hate is a necessary evil
Debate Rounds (3)
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct ". What you are basically saying is that hate is necessary. You are basically endorsing about evil things.
Hate is not necessary in any context whatsoever. We do not need hate to live, or thrive in society. Now, hate will always be there, but hate is not necessary in any context, whatsoever.
You also said that religion is only good to end religion, can you prove this in any context? Also, you stated that a religion ending another religion would result in atheism. How so?
Judge/s, I have refuted his/her arguments, and that is why you vote should for con side.
hate to end religion is necessary.. atheism
religion is only good to end religion.. atheism
atheism is necessary.. like a shadow
muslims are atheists to all other religions
so far your drivel is meaningless
"hate to end religion is necessary.. atheism"= So what you are saying is atheism is necessary to end religion.
"muslims are atheists to all other religions"= That is not true as that Islam is part of the Abrahamic faith, so Islam is related to other religions. They also believe in a God, Allah, so they are not atheists either.
"Atheism is necessary"- How so? Can you give any context whatsoever? What is Atheism necessary for?
You have not refuted my previous arguments either.
You should vote con as that the pro side has not refuted any of my arguments whatsoever. I have successfully refuted the pro's arguments, while I have built up my own side.
you are equating things.. atheism isnt necessary to end a religion, a rockslide can do that
religion is belief in god.. theism
you dont have arguments.. you make irrelevant points, unrelated
Not only that, but the pro side is also contradicting them self.
"you are equating things.. atheism isn't necessary to end a religion, a rockslide can do that." and "hate to end religion is necessary.. atheism".From what the pro side said, to end religion, you need atheism. But in round 3, the pro side backtracks, and says that atheism is not necessary. So, please drop any arguments about that.
I would like to say that the Pro side has conceded my points by saying that they are irrelevant, but has not put any examples whatsoever. I have attacked their case, as I have said in my previous arguments, and the pro side has not blocked any of my contentions either. Not only that, but the pro side has not given any evidence whatsoever, and that I have given definitions to help support my case.
As for all of these reason above, you should vote con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 weeks 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's premises were false, and his argument was downright irrelevant and incoherent. Con's argument, while underdeveloped, was at least on topic and made coherent sense.
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.