institutions shouldn't have to change policies for the benefit of one group (islamic women-havard)
Vote Here
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 3/21/2008 | Category: | Society | ||
Updated: | 14 years ago | Status: | Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 2,456 times | Debate No: | 3319 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (8)
first i would like to start off saying all people have the right to religion in the way that they should have the right to deny religion. all people in america have a religious standing whether its to believe or not. All guppies in one bag, they don't need there own because of there religious beliefs.
By not changing their policies or making exceptions for religious minorities, they are effectively discriminating against these minorities. That being said, I'm not entirely sure what my opponent's first round argument is saying. |
![]() |
but by making acceptation the institutions in question are undyingly dicriminating against those not belonging to the minority of which we are writing
If they do not belong to this minority, then why are they trying to have the rules "bent" for them? If it is not for a religious purpose, then it is not discrimination. |
![]() |
liberalconservative forfeited this round.
I'd like to reiterate my point from round one: Not allowing religious exceptions to rules is the same as discrimination against that religion; it is the same as saying that the person cannot practice their religion. The only time this is not the case is when the practice in question can be physically harmful to others. Thank you. |
![]() |
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 8 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by dbershevits 13 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Vote Placed by liberalconservative 14 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by Mangani 14 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 14 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Vote Placed by sadolite 14 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by brittwaller 14 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Vote Placed by Daddy_Warbux 14 years ago
liberalconservative | Daddy_Warbux | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
I also said I don't see the point in a chi... just read my posts! I didn't agree!
Sadolite, from the context of what you say I know you are a very intelligent person, but it seems to me conservatives- and you- buy into propaganda that fits your own thoughts without really considering the source simply because the propaganda fits your theories, which you may have formulated by accepting propaganda of a similar nature in the first place.
The majority in America- wether it be whites, Christians, or conservatives- have accustomed themselves to appeal to the sense of victimization by the minority as a defense against being forced to accept the cultures and beliefs of others. Examples?
Conservative whites complain about Affirmative Action being reverse racism when in fact it has aided the careers of many minorities who would have otherwise not been given the same opportunity as the tons of whites throughout history who have monopolized opportunity. They appeal to the few cases where whites may have been disenfranchised, but in the process they negate the benefits AA has otherwise presented for the millions more cases of minority disenfranchisement.
Christians complain about anti-Chrisian laws that protect the religious freedoms of about 40% of the population, and in the process they negate the benefits it provides to people of religious faiths that have historically been disenfranchised by a country that was designed by and for Christians, while claiming religious equality.
Pro-lifers killing abortionists... need I say more?
"Patriots" supporting the invasion of another country- this is a major hipocrisy, don't you think?
I can go on and on, but I think you get my point. There is no "black and white" in this world, and the laws of the land reflect the complicated relationship between the hundreds of cultures joining as one in America. They are not perfect, but that does not mean they are "bad".
I have gone to school- and know students- in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Louisianna, Florida, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia- I have READ articles about what you are speaking of, but I have never experienced nor do I know any very religious people who have experienced it, though I have many religious family members (none of whom would take a bible to school without the ability to talk their way into being allowed to do so).
It is easy to attack the "liberal" society if you are taking exaggerated examples from the American media (they'd NEVER do that!) and apply it to everyday life in every school in the US, but reality is it's not as big a problem for your everyday religious person- this mostly affects extremists who would otherwise impose their religion on others (maybe that's why you would give a child a bible to go to school).
I have gone to school- and know students- in California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Louisianna, Florida, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia- I have READ articles about what you are speaking of, but I have never experienced nor do I know any very religious people who have experienced it, though I have many religious family members (none of whom would take a bible to school without the ability to talk their way into being allowed to do so).
It is easy to attack the "liberal" society if you are taking exaggerated examples from the American media (they'd NEVER do that!) and apply it to everyday life in every school in the US, but reality is it's not as big a problem for your everyday religious person- this mostly affects extremists who would otherwise impose their religion on others (maybe that's why you would give a child a bible to go to school).
The laws you are complaining about have prevented prayers, preaching, and other acts that are viewed as imposing by others- even if they are not religious or of the same religion (as with most Americans). Many of the laws you are referring to have been brought to the courts by rival Christian sects, ie. Jehova's Witnesses vs. non-denominational protestants vs. Pentecostal vs. Baptist vs. Mormon vs. Apostolic vs. Southern Baptist vs. Methodist vs. Presbyterian vs. Episcopal vs. Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox vs. Coptic Christian.... get my point?