The Instigator
chasinheffers
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
44 Points

Religion should be outlawed

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 9 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,363 times Debate No: 21510
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (9)

 

chasinheffers

Pro

The ideal of some higher power is silly and outdated. This type of mind altering fairy tale is a con and should be abolished to save money and lives, not to mention precious time of citizens whom are already intellectually challenged by what we already know about the universe.
imabench

Con

I accept this debate and will arguing that religion should not be outlawed because
1) Not all religion focuses on higher powers which is what the Pro is basing this claim on
2) People have a right to believe what they want since it is their own body and their own mind they are allowed to think and believe what they want
3) Its written in the Constitution itself saying that the freedom to practice religion should not be abridged. Forcing people to not believe in anything counts as not being able to practice that religion
4) It is impossible to enforce.

I will expand on my other points in the following rounds, other than that......



Debate Round No. 1
chasinheffers

Pro

By definition: religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies. Granted it is supported by the original law of the land; however, those laws are, and often should be amended for the good of the citizens as a whole. Given the modern circumstances of our society, we should be intelligent enough to safeguard against such influence for the sake of ensuring personal safety from the onslaught of social violence and mental instability that always ensues.
imabench

Con

The Pro has kept his arguments extremely short and very limited in scope, Just the way I like it ;D

The Pro's entire argument rests on a single statement
" Given the modern circumstances of our society, we should be intelligent enough to safeguard against such influence for the sake of ensuring personal safety from the onslaught of social violence and mental instability that always ensues."

This all rests on the idea that religious belief always leads to social violence and mental instability, and that is flat out not true. Religious belief has spawned charities that help those who are abused or less fortunate, religious belief often helps people deal with dramatic events in their own lives, religious beliefs inspire people to have faith in themselves. Religion does not always cause social onslaught like the Pro claims.

On another note, banning religion goes completely against the Constitution, banning religion would be impossible to force both within our borders and outside our borders, and people have a fundamental right to believe in what they want to believe without the government saying they cant believe in anything.
Debate Round No. 2
chasinheffers

Pro

In an attempt to refute my earlier statement, the lovable(valued) Con predictably stumbles blindly off the cliff with the flock of so called "believers",and lands right smack on the 'proverbial' rock below, proving my point. As humans, we are genetically prone to be 'mythmakers';i.e.,we are hesitant to accept the facts we can't readily explain, such as, personal questions about life and death. Its self- incorporated in our DNA by our own imagination, and now that we know it, we can begin to change it, by stopping this destructive behaviour. We all know that facts are often unpleasant and hard to embrace; however, these facts form the reality in which we live, and if the group(not the one) is to survive for any length of time, we must accept questions for what they are: temporarily unanswered. In the light(not the cerebral one)we can see the sun does not travel across the sky, but that we simply spin around with earth's surface daily, the turtle did not crawl out of the ocean with the world on its back, and there is no deity coming to take our departed away on wings of angels. No, the best you can hope for is: a fulfilling life, dotted with good memories of friends and family who constructively share knowledge of life's problems, and the logical solutions, that can and will form our DNA to a more desirable evolution for our offspring. If we do this, we begin to stop the terrible emotion leading to war and great strife, as observed in our own time, as well as the past. Countless examples can be given to the negative cause and effect religion has played in our society, and not one person(in their right mind)can deny it. As far as positive effect, its an illusion(or dillusional if you prefer)to state religious charities and inpiration are good things. In fact, they are more often corrupt, and are in place to solicte money for those who would enslave our society, and influence those of us who have not had the opportunity to think for themselves.

As far as enforcement of this law, it is easily done. We enforce laws everyday as any social order has done for thousands of years. Just as it is enforced you may not con or kill, also the so called pious may not drown your fellow humans with guilt and self doubt.

The constitution, considered by many of americans(including myself at one time)a 'sacred' document, is no more than a parchment of ideas, howbeit admirable, still ideas created by a chosen few wealthy and influential merchants (mostly slave holders and cannibis/tobacco producers) under circumstances which influenced their choices in that period of(agricultuarilly based) time. A large part of our government was a reflection of the ancient Roman legal system, considered then, and still today as a model for law making. The constitution, as any set of ideas, must and should be changed as our intellect natuarally grows in the amount of real data we collect. The forefathers made decisions, as we should, by collecting and interpreting the best information they could at the time of writing.

As a society, it is our duty to our present and future well being to continually analyze our ideas and actions, not to waste precious time bowing and worshiping to a piece of paper or a statue that opportunists created. Religion and 'beliefs' are not the same by definition my friend. Lets start today, and give the religious oppressors exactly what they preach.....a good stoning.
imabench

Con

Here is the Pro's response to my four earlier points

1) Not all religion focuses on higher powers which is what the Pro is basing this claim on - FORFEITED
2) People have a right to believe what they want since it is their own body and their own mind they are allowed to think and believe what they want - FORFEITED
3) Its written in the Constitution itself saying that the freedom to practice religion should not be abridged. Forcing people to not believe in anything counts as not being able to practice that religion - Believes the Constitution is outdated and should be amended to let the government force people to not have any beliefs
4) It is impossible to enforce. - Says it can be but provides no evidence suggesting how.

What this debate really is about is the Pro just sh*tting on religion because their explanations for what happened and how the Earth formed are way off. You know what they are off, and we all know that and we've learned otherwise but the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an are not books designed to predict the future... What we have this time though is that the Pro flat out denies any and all good impacts religion has on society.

" As far as positive effect, its an illusion(or dillusional if you prefer)to state religious charities and inpiration are good things" These churches take in donated funds from honest religious people and use it for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, gifts to people in need, etc one cannot simply claim that religious charities and organizations have are all bad, and to claim that you are sticking your head in the ground and ignoring basic facts

"In fact, they are more often corrupt"
Completely unfactual claim that the Pro is making against all religious groups

"and are in place to solicte money for those who would enslave our society" The homeless and hungry are out to enslave us? You really hate religion huh.

"and influence those of us who have not had the opportunity to think for themselves." EVERYBODY can think for themselves Pro, why do you keep insinuating that all religious people are brain dead?

" Just as it is enforced you may not con or kill, also the so called pious may not drown your fellow humans with guilt and self doubt." One cannot simply use police forces to make it so that people cannot worship. It is impossible to enforce because people can practice illegally in their homes, in their rooms, in their mind, with groups, and the police cannot stop all of that. Banning religion could not be enforced since it is a mental state of mind not a physical action.

" not to waste precious time bowing and worshiping to a piece of paper or a statue that opportunists created"
Now your just being mean Pro.

"Religion and 'beliefs' are not the same by definition my friend"
Religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
Beliefs: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Religion is literally defined as a set of beliefs, so they are quite literally one in the same

Pro has come onto this site and sh*t all over religion, mocking people for how archaic the earliest guesses of explaining the world around us were and claiming all religion is bad in every way. He claims that all religious charity groups are evil, corrupted, and was blind enough to say that churches are trying to fund people who enslave us. He then says that religion has a detrimental effect on everyone but only after once again sticking his head in the ground after I brought up that religion can help people with events in their own lives and to have faith in their own abilities. He is too warped by his hatred for religion to realize that forcing people to not believe anything is something that cannot be done by the police, nor does he realize that it cannot be forced since religious belief is a state of mind................ Not a physical action.

I thank the Pro for the debate and the voters for reading, however I would like to mention to the Pro that proclaiming you have crushed me on this debate in the comments section is the true sign of someone who has no idea how to debate...
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Lol somebody just told me that in another debate i voted in, good thing I came back to check.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
you can change your vote at anytime you know...
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Good god I didnt see the smack talk in this section else I wouldnt of given Pro the conduct point, >_> tsk tsk
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I highly doubt your a college professor
Posted by chasinheffers 5 years ago
chasinheffers
Now I understand why college professors drink heavily after class; nevertheless, they return the next day for entertainment.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
lol, very well i understand
Posted by MikeyMike 5 years ago
MikeyMike
Although I'm positive that Con won this argument, I honestly could not bear to read pro's arguments. I felt like I was slowly losing I.Q. points...

So since I didn't read the debate in it's entirety, I can't vote fairly.

But my blessings still go to Con.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Fail..
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
we'll see about that
Posted by chasinheffers 5 years ago
chasinheffers
Thanks to imabench for his accepting the debate, and for taking the popular stance allowing me to crush it easily.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
chasinheffersimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy win for Con, Pro should work on his resolution.
Vote Placed by LlamaMan 5 years ago
LlamaMan
chasinheffersimabenchTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Just read the debate and you will know why
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
chasinheffersimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: So yeah, that pic in the first round was hilarious. On a serious note tho, Con definitely had strong arguments, and out of the two was the only one to use references(albeit for definitions but it still counts). Neither gets the conduct award in my book simply because of the use of profanity on Cons part, and smack-talk in the comments section by Pro.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
chasinheffersimabenchTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ridiculous argumentation on Pro's part. Con successfully refuted every single one of Pro's points and while pro attempted to respond Con crushed Pro in the last round. Ridiculous arguments on Pro's side....
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
chasinheffersimabenchTied
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: BOP on Pro and Pro failed to fulfill it especially with Con's crushing last round.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
chasinheffersimabenchTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented a more compelling case to the resolution. Pro also dropped certain arguments. His remarks cost him conduct.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
chasinheffersimabenchTied
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 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: Obvious win is mother-effing obvious. Con proved that it would just be ridiculously impossible and pointless to try and make religion illegal. Nuff said.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
chasinheffersimabenchTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's first speech was short, didn't look as if any effort was put into it, the second speech was much better but still doesn't make ends meet. Con proved outlawing religion is unconstitutional and creates multiple problems, which pro concedes because there was no successful refutation. Also pro, don't smack talk your opponent in the comments section, especially if your going to give a speech like in your second round. Thus i voted con for the reasons above, and clean extensions by con.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
chasinheffersimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Imabench proved that outlawing religion would be unconstitutional and ridiculous.