitively answered is the reason as to why Religion has succeeded. It plays on the fears of the unknown and offers warmth for the questions NOBODY has the answers to.


I think that it is wrong on many levels. Ethically on the highest level of truth. It offers no truth, just faith. It sells truth and belief, at the expense of the believers mind.




Note to readers, and against.



My time is limited as I am at work. I also believe strongly in not having to “back-up” my point with references, and leave it to the thought of the reader. I find it tiring recycling points, all be it interesting of those before us. I think it’s important to create new thinking. Although I don’t think this will come from me. Just a belief I hold.


Deduct the points if it doesn’t comply with the rules on this website. I guess it’s a rule.




Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Thanks to Not.Aname for his last post, but I'll ask for organisation in the remaining rounds, as I’ve been doing, to facilitate its readability. I also note that he’s once again dropped some of his prior points.

Faith

My opponent has made both unwarranted and flat-out incorrect assertions. For example, he defines sensory experience as “a way of cognitively thinking and rationalising objects and outcomes.” This could not be farther from what a sensory experience actually is: a sensory experience is the collection of sensory information and its subsequent interpretation. When I say “interpretation,” I mean the mental act of converting sensory information into a form our minds can access, i.e. our experience of light as an image. My opponent’s definition is a flawed, misunderstood description – indeed, “cognitively thinking [what other kind of thinking is there?] and rationalising objects and outcomes” is an exclusively internal affair, whereas sensory experience is communication between the mind and the external world.

It’s not surprising then, that the rest of my opponent’s response is a complete misrepresentation of my point. Regarding my example of a sensory experience concerning a mug never reaching epistemic certainty, my opponent writes, “the mug however is a physical object and can be rationally broken down into its components, it can be also analysed from a sensory point.” I’m not sure how reducing the mug into its parts is relevant at all, but my opponent seems to believe that because the mug is physical, he’s reached epistemic certainty and thus satisfies his own definition of justification. It doesn’t take much to see where this line of thinking fails: the mug is still external to the mind, and is still a belief you reach a posteriori, so under my opponent’s definition of justification, he still wouldn’t know the mug is there.

My opponent then writes a baffling statement, “If were arguing against the actual existence of the mug, then we agree that we don’t know if it is really there.” My entire “faith” section in the previous round concerned how we CAN still know the mug exists, without certainty, because our senses are prima facie justified until we’re met with a defeater that forces us to reexamine our knowledge. I said that we don’t have epistemic certainty that the mug exists (as that would impossibly require us to desert our mind to view the world as it is) but we can still have knowledge in that our belief is still justified intrinsically by our senses. This statement serves to show that (1) my opponent has misrepresented my position, and (2) my opponent subscribes to some kind of absurd skepticism that would leave us with only a priori knowledge. Under this view of certainty necessary for justification, my opponent would be irrational in his belief that religions even exist external of his mind.

Concluding his faith section, my opponent writes, “God’s existence is not a constant for the whole of humanity whilst the mug is. It would lead to suggest that the existence of God is actually unknown.” The idea that all humans would see my mug the same way is absurd considering color-blindedness, the visual impairment, and other optic conditions, not to mention subjective interpretation. That others see my mug differently has no apparent effect on my knowledge of its existence, though a majority opinion that my description is false could serve as a defeater of my otherwise justified sensory experience. The same with God – I can infer God’s existence from the external world (such as with the teleological and cosmological arguments, or with divine revelation) and I’m as justified in this basic belief as I am with the mug.

My opponent next writes, “Ethically speaking in truth values is not based upon strong a posteriori knowledge. It is mainly upon sensory experiences and Intuitions that God is perceived.” Not.Aname, sensory experiences are a posteriori. Moreover, there’s no need for epistemic certainty – my senses are prima facie justified until I’m met with a defeater. I can infer God’s existence through the complexity of nature in just as justified of a manner as I can infer my microwave oven is finished cooking through its obnoxious beeping. I have justified knowledge in both situations that a certain proposition is true. Lastly, my opponent declares, “On the basis that the existence of God is based upon a feeling, sense, or experience it cannot be justified to exist entirely.” Well, that’s presupposing my opponent’s own skeptical view of knowledge and justification, one which he hasn’t substantiated. To readers, I’ll say you are prima facie justified in believing there’s a computer in front of you.

My opponent still has not bridged the gap between unjustified knowledge and wrongness, even if his skeptical view is the correct one, and has not responded to the idea that we can still know God’s existence through a priori modal logic that would satisfy his very own epistemic conditions. (On a side note, most of this has little to do with faith; I’d like readers to review my initial argument on what faith actually is – simply a strong belief that something is true, which can be sufficiently supported with reason as shown in the Bible).

Ethics

My opponent states, “God’s existence is a crucial part to this debate. For it is the reason why Religions exist,” and later, “religion itself cannot prove the existence of God.” I’ve provided three arguments for God’s existence that my opponent has failed to respond to. Moreover, if my opponent’s view of what constitutes proof is at all related to his view of what constitutes knowledge, then we’re again left with only logical and mathematical proof.

His next statement, “Anyone on this planet can teach right and wrong at the same time. It is humans after all conducting sermons and teachings across all religions, based on the back of previous human perceptions and feelings,” is self-contradictory at worst and ambiguous at best. When I said in the last round that my opponent contradicted himself, I was referring to religious doctrine concerning ethics – he asserted that “religion tells people the obvious,” but later, still with respect to ethics, “religion is wrong because it dictates false information.” At that point, he hadn’t shown a single bit of religious doctrine to be wrong, even ignoring his contradiction, though to be fair he attempts so in his following statements.

My opponent writes that the lack of “proof” for the existence of God leads him to believe that religion has very little truth. I’d once again like to direct my opponent to my arguments for God. Moreover, flat-earth theory obviously has little truth (or factual correctness within this context), but does it follow that flat-earth theory is morally wrong? Obviously not. With regards to ethics, my opponent writes that stoning, contraception, and homosexuality are condemned in religious doctrine, but gives no evidence as to why this is wrong. As a Catholic Christian, I view homosexuality and contraception as morally wrong, but I have justification – natural law – for my beliefs as to why these are objectively wrong (it’s not my burden of proof, either). Stoning, however, is not a representation of religion as a whole any more than abortion clinic bombers are a representation of the pro-life movement as a whole.

Is religion a force for good in the world? I think so, and I’ve provided a source that declares the Catholic Church to be the largest charitable organisation in the nation, with literally billions distributed as a result of its ministry. [1] I’d also like to add that under my opponent’s view stoning, homosexuality, and contraception can’t be right in the moral sense either, because his worldview excludes any kind of objective standard for what is right and wrong: under his view of the world, my view of homosexuality can’t be any more wrong than his.

Sources

1. “Earthly Concerns.” The Economist. Retrieved 21 October 2012. (http://goo.gl......)
Debate Round No. 3
Not.AName

Pro

Not.AName forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

Although my opponent forfeited, I hope he can join me in the final round.

Until then, this is my favorite song. →
Debate Round No. 4
Not.AName

Pro

Not.AName forfeited this round.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

My opponent has forfeited the final round as well.

So here's my second favorite song, by the same band. →
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
@Nidhogg,
Glad to have made your day. Nice to make someone's day.
Posted by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
@ Torvald
"Ha. Nur, I like your style. Opponent forfeits, argue with favorite song."
You, sir have made my day XD
@ Nur
The opponent was in over his head on this one, good show mate.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Oh well, I'm sure to the average ear, it is most appealing.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
It's not orchestral, so no.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
I did not listen to it, but if it isn't much like Franz Liszt, I probably wouldn't like it.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Haha, it's a good song though. The Daysleepers are awesome
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Ha. Nur, I like your style. Opponent forfeits, argue with favorite song.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Sorry if I sound harsh, Pro, I just don't think your view of what constitutes knowledge is in any way sound.
Posted by emily123 4 years ago
emily123
why is religion wrong ?:O
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Haha, thanks TheBoss. This is Pro's first debate, though, so I'd cut him some slack when it comes to debate structure.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
Not.ANameNur-Ab-SalTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, but it wasn't going well for Pro anyway.
Vote Placed by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Not.ANameNur-Ab-SalTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF