The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Royal-Sovereign
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

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 3 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 56302
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to practice old testament judiasm

the USA is known to be a religiously tolerant society. but, old testament judiasm permits or requires things that go against our commonly accept values and laws.

examples. in the old testament, people are to be put to death for what many would consider trivial moral infractions, slavery is often permitted or directed, women are treated as property, a woman raped can be forced to marry her rapist.
to name a few.

it's not the point of the debate. but that a country as tolerant as the USA would not and should not allow it to be practiced, says a lot about the religion.
Royal-Sovereign

Con

The new testament is about Jesus who was a Jew so if he was the son of god then that god was the one described in the old testament. The new testament would not exist without the old one. The bible is one book split into two parts and you cannot reject one part and even pick and choose what to believe out of the other. You cannot keep the 10 commandments if you ban the old testament yet today's Christians still use them despite from a book they claim not to believe in. So you either outlaw all Christianity or none of it at all.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

first a clarification. i dont think we should outright ban that religion. we should limit it, from being fully practiced.

but that was not even an issue for con. con merely agues we cannot accept the new testament teachings without the old testament teachings. that may be true from a religioius context, but it doesn't follow that we have to allow those practices to be be legal. how does it follow that christianity should be banned if we put limitations on judiasm? it is judiasm that should be limited.
Royal-Sovereign

Con

Royal-Sovereign forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

reiterate
Royal-Sovereign

Con

Royal-Sovereign forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
How many people practice this in USA anyways very few people I would imagine. Also, people who believe in the Bible and are Christians understand that the Old Testament laws do not necessarily have to be followed. For example not wearing certain clothing or not doing things on Sunday...... But I think if you are arguing this then you would also agree that Muslims should not practice their religion at all in America because of the things that are required and supported in their Bible and religion.

I would more argument how this debate is irrelevant today.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
dairygirl4u2cRoyal-SovereignTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
dairygirl4u2cRoyal-SovereignTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and also dairygirl made some awesome arguments! KIU
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
dairygirl4u2cRoyal-SovereignTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeits. As to arguments, Con didn't even address the motion. Pro made some assertions, and Con could have responded to them...but didn't. Arguments, therefore, to Pro. This definitely sputtered out as a debate. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.