The Religious Right is beneficial to contemprary America
Debate Rounds (4)
Examples are to be fairly current, and centered around American, not international, affairs unless said example requires historical back up (i.e. The Constitution was drafted in 1789, and has been kept in America therefore it is an important document. NOT The Constitution was written by Christians therefore only Christians are Americans)
The religious right (RR) is defined as (probably) Christians (no in particular denominations) with a more politically conservative (disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]) outlook. Notable contemporary examples being Ted Haggard, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Pat Robertson to name a few.
(a) There is always a chance, however sure you are that a viewpoint is wrong, it is actually correct.
(b) Even if a particular viewpoint is dead-wrong, the clash of conflicting viewpoints will stimulate DISCUSSION. This leads to intellectual growth and pursuit of the truth.
Yes, under my reasoning, even extremists advocating flat-earth theory and Nazism are beneficial to America!
You might disagree vehemently with the Religious Rights, but join me in recognizing the benefits that any dissenting viewpoint carries.
Well, for starters, because it was the premise of this debate? I'll be referring my rebuttals specifically to the Religious Right.
Contention a) Viewpoints have always been subjective. Disagreeing or agreeing with the RR is a matter of opinion. However, as I will show below, if that opinion hurts people then it is most definitely wrong, which since you have failed to define what "correct" is, and have associated it with "wrong", I will take it to mean "right", as in conformance with justice or law or morality, and we'll go from there.
Contention b) The RR has political influence and has made it's many prejudices into law, infringing on the health, happiness, and rights of many. Therefore their viewpoints actually inflict damage on society. Recent examples are:
the bans on gay marriage [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
which as you can see here [http://en.wikipedia.org...] has a direst correlation with the presence of red states, which generally have a RR majority. In some cases, they have made it law where one can get fired from their job for being gay [http://www.nytimes.com...].
The RR in Texas has recently begun to change their curriculum so that Civil Rights Activists, and even Thomas Jefferson, are left out of textbooks, which because of TX purchasing power, would influence the entire nations curriculum . As well, they are putting a specifically Christian spin on history, meaning that any children of opposing viewpoints will have to test as though the Christian religion is right, breaking the separation of church and state.
So in both of these examples, while they are both definitely promoting discussion, they are damaging people, which is out weights the value of discussion any day. Their out dated convictions have intentionally hurt thousands of people, which by their own standards, is morally wrong. All other laws fall below it.
Therefore, the RR is not beneficial to contemporary America, and in fact hurts more than it helps.
trendem forfeited this round.
trendem forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by trendem 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.