Instigator / Pro

bruhguy

1494

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#3645

religion should be accepted as a reason not to agree with wokeness

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06

Tags

Religion

Parameters

Publication date: 08.15.2022 09:11AM
Last updated date: 08.22.2022 11:51AM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 2
Time for argument: Two hours
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One week
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Intelligence_06

1737

rating

172

debates

73.26%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

bruhguy

08.15.2022 09:44AM

Pro

The bible says that being gay is not allowed (1 Corinthians 6:9–10) and it should be that if i state that I am Christian, i should be completely in my rights to say that i disagree with the sort. Now, homosexuality i'd say is a sin, according to my beliefs, but that does not mean i have to comply with the pronouns that other people have given to themselves that i think are not true. There is a big difference in "I hate you" and "i disagree with you". personally, i believe that being gay is a sin. But it would not change how i would view a person as 'good' or 'bad'.

Intelligence_06

08.15.2022 10:17AM

Con

Pro has failed to define Wokeness. I, as Con, will instead define it.

Wokeness: a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality

Cambridge Dictionary

There has been no disputes nor limitations over what religions ought to be considered, so what Pro is trying to say is that:

All religions should be accepted as a reason to disagree with awareness of social issues.

Christianity

Pro just used 1 example from 1 religion(Christianity) to support his view.

I will give counterexamples for this religions, using more than 1 quote.

Wealth Equity

Proverbs 22:2 The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the maker of them all.

General equality

Romans 2:11 For God shows no partiality.

Against racism, general equality

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Against racism

1 Corinthians 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
Leviticus 19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (Ephesians 2:14).

I don't know the average stance of the Bible, but if Pro can use 1 quote to illustrate the non-wokeness, I can, with several paying attention to social problems such as racism and other inequalities here.

Re: Christianity

The bible says that being gay is not allowed (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)

No, it states that lust, even if done by two men, are sinful. The bible quotes never discriminate against just sexual orientations, in fact, sexual orientation wasn't even a clear idea in the time the scripture was written, layered on top with ambiguous translations. In all seriousness, not being gay was the majority and the social norm, and there was no idea of gay marriage, so at the moment just being gay could be interpreted as the same thing as lust if any action was done.

In conclusion: Pro needs more evidence than that.

Other Religions

Buddhism promotes equality and social justice.

Jainism promotes equality and did focus on social issues.

Islam is already trying to solve many social issues such as suicides, discrimination against islam(yes, that is a thing), poverty, etc.

I could give more evidence but right now this is enough.

Conclusions

Christian scripture have quotes that promote wokeness, and Pro's example of anti-wokeness is not enough.
Other religion have their attention on equality and social issues, which are not ruled out.
As a result, religion as a macro-concept should not on its own be a reason against wokeness because some of them actually promote wokeness instead of being against.

Round 2

bruhguy

08.15.2022 10:52AM

Pro

k number 1, sorry to not elaborate but as a Christian (and not any other religion) so i will be responding to the points about the Bible etc and not the other religions

2. as for the proverbs quote, there is a reason why the old testament is called the old testament, adn the new testament new. The old testament was written by God through people, for the Israelites at the time. So it is not relevant.

As u said with the galatians quote, it is general. probably during the time it was more directed to the gentiles since they were discriminated by the Jews and vice versa. And women were also forced to stay at home and not get any education and was most likely not allowed to be a person who is of importance to early christianity and Paul the Apostle (who wrote this epistle) most likely targeted it at that. (i wasnt there, wouldnt know)

as for the part with verses against racism, i do not disagree, it is correct.

As for the response to 1 Corinthinas 6:9, 9-10 "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men" The words men 'who have sex with other men' translate two greek words refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

And saying that it could be intrepreted as the same thing as lust if any action was done is not true since it is evil in the eyes of the Lord. according to Romans 1:26-27 " Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "God gave them over to shameful lust imply that being homosexual was deemed by God as lust and therefore against. Thoughts?

Intelligence_06

08.15.2022 11:51AM

Con

Rebuttals

k number 1, sorry to not elaborate but as a Christian (and not any other religion) so i will be responding to the points about the Bible etc and not the other religions

No criticism on my interpretation or definition. Dropping a point that could stand on its own would be concession. Also, concession in the comments, not that it matters.

As u said with the galatians quote, it is general. probably during the time it was more directed to the gentiles since they were discriminated by the Jews and vice versa.

So…the Bible actually cares about social inequality and speaks against it. That sounds pretty woke to me. The next set of statements has Pro doubting his own legitimacy, so it should not be considered as a point.

as for the part with verses against racism, i do not know disagree, it is correct.

So the Bible cares about other social inequality such as racism. That is concession.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men"

Pretty sure this is about lust regardless if this is gay or not, and not about sexual orientation. All quotes Pro has brought up about homosexuality(which I remind you, is the only point with evidence) mentions sex and lust, and there is no evidence that God punishes platonic relationship between two men.

Also, this is not a social issue back when these two quotes were being scribed. There were no gay rights activists back then recorded, nor was it a pressing issue concerned by many, at least no evidence suggest so. The status quo and social norm was to be straight, and evidence in R1 suggest that at that time, people aren’t even sufficiently familiar with the concept of sexual orientations. I don’t think it would be strong to justify recessive reactionary beliefs to set back 2000 years because of the Bible, because the Bible is about the standards suitable at the time.

TLDR: not a social issue, doesn’t matter, not strong evidence.

Conclusions

Pro dropped points vital enough that it is essentially a concession. Pro also brought up quotes against homosexual lust irrelevant to actual social issues, so the point has little weight. Vote Con if you find my argument convincing.

bruhguy

08.15.2022 11:07AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

I just made a massive L for myself

FLRW

08.16.2022 03:35PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The definition of wokeness by the Cambridge English dictionary is that it is a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality. Pro has failed to define Wokeness.
Pro just used 1 example from 1 religion(Christianity) to support his view. Con gave numerous counterexamples for this religion's view that supported wokeness.
Therefore, Con wins.

christianm

08.15.2022 01:15PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

Pro drops the point on racism, Con's conclusion ties the whole thing together pretty well. Pro may win the point on homosexuality since most of Con's argument comes in the last round, but Pro doesn't argue that being woke must include all social issues. Therefore, Con wins.

Con also provides significantly more sources.