The Instigator
Iacov
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

To be religious is to also have a mental disorder.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 95711
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

Iacov

Con

I created this debate in response to your comment on a other debate of similar talking points.
I will be arguing that to be a follower of any religion does not mean that person also has a mental disorder. For round one please state your position and any definitions you wish to establish.
Definitions:
Mental disorder: "A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual's cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning."
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
vi_spex

Pro

there is no mental disorder that isnt religious.. besides due to physical damage like brain damage

basically i would classify a mental disorder as following unnecessary limitations.. and on the other side are the necessary, non religious as religion is to rely on

i contend that any religion is a set of unnecessary limitations for them to be religious limitations.. or flaws
Debate Round No. 1
Iacov

Con

Religion is something that can be found throughout all of human history as humans search for a way to describe how the world around them works. As human kind developed a sense of morale right and wrong was also created so with these new found religions people established rules to keep themselves within the law of the world. Religion is a creation of the human nature to have a order to their lives and rather than being a mental disorder religion is a genius creation of the human mind.
vi_spex

Pro

nature is random, morality is the opposite of religion.. knowledge is morality, like a shield, where as religion is more like a shield of fire rain

all religions are in opposition to knowledge, and each other.. so its is suicide by insanity, a curse on humanity, like racism or terrorism

i determine right and wrong with my sense.. not create senses..

human intelligence had to start somewhere, to me religious people are proof that we didnt get that far after all.. even the mechanical world which is knowledge based, is ruled by religion, in the form of money.. as money is an imbalance in human nature and destroys it

soda isnt money, holes in my teeth is money....

religion is war by disbelief.. this is the flaw you are missing with religion..

all evil is religion
Debate Round No. 2
Iacov

Con

All religions have one common characteristic that is doing and being good. Now of course good is a term that can mean many things but to say religion is the cause of all evil would contradict all of human development. You say nature isn't random, I disagree nature is a response to the world around you to insure survival. It is no coincidence that all cultures of the world have created a religion with out any contact with each other. Religion has provided mankind with a higher moral standard. A blessing of the human consciousness. Now the problem occurs when people assume they are 100% correct regarding a topic such as religion that has no definitive proof one way or the other. This closed minded view is what creates the opposition you speak off. Religion does not create the conflict people do, this may make people ignorant but not the victim of a mental disorder.
vi_spex

Pro

religion is holy, not good

claims

nature is random, machines are specified

morality is knowledge, belief is a lie

bless=be less

pure claims.. obviusly based in religion, so no wonder there
Debate Round No. 3
Iacov

Con

......I can't understand a word of that
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
@tonyrobinson

You actually awarded all 7 points here, so conduct was among those awarded, but regardless, you did not sufficiently explain your other points. You are welcome to your views on the effects of moderation on the site (though I should clarify that none of the moderators are employed by this site's owners, as we're all volunteers), but many would likely not be here if not for moderation removing certain votes that were posted with minimal or no analysis.
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
your vote demonstrates your lack of skill nothing more
Posted by vi_spex 7 months ago
vi_spex
fallacies
Posted by tonyrobinson 7 months ago
tonyrobinson
My vote met the guidelines as I did not vote for conduct (tied) and thus (according to the guidelines) do not have to explain that. Always removing votes and threatening to remove voting privileges will only encourage people to leave this site. Then the moderators will be left with an empty site and soon be unemployed.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
Debate: http://www.debate.org...

Profile: http://www.debate.org...

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: straightup.gong// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I believe Pro won.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. The voter is required to explain their decision with specific assessment of the debate, and not merely to state their belief on the outcome.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Swimwithcats// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I kind of wanted to see where Pro was going with this, but he clearly did not demonstrate that religion is a mental disorder, neither literally nor metaphorically. His arguments could be viewed merely as a long criticism of it as a suppressor of knowledge.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. While the voter does generally assess a failing of Pro's, they are nonetheless required to examine specific arguments from Pro, rather than generally criticizing it. The voter is also required to assess Con's arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tonyrobinson// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro never addressed the arguments presented by Con. Pro spelled everything correctly but did not capitalize or place apostrophe's when necessary. Con had good sentence structure and well thought out arguments. Pro just had multiple sentences that did not even go together and made no logical arguments just some claims with no argument to support his claims. Con did use one source of information and Pro had none.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. Unless one of the debaters' arguments are difficult to understand as a result of how they're written, this may not be awarded. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side dropped the points of the other is not specific analysis of those points, nor does it explain how Con's points outweighed Pro's. (4) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than compare the number of sources presented by each side, and must also assess their relevance to the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: wolf24// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: con obviously uses better of everything as pro simply stated his argument in a very confusing way.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, S&G or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to analyze specific points made by both debates, and not to merely state broad assertions about their perceptions of the two sides' overall argumentative style.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
can you argue with it or not.. its not about me convincing anyone
Posted by Blazzered 8 months ago
Blazzered
I would vote, but I would say this debate is a draw, so my vote wouldn't be rewarding points to either participant.

Conduct:
Both Pro and Con remained respectful to one another. Neither Pro, nor Con, used vulgar language, or insults. Ergo Conduct is a tie.

Spelling and Grammar:
I haven't noticed any spelling errors, and even if there were small errors, it wouldn't be fair to judge harshly off a (few) misspelled word(s). I was able to understand both Pro and Cons arguments just fine. So I would say Spelling and Grammar is a tie as well.

Convincing Arguments:
It's difficult to say who convinces me more. If evidence were presented, this would be much easier, since I believe evidence is everything. Neither side presented any evidence, such as scientific studies, research, expert opinions, etc. to classify if being religious could potentially mean having, or not having, a mental disorder. I understood both arguments, and both sides make very good points. Overall, I cannot decide which is more convincing. Tie.

Sources:
Neither side used any sources to support their arguments. Con was the only one who presented a source, that source being used to define the term "mental disorder". I don't think someone should be penalized, nor rewarded points, for presenting a source for a definition. Since neither side gave sources to support their arguments, I would say sources is a tie as well.

If the participants wish for me to post my vote, then I will, however there is not much of a point since all points would be a tie in my vote, including who I agree with before and after the debate.

Both participants did quite well. This debate was quite interesting.
No votes have been placed for this debate.