The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Religion should be banned

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...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 606 times Debate No: 82953
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

Religion is a big lie and has corrupted society for thousands of years. It is all just made up nonsense which creates excuses for irrational and stupid behaviour patterns.
Emilrose

Con

**Accepted**

->>Burden of Proof

As the instigator of this debate and the one advocating for a complete reform of the status-quo [I.E the removal of religion], it is on Pro to fulfill the BoP and to successfully affirm their resolution.

Questions they will have to answer:

1. How would religion actually be banned?

2. Why should it be banned?

3. What is the legal basis for this banning?

As well as addressing these three key questions, Pro will also need to support their previous claims which are:

'Religion is a big lie and has corrupted society for thousands of years.'

'It is all just made up nonsense which creates excuses for irrational and stupid behaviour patterns.'

--Therefore, five important points that Pro is obliged to answer to, in order to make any *valid* case.



Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

1. Religion would be banned so that it would be illegal to practise religion. All churches would be demolished and the land would be put to more useful purposes.

2. It should be banned because it causes violence and fanaticism amongst some individuals. It creates reasons to dislike other people because they don't believe in God. It causes and results in discrimination in government organisations. Religion is a ruling class deception that was instigated by the ruling classes for the purposes of furthering their goals of tyranny and oppression.

3. The history of religion is one that is littered with acts of violence, destruction, ignorance and deception. Not to mention the Inquisition and many recent child molestation cases. The Bible is full of lies and is an old redundant document that needs to be banned also. All other religious documents should be banned also including the Quran etc.
Emilrose

Con

Emilrose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

Akhenaten forfeited this round.
Emilrose

Con

-->>Rebuttals:

Pro states:

'Religion would be banned so that it would be illegal to practise religion. All churches would be demolished and the land would be put to more useful purposes.'

Well, obviously a 'banning' of religion constitutes illegality of it--so that's a pointless comment from Pro. In addition, he/she still fails to outline how each country (and each government) approach demolishing all churches; as there would obviously significant contention to this. Not exclusively from 'religious' people, but also from those who wish to preserve historical monuments [1.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

'It should be banned because it causes violence and fanaticism amongst some individuals. It creates reasons to dislike other people because they don't believe in God. It causes and results in discrimination in government organisations. Religion is a ruling class deception that was instigated by the ruling classes for the purposes of furthering their goals of tyranny and oppression.'

Many things in this world (technically) cause 'violence and fanaticism'--in fact, one can be violent and fanatic about virtually anything. This is largely because it's not necessarily a *belief system* that makes one this way, but the individual themselves. Due to his own bias, Pro overlooks the FACT that there exists many moderate religious people and religions that do not actually preach violence.

Moreover, Pro has displayed no evidence to show that religion leads to 'discrimination' or anything alike. All claims are not supported, and therefore mere opinion.

'The history of religion is one that is littered with acts of violence, destruction, ignorance and deception. Not to mention the Inquisition and many recent child molestation cases. The Bible is full of lies and is an old redundant document that needs to be banned also. All other religious documents should be banned also including the Quran etc.'

Again, this is not a valid argument as Pro has *yawn* again not supported it or sourced it with any additional information. Thus, his assertion that the 'history of religion is one that is littered with acts of violence, destruction, ignorance and deception' is pure heresy. In order for them to have any validity, Pro would have to prove the following:

-That its history is predominantly violent-->>religion and its history has many different aspects so this one is especially difficult to verify.

-That its history is somehow littered with destruction.

-That its history has significant examples of ignorance.

-That its history has significant (and numerous) examples of deception.

Four things, in addition to his other assertions, that Pro has not adequately addressed or shown to be true.

Thus, Pro has not supported his stance or affirmed the resolution--and I, as Con, should win.



Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
1. Religion cannot be forced out of society or the minds of believers!
2.They must search their own way through the rabbit hole!
3. It is not an easy task to shake off indoctrination or illusions of grandeur
4. keep telling it like you see it and not just how you want to see it
5. Denial is an obvious weakness that we can identify as a barrier for personal progression!!

There! That should help haha These are entry points into leaving religion behind without resorting to Stalin's solution!
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
O.K. maybe I got a little defensive Honestly I wanted to debate your assertion that I'm "retarded"
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
I make jumps sure.. I guess that is my fault assuming people can bridge the gaps! I always think its funny when someone tells you that you are stupid because they cannot understand something! I have no trouble filling in the spaces... wy cnt yo?
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Hm? O.o

I'm just saying that the way you write things [both you and theist] is kind of retarded.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
*sigh*

What a bunch of retards.. I'm lost!
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Ohh.. You lumped me in with theist1998.. Now I'm really confused!
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Wut

I actually have no opinion on the matter at all.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Emilrose: You said "bunch of retards"! Its just me and your opponent! I can easily shake off a random innocuous insult (I prefer humorous ball busting) However you generalized your attack.. It was quite ambiguous.. Please elaborate!
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
*sigh*

What a bunch of retards...
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Religion cannot be forced out of society or the minds of believers! They must search their own way through the rabbit hole! It is not an easy task to shake off indoctrination or illusions of grandeur.. But its not impossible! Just keep telling it like you see it and not just how you want to see it.. That is the first step.. Denial is an obvious weakness that we can identify as a barrier for personal progression!! Its a start anyways!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by UtherPenguin 11 months ago
UtherPenguin
AkhenatenEmilroseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro failed to meet the Burden of Proof, making large generalizations and claims, but not sufficiently giving evidence to them. Along side a failure to address Con's point, therefore, my vote goes to Con