The Instigator
Kaluka
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wild.Grape
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

do we need 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 2 votes the winner is...
Wild.Grape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 316 times Debate No: 84242
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Kaluka

Con

in my opening statement I would just say that isn't it that islam , its sects the shia and sunni causing problems , causing destruction. I believe that divesrity in the beliefs of the people makes them take measures to make their religion the best. above all other religion.....
Wild.Grape

Pro

I will point out subjectivity of this question. Whether or not we "need" religion is purely matter of opinion. Each side can present its reasons explaining why it thinks what it thinks. No argument can be made which will inevitably lead to conclusion that "yes, indeed, we do need religion" or "no, in fact we don't need it". You can only prove why you, personally, think that YOU don't need religion. Whether or not other people need religion is up to them to decide. Presenting me with your premises and values will prove nothing, since I can very well not share your values.
Debate Round No. 1
Kaluka

Con

Kaluka forfeited this round.
Wild.Grape

Pro

I will now deal with the only piece of information I do have. My opponent said:

"I believe that divesrity in the beliefs of the people makes them take measures to make their religion the best. above all other religion....."

This is his personal opinion, nothing more. He personally believes that bettering (however he defines that) is a "good thing". He is perfectly entitled to his opinion, and he is also entitled to express it. The point I am trying to make here is that people can flat out disagree with either his definition of "better", or simply with the concept itself. "Rationality" has no concrete definition, so calling ones own opinion "rational" is pointless and proves nothing.
Debate Round No. 2
Kaluka

Con

Kaluka forfeited this round.
Wild.Grape

Pro

Elaborating on my previous comment. "Rationality" essentially means "according to reason". As long as you believe that your stance 'makes sense" it will be rational for you. It might not be for other people. You can use word "logical" and then provide your premises (values) from which your stance logically follows, but again I simply have to announce that I do not share same values you do, and thus for me that same conclusion will not logically follow.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Richardsonalj// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Wild.Grape's grammar was more fluent and correct, and upheld an argument, something Kaluka failed to do; who only used 1/3 of the rounds to create an argument that was nothing more than a stated opinion.

[*Reason for non-removal*] As this is a full forfeit debate, and as Con's first round wasn't really an argument, votes on this debate that don't allocate points to the person who forfeited are not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by matt8800 11 months ago
matt8800
I think the better question would be, "Is religion a net detriment?"
Posted by Jonbonbon 11 months ago
Jonbonbon
Wild.Grape, why is everything a matter of opinion? Why debate if you think this is all just opinion based? I mean, the question of necessity is a question that can be answered with evidence and sound reasoning. You can give a hard answer, or an answer that is a fact. To say that it's just a matter of opinion kind of mocks the idea of debate, unless your purpose on the website is to derail facts and explain everything through the scope of subjectivity.

I mean, I know this guy forfeited, but it's still kind of rude for you to accept a debate and play neutral on the subject. Instead of actually trying to discover truth, you'd rather just let people have their opinions. But some people are wrong, and to just accept that is to further false beliefs. You can respect someone else's beliefs without just taking a soft stance on everything. You can disagree with someone and still speak to them respectfully and treat their beliefs with validity. However, that still requires that you disagree with them. It's less loving to let someone live a lie than it is to just let them live a lie.

So I'm not trying to be mean when I say this, but basically your noncommittal stance on everything is harmful to furthering the education of those around you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Richardsonalj 11 months ago
Richardsonalj
KalukaWild.GrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Wild.Grape's grammar was more fluent and correct, and upheld an argument, something Kaluka failed to do; who only used 1/3 of the rounds to create an argument that was nothing more than a stated opinion.
Vote Placed by dripht 11 months ago
dripht
KalukaWild.GrapeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff