The Instigator
coronaayanna
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Religious Conversion

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 4 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,582 times Debate No: 31165
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

coronaayanna

Con

People who try to convert others to their religion are wrong. I believe that it should be illegal no matter what the "Bible" says about "spreading the word of God" because it is an inconvenience to a lot of people who just don't want to hear about it.
Pennington

Pro

This was a great topic to debate about and I hope this is a very interesting discussion. Thanks to my opponent for instigating the debate.


My opponent made no rule or round structure, so, I think will offer too.


I suggest that round 1 is only for acceptance and the last round no new arguments can be made. The only rule I think we need is that Pro has all the BOP. She instigated the debate and made positive claims therefore she should be held to proved proof for them.

Let's establish some definitions from Merriam's. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Convert:1) to bring over from one belief, view, or party to another

Religious:1) relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Illegal:1) not according to or authorized by law

Should be:1) what needs to be


If my opponent has any issues with my definitions she should stress them in round 2. I wish my opponent luck.
Debate Round No. 1
coronaayanna

Con

coronaayanna forfeited this round.
Pennington

Pro

I will simply say that religious conversion is not a forcible act. If one is trying to convert you, you can simply walk away.


If we make discussing conversion illegal then that would be a violation of our freedom of speech.


Since my opponent has not given any argument I have no requirement to argue at all. My opponent Forfeited so I should win. If so my opponent chooses to rejoin the debate then we can actually have a decision to make. Until then we will coast.
Debate Round No. 2
coronaayanna

Con

I believe that trying to convert someone is harassment because you are most likely putting them into an uncomfortable situation in which they may have to walk away from. Talking about conversion to people who you don't know and have no clue how they could react may cause them to slip into a depression if they have a bad history with religion or if it upsets them in any way. Stating that you could simply "walk away" is proof that conversion invades people's personal space and privacy, making the one who is trying to convert the person a possible target for harassment charges by the person who they were trying to convert.
As you may have participated in/been troubled by the group of commonly known/heard of conversionists, the Jehovah witnesses, you must know that they go from door to door trying to convince you that what they have to say is more important than your life at that moment in time; they do this while they are trespassing on your property and possibly inconveniencing you and/or your family. I mean all this in a general point of view, by "you" I mean anyone who reads this.
Pennington

Pro

I think we all appreciate my opponent coming back and participating in this debate again. I do not think I will offer a argument in this debate since I also cut my Round 2 short. I will simply rebuttal against the argument my opponent has put together and we will see how strong it is.


Harassment:

Harassment- the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.[1]

What Constitutes Harassment?

Threats of violence against you or an actual act of violence

Abusive and/or insulting behaviour

Threats of damage to your property

Any written form of abuse or threat made to you.[2]

It seems silly for the government to worry about religion in societical perimeters. As long as people seek to be religious then they will share it with others. If a person is subjected to repeated religious altercations and statements it could be viewed as abuse. Not only in religion does one have to learn to let people have their own boundaries and when not to cross them. The government and society is forced by our constitution to accommodate a person's religion unless such accommodations would represent an undue hardship. Does this hardship include talking and discussing with people about religion? Is it not easy to say you do not want too and that be it? Is it not harassment in any area of life if someone follows you and forces you to do something against your will? It is obvious that religious people do not in a whole majority force themselves on people to a extent that harassment is therefore applied.


Strangers:

Why should we talk to Strangers?

To make new friends. People who have more friends tend to be happier and live longer than people who don’t.[3] You could meet a potential mate. A person who can talk to strangers can potentially make it easier to find the love of their life. It also creates new opportunities in your field of work. Talking to new and different people will increase your social skills. Having great social skills will take you far in life. It boost the confidence of all parties involved because someone has took interest in them. You also have the ultimate ability to learn new things and facts. Therefore it is essential to talk to others and religion is a way to spark conversation.

Religious Right:

In 1779 Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:

"[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."[4]



Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."



Critics while insisting freedom will strip the religious theirs. Religious have the right to talk about their religion. The society has also rejected the perception that society and religion should be kept separate.


Conclusion:

The religious have the right to talk about their religion anytime and to anyone they choose too. It is wrong to harass people but the common average religious person does not seek to harass people. That would cause the opposite effect desired. It is not harassment or a major discomfort to anyone. Any and everyone has the right to walk away or simply say they do not wish to discuss it. Everyone has to put up with annoyances in our lives but religion does not cause such a annoyance that laws to refuse attempt at converting people. I have also shown how making new friends by talking to strangers is important. My opponent has not shown that religion cause severe harassment and discomfort to people.

Back to my opponent!

Sources:

[1]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

[2]

http://www.lc.org...

[3]

http://www.nytimes.com...

[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 3
coronaayanna

Con

coronaayanna forfeited this round.
Pennington

Pro

My opponent never really got involved and supported his claims. Religious conversion is completely legal and can be ignored. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by coronaayanna 3 years ago
coronaayanna
I am sorry to my opponent and whoever was looking forward to seeing how this debate will end. We will have to continue this arguement another time in the future due to some recent occurances in my life. I will not be participating in the remainder of this debate. I do not wish to end this, but there are things of greater importance that I must deal with at this time. I hope my opponent is willing to restart this debate in the near future.
Posted by MRReadme 3 years ago
MRReadme
Well put! @dipnt
Posted by dipnt 3 years ago
dipnt
Why do you want to start a debate where you reprimand people of other belief systems ("religious hypocrites")?

You would be doing the very thing you are arguing is wrong for others to do.
Posted by silverneccho 3 years ago
silverneccho
But friend, if a Christian did not preach to the "unbelievers" he would be disobeying the words of Christ. The very person you wish to debate against is bound by his faith to continue the very practice you despise. There is really no point in this debate as their is no chance that you will ever sway a true Christian to your viewpoint.
Posted by coronaayanna 3 years ago
coronaayanna
-philoshristos- I am against anyone forcing religion on others. - I mentioned Christianity mainly because it seems to me that the people who believe in Christ are a majority of the people who do this.
-kingsjester- I disagree with you. I do not believe it is okay to try to convert people. If they want to become a Christian, or anything else, then they will find it on their own, they may need guidance, and it's okay to help them, that is.. if they ask for your help.
Quote: "if you bring up Christianity to one of your friends and they don't respond well, drop the subject and maybe wait for a better time later on to bring it up again."
-- I agree with what you said about dropping the subject, but not the bringing it up again part. --
Posted by kingsjester 3 years ago
kingsjester
i am a christian, and i totally that hypocrites should not preach at people, but if a person is truly a christian there is nothing wrong in trying to convert people, as long as you know how to go about it in the right way so you are not forcing it on others. i.e if you bring up christianity to one of your friends and they don't respond well, drop the subject and maybe wait for a better time later on to bring it up again.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Are you against anybody trying to persuade anybody else of their point of view, or are you just against Christians in particular trying to persuade people of their point of view?
Posted by coronaayanna 3 years ago
coronaayanna
Okay. I was trying to keep it on a general level, but I will be specific. -Christians Should Keep To Themselves And Not Force Their God On Other People-
I prefer to debate with a Christian because I think they will put up a good argument.
My stance on the subject: I am against the whole "converting" idea and "teaching the word of God." I think it is wrong and because Christians, and Jehovah's Witnesses; do it often, they are wrong as well.
If you disagree with me, and think that the word of 'God' should be taught, please accept this debate.
Posted by dragonb95 3 years ago
dragonb95
even the resolution itself is phrased in such a bias way... how can you argue saying that "hypocrites" are good? you are basically setting up a debate for yourself to win
Posted by KeepItCivil 3 years ago
KeepItCivil
I dont understand what you are arguing. Is it an argument that religious people who reprimand people are rude or just pro and cons of religious people that reprimand others?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Archangel35 3 years ago
Archangel35
coronaayannaPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
coronaayannaPenningtonTied
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: Conduct to Pro because of Con's two forfeits, arguments to Pro because all of Con's points were countered whilst Pro's points weren't countered and sources to Pro because he actually used some.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
coronaayannaPenningtonTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
coronaayannaPenningtonTied
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: FF