Is religion harmful?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Is religion harmful?
Rules of the debate are: 1. Don't use logical fallacies. 2. No swearing or name calling. 3. Give evidence, and not feelings. 4. Stay on topic. 5. Give counter arguments. 6. Don't be stupid. 7. Don't be fool. Good luck.
Is religion harmful? No,
but you can say that some religions can be harmful (E.g, Islam).
But, however not all religion are bad (E.g Christianity, Jainism, etc).
And in fact, studies have shown that religiosity is tend to positive social outcomes. And, the only way you could argue that religion is harmful, is by citing marginal examples.
And, I have provide evidence for my claims.
Wouldn't that go against Jesus's teaches tho? And, I do know that questions are not arguments.
It's depends on the type of religiosity you're talking about. (Intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity.)
"I stated which you have yet to clarify is that 3 of them probably help my side than yours."Quote: "The results of the meta-analysis show that religious beliefs and behaviors exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals' criminal behavior."
Harm can be caused without it being a crime. This can be simply using your free speech to declare white superiority. A Christian example would be that whoever isn't following Christianity is going to hell. If I heard that when I was more gullible I would be harmed by that. There are enough people who would be harmed by saying you are going to a place forever only to burn which is why harm can be attributed to things that aren't a crime.
"You didn't use the evidence in your explanation."I have. And, it called meta analysis studies.
"I will copy it here:"But, marginal examples do not represent what's happening on the whole.
"You simply stated no Religion is not harmful."When did I say that?
Is religion harmful? No
Gist:
Pro just dropped way too much...
Arguments:
BoP is on pro, he asserts they’re not harmful, but goes on to list that they sometimes are harmful. Con counters with thousands of people tortured and killed even by the stated non-harmful ones. Pro questions if that might be against the religions in question, which doesn’t mean they don’t commit it, merely it’s hypocritical thus harmful to their organizations, in addition to being harmful to external people they harmed.
Sources:
Not assigning points for this (not enough of a lead)...
Pro you should look at how con used sources, they were an integrated part of his case and discussed, not merely thrown on at the end as if an afterthought.
S&G:
Formatting could use some work. For starters, please don’t block quote above what you’re responding to: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Conduct:
No issues.
Yes, they are inverted in my vote. The correct winner is still indicated in the actual allotment.
The addendum is full BoP would not be on the instigator. However the contender immediately gave evidence of harm done, at which point disproving the causal connection to that was the duty of the instigator.
Have you got Con and Pro mixed up?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: NealDoesDebate // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: He had a better points.
>Reason for Mod Action: This account is ineligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts. Moreover, none of his points are sufficiently explained per the COC's standards.
Please see the rules: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************
Neal,
Welcome to the site. Your vote falls below the standards specified in the Code of Conduct (https://www.debateart.com/rules), additionally you're supposed to part in a couple debates before voting (it's kind of to ensure everyone has seen how fair voting is to be done, before they attempt it).
While I actually agree with you, I've reported your vote to the moderators for deletion. This isn't anything against you as a person, merely an attempt to uphold values of fairness debaters expect when their hard work is graded. For one such example, see my own vote on this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1383/vote_links/3470 (notice that by default everything is a tie, but con actively came ahead on arguments so pulled that away from being a tie)
So your gonna run away>???
Can't even comprehend what I just instead resort to some random comment that he stole from someone.
Your cheap and incompetent.
I won't be responding given the last two things I have called you out for.
An entire year of what, and tell feelings dont care about facts to your fellow leftists hyere
(Imabench)
I showed an entire year. You showed one event. You definitely cherry picked.
Your feelings don't care about the facts.
Next time give an argument instead of saying no I don't feel that way.
No, you are cheryypicking all you do is blame consveratives for everything when oiberal policies have killed milliomns
Anecdote compared to an entire year?
I have called you out for the cheap tactic again either your mind is actually numb or you suffer from amnesia.
It is cherrypicking compared to what I gave.
I will try better next time. Just let how I need try better on my arguments for the theistic evolutionist worldview next time.
"right wing extremists who just so happen to be Christian "
Atheist who shot up a black church, huh
Yep.
Do what you want too, it's you're debate
Ok, then.
Yes, I get it something doesn't makes sense, but it shouldn't be a rule
Have you read anything on logical fallacies?
thats not a logical fallacy, it's stearing off topic,etc
Strawman, False cause, Non sequitur, etc.
Like what?
I don't want people to commit logical fallacies in a debate.
why is logical fallacies a rule?