Instigator / Pro
2
1395
rating
22
debates
20.45%
won
Topic
#1618

Atheism and Humanism are the Bloodiest Religion Ever

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

sylweb
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1534
rating
7
debates
78.57%
won
Description

How Humanism (atheism, Nazism, communism, naturalism, evolution) has destroyed millions of lives.

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:

0 Problems with the topic itself
Con does the logical thing in pointing out extra layers of the resolution, namely that for pro to win he must prove that non-religions are actually a singular religion.
I’ll fully forgive pro the plurality error.
The defense that all those groups are religions, remains dubious. Con repeats his bit here that they fail to have dogma to justify and reinforce their crimes; rather they must look outside themselves such as to “societal and economic issues.”

1. Rebuttal
Con immediately catches that pro’s claims outright refuse to draw a connection in support of the resolution (even under pro’s understanding), claiming sin did it, instead of priests of atheism or whatever.
Massive credit to con for translating different claims into testable syllogisms. One highlight which stands out under this is “68% of women who engage in abortion are religious.”

2. Christianity
Con shows a causal link between the deaths and a religion. That he accurately predicts the defense (‘Religious wars started by "Christians" are not consistent with Christianity.’ AKA they weren’t True Scotsmen!), and pre-refutes it with both logical support of the connection, and the fairness angle (pro wants a double standard).

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points. A lot of points spiraled out of control, leaving key needed replies absent or even single line in a much later round. This is why Gish Gallops are best avoided.
It needs to be said that pro returning in R4 did not offer any substantive defense of his case, which he had promised two rounds prior.

Sources:
Giving this to con. Mainly I could actually read his sources. Pro’s made his argument feel potentially copy/pasted from somewhere else. On con’s, a key thing became his sources on abortion which pro claims religious people do not get (and oddly counts it among the death toll), in spite of the direct evidence offered. The Guttmacher Institute one gave con a massive lead here, and I found OAH one extremely interesting for teaching me about the former abortion laws with particular note of the Quickening rule.

Conduct:
Each side missed two rounds. This leans slightly in pro’s favor for having waived one of them instead of outright forfeiting.