The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Resolved: Christianity is detrimental for the human population.

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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,297 times Debate No: 22885
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

The first round is for acceptance.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

State your case..
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Based on the evidence that I have found with regard to the topic at hand, I must affirm the essential question asked of this debate and argue that Christianity is indeed a poison to our society. Before continuing, I would like to define the following key terms:

Christianity: The religion basd on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. Christianity is today the world's most widespread religion, mainly divided among the Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
(The Oxford American College Dictionary)

Society: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another; a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests. (The Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

With these definitions, we can place the following paramaters on the resolution of this debate:

Observation 1: The debates must analyze both the doctrine of Christianity itself based on its core protocol: The Bible. In addition, the debates must also analyze the general beliefs of the people practicing the protocol as well as their practice of Christianity and how it has affected society.
Observation 2: The resolution does not specify a specific society to analyze with regard to the debate at hand. However, because a society can be a broad grouping of people at a global scale and the definition of Christianity also mentions that it is the world's most widespread religion, this thus implies that the debate must analyze the effect of Christianity at a global scale.
Observation 3: The winner of this debate is the one that shows that the amount of advantages of Christianity's effects outweigh their disadvantages.

And now, to my argument:

Contention 1: Christianity's protocol is inherently flawed
As we must analyze Christianity at its protocol, this contention will show us how the main protocol for the religion in question is inherently flawed. The Bible is the central guide for the practice of the religion, and it is notoriously known to be promotional of immoral actions, contradictory in reasoning and idealisms, and possibly illegitimate with objective analysis on the documentation and traslations thereof. With such a flawed document, we realize that this such doctrine is not optimal or even suboptimal for society, but dangerous for the society.
Sub 1a: Christian doctrine promotes immoral actions
From condemnation of homosexuals to sexism to genocide, the Bible has been a staunch promoter of inherently immoral actions that are poisonous to the society. These actions have resulted in negative effects whether subtle or extreme, and there mere quality of the protocol being immoral shows that it prompts for an immoral society and ought not be considered a doctrine worthy of creating a social structure. Such immoral actions promoted in the Bible are shown below:
Biblical Promotion of Sexism
Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:16
Biblical Condemnation of Homosexuals
Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:18-32
Sub 1b: The Bible may not be totally legitimate in documentation
In addition to the Biblical text being thousands of years old, translated countless times, and having a possibility of being misinterpreted through the entire course of its existence, but new research shows us that the Bible's authors may not have been qualified for interpretations because of their lack of connections to temples, as shown in the following article:
"Special Software Sheds Light on Who Really Wrote the Bible."--30 June 2011;
http://www.foxnews.com......
"

Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com......

Contention 2: Christianity has been detrimental to society
Not only shall we look at the actual religious doctrine itself, but analyze the effect that Christianity has had on the society through history, and we will notice that Christianity has been a poison in not only text, but effects of the text.

Sub 1a: Christianity has inhibited science
Science is required in order for society to better itself by enhancing knowledge about the natural world. However, more often than once has Christianity prevented science from developing properly and quickly. The best examples could be the treatment of Galileo Galilei after his proposal on the idea of heliocentrism or the infamous Scopes Trial in Tennessee 1925.
Sub 1b: Christianity has prompted for bigotry and inequality
The teachings of Christianity have prompted general hatred against groups of people in the country, leading many minorities including gays, Muslims, atheists, and others to be subjected to inequality and hatred by the community. The examples are endless as to how Christianity has done this. An excellent example would be Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments after 9/11.
Sub 1c: Christianity has caused genocide
The genocide of peoples have been caused by Christianity, including The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, and others.
Sub 1d: Christianity has attempted to take over government with relative success.

Contention 3: The good things from Christianity are irrelevant
When we analyze what Christianity really has done and what kind of idealism and doctrine it tries to place over society, we notice that Christianity is essentially attempting to make as many people in the society adhere to their doctrine. People are pretty much condemned if they deviate from the doctrine in any way, and because the good things aren't totally genuine if they're trying to better the all of society just to install this doctrine and condemn anyone if they deviate from it, we can argue that the good things from Christianity are pretty much irrelevant.

Rational_Thinker9119

Con


Regarding Observation 3:

"The winner of this debate is the one that shows that the amount of advantages of Christianity's effects outweigh their disadvantages.”


Wouldn't that imply that you would lose by demonstrating that Christianity's disadvantages outweigh the advantages? Regardless, Observation 3 is false. All I have to do is show that Christianity is not detrimental to the human population by refuting your arguments, I do not have to show any advantages of Christianity because you bear the burden of proof. In the name of fun though, I will still mention how the advantages of Christianity outweigh the disadvantages even though it's not required.

Refuting My Opponent's Argument:

Contention 1:


Basically, my opponent is claiming that there are many immoral actions in The Bible as well as things with contradict reason and logic, and the book is overall just flawed. This apparently is a good reason to claim that Christianity is detrimental to the human population in the eyes of my opponent, but of course it isn't.

Immorality: For example, there are immoral actions that take place all the time in Batman movies. Villains hold people hostage, order their henchmen to kill other people, and kill people themselves, but Batman as a whole isn't detrimental to society just because it's followed globally and involves immorality.

Logical contradictions: Also, it doesn't follow that just because something contradicts logic and reason that it is detrimental to the human population. The idea of Santa Clause for example has major logical contradictions, I mean, how can reindeer fly without wings or anything to suspend them in the air? How can Santa visit every house on Earth in one night? How can he fit down small chimneys, and deliver presents to houses with no chimneys at all? However, is the idea of Santa Clause detrimental to the human population? I would think not, I've never heard of anyone going to therapy because their parents lied to them about Santa Clause. We all bought the hook line and sinker for that story (just like most of the world buys the hook line and sinker for the God of Abraham), but I'm not sure there is any evidence or valid reasoning which could lead to the conclusion that the resolution of this debate can be logically affirmed.

Contention 2:

The affirmations of my opponent involving this contention, seem to be a bit more solid than those in the last contention. However, lets analyze each claim closely to see if they really indicate that Christianity as a whole is detrimental to society.

Christianity has inhibited science


This is not entirely true, some Christians inhibited science. The people in Galileo's day personally believed that some idea of science rocked their belief system so they rejected it (like many Christians do today), however there is nothing in the core of Christianity which requires the rejection of science.

If you can claim that Christianity inhibited science because some Christians inhibited science, then I can claim that Christianity helped improve science because some Christians (Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei ect. were Christian) helped improve science. Of course, neither one of these claims logically have much to say as far as the resolution of this debate is concerned.


Christianity has prompted for bigotry and inequality


What my opponent is describing are certain Christians cherry picking what they want from The Bible. Here is a quote from The Bible (the Old Testament mind you) against homosexuality:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." - Leviticus 20:13 [1]

However this is in the Old Testament, when it comes to Christ himself (the basis of Christianity), he clearly does not endorse bigotry or inequality:

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? - Matthew 5:43-47 [2]

Due to the above, I think it's clear that the bigotry is demonstrated by certain Christians, and not Christianity itself.

Christianity has caused genocide


Germany has caused genocide in the name of Germany during World War 2, however, Germany was the most positively viewed nation according in a recent global survey (29,000 people), with 62 per cent of those surveyed rating its influence as positive [3]. Just because Germany caused Genocide a while ago in the past, that doesn't mean that they are detrimental to the human population now. I believe the point I'm trying to make here in regarding Christianity causing genocide is self-evident.

Christianity has attempted to take over government with relative success

This had no explanation, so I have no objection.

Contention 3:

My opponent simply bare asserted that the only reason Christians do good is to spread their doctrine. Also, I believe that the advantages of Christianity actually are relevant (see below) to this debate even if I'm not required to mention them.

Advantage of Christianity for Society:

Even though I am not required to do this as far as the burden of proof is concerned, I'm going to quickly argue in favor of a benefit christianity has for the human population.

Christianity is what made the idea of Heaven and Hell famous. The fact is, humanity as a whole isn't ready to accept that there is no afterlife or transcendent purpose at this point in time. The idea of Heaven and Hell for the time being keeps those in line who would be immoral without it. Basically, when nobody is looking, God is looking to the believers...This idea obviously would make people think twice about their actions, this leads credence to the idea that Christianity as a whole is good for the human population.

Concluson:

The resolution has clearly been negated, my opponent's arguments for Christianity being detrimental to the human population were not convincing.

Sources:

[1] http://www.evilbible.com...
[2] http://rosskendall.com...
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...


Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

In the name of fairness, I will forfeit this round as well so we continue to each have the same amount of arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

In the name of fairness, I will forfeit this round as well so we continue to each have the same amount of arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I will forfeit this round in the name of fairness. To all of those who vote, only take the one round into account please.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I specifically forfeited the same amount of rounds he did so the debate would just be judged off of the one round. I would appreciate it if people didn't vote for me because he forfeited, because I forfeited just as many rounds as he did. Please, vote on how strong each of our arguments were, thank you.
Posted by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
There are times when forfeits are unavoidable. There are times when a debater honestly couldn't make it back to the debate in time to answer, and he apologizes, and life goes on. Most people here have been in that situation; I know I have.

ScarletGhost makes a habit out of forfeiting. He does it constantly, unapologeticaly, and shamelessly. He does it to avoid tackling opponents who are too difficult for his abilities; he does it when he doesn't like the way the debate is going; and he does it when he gets bored and wanders off. His record is FULL of these debates where he forfeits the last three or four rounds of a debate, and never even gives a reason why.

He deserves no consideration for this conduct.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
I was okay with this debate until Con started bashing Santa...
I mean, is nothing sacred anymore?
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
@Rational He's probably going to ff.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro, are you going to present your case in favor of Christianity being detrimental for the human population?
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
wtf?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
For pro, that may work.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Spamquote Nietzsche for 8000 characters.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
I dunno. It could go either way. I think I could make the argument, but it's not a very good one.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Essential question: is the instutution of Christianity negatively affecting or damaging human society?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ScarletGhost4396Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: hi
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
ScarletGhost4396Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: SG clearly got scared off. Full points to Con for obvious reasons. Could have been a interesting debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
ScarletGhost4396Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Conduct and arguments to Con because of forfeit.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396Rational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF