Religion has a more positive effect on society and your daily life
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules:
1. No forfeit
2. No insult
3. No religious argument
- the crusade is never really about Christianity even if they say so, it is mainly just about seeking wealth and fame.
- Then we have the Peasants'war during the reformation. Even though the peasants say they revolt because they were inspired by the teaching of Luther, the truth is that the peasants were just mad about the high taxes an the abuses from nobility!
- In the thirty years war, the French fought the Spanish even though they are both Catholic.
- The English reformation is caused by Henry VIII of England's own desire to remarry, not for religious purposes.
- The atrocity of the Aztec and Inca empire are done by the self funded, wealth and fame seeking Spanish inquisitor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Non-religious_Crimes
- Other of these so called "religious crimes" are either done by the angered society blaming their failure in life or the nation at others like many of the Jew expulsion.
- This has also been used as an excuse for white supremacist to attack Muslim people, as they in their believe: "threaten the Christian religion".
- Martin Luther's condemnation of the Catholic church is mainly on its corruption and the indulgences made by the Pope.
- Henry the VIII of England's persecution of the Catholic are done to reinforce religious unity in his country for stability.
- Louis XIV or the sun King's persecution of the Huguenots (French Calvinist) are again to instate religious unity for the sake of stability in his country.
- The war of the three Henrys, is more of a conflict between the notabilities and the crown. It is resolved for political reasons, by having the Protestant King switching his religion to obtain stability of the country and ensure the Huguenot's politically and social position and religious freedom.
"Rules: ... 3. No religious argument" haha (I get what pro meant, but it still reads funny on a debate about religion)
1. Unit People
Well laid out assertions about empires, and I would have liked some verification on what religions they had.
2. Mental Health
So because we talk online, we should specifically believe in God and go to church on Sundays for needed human interaction... This majorly begs some questions.
3. Wars
Wars in the name of God were really "political, social, or economical." A great example here was "In the thirty years war, the French fought the Spanish even though they are both Catholic." Con counters with something of a rant, which the poor punctuation ossufcates the message, but there's bits like how apparently Catholics currently commit wars so that they can rape their own children and plunder the creation of the mafia? ("catholic people the rape of its own children the wars the plunder the creation of the mafia"). And apparently "Protestants arent really much better as they are responsible for the crime of the evil British empire which is respsible for more genocide and famine than any other entity" if the British empire created worst famines than communism, this needs to be shown, and the religion angle needs to be connected. Pro of course already said his angle that any of this stuff isn't about religion (hard to prove or disprove, but he front loaded his case rather than doing special pleading after the fact).
I admit to being genuinely curious about the wars and genocides carried out in the name of Buddha (they were said to have happened, but none were listed).
Arguments:
I was going to leave these tied, but con in the final round trying to pull the thirty year war, which was already shown to be Catholic Against Catholic violence, undermined his case that religion is the cause of these wars rather than just an excuse during them too much (this is in addition to him dropping the positive claims of religion).
S&G:
I couldn't understand con. Gibberish about children rape mafia war etc., and other examples above, already show that this case was illegible. Pro on the other hand was well organized, clean, with no glaring mistakes to distract me from the debate.
Conduct:
"Rules: ... 2. No insult"
Not a hard rule to follow. Cite examples (even broad ones of the priesthood) rather than accusing all Catholics of child rape and personally forming the mafia.
Pro on the other hand stayed respectful.
Thank you! Sorry for my late response.
I really appreciate the help and the suggestion you have given me and how the people in this cite are treating these types of debates very professionally. The monitors are pretty awesome too! Much better than people from debate.org!
Welcome to the site, and nice job on the formatting! ... You don't really need it, but it might teach you a couple tricks: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
My biggest argument feedback would be use a couple more sources. Second would be rather than in later rounds listing the numbered responses to the new stuff, list the same numbers and count forward into any new arguments. Your old ones can just be "My opponent dropped this, extend."
That's ok.
look at how long the list is of sceintists that were atheists it is shocking, many sceintiest beleive in a god, fine not doubting that what is so surprsing is how ignored the facts is that amongthe gernal population athesits amount to at most 5 to 10% of the population the higher up the iq chain you go the proportion increases, the fact is a majority of sceintists are athesit or agnostic https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ "The recent survey of scientists tracks fairly closely with earlier polls that gauged scientists’ views on religion. The first of these was conducted in 1914 by Swiss-American psychologist James Leuba, who surveyed about 1,000 scientists in the United States to ask them about their views on God. Leuba found the scientific community equally divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.
More than 80 years later, Edward Larson, a historian of science then teaching at the University of Georgia, recreated Leuba’s survey, asking the same number of scientists the exact same questions. To the surprise of many, Larson’s 1996 poll came up with similar results, finding that 40% of scientists believed in a personal God, while 45% said they did not. Other surveys of scientists have yielded roughly similar results."
So anything else you need from me? (Also I don't have money to pay to see that study, sad)
That is actually an very misinforming statement. Many of the greatest and most famous scientist are religious and their belief have not abate their progression and understanding of science! Just search online about people like Newton, Einstein, and even Darwin! They are all religious person!
ask yourself why are so many smart people atheists, sure religion make stupid people happy, so does crack cocaine
There are some studies. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022427801038001001
Thank you for the question! Do you want me to prove religion’s effect on countries or its effects on individuals?
(Also there probably aren’t any studies based on studying the effect of religion on countries so I probably can only provide you with a map of where religion is and what religion is dominant, in comparison with a map of the territories the empire once control)
Cite meta analysis studies.