The Instigator
Krakken101
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Satanism is a detriment to the United States of America.

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: 7/8/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,481 times Debate No: 4622
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (11)

 

Krakken101

Pro

Satanism as defined by dictionary.com as the worship of Satan powers of evil as being diabolical and and having a satanic disposition and behaviour. Seeing as how Satanism ENCOURAGES people to commit illegal activity and horrifying beahvaiour let it be resolved that Satanism is a burden upon this great nation. In a documentay on the History Channel High Priest of the Church of Satan Peter H. Gilmore said "Do what makes you happy!If taking thing fufills you individual pleasure then do it!If sex fufills your individual pleasure do it!". Now as we all know robbery is a crime in the USA so when Peter says do it cause it gives you pleasure he is condoning robbery. So therefore Satanism is detrimenting the USA. According to Laveyan Satanism the well know actvist known as Lavey (In my opinion a fool and a troublemaker..) states that they must "Destroy" someone who bothers you.

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

For example say you are at a party someone asks you to dance you say no and they coutinue asking you should physically assault them. This is illegal! Laveya has just encouraged an illegal acticity and while they are bleeding the satanist is expected to jump around sayin Yippiee Kai Yay i beat someone up! *joking* Satanist are therefore a burden that America constantly carries.

And keep reading his list of commandments do you really think this is the type of doctrine America should have to put up with half of those thinng on his liitle "list" are illegal!

Finally I would like to also sate Satanism encourages people to have sexual freedom and have sex like crazy! This is pretty much their way of attempting to spread AIDS! Are they thrying to start another sexual diesease epidemic! Having promisucous sex is a way to rapidly spread AIDS and a such is a detriment to this great nation.
beem0r

Con

I must disagree wholeheartedly - Satanism is indeed HELPFUL to the United States of America.

I will go through some numbered premises, making it easy for my opponent to state his objections to my case.

===
1. Satanism attracts the kind of people who are already detrimental to society

To clarify, bythis I mean that the overwhelming majority of Satanists are either morons and/or are already morally bankrupt. Satanism does not appeal to many people who know how to use their brains. Satanism does not appeal to many morally-upstanding people.

From this, I could already argue that satanism doesn't actually cause any detrimental behavior itself, it just groups detrimental individuals together. Since these individuals would likely have been just as bad anyway, Satanism isn't actually causing any harm.

However, I will go much further than that.

===
2. Satanism is an unfavorable trait as far as natural selection is concerned.

Satanists have a much lower chance of successfully passing on their genes than say, a Christian. Why?

a. People hate satanists.
b. Satanism encourages dangerous activities - ones that could end in imprisonment or death.
c. Satanists are not the type of folks who would think twice about getting an abortion when it comes to unwanted children.

From (a), simply by being a Satanist a person lowers his or her chance of successfully passing on their genes. This is good, because it stops moronic and/or morally bankrupt people from successfully mating.

From (b), to the extent that Satanism causes bad and dangerous behavior that wouldn't otherwise happen [if it does at all], it also lowers the chances of a person successfully passing on their genes. This is because society punishes people for bad behavior, and nature punishes people for dangerous behavior.

From (c), to the extent that Satanism causes abortions that would not otherwise happen [if it causes these at all], we see that Satanists have a lower chance of successfully passing on their genes.

===
3. Therefore, Satanism weeds out the kind of folks we don't want in our society.

Since satanism attracts moronic and/or morally bankrupt people, and it is unfavorable as far as natural selection is concerned, satanism acts as a force that slowly eats away at a moronic and/or morally bankrupt part of society. This is no doubt helpful to society at large.

I believe that is sufficient, especially in a 4-round debate. Good luck to my opponent, and thanks for starting the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Krakken101

Pro

Just because they gather together dosent mean that they are good. They are detrimental people doing detrimental things like encouraging illegal activity.

Example: The KKK they may be a group of racist buttfuckin (Pardon my French)
animals. Yet in 1956 they numbered in the tens of thousands because they expanded and spread there sick doctrine the same with Satanists so you see they ARE engaging in detrimental activity which is encouraging illegal beavurior Con suggests we stick our heads in the dirt and ignore the problem just like the Iraq War (Dont get worked up folks thats a debate for later ^__^) Basically the gathering of bad people will lead to more bad things!

Anywho your second statement revolves around the fact that Satanism is a genetic trait this is compelely retarded and moronic. As Satanism is a beleif not something you could pass on......as a genetic trait that is.

*If anyone would like to accept this debate in a more intelligent fashion please make a comment below so i dont have to do deal with unitelligent debaters trying to be cute and funny: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA *Sarcastic Laugh aimed towards are good friend beem0r
beem0r

Con

It seems my opponent understood none of my argument.

First, I never argued that they 'gather together' or anything like that. They don't, anyway - they're very unorganized as a religion/philosophy.

My argument is as follows. Hopefully my opponent will understand this time.

FIRST, Satanism does not appeal to most people. It appeals to people who are bad people anyway. In most cases, the bad things these people do would happen anyway. For example, a person who likes to steal things might decide to believe in Satanism to rationalize his actions. If he steals something again the next day, this is not Satanism's fault. With or without Satanism, the theft would have occurred.

NEXT, I did NOT argue that Satanism is a genetic trait. However, being moronic and being morally bankrupt ARE.
1. Satanism attracts morons and morally bankrupt folks.
2. Satanism causes these people to be less successful in passing on their traits to the next generation. [Because people don't like satanists, because satanism might encourage some level of illegal activity [which society punishes], satanism might encourage some level of dangerous activity [which nature punishes], and because satanism might encourage a higher abortion rate].
3. Satanism therefore reduces the amount of moronic and morally bankrupt people.

There was nothing cute or funny about my argument. My opponent did not address either of my two arguments. Here they are again.

1. Satanism attracts moronic and morally bankrupt individuals.
2. Satanism causes followers to be less likely to successfully breed.

And therefore, it acts as a force that makes moronic and orally bankrupt people less common, which is certainly a good thing.
Debate Round No. 2
Krakken101

Pro

Well first off I would like to say beem0r was unclear in his arguments and as such I did not take them seriously now allow me to refute them.

Let start of by saying my opponent lacks adequate knowledge about the subject as he said that Satanaism is an unorganized religon/philosphy this statement is false as Satanism has a hiraechal structure with its own scriptures and rituals.

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

Now to refute my opponents first argument. My opponent states bad people join Satanism to rationalize their actions and as such they would have done it anyways. However my opponent fails to realize that the point still satnds that Satanism is still a detriment to the U.S.

Allow me to make a quick example paralleling Satansim to Racism

Example: Cutburt is a racist and enjoys to lynch people. He joins the KKK to ratioanlize his murderous and morally bankrupt tendencies. Cutburt is still a detriment to the USA and grouping him with people of the same category makes the problem worse! 1 Cutburt is bad enough but thousands is insane! Just like with Satanism it attracts the evil, but don't you think grouping these people under the same creed will cause more burden and problems for America. My opponent states that a theif would still steal with or without Satanism, but dont you think it would be worse if he was with Satanism instead of getting help or turning his life around. With Satanism the man is instructed to futher exploit criminal activity to hurt people or even worse this is where the detriment lies!

Finally allow me to move into my opponent's second argument Satanism will not attarct people because they are morally bankrupt and will push them away so that their traits will not be passed on to others. This is false! In 1975 they were about a few thousand proclaimed Satanists world wide now there are tens of thousands! Even if they are evil they still have ways of persuading people or it would have collapsed in the first generation that started it.

In conclusion I beleive my opponent has produced no sources or any statistical information as I have done in my openning argument as such I find it necessary that you vote PRO ont his issue. Thank You ladies and gentlemen.
beem0r

Con

beem0r forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Krakken101

Pro

Krakken101 forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

In the interest of fairness, I'm just going to say what I said in the comment section shortly after I forfeited R3. Nothing new.

Gah. Sorry about missing R3. I was only going to reiterate my original points again.

I already made the point that Satanists don't actually gather [like the KKK does, for example], so that argument is invalid. Satanists are not more dangerous because of they're all 'gathered' in one place. They aren't gathered. As I stated in R2, they're not organized at all.

Next, realize that my opponent has not actually argued against my other argument. I stated that Satanism caused 'morally bankrupt' and 'moronic' to be less commin in future generations. The fact that it is growing as a religion only speeds up this process.
Note: It is not growing because it's being passed on from father to son. It's growing because more people are adopting its views. It still stands that Satanists would almost certainly be less likely to successfully breed.
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Krakken101 8 years ago
Krakken101
SMall traces of HIV huh? lemme explain to you hiw this works maderom there are four receptor cells in Semen which the virus hosts itself to making you fullly infeccted now according to the CDC HIV attaches to all four reeceptor cell making you infected saliva has a strong bacteria that kills the virus before the receptor cells are infected so kissing an HIV infected individual cannot pass HIV however body fluids like Semen and the vagina http://www.cdc.gov...

When you have a PhD in microbilogy and 10 years of experience in expert pathogen tracking then you can argue with CDC
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
"mmadderom i have a question are you high? Because only a genuine drug addict would purposely have unprotected sex with a HIV postive woman.."

Now now, you'd have to meet my preconditions, first. As for the CDC researchers, while it's true that HIV is found in small traces in semen, vaginal fluid, and saliva, there is nothing that proves it is spread through any of those fluids. For example, only one case of HIV transmission from kissing has ever been investigated and it turns out both partners had cuts in their mouths. If the disease were spread simply by sexual intercourse, then virtually every person who had sex with an HIV positive person would become infected..that is far from the case. The VAST majority of HIV spread is among intravenous drug users and homosexual men. It is actually quite rare for a man to contract HIV from an infected woman unless they are engaging in rough sex. The only certain way to contract HIV is through the blood. 23 years of research hasn't changed that.
Posted by Krakken101 8 years ago
Krakken101
Also tell me bem00r what do you think a BLACK MASS is... a Liturgical gathering of satanists to mock the idealistic and wishful rituals of idiotic Christian religon. <----- The following definition is the exact definition of which by given by the First Church of Satan Lavey. As such Satanists doooooooooooooo gather together.

*Please dont ask me how I know all these things about Satanism when Im clearly a Catholic....It is a stupid question and if you ask it ill place a black curse on you *joke*
Posted by Krakken101 8 years ago
Krakken101
mmadderom i have a question are you high? Because only a genuine drug addict would purposely have unprotected sex with a HIV postive woman....I dare you to drink a gallon of semen from and HIV infected person and if you don't have HIV by the end of the day then the CDC might as well as have been eatin fast food and makin fart jokes from 1985-present day when it comes to the HIV research.

*Note that the above statement was a mere dramatizilzation of my view on HIV infection. I mean no disrespect to the HIV community or to madderom personally.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
I will right now volunteer to have unprotected sex with 3 HIV positive women tomorrow as long as you can prove to me that they 1) have no other sexually transmitted diseases and 2) have no wounds in the nether region. Oh, and 3) are attractive enough for me to want to have sex with them. Those conditions met, there is ZERO risk for me unless I'm a mad man in bed and create a wound both on her and on myself in the process.

That being FACT, there goes the satanist theory on this particular subject.
Posted by mmadderom 8 years ago
mmadderom
Both arguments are ridiculous on their face. But...Satanism is there to promote the spread of AIDS? You kidding me? AIDS is a relatively RECENT disease that ISN'T spread simply by having sexual intercourse.

You can have AIDS, have tons of unprotected sex, and NEVER spread it. Simply because it's not spread by sexual copulation, but rather by blood exposure...not semen. And a woman giving a man AIDS is EXTREMELY rare. Homosexual men contract aids more frequently not because they are homosexual, per say, but because the nature of the sex act itself makes it more likely to open a wound. Heterosexuals engaging in anal sex would pose the same exact risk...if they were infected to begin with.

One would think that in this day and age people might be aware of what causes the spread of AIDS. 15 years ago the ignorant were predicting that by now half the world would be infected.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Do not confuse my arguments with my views.

I basically had two choices.

First, I could make an adequate argument based on definitions I knew my opponent would accept. ['Satanism attracts morally depraved people and morons', as an example] This simplifies things, since I already know my opponent agrees with me at the core - there won't be some definition argument.

Other than that, I could do some research as to what Satanism really is, hope that there's an argument I can make with that info, and risk my opponent simply disagreeing with my definition when I make that argument.

Choice was kind of clear to me.

As for my real view on satanism/satanists... well, let's just say I don't really have a view. This would be because I don't really know much about satanism [nor do I really care].
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Both pro and con deserve to be smacked upside for debating a subject which clearly neither of them understand. Shame on you for subscribing to stereotypes generated by the hysterical, ignorant, and manipulative.
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
thank you ragnar rahl. neither one of the debaters deserve any votes. Neither of them debate satanism. They debate the common stereotype. This was not a debate. This was two people bashing on other people's views without even researching them.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"I undersatnd your meaning Zerosmelt but for the record ALL Satanists are evil, selfish, and destructive people."

The act of destruction has negative consequences for the self. Selfishness consists of pursuing what is good (not what is evil) for the self. Thereforce, contradiction. It is impossible to be both selfish and evil, or selfish and destructive. It is possible to attempt to be selfish and by error end up being destructive, but it is not possible to be destructive (presuming of course the things you are destroying are good) and also selfish.

Also, neither of you seem to know much about Satanism, it is kind of against illegal activity, as it results in prison and therefore unpleasantness, and therefore violates the injunction "Do what makes you happy." :D
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Krakken101 8 years ago
Krakken101
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 JoeBob 8 years ago
JoeBob
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Krakken101beem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Xera
Krakken101beem0rTied
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