Instigator / Con
4
1424
rating
10
debates
15.0%
won
Topic

Is religion harmful?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Society
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
7
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description
~ 239 / 5,000

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.

Round 1
Con
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.

Sources:

Pro
Thank you for creating this Dynasty

Is religion harmful? No,
This is not fulfilling your burden of proof. Please give an actual argument in a later round.
but you can say that some religions can be harmful (E.g, Islam).
I am guessing this is due to the violence in the Religion. Well Christianity does have the same violence. Whether it be the inquisition or right wing extremists who just so happen to be Christian 
But, however not all religion are bad (E.g Christianity, Jainism, etc).
By definition they are not harmful so you would have to demonstrate how they are not harmful.
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.
*reading your links*
"currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime"
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.
"we re-analyzed Lynn et al.'s data from 137 countries and found that QHC positively moderated and partially mediated the positive relation between IQ and disbelief in God"
Okay?
"Although the negative intelligence–religiosity link appears more robust across people than countries, multiple variables moderate or mediate its strength, and hence, limit its generalizability across time, space, samples, measures, and levels of analysis."
Non-sequitur. Please see his rule of logical fallacies. 
"Discussion of results assesses the fit between relevant theory and the pattern of change in effect size across categories of religion and adjustment, and concludes with implications for therapeutic uses of religious involvement."
That is the only thing about the topic at hand the PDF is behind a paywall. I wish you could've copied the relevant on a Google Docs or something. I don't quite understand what this is stating and since this can mean Religion does have an impact or not I will wait until you explain it to me and hopefully give me a way to access the link. Thanks in advance.
"Our meta-analysis results indicated an inverse relationship among all correlations (range: −.16 to −.22). Stated differently, the results of this meta-analysis confirmed that religious involvement is negatively related to delinquent behaviors, regardless of measurement characteristics."
I am guessing this negatively is used to state that Religion does have an impact on delinquent behavior? If it does then this is a point to me and a non-sequitur for you. Please clarify if you can in the next round. 

Over to you Dynasty

Round 2
Con
"This is not fulfilling your burden of proof. Please give an actual argument in a later round."
And, I have provide evidence for my claims.

"Well Christianity does have the same violence."
Wouldn't that go against Jesus's teaches tho? And, I do know that questions are not arguments.

"I am guessing this negatively is used to state that Religion does have an impact on delinquent behavior?"
It's depends on the type of religiosity you're talking about. (Intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity.)
Pro
And, I have provide evidence for my claims.
You didn't explain them and none of them have their evidence when I click on the link. Whether it be behind a paywall or something else. You didn't explain your points either you simply said no. 

Wouldn't that go against Jesus's teaches tho? And, I do know that questions are not arguments.
People act in an accordance to what they want. It just so happens when a Religious is so unclear and fictional they would interpret it in a way they see fit. An inquisition was one such way.
It's depends on the type of religiosity you're talking about. (Intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity.)
You are adding this to study. It did not mention this so you are simply using the study as an authority, not caring about the findings and change it to your whim.

All my rebuttals were not rebutted which is kind of annoying and I guess you don't have access to the paywall content so why not put in the effort to find free studies? 

Here they are again:

"currently no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime"
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.

and

"we re-analyzed Lynn et al.'s data from 137 countries and found that QHC positively moderated and partially mediated the positive relation between IQ and disbelief in God"
Okay?
"Although the negative intelligence–religiosity link appears more robust across people than countries, multiple variables moderate or mediate its strength, and hence, limit its generalizability across time, space, samples, measures, and levels of analysis."
Non-sequitur. Please see his rule of logical fallacies. 

and

"Our meta-analysis results indicated an inverse relationship among all correlations (range: −.16 to −.22). Stated differently, the results of this meta-analysis confirmed that religious involvement is negatively related to delinquent behaviors, regardless of measurement characteristics."
I am guessing this negatively is used to state that Religion does have an impact on delinquent behavior? If it does then this is a point to me and a non-sequitur for you. Please clarify if you can in the next round. 


Round 3
Con
"Non-sequitur. Please see his rule of logical fallacies."
The studies are just showing the correlation between religiosity and positive social outcomes.


Pro
I stated which you have yet to clarify is that 3 of them probably help my side than yours. You have yet to give a better argument so my argument in the earlier round is enough. I await a response like how I responded to your 1 sentence argument here. 

You didn't use the evidence in your explanation. You just dumped it right at the end almost as if you put very little thought in what you did. It goes to show given the conclusions of 3 out of the 4 sources you used. 

Over to you Dynasty
Round 4
Con
"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."

"You didn't use the evidence in your explanation."
I have. And, it called meta analysis studies.
Pro
"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."

The other two? I already rebutted this one if you cared to read my repsonses. I will copy it here:
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.
Second and last point:
"You didn't use the evidence in your explanation."
I have. And, it called meta analysis studies.
You simply stated no Religion is not harmful. That was your entire argument. The sources were not even tailored into your responses. You didn't even explain them either until now which I already clearly laid out the resolutions of all of them even though it was your sources. You stated there are studies but didn't say they were credible nor what was the resolution until now. Given you have only gave me one point to rebut which rebutted in Round 1 you pretty much gave me nothing to rebut. This section wasn't even part of the topic. This comes before as in how to make a coherent argument. 

Over to you Dynasty
Round 5
Con
"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?
Pro
"I will copy it here:"
But, marginal examples do not represent what's happening on the whole.
Wait what? My rebuttals to your sources that weren't specific to the topic at hand is a marginal example? Please voters take this into consideration because I simply rebutted his source and he says something that doesn't make sense.

"You simply stated no Religion is not harmful."
When did I say that?
Your first 3 words
Is religion harmful? No


To summarize:

I have rebutted the claims forward. I asked for clarification on sources as in one is a paywall and another wasn't clear which direction they were and you refused to mention it even though you have a ton of characters to work with. I rebutted the crime equals harm and you didn't give a sufficient response instead resorted to saying the same thing twice which prompted me to copying my earlier response regarding that very thing. 

I think I was more convincing and informative whereas my opponent was reluctant to help me view his data or clarify his comments and not actually read my response when typing a comment off a source for his round 4. 

Thank you for this debate Dynasty and over to the voting period.