Instigator / Pro

Best.Korea

1250

rating

393

debates

39.57%

won

Topic

#5474

Taoism is the best religion! Yes, it is!

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 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall

Parameters

Publication date: 05.19.2024 01:40PM
Last updated date: 07.12.2024 04:43PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 5
Time for argument: One week
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: One month
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Mall

1389

rating

408

debates

44.24%

won

Description

No information

Round 1

Best.Korea

05.19.2024 05:23PM

Pro

If world is filled with criminals, you dont oppose them and you are more likely to survive and even benefit society with personal example. Thus, the principle of no contending stands valid in any situation. If person can adapt to anything, and flow around everything, he will have a better life.

Mall

05.20.2024 08:47PM

Con

"If world is filled with criminals, you dont oppose them and you are more likely to survive and even benefit society with personal example."

Not only have you not backed this up with anything,but would you argue that I won't come across a criminal that will murder me regardless of me not opposing?

"Thus, the principle of no contending stands valid in any situation. If person can adapt to anything, and flow around everything, he will have a better life."

I don't believe this is a sincere stance of yours. You have yet to prove all criminals will comply with this principle of yours just because of my compliance with it. They're called criminals for a reason. They don't play by rules in one set, don't expect inconsistency of that elsewhere.

Super paper thin stance.

Round 2

Best.Korea

05.20.2024 08:58PM

Pro

Even criminals will very likely treat you better if you dont oppose to them and arent a threat to them. Tao teaches the principle of no force. Thus, a true teacher doesnt need force as he teaches by mere words and personal example to convince others. He doesnt force others to do this or that. Because he doesnt oppose to anyone, people are less likely to oppose to him.

Tao teaches the 3 principles:

1. Simplicity

2. Kindness

3. Humbleness

By living a simple life, one can be generous and help others with work or money, as when person is simple, he doesnt spend much and has more for others.

With kindness, one can have the courage to teach and thus improve the world, as others will be more accepting of a kind person.

By being humble, one can guide others because he will have little to no opposition in doing so.

Mall

05.26.2024 09:05PM

Con

Would you argue that I won't come across a criminal that will murder me regardless of me not opposing?

Secondly, if the best option for survival is opposing in any given instance , how is this the best religion you're proposing?

That's two questions now. You're falling behind not answering the first one.

You have not proven how we can know what is the likelihood of what any criminal would do .

Particularly those that are murderous or on a serial level.

If you can't prove this, if you can't prove that case by case scenario assessments aren't necessary for what is best, this proposed religion of yours is clearly not .

Round 3

Best.Korea

05.26.2024 11:04PM

Pro

Opposing is almost never a good survival tactic. In a rare case where it is, you likely wouldnt know when it is and when it isnt.

Tao teaches you to adapt to your environment, and the principle of non-contending adapts the best to environment, because when you dont contend, not only are people much less likely to oppose to you and much less likely to harm you, but you learn new ways to avoid danger, such as retreating from danger or learning to avoid it.

It is like the example of an infant. Infant does not contend and he does not oppose, yet he is protected and survives.

So logically, if infants who are weak and without any knowledge can survive when not contending and not opposing anyone, then their survival strategy works for those who are weak and without knowledge. Since most people are without knowledge, then the same strategy works for them too.

Naturally, there are cases where opposing is the only option which guarantees survival, but most people cannot recognize the case from case. Thus, most people will oppose when they dont need to and bring harm to themselves.

But Tao is not based on survival alone, but for the benefit of the world. Tao, which teaches people not to use force, sets an example for the world. So even if a person dies because that person refused to resort to force, isnt that still better than relying on force? This is not any uncommon religious teaching. Jesus died and refused to use force to save himself. So you could say that the largest world religion copied teachings from Tao.

Further, Tao teaches person to work for the benefit of all, so person will be valued by all. This further improves person's position and probability of survival, because if you help both good and bad people equally, even bad people will have less reason to harm you.

Thus, there is no response to a situation where you are surrounded by bad people, other than to not contend, and if such response works the best when there are only bad people around you, then it will work even better in regular life where there is less bad people around you.

Further, Tao teaches to let go of one's desires in order to act effortlessly. Tao does not tell you to work hard. Tao teaches people to avoid exhaustion and act in a way which requires less effort and less force. It teaches the path of least resistance.

Mall

06.01.2024 12:29PM

Con

You still have not proved anything. Just more speculations of probabilities, likelihoods, possibilities but no real certainties.

This is why you can't prove that if I were not to oppose a serial killer, I would not become a next victim.

Which speaks to my point about assessing the situation. This is one example of a case where you know the history of a notorious murderer, that you have to be prepared to defend yourself, not to comply.

In regards to infants, noticed you picked a situation that has nothing to do with criminals.

One thing, typically guardians and parents are not a threat but a care system.

The second thing, an infant or a newborn actually is too young, too underdeveloped to be familiar with the rules of engagement and compliance.

They just alert or signal when in need of something and it is the guardian, parent, caretaker that has the task of fulfilling the need to achieve cooperation so it is the other way around .

The best you can argue is that in given situations, it is best to comply with a criminal. This doesn't mean most or on average.

I can talk to a group of people. Every last one of their experiences with an aggressor required to oppose them. The religion you're suggesting is not the best. Certainly wouldn't be for them .

What you're calling the best should be just about across the board.

I think there is a show called "I survived" or "How I survived" , something like that. Each of the stories described how they fought to survive or made it.

So best practice is case assessment. Not a one size fits all compliance move .

Round 4

Best.Korea

06.01.2024 11:54PM

Pro

When you try to solve issues without contending, you gain an increase in knowledge on how to live without contending.

However, when you are contending, you do not receive same knowledge.

When you use force, you are more likely to get yourself in trouble, since using force against someone easily results in him using force against you.

But if you never use force, no one will see you as a threat.

And if you benefit everyone, like Tao teaches, people are much more likely to protect you.

So obviously, Tao achieves best result in most cases.

People who contend will end up in bad places and around people who hate them, and people who contend will even attract hate and people will oppose to them more since they oppose to people.

People who dont contend learn to avoid trouble, avoid places of trouble, so their survival rate increases.

Mall

06.06.2024 05:04PM

Con

The opposing side is continuing to make claims providing no real proof.

Given no rebuttals to what I last said.

Has not dealt with the question:

Would you argue that I won't come across a criminal that will murder me regardless of me not opposing?

At this point, the opposing side does concede but is masking it with a lot of unfounded rhetoric.

I rest my case .

Round 5

Best.Korea

06.06.2024 05:19PM

Pro

Your question was already answered: You wont know when to contend, so you will get yourself in trouble when you do contend.

However, if you help everyone like Tao teaches you, then you are much less likely to become a target in the first place.

Mall

06.12.2024 04:43PM

Con

#10

Case closed.

Owen_T

06.14.2024 06:39PM

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:

Looking at round one, Korea's argument doesn't make sense to me, and Mall comes back with a good rebuttal. Going into round two, Mall is definitely ahead.

Korea's argument in round two is far more coherent than in round one, but in substance is still the same argument. Mall again rebuts it well. Criminals don't follow the rules. That's why they're criminals. Treating them with respect isn't going to get rid of crime.

Throughout the rest of the debate, Korea's largest issue is the lack of counter argument. They only point out good things about Taoism, but not strongly addressing the bad, and more importantly, the fault with other religions, and why Taoism is better than them. For these reasons, Mall wins the argument points.

Mall and Korea both did a good job writing legible arguments, so that's a tie.

Korea wins the conduct points because of round five, where Mall said only "I rest my case." While it was true that he had already refuted the arguments Korea made, he could have provided further elaboration upon them, or created another counter argument. Mall basically forfeited the last round, other than that, they did great.