The Instigator
TheMan2
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Resolved: Religion is inherently evil.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,560 times Debate No: 24993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

TheMan2

Pro

Firstly I would like to thank my opponent whomever this may be is. Before you accept this argument will be running off the assumption that God does not exist, or more an argument such as "religion is good because without it we'd all go to hell" or something along those lines will not be acceptable in this debate. Arguments can include only real life examples with evidence to back it up. So the argument "Religion creates a society with better morals" would be valid argument.

The first round should be only for acceptance, second round for displaying beginning arguments and the last round should be for refutation only. No entirely novel arguments may be presented however additional evidence may be provided to bolster your preexisting arguments presented in round one.

Religion shall be defined as a "A theistic Cause, Principle or series of of beliefs held to with ador and faith" (1)

(The original definition does not include Theistic but I added it in to try and avoid a battle of semantics.)

(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...

If you have any questions please ask them in the comments before accepting.

Thanks a lot and I look forward to n interesting debate.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

This is my first debate. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to do this.

Understand that the burden of proof lies on Pro, and that I do not have to show that religion is inherently good, only that religion is not inherently evil.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMan2

Pro

I will accept my opponents definition as my having the necessity to "prove" that religion is inherently evil. However, I would also ask that the debate does not become a debate of semantics about the definition of evil or some other argument such as that. As in it is my belief that if I have proven that religion is overall a force for bad then I have achieved my purpose.

Just to get the process of defining evil out of the way im going to define evil as "Morally wrong or bad, immoral, wicked."
-http://dictionary.reference.com...

Assuming this is acceptable I look forward to a fun debate and will begin.

Throughout the debate I intend to prove that religion is inherently evil due to these 3 reasons.

1: Religion overall is both unecissary and has a inherent creation of conflicts.
2: Religion hinders a persons ability to develop their own moral code and puts that power on potentially corrupt leaders.
3: The amount of good in the world religion adds is fairly minimal and would occur otherwise.

Contention 1: Religion overall is both unecissary and has a inherent creation of conflicts.

First of all to prove this point we must first prove that religion is not actually necissary for a well functioning society. To do so we may look towards Phil Zuckerman in his huffington post article. (1) In the article he talks about the country of Denmark where over 44% believe that religion is a force for bad and only 14% actually believe that religion is in any way a force for good. (2) Rather than a moraless, lawless place Phil Zuckerman explains that Denmark possesses one of the lowest crime rates, highest standards of living and rather than placing their faith and purpose for life into their work and relationships, placing them 14th (according to the world bank) in the world for per capita income placing them just 7 below the much more resource rich and larger United States (3). So as we can see religion is in no way necissary to have and maintain a well functioning society.

So after that realization all you can look towards is the bad effects that religion has had on the world. For a recent event we can look to the shooting in the Sikh temple (4). A man believing the Sikh temple to be in some way related to muslims shot and killed 7 people adding to the over 700 incedents in the united states since 9/11, in an anti-muslim attack. Not to mention of course throughout history the over 809 million deaths due to religion (5). Which is more deaths from both World War II, the Holocaust and the Stalin's rule combined. The fact of the matter is with this amount of murder and damage done from these wars as well as masacres. The biggest attrocities, the biggest genocides and the largest wars have been faught entirely on the basis of religion. Events such as 9/11 and the subsequent wars in the middle east as well could very easily be attributed to the ability of Osama Bin Ladin to recruit members using the Islamic principle of Jihad. Without religion many of the world confilcts simply would not exist thus making religion not only obsolete, but also a very obvious force for bad or evil.

Contention 2: Religion hinders a persons ability to develop their own moral code and puts that power on potentially corrupt leaders.

As with the very definition of religion being a " Principle or series of of beliefs held to with ador and faith" we can already see that the very purpose of religion to be dictating a series of beliefs and morals to a person before they have concieved of any other moral beliefs or guidelines, (Presuming like the majority of people that are religious they were born into their religion). But in having this system we as people loose our own ability to create a morals that apply to what we actually believe. The Taliban uses Islam and its concept of Jihad to promote violence (6). Now im not by any means trying to say that Islam as a whole entirely promotes violence but with the case of the Taliban and other religious leaders like Osama Bin Ladin, we see this system of forcing beliefs and principles can be easily used for very negative effects, such as 9/11, countless suicide bombings worldwide, two major wars and several massive genecides in the middle east with the fight between Sunni and Shia. Again with my previous point proving that religion is escentially useless the fact that it can be so easily corrupted by dangerous individuals makes it an extremely dangerous practice and quite obviously should be discouraged. We see the same effect in history many different times, through the crusades where Pope Urban II led a deadly religious war (7) or the Inquisition where the Roman Catholic Church led a deadly war that led to the brutal torture and murder of thousands. In all of these cases religion and the destruction of an individuals ability to come up with their own basis of morals has given leaders the power to comit horrible attrocities that otherwise would not ever have been able to occur, Another very obvious reason showing once again that religion is evil.

Contention 3: The amount of good in the world religion adds is fairly minimal and would occur otherwise.

According to the christian post (8) they say that there is absolutely no correlation between religion and voulenteerism. With a recent study finding that 56% of Christians volunteer whereas 54% of people describing themselves as non-religous volunteer. A 2% difference that can easily be dissmissed as a statistical anomally, meaning that there is absolutely no difference between a religious person and their moral values and percieved need to help others through volunteering and a person with religion. While granted this doesn't encompass all possible forms of morality it does encompass a large part of a persons moral in terms of williingness to give. Another study done by Psychology Today (9) done in 2009 found that there is virtually no correlation between religion and morality with several different ways of determining morality. (Check source 9 to read the full report). The report actually found that religious people were: less tolerant of minorities and cheating in religious schools is 16% higher. What we have to realize through these two studies is that there is absolutely no kind of correlation between being religious and living to a higher standard, helping people, giving to charity, or being a better citizen in any way.

Conclusion
So with quite literally, no positive societal benefits to religion, religion causes an increase in conflict leading to many deaths and unecissary wars and genocide and gives potentially corrupt leaders a massive boost in unquestioned authority giving a greater opportunity for subjigation and recruitment for terrorism it is absolutley necissary to conclude that religion is absolutely a force for bad in the world and should be considered evil.

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic and I look forward towards a response.



(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
(2)http://derrenbrown.co.uk...;
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita
(4)http://www.cbsnews.com...;
(5)http://www.bookrateblog.com...;
(6)http://pakideology.com...;
(7)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(8) http://www.christianpost.com...
(9)http://www.psychologytoday.com...
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I thank my opponent for partaking in this debate. In my arguments for round 2, I will show why all three of his reasons fail to support his contention that religion is inherently evil. My original post for round two was too long to fit so I had to cut it drastically.

C1

1- It does not follow that because religion is unnecessary for a well-founded society that it is inherently evil. My appendix is unnecessary for my well-being. Is my appendix evil?

2- The amount of people who commit religious atrocities is so microscopically small compared to those who do not. They are anomalies, not the rule. Some religious beliefs lead to evil, most don’t. End of story.

3- Big catastrophes (like 9/11) do not always have big explanations (like religion.) Events like 9/11 developed from a very small set of religious beliefs in the mind of a single religious man. 9/11 is not representative of the effects of religion in general.

4- It is simply false that the worst atrocities are caused by religion. The thousands of deaths caused by the atheistic Soviet Union were obviously not religion-based. Seemingly religion-based violence (such as suicide bombing) are now known to be politically based. [1] The suicide vest was even invented by a secessionist.
Even if it were true that religion causes most violence, it does not follow that most of religion causes violence. That is like saying that because all dogs are animals, all animals are dogs. Clearly fallacious.

5- Religion doesn’t kill people; people kill people. Just because religion can be used for evil does not mean that it is. There is no doubt that religion can be evil, but so what? A bottle of shampoo can be evil if you throw it at someone’s head, but that doesn’t make shampoo evil. If we applied Pro’s logic to science, then we would have to say that science is inherently evil since it played a major role in the development of the atom bomb, which has resulted in the death of thousands. But of course that does not make sense, since science, like religion, is a tool that can be used for good or evil. When used for evil, religion becomes a victim.

C2

1- Religion does not hinder people to create their own moral codes because it is impossible for people to create their own moral code. Morality is external to us. That is the whole point of the atheist complaint against the divine command theory. the only complaint that can be raised is that Some religious beliefs are bad moral codes. This is true, but it is not true of all religious beliefs.

2- Just because something can be abused does not make it bad in itself. Alcohol can be abused. Should we go back to the prohibition era? Religion is not necessary for corrupt leaders to seize power. Corrupt leaders are bale to seize power because they seize it, have power already, take advantage of the weak, and are very smart in the political arena, not because of their religious beliefs. Why shouldn’t the belief “There is rule inscribed in nature that says that I should rule with oppression” any less helpful in causing oppression than “God decrees that I should
rule with oppression.”?

C3

1- From the assertion that good would come about anyway without religion it does not follow that religion is inherently evil. Just because religion does not cause people to be moral does not mean it causes people to be immoral. There is no evidence that people who fly frequently are more prone to be more charitable than people who do not, but that does not mean that airplanes cause people to indulge in evil.

2- We do not have a good/bad measurement stick to tell whether there has been more good caused by religion or bad. Doing that is a monumental task. We must take into account all the “"ten thousand acts of personal
kindness and social good that go unreported." [2] Things are more noticeable when they are out of the ordinary. That’s why we notice religious atrocities, because they are so rare. And that’s why we don’t notice everyday religious good. Because it is so common.

3- The test results showing that religious people are more likely to cheat are unreliable. It is only one test and does not distinguish between different kinds of religious belief. And correlation is not causation.

4- Even if it were true that non-religious people do behave more morally than the religious, it does not mean that they are being consistent, and acting in accordance with their beliefs.

[1] Pape, Robert Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism New York: Random House, 2005
[2] Shermer, Michael How We Believe
New York: Freeman 2000

I appreciate the opportunity to debate and I look forward to a response from my opponent.

Debate Round No. 2
TheMan2

Pro

"1- It does not follow that because religion is unnecessary for a well-founded society that it is inherently evil. My appendix is unnecessary for my well-being. Is my appendix evil?"

Well granted that the fact that religion may not be evil simply because its unnecessary the fact that its unnecessary which you have implied to agree with in your statement will negate any sort of argument that the good outweighs the bad, which i very clearly demonstrate in the rest of that point as well as the next to points I bring up. So if religion adds literally no good to the world which i pointed out, and as I also pointed out it adds lots of bad that would make it bad and per our definition, evil.

"2- The amount of people who commit religious atrocities is so microscopically small compared to those who do not. They are anomalies, not the rule. Some religious beliefs lead to evil, most don't. End of story."

I take a very similar stance to my previous point. If religion adds no good to the world, and it does add some evil no matter what the minority of religion that creates evil is, it still overall adds evil to the world making it inherently evil.

"3- Big catastrophes (like 9/11) do not always have big explanations (like religion.) Events like 9/11 developed from a very small set of religious beliefs in the mind of a single religious man. 9/11 is not representative of the effects of religion in general."

Read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
According to it religion did in fact cause 9/11, as well as countless other wars, and while he takes a stance that religion could potentially be used for good the fact that i've pointed out many times that it isnt being used for good while it is being used for evil shows that religion is in fact evil.

"4- It is simply false that the worst atrocities are caused by religion. The thousands of deaths caused by the atheistic Soviet Union were obviously not religion-based. Seemingly religion-based violence (such as suicide bombing) are now known to be politically based. [1] The suicide vest was even invented by a secessionist.
Even if it were true that religion causes most violence, it does not follow that most of religion causes violence. That is like saying that because all dogs are animals, all animals are dogs. Clearly fallacious."

Your right about the Atheistic Soviet Union, they killed thousands, but the debate here is not whether religion is the source of all evil but rather is religion inherently evil or more is religion a source of evil period. So when we look to the fact that religious wars have killed over 800 million people (Look to my previous argument for a source) we have to realize that religion kills a massive number of people which the soviet union couldn't even compare to.

For your second point that since religion causes most violence that doesn't mean that all religion causes violence, that too is irrelevant due to what I said against both your first and second point. Since religion adds 0 good to the world or more a negligible amount as mentioned in my previous speech, any source of evil that it provides is a net gain of evil. Now i'm not trying to say that evil is some sort of currency that can be measured in that way, but since it does not provide good while it does provide evil that makes it evil. Period.

"5- Religion doesn't kill people; people kill people. Just because religion can be used for evil does not mean that it is. There is no doubt that religion can be evil, but so what? A bottle of shampoo can be evil if you throw it at someone's head, but that doesn't make shampoo evil. If we applied Pro's logic to science, then we would have to say that science is inherently evil since it played a major role in the development of the atom bomb, which has resulted in the death of thousands. But of course that does not make sense, since science, like religion, is a tool that can be used for good or evil. When used for evil, religion becomes a victim."

Well to take where you got that quote of "Guns dont kill people, people kill people" I have my own quote in response, "People with guns kill people." And a similar quote works with your example "People with religion kill people" Religion provides an easy opportunity for evil people to flourish, take power away from people and commit atrocities. That makes it evil, that's what makes guns evil as well. If something has a sole purpose of promoting evil, then that thing is evil.

Your second point as well doesn't work about how science is evil since it invented the A-Bomb, that would be true if science had not also provided us with things such as a cure for polio, advancements in longevity, given us an ability to live a higher quality lifestyle. The good obviously outweighs the small amount of bad. But since religion does not bring up any good and only bad that makes it overall bad and thus evil.

"1- Religion does not hinder people to create their own moral codes because it is impossible for people to create their own moral code. Morality is external to us. That is the whole point of the atheist complaint against the divine command theory. the only complaint that can be raised is that Some religious beliefs are bad moral codes. This is true, but it is not true of all religious beliefs."

Read this article: http://atheism.about.com... (Sorry running out of space)
What it basically says is that religion has absolutely no correlation between morality, meaning that it is absolutely possible for a person without religion to create their own moral code. Also according to this website most religious morals are bad.

"2- Just because something can be abused does not make it bad in itself. Alcohol can be abused. Should we go back to the prohibition era? Religion is not necessary for corrupt leaders to seize power. Corrupt leaders are bale to seize power because they seize it, have power already, take advantage of the weak, and are very smart in the political arena, not because of their religious beliefs. Why shouldn't the belief "There is rule inscribed in nature that says that I should rule with oppression" any less helpful in causing oppression than "God decrees that I should
rule with oppression."? "

There is a reason crack is illegal. Alcohol has very good things about it, lets people relax, creates tax dollars and it avoids a full out civil war with Appalachia. Crack however has no reason to exist other then promote drug abuse and addiction, thus it should not exist and is evil, just like religion.

"1- From the assertion that good would come about anyway without religion it does not follow that religion is inherently evil. Just because religion does not cause people to be moral does not mean it causes people to be immoral. There is no evidence that people who fly frequently are more prone to be more charitable than people who do not, but that does not mean that airplanes cause people to indulge in evil."

Read my 2nd and 3rd points in original argument plus first 3 lines in this argument.

"3- The test results showing that religious people are more likely to cheat are unreliable. It is only one test and does not distinguish between different kinds of religious belief. And correlation is not causation."

A good test is number of lives lost vs number of lives saved. 803 million is quite a few lost versus almost none saved.

"4- Even if it were true that non-religious people do behave more morally than the religious, it does not mean that they are being consistent, and acting in accordance with their beliefs."

The very definition of statistically (The use of statistics, check my above argument) they are more moral means that consistently they are more moral. Thus they are more consistently more moral making non religious people more moral.

Thanks a lot for debating, I look forward to a response, and since this is my last post I wish you best of luck.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

As we will see, Pro has ignored and/or conceded many of my points, has changed some of his
arguments, and has still put forth fallacious arguments or unsupported claims. I will redefend my claims and show why they still stand after Pro's responses.

C1

Well granted the fact that religion…

Pro concedes that his inference is fallacious. He now changes his position and says that because religion is unnecessary for a well-functioning society, this negates any argument that the good outweighs the bad. But as I made clear in my opening statement, I do not have to show that the good outweighs the bad, only that the bad does not outweigh the good. Pro says that if religion brings
literally no good into the world but brings lots of evil, it is evil. But Pro has offered no argument that religion has brought no good into the world. He simply asserts it. Religion has clearly brought much public and private good to the world. From charitable organizations to volunteerism to missionaries in
third world countries and from fights for womens’ rights, opposition to slavery and communism and giving many people a sense of worth and purpose …casual observation would show that religion has probably brought more good into the world than evil.

I take a very similar stance…

Pro concedes that a minority of religion is evil, but he again states that because religion brings no good into the world but does bring lots of evil, even if that evil makes up a small percent of religion, religion is overall evil. Again, he has offered no argument that religion brings no good to the world. If a small percent of religion causes evil but the majority is a combination of

Even if it were true that religion does overall bring more evil into the world, that still does not make religion inherently evil. To say that something is inherently evil means that evil is part of its very
nature (we can’t conceive of it apart from evil, as we cannot conceive of a circle without roundness). Where is Pro’s argument that evil is part of religion’s nature?

According to it religion did cause…

Pro misses my point. I never denied that religion was one
of
(for religion is never the cause) the causes of 9/11. My point is that events like 9/11 are not representative of religion, which means that religion is not inherently evil. And he again states (does not argue) that religion is not being used for good.

Your [sic] right about the atheistic soviet union…

Pro misses my point. My point was that there is nothing inherent in religion that causes evil, for atheism and politics can cause the same kind of evil (even if there is less of it).

For your second point that since eligion causes most violence…

I never said that since religion causes most violence… (that would imply a concession). I said that even if religion causes most violence… Please do not put words in my mouth. My point is extremely relevant. The fact that a very small percent of religion causes harm proves that religion is neither an overall bad or an inherent evil. And again Pro has simply asserted his contention that religion adds 0 good to the world. Assertions are not arguments, my friend.

Well to take where…

Pro’s assertion that because religion provides an easy opportunity for evil people to flourish, it is evil is simply false, and he gives no argument for it. He says that if something has the sole purpose of promoting evil then it is evil. I agree with him 100%! Now where his argument that religion or guns were created with the sole purpose of promoting evil? He gives no argument. His creed that “People
with religion kill people” is cute but it does not refute my point at all, because a) religion cannot cause a single death without a deranged individual abusing it (so religion is not a sufficient cause
of evil) and b) People kill people anyway, even without religion, or because of no religion (so religion is not a necessary cause of evil either).

Your second point as well doesn’t work…

I never said that science was evil because it gave us the a-bomb. That’s a straw man! I was making an analogy, saying that if religion is evil because it has caused harm, then so is science because science
has caused harm, but that is absurd. My point is that just because just because something can be used as a tool for evil does not make it evil. Pro is absolutely right that science has given us a lot of good. So has religion! He ignores that and again blindly insists that religion has given us nothing good.

C2

What it basically says is that…

Pro concedes that religion does not hinder people from creating their own morals (for that is impossible). Now he says that religion is unnecessary for people to create their own moral codes. Again, no one creates their own moral code, not even religions (though it may dictate it). Moral codes are not created. Now I agree that one can behave morally or have morals without being
religious (whether that is even rational is a different matter) but that obviously does not mean that religion is inherently evil.

The website offers no argument or evidence that most religious morals are bad.

There is a reason crack is illegal…

I compared religion to alcohol because both can have been used for both good and evil. Without argument, Pro compares religion to crack. The analogy is absurd and he seems to support the position that practicing religion should be illegal. Very anti-libertarian! Pro does not address my argument that just because something can be used for evil purposes it does not make it evil in itself (otherwise nearly everything would be defined as evil) nor does he address my argument that a natural justification for seizing power is just as likely as a supernatural justification. (Evil people will use whatever they can get their hands on to get their way.) This counts as two concessions.

C3

Read my 2nd and 3rd points…

By 2nd and 3rd points, does Pro mean his 2nd and 3rd COntention? I wish he were clear about this. But anyway, I refuted all of his points, so it doesn’t matter. His first three lines for this argument stated that there is no correlation between religion and morality. Again, how does that make religion inherently evil?

Pro ignores the second point I made in response to his third contention, so this counts as a concession.

A good test is…

Pro ignores my point about the unreliability of the test and the fact that correlations do not entail causations and instead repeats his cliché that religion has killed 803 million people and saved no one. Again he ignores my logic that a small minority of religion causing harm (even great harm) does not mean that religion Is inherently evil. And his assertion that religion has saved no one is unsupported
and manifestly false.

The very definition of statistically…

Yes, I understand the meaning of the word, but where is the evidence that the test is statistical?
Where is the evidence showing that the religious belief is what causes the cheating? Pro does not respond to this. I take it as a concession.

Conclusion

Pro has failed to support it his contention that religion is inherently evil. That view is a fundamentalist (or dogmatic) belief that is only held by fundamentalist (or dogmatic) atheists. More moderate-minded atheists such as Michael Shermer, Stephen Jay Gould, and Michael Ruse have either abandoned such a view or have never held it to begin with, because they rightly recognize the good caused by religion as well as the logical problems inherent in the arguments used to support the conclusion of the inherency of evil in religion. Religion is a complex phenomena with a long history and a far-reaching diversity. It is not something that can be boiled down to an unambiguous good or evil.

I thank my opponent for debating. I enjoyed debating this topic and I know there will be more debates ahead.


Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 5 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Thank you, Ryuukyuzo. I really appreciate it. I'm cooking up another debate as we speak, even though I have not started the debate on this website yet. That is part of my method. I formalate all of my arguments for all the rounds even before I enter round one. I anticipate what my opponent will say in response to me before he says it.

I intend to read your debates as well.
Posted by RyuuKyuzo 5 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
A very impressive first debate for Con. I look forward to reading more of your debates in the future. I'd vote, but I still need to finish one more debate before I can do that.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 5 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Thank you, THEBOMB.

The fact that Lordknukle posted his comment twice does not add any weight to what he said. It only means he said something illogical for a second time.
Posted by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
lol LK be civil at least.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
And spell my name right, retard.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
I'm sure you would not be responding to me if I voting for you under crappy reasons (which those weren't). Cry harder.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 5 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I'd like to respond to Lordknuckle's "reason" for his vote:

He says that I countered weakly by dismissing Pro's contention that religion genocide. I of course did no such thing. I never denied that there are deaths caused by religion (therefore I do not need sources to support something I never said.) Please do not lie about what I said. Read my arguments again.

He says that I never manage to rebut Pro's contention that these small groups account for largely most of the atrocities perpetrated by religion. He's right. BUT I DO NOT HAVE TO. From the claim that the small religious groups account for great attrocities it still does not follow that religion is inherently evil, because these groups are not representative and Pro has not even given an argument that evil is part of the nature of religion.

I never explicitly justified the claim that the rules of morality are external to us because I thought it was extremely obvious. (Read criticism of the divine command theory to see what I mean. I do not have room here to spell it out.) But even if I were wrong, Pro's contention that religion is inherently evil is still unsupported by his argument about morality.

You have given no reason why you think his sources are more reliable, or even relevant.

You're right. It is pretty clear who won this. I refuted every single one of Pro's arguments that he used for his contention. I should therefore be declared the winner.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
There is a rather clear winner in this debate. Pro's main points were that religion causes many wars and genocides, and is not necessary for "good" morality. Con countered rather weakly by dismissing Pro's contention that religion causes genocides (without any sources) and proceeds to say that they are only a small fraction of those that are religious. While this is true, Pro points out that these small groups of people account for largely most of the atrocities perpetrated by religion. Con never manages to rebut the point.

As for morality, Con's sole rebuttal is that morality is external to us with no justification whatsoever. Pretty clear who wins this.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
There is a rather clear winner in this debate. Pro's main points were that religion causes many wars and genocides, and is not necessary for "good" morality. Con countered rather weakly by dismissing Pro's contention that religion causes genocides (without any sources) and proceeds to say that they are only a small fraction of those that are religious. While this is true, Pro points out that these small groups of people account for largely most of the atrocities perpetrated by religion. Con never manages to rebut the point.

As for morality, Con's sole rebuttal is that morality is external to us with no justification whatsoever. Pretty clear who wins this.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 5 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I noticed that when reading the page for my opponent, TheMan2, it states at the top that he is 22 year-old male from Asheville, North Carolina. But below in his information section, he states that he is a 16 year old high school debater. So, which is it? Is he 16 or 22?

That's a six year difference. Could it be that he was 16 when he entered this site and is now 22 and he updated the upper portion of his page, but forgot to update the information section. But even if that is true, it is odd that a six-year member of this site (as well as a member of a high school debate club who has gone to tournaments)has only partaken in two debates on this site.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
TheMan2CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had to argue religion was inherently evil, not just sometimes evil or even usually evil. Con picked up Pro's failure to argue it was inherent and made the point. con might have given some examples of religions rarely accused of evil, such as Buddhism or Jainism. But he did enought to refute Pro. "moraless" > "amoral"
Vote Placed by Axiom 5 years ago
Axiom
TheMan2CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: C1pt5 sums up the defense quite well as does C2pt2. Also there was a lot of begging the question regarding the benefits of religion on TheMan2's part. If he wished to introduce the lack of good in religion he needed to allowed it to be an issue of contention rather than simply a pressuposition. Now if Pro had said, "Religion is overall used for evil." That would have been a more defensible position than saying, "Religion is INHERENTLY evil."
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
TheMan2CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD: Pro loses automatically on topicality. His arguments only address evil externalities rather than inherent evil. Inherent evil, as pointed out by Con, would entail that in and of itself religion is "evil" which Pro has failed to prove the entire round. But, on the death toll Pro's source about 809 million deaths was from a blog and the blog was taken down. Better research is required and I can say that that claim is just demonstrably incorrect.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
TheMan2CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 5 years ago
TheOrator
TheMan2CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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: Con did a good job in proving that although religion can be used for evil can be used for evil, that does not make religion itself INHERENTLY evil. The use of the word inherently is what tripped up Pro's case, in my opinion. Con disarmed the other two contentions by showing that no/minimal good effects does not equal evil effects.