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

vote stuff

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 96526
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




religion shouldnt be able to vote for or against itself.. like a smoker shouldnt be able to vote for or against cigarettes.. or a child vote for or against there being playgrounds on every corner of every street.. like with churches


The problems with your argument, however, is that every citizen has some ties to one side or another. On smoking, there are two sides, for and against. If anyone involved in it cannot vote, then neither side could vote, leading to a stalemate of 0:0. On religion, if neither side can vote, then there is a stalemate due to everyone having a religion/being atheist, or agnostic, or simply not caring enough to vote. The only people who would be allowed to vote in this scenario are the ones who have no opinion whatsoever, and therefore have no side to vote for. This would lead to a world where no laws are made or changed, due to an eternal stalemate. However, I do see the upsides of a purely rational world, but there is no way to truly reach that impossible goal, due to each person have some beliefs core to their person, that are near impossible to change.
Debate Round No. 1


im saying the smoker cant vote for or against smoking.. and because smoking is unresonable.. obviusly im not saying anyone shouldnt vote on anything

opposing religion is resonable if its necessary.. like war


Your argument still does not make any logical sense, and falls apart quite easily without my help. However, saying that a smoker cannot vote on anything pertaining to smoking is akin to saying that people who support, say, building a wall on our border cannot for that, leading the vote to fail. Or saying that someone who supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, cannot vote for that. You are trying to make it so that the decisions are rational, without any personal beliefs involved, but that is what politics and religion are; matters of personal belief. Some people believe that Donald Trump is the best candidate, others support Hillary Clinton, however in order to enact the rules you are saying, no person could vote for either candidate because they have a tie to them as a supporter. You are saying that nobody should vote for anything, because that is your core argument. Either you are saying nobody should vote for anything, due to irrationality on their part due to personal beliefs, or that only people who oppose certain things should be able to vote, destroying America"s Constitutional Republic. Our system may have some few flaws, but there is no reason to try to destroy how America works.

Those who smoke should have the same value on their vote and their opinion that anyone else has, and those who are religious should have the same vote. On religion especially, because only about 3%(1) of America are atheists, and therefore would be able to vote on religion in your plan. However, since while atheism is not a religion, it has its own views on the world and therefore should be able to vote on religion.

An interesting note is how your idea was applied before; to slaves in America. They were kept as property, and mistreated because they had no representation whatsoever. However, after the Emancipation Proclamation only 8 years later there was the first African American senator.
Oh, and another thing, you talk about how smoking is unreasonable so those who smoke should not be allowed to vote on it? Cigarettes contain nicotine a highly addictive substance. Which is why they smoke, not because they want to, but because they cannot stop smoking. That is like saying anyone who drinks cannot vote on alcohol laws. And saying that religious people cannot vote on religion both would be impossible to enforce and also violate religious freedom.
Debate Round No. 2


Well, I can't really argue against one word. And anything I say would just be restating what I've already said. So um...
Do I win?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Pigney// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: vi_spex did not capitalize on round 3. Con had the edge on them all.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct, arguments or sources. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. This may only be awarded in instances where one side's argument is difficult to understand.
No votes have been placed for this debate.