The labelers always get it wrong.
Debate Rounds (3)
I apologize if my opponent chose not to have first round acceptance. I will be more careful next time.
I. The assumption that no one likes being called by their religion can be applied to both sides.
In this argument, it is difficult to find reliable sources of personal experiences, such as if people like being called by religion or not. Therefor, I will be arguing purely on assumptions and maybe if I can find some source. If my opponent can find a reliable source, I observe the link and research accordingly. Now, it is highly possible people like being called by their religion judging the fact they have kept their religion all their life. Such as pastors or mormons. Also,some have done memorable acts in the name of their religion. Some are bad such as the holocaust, others are good such as Jesus spreading love. Why would they not like being called their religion? They have performed such memorable acts in the name of religion, so why won't they like being called their religion?
II. Looking at the most evil people in history (and their acts), it is safe to assume that calling people by their religion is not the most evil thing anyone has done.
Here are some people who have committed treacherous acts.
Osama bin Laden
Kim Il Sung
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
Attila the Hun
Tomas de Torquemada
Ivan the Terrible
As you can see, not ONE of the people who have committed perhaps the most evil acts in history are known by calling people by their religion.
Upon investigation , and Hitler's motivation was to do the horrifying acts was in the name of god. Not to become god
This debate is about calling people by their religion. Hitler is not remembered by calling someone a jew, but killing the Jews.
My opponent states that everyone else killed people off religious motivations. Specifically "worship me I am god on Earth".
If my opponent had looked at the source, there is NO religion "worship me I am god on Earth" that motivated them. Were some in the name of religion? Yes. Was it "Worship me I am god on Earth". No. None of those people are remembered by CALLING someone by their religion.
I suggest my opponent looks thoroughly at my source.
My opponent then makes the assumption that I will lose. Only time has the answer.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were, quite literally, nonsensical. I'm not entirely sure that Con's really addressed the motion--but that's a failure of Pro to really establish what he was talking about. Arguments to Con for at least presenting a coherent case. As always, happy to clarify this RFD. Conduct for Pro's last round jab at the voters. For Pro's reference: First, you're demonstrably wrong. Second, I'm not sure exactly how you could possibly think it's a good or beneficial idea to insult the folks who are judging the debate. Perhaps if you put more time into actually constructing a coherent and sensical case, and less on asserting that you're right and others are "inept" you might get more points. Regardless, your conduct was not acceptable, and I'm awarding conduct accordingly.
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.