Instigator / Pro
14
1465
rating
34
debates
57.35%
won
Topic
#5511

Religion should stay out of U.S politics.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Owen_T
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
9
1389
rating
413
debates
44.55%
won
Description

No information

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 briefly argues that governments making decisions based on logic is better than based on religion because it oppresses people from different religions (which is the smallest problem with theocracy but sure thats a reason too). Pro could have presented more comprehensive case but Con’s responses are nonsensical which lost him the debate in my opinion.

Con, just like Pro states, argues that “if someone is acting out of personal belief, they are acting out of religion. This, of course, is absurd”. Pro is obviously right. Not everything you believe in is a religion. Believing the tomatoes you have in the fridge won’t grow legs and escape in middle of the night is not a religion.
Con tries to redefine “religion” very poorly and makes absurd assertions that are simply false and unjustified. Even if we go by Cons absurd definition of religion Con still didn’t address why it’s better for the government to act based on “beliefs systems” and not based on logic.

Also Con forfeited a round, did not engage too much with Pros objections, and simply stated his position again by repeating what he said in the last round:

“Religion is a belief system.

Point blank.

Case closed”

“Point blank” is not an argument.

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 debate settled down into the definition of religion. Pro argued it had to be theological; Con argued it was a more inclusive commitment (religious about sports, school work, etc).

There are 2 definitions that I found in the following link:

https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=673&q=religion+definition&cvid=ea8c1e5328974f01bf08b5149ddca4ca&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEAAYQDIGCAAQABhAMgYIARAAGEAyBggCEAAYQDIGCAMQABhAMgYIBBAAGEAyBggFEAAYQDIGCAYQABhAMgYIBxAAGEAyBggIEAAYQDIICAkQ6QcY_FXSAQgxODMzajBqMagCALACAA&FORM=ANNAB1&PC=DCTS

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods" (Pro's definition)

"a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" (Con's definition)

I will rate this debate as a tie on the arguments because what both debators should learn is definitions are important. Saying, "America is a Christain Nation" can be interpreted as, "The majority of the US identifies as Christain" or, "America is a Christain theocracy". The former is correct; the ladder is incorrect. Define what you mean before you debate it.

Everything else was roughly the same except for conduct (where Con forfeited a round). If they apologize for a forfeited round by the next round, then I don't take off points. But he didn't, so I did.