Religion ultimately causes unnecessary conflict
Debate Rounds (5)
It would be helpful if the pro would define what they specifically meant by unnecessary conflict, so, in lack of a more personalized definition with which to debate with, I will use a literal definition of the terms, resulting in; UNNECESSARY
: not necessary Necessary: of an inevitable nature, and Conflict :a fight, battle, or struggle, esp. a prolonged struggle; strife. (I chose a more physical definition simply due to the fact that a debate in and of itself is a conflict, and I choose not to get into the philosophical ramifications of debating the necessity of debate. =P)
If the pro has any opposition to the definition of this term, I ask that they speak out, as it will be the definition I will work with.
Lets start: First and foremost, I posit that religion does not cause unnecessary conflict, due to the subjective implications of what people view as necessary. I will not debate that religion does not cause conflict, as that is not the context of the debate, but rather, that simply because a third party views the conflict as unnecessary, doesn't objectively make it so. And as such, I will provide the following two syllogisms :
1. All religions ultimately causes unnecessary conflict
2. All irreligious have no religion
thus, 3. All irreligious cause no unnecessary conflict.
1. Necessity is relative
2. KodyHarris provides a statement on necessity
thus, 3. KodyHarris' statement is relative
I perceive the first syllogism to be empirically false, as many irreligious conflicts have broken out that many view to be necessary (the cold war, but again, I need the pro to define EXACTLY what unnecessary is), and the first to be true, as via the definition of relativity; (existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: E.G. Happiness is relative.) a position that is not absolute, can claim no title to the empirical definition of necessity, as by nature of it's own relativity,
Again, Pro, I need you to be more clear on your definitions so I can provide a cogent argument in the Cons defense.
Religion is defined as a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
Unnecessary is defined as "Not needed", and the grounds of what is unnecessary is what is based on utilitarianism: greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Conflict, for this debate, is implied to be violent.
My opponent initially attacks the objectivity of necessity. However, the most neutral and universal context of necessary is that of utilitarianism and that's what is going to be the criteria of unnecessary; something that causes unhappiness that can be avoided.
Utilitarianism will serve as the basis for what is necessary in this argument. If my opponent would like to present his definition of necessary, he may do so and it will plentifully be open for argument, as there are 5 rounds in this debate.
Religion, in and of itself, is not what DIRECTLY starts the conflict. Religious start the conflict BECAUSE of religion.
1. Religion requires the religious
2. The religious cause conflict
3. Religion causes conflict
This syllogism is demonstrates the indirect relationship of religion and conflict. I will assume that my opponent agrees that religion causes conflict. If he disagrees, I look forward to his arguments.
My opponent may not, although correctly pointing out, use irreligious conflict as an argument. This is outside the context of the argument, although it is indeed true. Religion is the point at which the cap of a potential ad infinitum is placed. You may say the beautiful properties of the Universe may ultimately cause conflict, but the cap at which it is to be argued is religion and religion only as that is the context of the topic.
I look forward to an interesting and a hopefully well-matched debate!
== Religion, in and of itself, is not what DIRECTLY starts the conflict. Religious start the conflict BECAUSE of religion.==
Now, in the clause, Con specifically stated that "Religion ultimately causes unnecessary conflict". Now, it seems he is more or less back tracking on his statement into a more exclusive indirect approach to religious conflict as such:
A causes B
B causes C
So A indirectly C
With A being the religion, B being the religious, and C being unnecessary conflict.
The point of my argument is to argue that A does not cause C, because A and B have a loose, and sometimes abstract relationship.
Religion, in and of itself, is an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices, as per our chosen definition of the word. And on the grounds of utilitarianism, I am quick to assume that my opponent understands that the large majority of the worlds populations follows some sort of belief system, ergo, the majority of the world is religious.
We see it in Islamic texts about Jihad, a struggle to preserve faith, make community better, and wage holy war. But it is becoming increasingly known to the world that 'holy war', isn't the true interpretation, or, at best, a metaphorical one, depending on whom is cited. Many Islamic scholars claim that the translation relates primarily to political debate and religious debate, rather than an actual militarized conflict. So, here, we have one example of that crazy relationship between religious and their religion. While one side maintains peace and dissent from violence, the other actively uses religious texts to justify it. I heartily doubt that religion is the culprit, but rather, the scapegoat of unnecessary violence. Simply because there is a correlation between religion and unnecessary conflict as we have defined it, does NOT imply that there is a causal relationship, and the Con's choice of defining it as a causal relationship without providing evidence as such is severely unfounded in this regard. He sees the relationship between the two, and rightly so, but fails to see that they are not causal in nature. So the question is restated, does religion and unnecessary conflict have a casual relationship, or is religion merely a scapegoat for religious atrocities, due to it's ability to be interpreted differently.
By definition, unnecessary conflict begs for conflict without reason, but merely stating that religious peoples' use of their religion in JUSTIFYING conflict doesn't make religion the cause. Simply because religion is easy to use to justify conflict, with its roots deep in our psychological underpinnings, shows only that it's the good things about religion, love, loyalty, and faith can be twisted and distorted to provide a justification, not a cause, of unnecessary violence.
My opponent begins by attacking my syllogistic relationship of the religion and the religion and tries to disprove it.
However, Religion requires the Religious to even exist: (religious - of religion). If Religion did not exist, there could not be any religious, therefore, religion -> religious.
However, the conflict stemming from religion is not utilitarian. In fact, it causes intermittent distress for both sides of the violent conflict, resulting in death and destruction in both sides and both sides at some sort of loss and unhappiness.
My opponent then points out the relativity of religious context and that there are both peaceful and aggressive interpretations. However, there could be one violent religious person and a billion peaceful religious people, but the said religion would still ULTIMATELY cause the violence. It is possible to blame YouTube for ultimately causing deaths, but volumes less to blame it for only causing deaths. There is a difference between ultimately causing something and causing something.
This difference appears to be misinterpreted by my opponent, but is key to understanding the argument.
Evyne forfeited this round.
Evyne forfeited this round.
Evyne forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KodyHarris 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.