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

hate is a necessary evil

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/28/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 242 times Debate No: 95709
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




religion is only good to end religion.. atheism


First off the bat I will define hate. "Hate is an intense hostility, and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.

Source: The most common dictionary definition.

Love, and hate are both passions. You can use love as a substitute in any case where you would have needed hate as a necessary evil.

Hatred is not needed in order to fight against what is wrong in this world. I will give various examples of why love is a good alternative to hate.

Example 1: A fire fighter need not hate fire to put the hose on it. The fire fighter instead can fight out of love for his neighbor. If I were in a house that is on fire I would rather have a fireman that is full of love than hate. The fireman who is hateful would be focused on simply attacking the fire, and all consumed with destroying that fire, where as the fireman full of love would be more concerned with helping the people from burning to death, or dying from smoke inhalation.

Example 2: A police officer need not hate in order to fight crime. Imagine a world where police officers were loving, and handled things peacefully a lot more often than they do now. Sounds pretty good huh? Now imagine a hateful police state where they view you as vermin... not so much.

Example 3: You get cancer. Your doctor sitting their saying "oh I hate cancer so much" is not going to resolve anything. He might really hate that cancer, and give you a huge dose of radiation... or maybe he could take a more loving approach, and make you as comfortable as possible. The 2nd option seems favorable.

Example 4: War / national defense, "You must hate the enemy." This is untrue. I have several veteran friends. When it comes down to it they were not fighting because they hate the enemy. It was not "Lets kill all these rag heads" They were fighting for the brother in arms fighting beside them. It was out of love, not hate.

Finally I will go on to an extreme examples where love can trump hatred.

A pedophile who is attracted to children. Is it necessary to hate this person? How about we round up some good old boys, and go hunting for pedophiles to keep the kids safe. We will hang them from trees, and skin them alive! We will castrate them, and terrorize them! This sounds pretty good, but sadly it will not work.

This method in dealing with pedophiles is not effective. It will drive the pedophiles deep underground, and in to the shadows. It only tackles the tip of the gargantuan ice berg below. It will increase the risk to the innocent children.

How would a loving approach be different?

The majority of pedophiles have not acted upon these evil urges they have. If you take the approach of these people can not help the way they were born, and couple it with some counseling, therapy, and medication. It could turn them away from pedophilia. Fewer pedophiles would stay in the closet, and they would be more easily recognized. They would get the help they need before they hurt the children.
Debate Round No. 1


selfpreservation is moral.. war on religion

love is hate to the contrary.. like taking a kids ice cream

yes hate for fire is pointless.. no disagreement there, thats like hating a tiny stone for dropping on your head.. where as some one that loves throwing stones at peoples heads makes for a different scenario

i dont agree that a cop dont need to hate, try shooting at one.. obviusly his job requires him to do certain things but people understand and agree with that, hate is not necessary.. but police are not theists either, unless a police man loves his authority a bit to much

hating people because you feel they are vermin is not a necessary evil.. hate can be unnecessary, no disagreement there.. you may look at the topic to simplistic or i need to change it to hate for religion.. but im arguing for atheism

you dont kill the enemy out of love.. this is madness of religion

you dont have to hang some one, thats being lawless.. but busting pedophiles could come from love for kids, but esentially that is hate for pedophiles, yet you could simply restrain a pedophile and call the police


It seems as though you are trying to make two entirely separate, and unrelated arguments which should be two separate debates, but I'll take on both of your arguments in this debate.

Argument 1: Hate is a necessary evil.

Argument 2: Religion is only good to end religion.

I already made rock solid case for argument number 1 in round 1. Were you advocating for shooting at the police? Self defense is not hatred... You shoot at a cop, and you will be dead or in prison soon enough. Sometimes you do need to kill out of love. A native hunter loves his tribe so he takes his bow and arrow in to the field to hunt the buffalo. He does not hate the buffalo, but it has needed resources to feed, and clothe his people. So he must kill the buffalo out of love for them.

On to the religion portion of the debate. This is a wide topic. Different people have different belief systems. I believe that people should have the freedom to choose their own religion, or lack there of. Some religious practices are barbaric, and primitive. You simply can not lump them all in together though.

I am an agnostic personally. I will not claim faith, or disbelief in god. For all you know, you are simply a brain in a vat

Some religions need to be changed. I am against circumcision on a child without their consent. That is wrong. I'll give you that.

I'm also against people who use religion as a reason for violence or terrorism or conquest.

However recently my grandmother died. She was a practicing catholic. I went to church for the first time in this millennium out of respect, and I was there when she was lowered in to the ground. Sometimes religion acts as a way for coping with the bad parts of life. There is nothing wrong with a ceremonial burial.

Religious freedom is important. Abolishing all religion would be the same as forcing all to have the same religion.
Debate Round No. 2


hate is religion.. atheism


like brightness and shadow.. the more brightness the more darker the shadows

no need to hate a buffalo.. the buffalo is not a terrorist or racist

now you are just making claims.. not debate worthy

or am i not a brain in a vat?

religion is terrorism.. by opposing knowledge... laws exist to limit religion

people has to be burried or something.. no religion going on.. where else you gonna put em

if all religion is abolished there is no longer religion


How would you propose implementing this law forbidding religion?

It is entirely impractical, and would be impossible to do so peacefully. Religious people would fight to keep their religion. If it doesn't come down to fighting then people will ignore the law, and thus the law is impotent. Or it would only be used to target few individuals.

So in order to make your vision true we would need a lot of guns, and tanks, and planes. Maybe throw in some atomic weapons for those really pesky areas... It would come down to a full scale thermonuclear war. It would be global, and we would call it "World War Three".

Albert Einstein once said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

These few and far between primitive people that would be left... They would just form brand new religions, and start the cycle over again.

If it's not practical, then it's a mute point, and what you propose is not practical.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 weeks ago
listen up kid
Posted by kellyzzz05 2 weeks ago
Someone vote so it isn't a tie...
Posted by vi_spex 3 weeks ago
irrelevant as always
Posted by kellyzzz05 3 weeks ago
Could some people vote please? Thanks
Posted by whiteflame 3 weeks ago
>Reported vote: Swimwithcats// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: This is an easy choice. Con had far superior arguments and structure.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to explain every point allocation, and fails to do so for conduct, S&G, and sources. Merely restating the point allocation for arguments is not an explanation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 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 seems to be having a hard time sticking to the topic, which seems to be a common problem for him on debates like this. The topic is "hate is a necessary evil", which sets up his burden as showing that hate is necessary for some purpose in the world. He constantly tries to redefine what hatred is, providing a set of completely different terms to relate it to without any explanation as to why the two are equal, particularly with regards to religion and love. Con at least provides a reason to believe his view of what hate is by providing a dictionary definition, and then provides substantive examples of instances where hatred is unnecessary to combat the evils of the world. Pro decides to attack those examples, but never with any relation to the topic, and fails to support his own side to any degree beyond illogical assertion. Pro's failure to meet his BoP - supporting the resolution to any degree - and Con's negation on any level both suffice as reasons to vote Con.