The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

hate is a necessary evil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 191 times Debate No: 95679
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




religion is only good to end religion.. atheism


How is hate a necessary evil? As evil is defined by Merriam-Webster. "morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
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.
Debate Round No. 1


atheism is hate

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


Actually, since your argument is if "Atheism is hate." Then what you are implying is that all atheist are hateful, which is evidently not the case.
"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.
Debate Round No. 2


where do you get the if from


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


"belief=love, disbelief=hate" From the pro side themselves, however, there are also agnostics, and other happy atheists as well. As I have said, there are those who do not believe in god/gods, and do not hate other religions.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vi_spex 4 weeks ago
hm what comments?
Posted by FurryDragon 4 weeks ago
Hey Vi_spex,
I was wondering where your comments went?
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
Posted by FurryDragon 1 month ago
You have not responded to any of my contentions whatsoever.
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
i mean, your lack of understanding and failure to be con
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 weeks ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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.