The Instigator
w.toosmart
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
JuliusMaximus
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should be able to believe in your religion.

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...
JuliusMaximus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 641 times Debate No: 32895
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

w.toosmart

Pro

I totally believe that everyone and everything should be able to believe in any religion they want. There is over 100 religion in this world. There is no way that everyone should believe in one. Every human beings should be able to have freedoms.
JuliusMaximus

Con

I disagree that you should be able to follow any religion that you want, and the law agrees with me. For instance, the snake handling churches of the Appalachia have been heavily restricted due to it's danger to itself and others. There are many other religions that should be outlawed due to an apparent scam, or danger to the practicers, nonpracticers, or animals. For instance, the ancient religion of the aztecs that requires the sacrifice of live humans.
Debate Round No. 1
w.toosmart

Pro

Thank you for going against me. I do agree that there is some dangerous or not practical religion in the world, but we should be able to choose. I mean I am Christian and someone else might be Jewish and I will still respect that. People should know when it is a dangerous religion and stay away from it. Plus, it is none of our business.Vote for me!
JuliusMaximus

Con

I agree that non-violent religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, ectra should not be restricted, however I believe that violent religions , and the extremist forms of peaceful religions should be prohibited. I would say that it is my business were the people down the street from me into human/animal sacrifice, for the safety of my family and pets. And, no you unfortunatly cant trust people to avoid dangerous religions, just look at the Muslim extremists who are attacking Americans, or the Jewish extremists who bombed U.S. movie theaters in a failed attempt to draw the U.S. into an unneeded war with Egypt. Look to at the Christian extremists known as Christian Identity.
Debate Round No. 2
w.toosmart

Pro

Like I said earlier I knowthere is a lot of dangerous religions. We need our freedom! One slight move could effect a whole country's economic and health. It might bring trouble like, animal and human sacrifice. On the other hand, there is goods that comes, like order and laws. The government is the one who should be worrying about this, not us.
JuliusMaximus

Con

So are you argueing that we should have the freedom to engage in harmfull, and illegal religious activities. To be honest, denying a bunch of pagan hippies the right to sacrifice animals isnt going to destroy a nation's economy. Law and order do not come by allowing anyone to be able to use the "it's part of my religion, so i have to impail a living child on a stake every month" excuse any time they are in trouble. And lastly, why would you make an arguement on DDO if you dont think we should be worrying about it?.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 4 years ago
danielawesome12
w.toosmartJuliusMaximusTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate on Pro's part.
Vote Placed by ProudBlackVoter 4 years ago
ProudBlackVoter
w.toosmartJuliusMaximusTied
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: Mmm, con's arguements were more cohesive and easier to understand.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
w.toosmartJuliusMaximusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Just taking time out of my day to tell you both that you made a myriad of logical, grammatical, and spelling errors with no sources, making it impossible for me to vote accurately for either side. All points go to
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
w.toosmartJuliusMaximusTied
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's rebuttals were strong enough to force Pro to backpedal and contradict himself.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
w.toosmartJuliusMaximusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Both ended up arguing the same thing: You should be able to believe in your religion, but not act on it in harmful ways. Both sides could have benefited from sources, perhaps more so for con who brought up there being a group wanting to impale children every month. Conduct was not major, but it seemed con was misrepresenting what pro said in fallacy. However con used spellcheck and was better organized.