The Instigator
Puck
Pro (for)
Winning
63 Points
The Contender
bthr004
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

Religion should not have special immunity from criticism.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,215 times Debate No: 5039
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (109)
Votes (16)

 

Puck

Pro

"The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture... [and]... the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith."

- Judgment of the Inquisition of Galileo Galilei, 1616

Definition - Special: distinctive; unique.

==

In Australia recently, police were afforded new powers that allowed police to arrest and fine people for "causing annoyance" to World Youth Day participants and permit partial strip searches at hundreds of Sydney sites.

The laws, which operated until the end of July, had the potential to make a crime of wearing a T-shirt with a message on it, handing out condoms at protests, or even playing music.
==

"The UN Human Rights Council is not allowed to judge religions, according to president Doru Romulus Costea of Romania. Criticism of Sharia law or fatwas is now forbidden.

This ruling follows attempts by the Egyptian and Pakistani delegates at the Council to silence criticism of human rights abuse in the Islamic world. The representative of the Association for World Education, in a joint statement with the International Humanist and Ethical Union, had denounced the stoning to death of women accused of adultery and of girls being married at the age of nine years old in countries where Sharia law applies.

The speaker, David Littman, was interrupted by no fewer than 16 points of order and the proceedings of the Council were suspended for forty minutes when the Egyptian delegate said that "Islam will not be crucified in this Council"; and attempted to force a vote on whether the speaker should be allowed to continue."
==
An open discussion of Islam is dangerous not only in countries under Islamic rule but also in the west. Those Muslims who disown or criticise their faith publicly are likely to be accused of apostasy, a crime punishable by death under Islamic law, a penalty enforced by a range of Islamic states, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan.

Islamic position on apostasy is essentially total disbelief that any person could possibly have a genuine reason for leaving the perfect religion. Essential aspects of our civilised humanity, such as freedom of speech and freedom of belief, are exemplified in Islam by those thinkers and writers it labels apostates. The significance of apostates and other religious dissidents is vital.

Islam makes large claims for itself. In its art, there is intolerance against representing the human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the prophet - designed to discourage idolatry - has now become absolute idolatry itself. Let a fine Muslim abstain these and other religious prohibitions. But if the claim is the right to make a non-believer refrain, it offers a clear warning and confirmation of hostile intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude to the inherent meaning - I claim to own absolute truth and I demand utter immunity from criticism. For in the future, you will do what I say and there will be repercussions if you do not.

One of the most malicious forms of attempted censorship of unwelcome views isn't overt repression, but to convince people not to express those unwelcome views from the start. It's always more fruitful to head off the wrong thoughts before they are expressed, rather than deal with them after they are already out in public. Why use the blunt instrument of state repression if people are held to repress themselves?

If we allow offense to be the base on which to act with reprisal or censorship, we simply give groups or individuals the control to suppress the speech of anyone with whom they happen to disagree. No group, no matter how virtuous or religious can claim an exemption from criticism or scrutiny; neither may any religion command that secular society adhere to its definitions of heresy or blasphemy. Whenever such policies are attempted, they ultimately lead to hounding, favouritism to power and the end of any meaningful freedom of speech and critical thinking. Inevitably the result is that some issues and ideas become off limits to any discussion - on a basis that is purely subjective and at whim to changes in perspective.

This is exactly what we see happening with unwelcome criticisms of religion, specifically in the West where governments have little or no authority to formally censor material that is critical of religion. The most frequent justification is the claim non-adherents of a religion should not offend religious believers by criticising their faith. This arguments basis is the idea that criticism of a belief system is equitable to a personal attack on the believer. In some cases, such an association is valid, but for the majority it is not.

However not only do the insulted themselves make a commotion; they are actively aided and encouraged by significant figures from other religions and the liberal establishment. It is not seen a challenge to justify beliefs like anybody else, the religious are granted asylum in the form of an intellectual forbidden zone. When Jyllands-Postens printed their infamous cartoon series, and after the resulting destruction to embassies, the catholic church..supports the rioters, blasphemy was the seen evil. Likewise when Salman Rushdie had a fatwa placed upon both him and all those related to the publishing of the book..religious leaders from the West, denounced Rushdies's efforts and supported his persecution.

Believers are adamant. They and their religion should be respected and, therefore, that attacks on religion are not a legitimate use of one's right to free speech. Whatever respect a person might deserve as a human, though, doesn't entail that their beliefs deserve automatic respect as well. Beliefs have to earn respect - most earn disrespect.

Beliefs that are true and valid will not be harmed by criticism - even by unjustified and mistaken criticism. Beliefs that are neither true nor valid will only be revealed through critical discourse. If we value the truth, we should welcome criticism even of our most regarded beliefs. If they are true then this can strengthen us - if they are wrong, then we will know and be free.
bthr004

Con

"Definition - Special: distinctive; unique."

- assuming this is my opponents definition of special?...

"Religion should not have special immunity from criticism."

- This is the topic of the debate and stance my opponent must defend.

Legal definition of IMMUNITY;

Exemption from criminal prosecution or legal liability or punishment on certain conditions.

-WWW.dictionary.COM

With "special" immunity, one must claim "special" criticism,.. I claim DESTRUCTIVE criticism.

Destructive Criticism:

Destructive criticism is intended to harm someone, derogate and destroy someone's creation, prestige, reputation and self-esteem on whatever level it might be. This may be done intentionally or out of sheer ignorance and foolishness. Hence the word destructive is used. In practical life destructive criticism may be disguised as constructive to be more painful while harming. Valid examination of intention of critic is when asked to prove, to help or to be somewhat useful at all. Often destructive criticism comes from persons who are envious, cruel and those who judges in fields which are not their own.

My platform,...

Religion SHOULD have "special" and protected immunity from prosecution, persecution, and infringements of rights to those religions being destructively criticized in such ways such as open protests in front of religious land marks on holy days, physical abuse, property damage, harassment, and mocking or demeaning ones beliefs or religion that would otherwise degrade, or devalue, and infringe on the rights of others based soaly on the religious views of said victim.

It is ones right to practice and have religion,... it is not your or anyone elses right to infringe or degrade that right belonging to another,... Thus "special" immunity and protection should be given to religion protecting it from destructive and cruel criticism.
Debate Round No. 1
Puck

Pro

"- assuming this is my opponents definition of special?..."

Hence the word definition..then special...then a definition of special.

"This is the topic of the debate and stance my opponent must defend."

Unsurprisingly known by me.

"Legal definition of IMMUNITY;
Exemption from criminal prosecution or legal liability or punishment on certain conditions."

Clearly not a definition compliant with the actual outlined debate, but I understand if you use semantics due to any lack of conviction on your part.

"With "special" immunity, one must claim "special" criticism,.. I claim DESTRUCTIVE criticism."

Special criticism? Are you cognisant of how sentence formation works? The adjective is applied the succeeding noun, the proposition again to the succeeding noun. Not the adjective to both nouns.

From your website definition of choice.

crit•i•cism Audio Help [krit-uh-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2.the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.
3.the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.
4.a critical comment, article, or essay; critique.
5.any of various methods of studying texts or documents for the purpose of dating or reconstructing them, evaluating their authenticity, analyzing their content or style, etc.: historical criticism; literary criticism.
6.investigation of the text, origin, etc., of literary documents, esp. Biblical ones: textual criticism.

Nowhere is there any "destructive criticism," or anything closely compliant. You have simply tagged criticism onto destructive, and slander, hoping it will be accepted. Violence, destruction, restraint, none of these are criticism.

"Religion SHOULD have "special" and protected immunity from prosecution, persecution, and infringements of rights to those religions being destructively criticized"

Invalid terminology. Please choose from the above list as to how that applies to your:

"physical abuse, property damage"

"harassment"

Which is not criticism.

"and mocking or demeaning ones beliefs or religion"

Which does not stop any one person from having a belief.

"that would otherwise degrade, or devalue, and infringe on the rights of others based soaly on the religious views of said victim."

Again, that does not stop anyone individual from practicing their belief. Unless the person was to physically stop someone entering a place of worship which then is not criticism. Even if you do contend that inciting hate speech should be legally prosecutable, then that would be relevant for all hate speech, not unique to religion.

"It is ones right to practice and have religion"

Yes. Never stated otherwise.

"... it is not your or anyone elses right to infringe or degrade that right belonging to another"

Again not something I argued. Unless you break the law as part of your religious practice.

"... Thus "special" immunity and protection should be given to religion protecting it from destructive and cruel criticism."

Criticism again is not destruction. Likewise how would this protection be special (unique) to religion?

Feel free to address the debate in the clear form it was meant.
bthr004

Con

My opponent likes to run circles once he has been pointed out,... I stayed within the bounds of this debate.

I also find his attempt at sarcasm pretty funny as well,... I was simply laying the outline of our debate so that it is understandable of all our positions,...

I appreciate the grammar lesson as well,... I hope it leads you to a girlfriend and out of your parents basement someday before you turn 40.

As for the debate at hand,...

My opponent claims I have pulled "destructive criticism" out of thin air,... I want to provide some evidence to my madness,...www.wikipedia.org

Surely you have heard of constructive criticism,... well, as you can let your mind guess,... destructive is the opposite,...

If we do not allow for some kind of "special" immunity to those people that are being harshly criticised simply because of there religion,... than how does a society govern morality when it comes to how fairly we treat jews, blacks, muslims, homosexuals, etc, etc....

Just in case,.. Puck,.. you are still having troubles understanding this,.. lets try an example,..

Lets say this is a few years down the road and you have been promoted to McDonalds assistant manager,... You are in charge of hiring a new nugget operations tech,... You have 2 applicants,... Charlie the non denominational no faith libertarian,... and Susan the muslim. Your criticism of Susan,... she is a muslim, muslims are the cause of all the terrorsim in the world. You hire Charlie, because you dont like Susan because she is a muslim,... Susan does not have a job,... you have violated her rights to be muslim and to work through criticisms of her religion that led to oppression,...

History shows us that religion, race, and sex MUST have some kind of SPECIAL immunity when it comes to criticism such as destructive criticism in particular, because it does and has led to oppression. One does NOT have to the right to oppress someones rights to have that religion, once someone criticized someone with motives based soley on religion, that becomes oppression based on religion,... Without special immunity against religion based criticism,... we walk a dangerous path that this country has been down before,...
Debate Round No. 2
Puck

Pro

"My opponent likes to run circles once he has been pointed out,... I stayed within the bounds of this debate."

No, I addressed your argument line by line.

"I appreciate the grammar lesson as well,... I hope it leads you to a girlfriend and out of your parents basement someday before you turn 40."

Ad Hominen.

"My opponent claims I have pulled "destructive criticism" out of thin air,... I want to provide some evidence to my madness,...www.wikipedia.org"

From Wikipedia:
-This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
-This article does not cite any references or sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Forgive me if I am now any less convinced of your argument. So again; go to the dictionary list of criticism. Choose the appropriate one.

"Surely you have heard of constructive criticism,... well, as you can let your mind guess,... destructive is the opposite,...

destroy someone's creation, prestige, reputation and self-esteem"

Criticism that is constructive does not create something physical (they are words), encourage prestige (which would involve multiple parties extolling virtue not criticism), reputation (again multiple parties plus a +/- value) maybe it will build self esteem - feel free to link a relevant, valid psychological article.

"If we do not allow for some kind of "special" immunity to those people that are being harshly criticised simply because of there religion,... than how does a society govern morality when it comes to how fairly we treat jews, blacks, muslims, homosexuals, etc, etc...."

Fallacy - slippery slope. Contradiction - How is it distinctive or unique if you want it applied broadly?

"Lets say this is a few years down the road and you have been promoted to McDonalds assistant manager,... You are in charge of hiring a new nugget operations tech,... You have 2 applicants,... Charlie the non denominational no faith libertarian,... and Susan the muslim. Your criticism of Susan,... she is a muslim, muslims are the cause of all the terrorsim in the world. You hire Charlie, because you dont like Susan because she is a muslim,... Susan does not have a job,... you have violated her rights to be muslim and to work through criticisms of her religion that led to oppression,..."

Firstly there are already anti-discrimination laws in place for such an event. Secondly there is no criticism except what occurs internally. Thirdly there is no violation of ability to be a religious person which is distinct from discrimination in regards to that belief. At any rate one would think, inflicting the living hell that fast food work appears to be, if anyone was so inclined, hiring them to the position would be the done thing. :D

"History shows us that religion, race, and sex MUST have some kind of SPECIAL immunity when it comes to criticism such as destructive criticism in particular, because it does and has led to oppression."

Contradiction. You claim it must have special immunity (distinctive, unique) but wish it applied broadly.

"One does NOT have to the right to oppress someones rights to have that religion"

Fallacy - Straw man. It has never been argued that it does and you have failed to show the validity of lumping violence, destruction, slander, discrimination and oppression under criticism.

"nce someone criticized someone with motives based soley on religion, that becomes oppression based on religion"

Person X says "I believe Christians are immoral." How exactly are you now oppressed?

"Without special immunity against religion based criticism,... we walk a dangerous path that this country has been down before,..."

Falllacy - Slippery slope.

My opponent has singularly failed to construct any valid form of destructive criticism. Merely applying the two terms together does not create a valid construct. Even when treated as valid it is clearly not the opposite of what it is claimed. Additionally she/he continually contradicts, urging special immunity, special in the sense that it is applied broadly i.e. not special. There has been complete failure to address any points raised in my opening R1, and I have dealt with all of Cons.
bthr004

Con

"Ad Hominen"

Why,.. does puck deserve special immunity from criticism???

Ok,.. you do not except the existence of "constructive," or "destructive" criticism,.. fine,.. I WILL use your definitions,..

2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

- My opponent says censorship should and severe judgement based on religion should not have special immunity,... Should it be allowed?

My opponent claims that I am contradicting myself by claiming that people deserve "special" immunity from criticism,... I am not,.. I NEVER said that prohibiting certain criticism based on race, religion, etc. should adhere to the same by laws,... The difference between race and religion offer unique and special differences of there own.

"Firstly there are already anti-discrimination laws in place for such an event. Secondly there is no criticism except what occurs internally."

My opponent evidently has meant only public criticism,... hmmm,.. sorry. I did not see public OR private criticism in my opponents strict list of definitions provided by dictionary.com. Perhaps,.. PUCK,.. you are contradicting now????

"Thirdly there is no violation of ability to be a religious person which is distinct from discrimination in regards to that belief."

I already concluded above that negative criticism led to oppression,.. susan did not get a job because of anti religious criticisms of her, oppression. My opponent conceded that criticism existed (internally) which led to Susan not getting a job,... Oppression does not have to physical in order to obstruct ones rights,..

"Contradiction. You claim it must have special immunity (distinctive, unique) but wish it applied broadly."

Again, I NEVER said there should be standard or bar that race, religion, and sex should be governed equally,.. Each one is different and requires different rules,...

"Fallacy - Straw man. It has never been argued that it does and you have failed to show the validity of lumping violence, destruction, slander, discrimination and oppression under criticism. "

C'Mon,... Since I have been limited to only my opponents list of definitions,.. Here goes,..

2. the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.

HMMM,... the act of passing severe censorship,.. By my opponents own definition examples,..

Censure: 1. strong or vehement expression of disapproval
2. an official reprimand
3. to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner
4. to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame.

Synonyms; condemnation, reproof, reproach, reprehension, rebuke, reprimand, stricture, animadversion.

My opponent wishes to rid Special immunity or protection for religion against official reprimands, censure and reproach in a vehement manner (characterized by rancor or anger; violent, hostile,)www.dictionary.com,...

In closing,...

My opponents base for the entire argument is flawed,.. My opponent is in favor of "Religion should not have special immunity from criticism." Yet in round 1 my opponent already concedes that the western govt. " have little or no authority to formally censor material that is critical of religion." Your bases of argument is flawed after this point,... If there are currently little to no laws preventing criticism of religion,.. One wonders if the resolution my opponent is in favor of becomes a law saying religious people CAN NOT be upset about other people offending their religion. OBSURED!! My opponent also conceded in the previous round that internal critism led to oppression of Susan not getting a job. "Internal" criticism as my opponent concedes is fiber that makes up discrimination, in which laws giving "special immunity" already exist; surely my opponent isn't suggesting we get rid of anti discrimination laws. My opponent made NO points in any round,....

Does my opponent feel religions should now not even have the right to get offended by others that criticize them based on their religion???

Surely this view is not shared with the majority. Please, I hope people have the common sense to vote CON.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
109 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"the names I listed were nominated or chosen to be leaders, they could have worked in other ways for their own values and interests, but they knew that they had to be leaders for the people,.. If they lost, they lost their lives, they knew that, they put themselve in the front none the less."

Which is still self serving and not self sacrifice. People arn't removed from being chosen as leaders, they agree to the position. Again it goes back to advancing one's own self interests.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
They are worthy of note and praise.

"If one works for one's own values and interests then it is self serving, not self sacrifice."

- the names I listed were nominated or chosen to be leaders, they could have worked in other ways for their own values and interests, but they knew that they had to be leaders for the people,.. If they lost, they lost their lives, they knew that, they put themselve in the front none the less.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"I never said anything about dying,.. or death required to become a hero."

Apologies, self sacrifice, hero and death are a common rhetoric.

"Please name some,.. I feel it is there own merits but it was them self sacraficing time, energy, mind, spirit,etc. to better society,..ie; Dr. King, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Shays, etc. These are heroic figures that risked themselves for the good and intentions of good for others."

If one works for one's own values and interests then it is self serving, not self sacrifice. As for my examples of note, those individuals that prosper and succeed on their own merits, Copernicus and Socrates both suffered for their positions and the strength of their resolve. Those individuals who explored the world, braving the unknown, those who invent and produce wholly on their own merits. These to me are individuals worthy of note and praise.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I never said anything about dying,.. or death required to become a hero.

"Self sacrifice for others is unnecessary and detrimental to the self."
- perhaps we have two seperate ideas of self sacrafice. Are you implying that a parent should put their own interests a head of their childrens?

As for the marriage thing,.. oops, I was thinking of someone else,... Now that I am clear on the right person,.. I believe my point was the need for self sacrafice in order to balance a relationship,.. Unless her marriage was unhappy,.. that particular comment of mine was not a good segway* (sp),.. None the less, the point I trying to make still holds.

"History is full of figures that stand out because they advanced society on their own merits."

- Please name some,.. I feel it is there own merits but it was them self sacraficing time, energy, mind, spirit,etc. to better society,..ie; Dr. King, Thomas Jefferson, Daniel Shays, etc. These are heroic figures that risked themselves for the good and intentions of good for others.

"Again incorrect, if a country can produce by virtue of its government and the society of its people a rational self realisation of individuality and self worth, advancement through the purposes of individual strengths, free trade and production, then what greater reason for patriotism would there be? Dying is your value of a role model? You advocate the destruction of society. You do not need to sacrifice to advance and prosper."

Again when did I say dying was a requirement? ALL you have said is true,.. I agree with you alot,.. Sacraficing ones self does not have to mean dying,.. It can mean time, energy, even putting aside your own personal desires for a better over all situation later. This is a society,.. It requires a balance. Sometimes self censoring will prevent animosity that could harm you in the end.

Individualism to me means: Everyone is in control of their own actions,... work alot get alot, work little get little.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"Ayn Rand was married 3 times."

Once, and for 50 years till his death. Not sure where you got her bio from.

"Perhaps if everyone shared equal burden and made sacrafices of themselves a real self value would be evident in the end"

Self sacrifice for others is unnecessary and detrimental to the self. Each individual is responsible for their own existence. Equal burden is pure socialist rhetoric, anathema to self advancement and progress.

",... Ayn Rand was also pretty hypocritical,... I do know about her,.. your history lesson made NO difference in my point as well, and I knew all of it as well,..."

Clearly not.

"Without sacraficing ones self for others we would have no heros,"

Again incorrect. History is full of figures that stand out because they advanced society on their own merits. Dying does not make one a hero, merely a dead.

"we would have no patriots, we would have no role models."

Again incorrect, if a country can produce by virtue of its government and the society of its people a rational self realisation of individuality and self worth, advancement through the purposes of individual strengths, free trade and production, then what greater reason for patriotism would there be? Dying is your value of a role model? You advocate the destruction of society. You do not need to sacrifice to advance and prosper.

The quote I provided in my last post,.."neither sacrificing himself to others (nor sacrificing others to himself.)"
Not sure what it means by not sacraficing others to himself,"

It refers to the parasitic individual, those that require of others to provide for themselves - those who do nothing to advance their own life but merely live of the proceeds, effort and accomplishments of others.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I dont want to attack each of your points,.. I just want to do one here,..

"Why? Can't the family provide on their own merits. What worth is there in subsumption of the self to any parental ideals? Blind obedience is anathema to the individual self and reason."

Ayn Rand was married 3 times. Perhaps if everyone shared equal burden and made sacrafices of themselves a real self value would be evident in the end,... Ayn Rand was also pretty hypocritical,... I do know about her,.. your history lesson made NO difference in my point as well, and I knew all of it as well,...

Without sacraficing ones self for others we would have no heros, we would have no patriots, we would have no role models.

The quote I provided in my last post,.."neither sacrificing himself to others (nor sacrificing others to himself.)"

Not sure what it means by not sacraficing others to himself,,..
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"However,.. As we have previously discussed a criticism can be bias, prejudice, or can be given with out much account of available information of that bieng criticized."

Criticism is by nature a bias to a position against that which is criticised. Again it is valid so long as the rational foundation is.

"Oh and one other thing,... The idea that patriotism is not individualism is junk. Off topic,.. just putting it out there."

The two are unrelated. Patriotism may be a value of the individual, or not. However patriotism, depending on level of reasoning, is normally blind adherence to norms or beliefs. By definition it is a collective belief.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"and children? Do they understand these three purposes,.. Or is it the parents and the quality of up bringing that will figure in the degree of reason, purpose, and self-esteem?"

Reason is an individual process. Parents can encourage such a use to varying degrees, but it ultimately rests with the individual. Its processes can easily be tailored to be developmentally appropriate. Self esteem is a product of parenting style for a child amongst other things.

"Ayn Rand had parents. They decided her actions within reason, surely that was carried on through life after she left her parents."

She was born in 1905, to Jewish parents and moved to the USA in 1926. Herer immediate family except her sister Nora died during World War II, and Rand was not aware that her sister lived until 1973.

"She believed that individuals should choose their values and actions solely by reason. According to Rand, the individual must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

Quite. Good to see you can quote.

"I beleive in individualism to a certain degree, but every person should have a moral obligation to their family ahead of their own self."

Why? Can't the family provide on their own merits. What worth is there in subsumption of the self to any parental ideals? Blind obedience is anathema to the individual self and reason.

"To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking."

Incorrect -It is the use of rational thought in compliance with ones values. Bias is perfectly fine so long as it's foundation in rational thought is valid. To have no bias is to say one must have no values, which is clearly rubbish and not objectivism at all.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Oh and one other thing,... The idea that patriotism is not individualism is junk. Off topic,.. just putting it out there.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
and children? Do they understand these three purposes,.. Or is it the parents and the quality of up bringing that will figure in the degree of reason, purpose, and self-esteem?

Ayn Rand had parents. They decided her actions within reason, surely that was carried on through life after she left her parents.

She believed that individuals should choose their values and actions solely by reason. According to Rand, the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

I beleive in individualism to a certain degree, but every person should have a moral obligation to their family ahead of their own self.

To be objective is to adhere strictly to truth-conducive methods in one's thinking, particularly, to take into account all available information, and to avoid any form of prejudice, bias, or wishful thinking. However,.. As we have previously discussed a criticism can be bias, prejudice, or can be given with out much account of available information of that bieng criticized.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
Puckbthr004Tied
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 
Vote Placed by pitz004 7 years ago
pitz004
Puckbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
Puckbthr004Tied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
Puckbthr004Tied
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 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Puckbthr004Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Puckbthr004Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Puckbthr004Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Puckbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
Puckbthr004Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by oreo 8 years ago
oreo
Puckbthr004Tied
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:30