The Instigator
Merdeci
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Merda
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points

Social Darwinism

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 19,072 times Debate No: 16755
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (7)

 

Merdeci

Con

I will be against social-Darwinism, and the opponent with It. I believe that social-Darwinism is the reason off all evil, and I will prove it! If you are with social-Darwinism then I will debate you. I hope this debate will be good, and maybe the people will learn what the cause of evil really is.
Merda

Pro

Before we get this debate underway I will try to clear up any confusion that may arise. My opponent will be arguing against the concept of Social Darwinism, more specifically he will argue that it is ""the reason off[sic] all evil"". I will argue either that Social Darwinism is not evil or that it is a rational concept.

Social Darwinism: a 19th-century theory, inspired by Darwinism, by which the socialorder is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons
best suited to existing living conditions and in accord with which a position of laissez-faire is advocated.[1]

I will let my opponent begin as he is instigator of this debate.


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Merdeci

Con

Hey, everybody. I will start this with explaining what social-darwinism is. After that i will in my second argument show you that social-darwinism is a racist idealogi. and in the 3 argument i will show you how evil social-darwinism is and all the evil it's have causes to the world. In my last argument, I will answer and refute what my opinion has said. I will also say that much of what i will say, are from credible and professional sources. Everything I will say here is facts. I will give you my sources at the bottom. Okey, here we start:

According to Social Darwinism the sole objective of a race is its physical, economic and political development. Individuals' happiness, well-being, peace and security appear unimportant. No compassion at all is felt for those who suffer and cry out for help, for those unable to provide their children, families and aged parents food, medicine or shelter, or for the poor and powerless. According to this twisted concept, someone poor but morally upright is regarded as worthless, and that person's death will actually benefit society. In addition, someone rich but morally corrupt is regarded as "most important" for the "progress of the race" and, no matter what the conditions, that individual is seen as very valuable. This twisted logic propels Social Darwinism's proponents towards moral and spiritual collapse. In 1879, another Social Darwinist, William Graham Sumner, expressed this perverted trend's deceptions:

... we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; non-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members

The most savage adherents of Social Darwinism were racists, the most dangerous, of course, being the Nazi ideologists and their leader, Adolf Hitler. The heaviest cost of Social Darwinism came at the hands of the Nazis, who implemented eugenics, the claim put forward by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, to the effect that communities can consist of higher-quality individuals by the elimination of poor genes. They also engaged in genocide using Darwinist statements as a screen, as if these in some way justified their actions. At the advice of Darwinist scientists they exterminated Jews, Gypsies and East Europeans, whom they regarded as inferior races. They slaughtered the mentally ill, the handicapped, and the elderly in gas chambers. In the 20th century, millions were killed by the most ruthless methods in the name of Social Darwinism before the eyes of the world.

The eugenics movement, led by Francis Galton, emerged as another disastrous product of Social Darwinism. Its supporters maintained that human selection was needed to accelerate natural selection, believing that human development itself could thus be speeded up. They inflicted compulsory sterilization on "unnecessary" people in a great many countries, from America to Sweden. Regarded as less than human, hundreds of thousands were operated on against their will, without their families' knowledge or permission. The cruelest implementation of eugenics occurred in Germany, where the Nazis first sterilized the crippled, mentally defective or those with inherited diseases. Unsatisfied, they then began slaughtering these people en masse. Hundreds of thousands were put to death, just for being old or lacking fingers or limbs.

Another catastrophe for which Social Darwinism provided alleged justification is colonialism. A number of administrators of colonial states tried to justify their ruthless exploitation of native populations with Darwinist theses lacking any scientific validity or logical consistency. They claimed that "inferior races" needed to be kept under the control of "superior races" because this was a law of nature, and founded their policies on this so-called scientific basis.

By using the twisted logic of Social Darwinism, combatants in the 20th century's two world wars sought to depict war as inevitable. They attempted to depict the killing of the innocent and the poor; the destruction of their homes, businesses, and livestock; the forcing of millions from their homes and lands; and the uncaring slaughter of babies and children as ways of ensuring human progress.

In conclusion, Social Darwinism was the motive force that cost the lives of millions in the 19th and 20th centuries. With it, many evils that had persisted for centuries acquired an alleged scientific justification. In his book The Mismeasure of Man, the late evolutionist palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould reveals this yet again in commenting on Darwin's Origin of Species:

Subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science.

No matter how much today's evolutionists try to separate Darwin's name from the sufferings that Social Darwinism gave birth to, Darwin used unambiguous Social Darwinist expressions, especially in his Descent of Man and other writings. As far back as 1869, in a letter to Hugo Thiel he stated that he saw no objection to his theory being applied to society:

Benjamin Wiker is a lecturer in theology and science at Franciscan University and author of Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists. In an interview, he stated that Darwin was the first Social Darwinist, and continued:

Like it or not, it is quite clear when you read his Descent of Man that Darwin himself was the first Social Darwinist and the father of the modern eugenics movement. Social Darwinism and eugenics are derived directly from his principle of natural selection.

Modern evolutionists hesitate to accept these views on account of Social Darwinism's terrifying results in the 20th century. Yet competition, racism, and discrimination—fundamental elements of Social Darwinism—also lie at the basis of the theory of evolution. Whether or not evolutionists accept the fact, these are the consequences of adopting Darwinism. Any theory that views human beings as the product of chance, as a slightly more advanced form of animal; that claims that some races are less developed than others and are therefore closer to animals; and that humanity can progress by means of the strong oppressing the weak, will inevitably have tragic consequences. Evolutionists' apparent rejection of Social Darwinism is no solution. Our hope is that those whom has the theory deceived will finally come to accept that the theory of evolution is scientifically bankrupt.

Throughout, we shall be emphasizing that the model proposed by the theory of evolution, regarding human beings as a species of animal, is an error based on ruthlessness, lovelessness, selfishness and self-interest. Darwinism seeks to construct a world where humans live and behave like animals. Social Darwinism's teachings and practices make this quite clear. According to its twisted views, it is perfectly acceptable for an elderly, needy person to be dragged out of his home and taken away to be killed; or for handicapped people to be rounded up and left to die in concentration camps. According to this distorted thinking, those in the "inferior" classes can be ruthlessly persecuted, exploited and eliminated. Those who believe that human society can progress only when these savage policies are implemented regard such slaughter, genocide, cruelty and ruthlessness as a kind of success. They maintain that individuals and societies—indeed, entire cultures and nations—unable to achieve that success, must be done away with.

sources:

"Modern History Sourcebook: William Graham Sumner (1840-1910): "The Challenge of Facts;" http://www.fordham.edu...

Darwin as Epicurean: An Interview with Benjamin Wiker," http://www.touchstonemag.com...

Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston, 1995.
Merda

Pro

I believe that social-Darwinism is the reason off all evil, and I will prove it!

Very bold I must say. But my opponent makes a mistake here. He presupposes. He presupposes that the quality of evil exists. If he is to argue that social Darwinism is evil then we must decide what standard it is to be compared to. Intuition? Suibjective emotions? Moral facts? We must agree on a meta-ethical viewpoint on which to argue and if necessary, a normative ethical viewpoint.

My opponent in the last round simply described the ideological and historical implications of social Darwinism. He did not show how or why they were wrong. It is for this reason that I will not challenge my opponent's concept of social Darwinism, but will ask him what specifically is evil about it? What is 'evil' about racism, killing the handicapped, imperialism, or the Nazis?

I know this might seem like a stupic question to ask, but when we are debating we must be ready to argue different viewpoints. I am ready to argue against the idea of these things being immoral, evil, or even wrong (though I may not agree with them). But before I defend these things I would like for my opponent to say what meta or normative ethical viewpoint he is arguing from, and because we did not agree on one in the beginning of this debate, I will ask for him to rationally justify it.

I realize that my opponent is new to the site and so unknowingly commited the common-sense fallacy, where one argues from common sense or in this case from a common moral sense. I of course apologize to my opponent that we have to waste a round on this little clarification. If we do not have enough room to fully debate in 4 rounds, he can always challenge me to a part 2 after the conclusion of this debate. Again, I apologize but we must get this out of the way.
Debate Round No. 2
Merdeci

Con

'My opponent in the last round simply described the ideological and historical implications of social Darwinism. He did not show how or why they were wrong. It is for this reason that I will not challenge my opponent's concept of social Darwinism, but will ask him what specifically is evil about it? What is 'evil' about racism, killing the handicapped, imperialism, or the Nazis?'

You say that I did not show why social-darwinism was wrong. Did you read what i did write? If you read what i did say, then you will see why social-darwinism is evil. Remember that the argument was just to explain what social-darwinism is.

'but will ask him what specifically is evil about it? What is 'evil' about racism, killing the handicapped, imperialism, or the Nazis?'

Are you saying that racism and killing handicapped, is not evil? What do you who are reading this, think? Is not killing innocent handicapped a evil thing?

As i can see it, you will not debate with my about if social-darwinism is wrong or not, but you will debate with me about social-darwinism being evil or not. Right? You say that what i did just say about social-darwinism being evil, is not evil? Please, teel me what you want to debatt, and what you are not agreeing with me.
But as i see it, you are saying that social-darwinism is not evil. Weel, then i will say to you that you are MAD. You who read this, decide for yourself if this is evil or not:

1. Social-Darwinism is racist. Social-Darwinism viewing blacks as not fully developed humans. Black, according to social-Darwinism is that monkeys, like animals! Less worthy of white people.

2. Darwin and his social-darwinism theory belittles women. As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant has stated, the two main consequences of the theory of evolution are racism and sexual discrimination: Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason ... were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were "characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization."

4. Social-darwinism was the reason behind war II and killings of 40 millions! Hitler thought that he could improve human race, as animal breeders do. He claimed that those he saw as "polluting" the Aryan race, those with genetic illnesses and the weak all needed to be eliminated; and he ordered the ruthless extermination of millions—proofs that he regarded human beings as animals and was attached to Darwinism. In an article titled "The Nazi Terror," Alexander Kimel—one of the few to survive the Nazi genocide—emphasizes the link between Darwinism and Nazism and describes how it was that the Nazis, with their belief in Social Darwinism, were able to treat people like animals and feel absolutely no pity for them:

Nazism with the acceptance of social Darwinism, equated man with animals, rob him of individual freedom of making choices, the ability to think for themselves. Brutality, terror, mendacity and ruthless exploitation of man by men became the norm of behavior. If the same laws of natural selection like the animals rule man, when the spark of the divine is removed from man's consciousness than [sic] men can be treated like an animals [sic]; he can be bred artificially, and treated like cattle. For example the war and the reckless conduct of the war brought very high casualties. Hitler tried to improve the situation, not by cutting losses, but by improving the breeding methods. In Auschwitz ... Mengele [a Nazi doctor] was [sic] conducted "scientific" experiments on twins, killing them, dissecting them, trying to figure out how to improve the breeding methods, to double the output of the German women. The Germans were treated like breeding animals the S.S. - their shepherds and their master breeder - their Fuhrer. The Germans were treated like prize cattle, other nationalities were treated like ordinary cattle and the Jews like vermin
I can write much much more about this, and prove it. And if my opinion wants, i can do that on my next argument. But first, I will ask my opinion if he thinks this is okay? Can you prove that this is not evil? Can you at all say that this is human? Just the fact that you support this, make me sick inside!

I will like to say that i did exaggerated when i did say that social-darwinism is the evil of everything and e.t.c. This is of course not true, but its a fact that social-darwinism theory was the biggest reason of World war II, that it is a racist idealogi, that it's againts women, and that it support killing handicapped. This is a fact most historians do agree with. In a book about Auschwitz, Dr. Karl A. Schleunes, a professor of history, accepts Darwinism's so-called scientific justification for racism: Darwin's notion of struggle for survival … justified the racists' conception of superior and inferior peoples and nations and validated the conflict between them
I hope i can go more into this evil of social-darwinism in my next argument.

Over to you.
Merda

Pro

Before I post my response, I would like readers to look at the webite listed below. This is where my opponent obtained the entirety of his argument.
http://antidarwinism.com...

But to respond to his specific responses read below.

If you read what i did say, then you will see why social-darwinism is evil. Remember that the argument was just to explain what social-darwinism is.

If what you wrote was simply explanatory then besides being completely copied and pasted from another webite, it is not actually an argument.

Are you saying that racism and killing handicapped, is not evil? What do you who are reading this, think? Is not killing innocent handicapped a evil thing?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. And if I was not clear enough I will repeat. There is nothing evil about racism or killing handicapped people. Of course I am not arguing that these actions are right, as I despise them, but I do not believe that moral facts exist and so no they are not evil or good. My opponent has not brought any reason for me or the readers of this debate to think otherwise.

As i can see it, you will not debate with my about if social-darwinism is wrong or not, but you will debate with me about social-darwinism being evil or not.

You specifically stated in R1 that social Darwinism os evil. That is what we are debating on. However, before we can really begin we must agree on a metaethical position. In this debate you have presupposed that moral facts exist without bringing any warrant.

You say that what i did just say about social-darwinism being evil, is not evil?

Yes. That is what we are debating.

Please, teel me what you want to debatt, and what you are not agreeing with me.

We are debating what you proposed in R1, that social Darwinism is evil or that it is the "reason off all evil".


But as i see it, you are saying that social-darwinism is not evil. Weel, then i will say to you that you are MAD. You who read this, decide for yourself if this is evil or not

Readers should not decide for themselves, they should decide based on our arguments. And as of yet you have brought no warrant to believe that social Darwinism is evil, oter than you own personal opinion. Now to look at my opponent's points that he brings in R3.

1. Social Darwinism is racist.

I agree. But my opponent claimed that these actions are evil and it is that claim that still needs to be backed up.

2. Social Darwinism is sexist.

Again, same as point 1. I will not argue that social Darwinism is not sexist, only that being sexist is not evil or even morally wrong.

3. Social Darwinism caused WW2.

Do I have to repeat myself? See points 1 and 2. Con needs to show why these things are evil. My opponent then goes on to elaborate on social Darwinism's connection to Nazism. His exact plagurized words can be found here. http://kimel.net...

I thought that after the clarification I made in R2(where I asked what ethical standard my opponent would be referring to and if he could justify it) we could get past this metaethical nonsense. However my opponent repeated the exact same behavior that he had last round. He argued from common sense and copied and pasted large portions of his argument from other websites. I urge voters not to vote for me because one supports social Darwinism, but because my opponent has not brought any valid arguments against social Darwinism that he did not copy from another website. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Merdeci

Con

'Before I post my response, I would like readers to look at the webite listed below. This is where my opponent obtained the entirety of his argument.'

Oh please, must all make that argument when they know they have lost. Yes, something of what I did say are copied from other sites. As I did say in my fist argument, much of what I say, will come from many sources. I did say that, and I did show you the sources I used. Much of what I copied, I did to my own words. Whether it's from me or not, it's a fact you can not disprove. Yes, much of what I have said, is copied. I copy from people who know more about this than all of us here. I'm not going to debate without having to pick up my arguments from other people who know this better than me. Most people show their websites that they have obtained information from, when they are debating. Just that they cut away a bit, do it with their own words, and taking only the most important stuff. It is the same whether it is from me or not. Facts are facts! What is the matter here is that what I just wrote or copied or whatever, is about exactly this topic. You who are reading this, do not be fooled by this propaganda nonsense. This is just a trick because he can not disprove me. As you can see, the opponent is unable to disprove a single thing of what I wrote or pasted here. Not a single thing!

You who are reading this, I will say this to you: Read everything I wrote, and everything he wrote. You will notice that he has not managed to disprove anything I have said, and since he failed to refute anything I have said, he begins with dirty tricks. So what if I copied everything? Does that mean I'm wrong then? I copied from someone who knows a lot about this, and many scientists have worked with him on this subject. Everything I said is facts, and I give you the historians and other people who admit the fact that social-Darwinism is evil. What are the opponent giving you? A dirty trick to the end. Will this dirty trick from my opponent, make you chose him instead of me? Even when everything I said is fact and proven? Although my opponent has failed to disprove anything I said because this is simply fact copied from people who know everything about this topic? It's ridiculous and sad that one must begin to come up with such nonsense, just because you know you have lost. Facts are facts, no matter who it comes from! Read the debate and you will see who are right or not. If I will lose this debate just because my opponent comes with dirty tricks, and even though I only told the facts, and even though my opponent has failed to disprove anything I said or copied - then I will delete me from this stupid site! Since it's only ridiculous. One should not lose just becaouse you copy something.

If you vote against me, then you simply agree with the social-Darwinism. A idealogi that are racist, are against women, the reason for WWII where over 40 million become dead, looking at the handicap as weak people, and all disabled people have to be destroyed, and much more evil! Just read what I wrote. Historians have confirmed that social-Darwinism is evil, which you can look at my arguments in this debate. Be smart, do not vote for my opponent just becaouse of a dirty trick he used to the end. One can see clearly that he has failed to respond to some of the things I said and that he lost this debate. Read what I wrote, also what he wrote. You will notice that everything I wrote is true, and I take even with historians and what they have said regarding this matter. If you disagree with me then you disagree with historians who know all about this. Do you think you know better than historians? I would also say that this was just some of what I would say about social-Darwinism, but unfortunately there is a limit of how much you can write. But I think what I wrote, did make my clear: Social-Darwinism is evil! I want to say thanks to my opponent for this debate, but I would respect you more if you did not use such dirty tricks. This is not the first time anyone has used this dirty trick against me. But anyway, chose the right one.

And now to his "responses". Well, there's something to answer? He responded to what I said at round 3, with writing: Yes, it's true - yes, yes and yes.

As you can see, my opponent is agreeing with me that social-darwinism is racist, is the reason behind world war II and that social-darwinism is sexist, but he does still not admit that social-darwinism is evil. This dude are saying that social-darwinism is not evil, even when he admits that social-darwinism was the reason behind World war II. Will you who read this, say that World war II, that killed over 40 million innocent people, was not a evil act from the nazizt, who was inspired, like their leader Hitler, at the concept of social-darwinism?(Proven from many historians, do not even think of saying that this is not true. Hitler did himself say this on his book, mein kamph.).

A other thing have to be maked clear here, is when i mean evil, i do not mean evil, like satanic evil or something. Evil can mean many things. Something like killing innocent people are evil. And social-Darwinism does allow that. If you are wick, then you are dead!

My opponent did not disprove me at nothing at this round, and the early round. In the first round he did not disprove me, in the second round he did just ask some questions becaouse he could not disprove what I did said at round 2, and at this round he just answered someting i did say that was not about social-darwinism and making some dirty tricks, becaouse he can not disprove me.

If you are against social-darwinism(A.K.A - racism, killing innocent handikaped, killing innocent people just to "evolv", sexism, and the acts of world war II and many other absurd and evil stuff) then vote for me.

If you are for social-darwinism(A.K.A, Evil) then vote for my opponent, who was not disproven my at nothing from the start of this debate!

I have clearly shown that social-darwinism is wrong and that it's evil. Now it's you turm to vote for the person who YOU think have the right.

Actually, I should in this argument show you some of the terrible things that have happened to becaouse of social-Darwinism, and I would say more about the socialist-darwinism evil. But unfortunately, my opponent did start with foolish and cowardly tricks, so I had to answer him. However, I hope you realize that social-Darwinism is not good (something even my opponent has admitted)

I will end my last argument by giving some quotes from historians and others, who are proven what I have said so far; that social-darwinism is evil!

The quotes:

(And yes, this quotes are of course from other web-sites)

Hitler, a fanatical Social Darwinist and great admirer of both Darwin and Nietzsche, put their warlike views into practice. Combining militarist thinking with the theory of evolution, Hitler said:

The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, and eternal victory of the strong over the weak

In an article titled "The Philosophy and Morals of War," Max Nordau—one of the leaders of the Zionist movement—identifies Darwin as the primary supporter of war:

The greatest authority of all the advocates of war is Darwin. Since the theory of evolution has been promulgated, they can cover their natural barbarism with the name of Darwin and proclaim the sanguinary instincts of their inmost hearts as the last word of science

In Hitler's Personal Security, Peter Hoffmann discusses Hitler's Darwinist views:

Hitler believed in struggle as the Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish. Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger

Vote for me. Lets defeat evil together!

- Merdeci
Merda

Pro

My opponent begins by trying to make excuses as to why he copied almost his entire debate from another website. In R3 he copied an entire paragraph of his argument straight from a website and nowhere in his argument did he cite a single source. And even in R2 where he had the courtesy to cite where he copied and pasted from, that does not excuse the fact that his entire argument, save one paragraph, was completely pasted from another website. I looked at his other debates and he has done the exact same thing. But now on to his responses.

This is just a trick because he can not disprove me. As you can see, the opponent is unable to disprove a single thing of what I wrote or pasted here. Not a single thing!

My opponent is actually correct here. I have not, nor have I tried to disprove a lot of what my opponent wrote. That is because he wrote absolutely nothing in defense of 'evil' actually existing even subjectively. Because he never did this, I am able to accept that social Darwinism entails genocide, sexism, and racism without it being in any way evil or even immoral.

So what if I copied everything? Does that mean I'm wrong then?


The point is not are you right. You have not even shown that. The point is that you did not even try to make the argument yours. You did not even have the courtesy to re-write it in your own words.

If you vote against me, then you simply agree with the social-Darwinism.

Trying to scare people into voting for you I see. No voters, a vote for me is not a vote for social Darwinism, but the recognition that my opponent did not uphold his BOP in this debate and copied the entirety of his argument.

As you can see, my opponent is agreeing with me that social-darwinism is racist, is the reason behind world war II and that social-darwinism is sexist, but he does still not admit that social-darwinism is evil.

Yes. That is what I am arguing. My opponent simply assumes that these things are evil, without bringing any justification

A other thing have to be maked clear here, is when i mean evil, i do not mean evil, like satanic evil or something. Evil can mean many things. Something like killing innocent people are evil.

It really is nice that my opponent waited until the last round to define 'evil'. But again he brings no reason as to why killing an innocent person is evil.

Really my only regret in this debate is that my opponent did not seem to understand his burden of proof in this debate. He began by making presuppositions of moral facts and plagurizing his arguments. Voters, you know what to do. Vote Pro. And please vote based on our arguments, not based on the shock value of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Merda 6 years ago
Merda
I would have liked an actual argument.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Gee! This was close!
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Plagiarism is a serious academic crime. It is detrimental to an academics career.
Posted by Priceless29 6 years ago
Priceless29
As a admirer or Nietzsche I must point out that Hitler, while he did use his philosophy to a degree, moved away from Nietzsche in terms of Anti-Semitism. Nietzsche disagreed with Anti-Semitism and also disagreed with German pride, something that propelled Fascism in Germany and the rise of the Nazi Party.
Posted by wolfhaines 6 years ago
wolfhaines
Last time I checked it was the evil of religion that has caused 2000 years of violence, murder, genocide, racism, inequality, suppression. Religion is inherently evil as it is neither based on fact nor the willingness to learn. It is entirely based on closing your eyes and believing what somebody tells you. That is also how racism is spread.

Social Darwinism simply explains to us how we got where we are today, and why we do some of the things we do.

I am disappointed that Merda took up this debate. Number one rule when it comes to religion- to believe it makes you mentally unworthy of a debate. Science is based on fact, to even sit at same debate table as mental disfunctions such as Merdeci is making them think they have something to offer to the debate. They don't.
Posted by Merdeci 6 years ago
Merdeci
Nice. Anyway, I'm going to sleep now. Good luck with your responce. :)
Posted by Merda 6 years ago
Merda
Of course not.
Posted by Merdeci 6 years ago
Merdeci
So you are not mad?
Posted by Merda 6 years ago
Merda
It was a joke. The joke being that the fact that you plagurized your entire case took everyone's attention from the fact that I was defending social Darwinism.
Posted by Merdeci 6 years ago
Merdeci
Just look how badly he gets. For some reason he can not refrain from speaking here. He even begins to use bad wording. This guy is beginning to take this very personally. You're not a Nazi? The fact that this guy is getting pissed and use bad wording, and use dirty tricks, proving again and again that he has lost. We are just debating, and you begin to make personal attacks. Where is the courtesy? You are the most pathetic guy I've debated against, and I have very little respect for people like you.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 6 years ago
mcc1789
MerdeciMerdaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to support his burden of proof and repeatedly plagiarized from sources without attribution until he was challenged by Con.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
MerdeciMerdaTied
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: As per comments.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
MerdeciMerdaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Pro did not plagiarize I give him the conduct points, the rest of this is self explanatory.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
MerdeciMerdaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con copied and pasted
Vote Placed by TheFreeThinker 6 years ago
TheFreeThinker
MerdeciMerdaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Merdeci, you have not debated using solid arguments. Your opponent has tried to make you understand that you were on the wrong track since you were arguing with common moral sense. Furthermore, your understanding of Social Darwinism is very limited. Just because the NAZIS used social Darwinism as an excuse to kill people, you can't assume that that is what Social Darwinism is about. Debate.org provides you with the chance to check your spelling. You should take your time and double-check
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MerdeciMerdaTied
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: Copy and paste for the loss, Tim goes deep as usual.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
MerdeciMerdaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: S/g clearly goes to pro, con didn't understand his bop and did not write much about it.