hate is a necessary evil
Debate Rounds (3)
Source: The most common dictionary definition. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
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.
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
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 https://en.wikipedia.org...
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.
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
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 4 months 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 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.
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.