Instigator / Pro
38
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Topic
#2393

Is religion harmful?

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
0
Better sources
12
10
Better legibility
6
5
Better conduct
2
4

After 6 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...

Theweakeredge
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
19
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

To avoid semantics: The resolution roughly translates to: "Do(es) religion(s) cause harm to people? Just as I can not simply provide one example of religion causing harm, neither can my opponent do the opposite. It may be that there are independent religions that cause harm or do not. What I'm more interested in, is, do religions cause more net harm than they do benefit people?

All of this is way too wordy, and not interesting enough, to fit into a topic. That's why the description is here, to further *describe* and elaborate on the debate. Another reason is that I want to attract certain people to this argument, and a more formally worded one would repel them so....

Onwards we go, as the one making the base assumption, I would have to adopt the BoP and provide the initial evidence. I don't necessarily need a specific structure, but please do separate your arguments enough for the audience to follow along.

Some key definitions from Merriam Webster [1]
Religion - " a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices"
Harm - "physical or mental damage : INJURY"
Cause - "something that brings about an effect or a result"

As set in my prior debate, all definitions are chosen via topicality, or how well they fit the subject being described.

I hope I can have an informative, challenging, and fun debate out of someone on this classic question.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/

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:

concession

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:

Concession, but per PRO's request, I'm going to leave some feedback for each debater.

PRO:

Setup:

To echo Ragnar, Intelligence had a better set of definitions than you did, particularly pertaining to the word "harm." While you did clarify you wanted an "on balance" debate as to whether religion did more net good or net harm, your definition did not reflect this. Intelligence was right to correct it, I think, as it would introduce an element of absurdity. However, oxymoronically, your definition of "harm" is also really limited in scope. What do I mean by this? Well, you have confined "harm" as only the thing that hurts the individual, and ergo, you have confined yourself in scope to your detriment. A lot of the strongest arguments for religion causing harm revolve around the society, not the individual. For example, you could argue that religion holds back scientific progress, and thus, the progress of humanity. That probably causes an immense amount of harm, but under your definition, it would not apply because the argument commentates on society, not the individual.

One other thing to note about the debate setup: I did not like that you spread your contentions across the debate. While probably not your intention, it comes off as a cheap tactic to keep your opponent from being able to get a solid grounding, as every time they refute something you throw an entirely new argument their direction. I will be honest, I would have assigned CON conduct for this alone. Plus, it makes judging hell. If you're going to do this, at least outline it in the description so they know what they're getting into. I would have liked it much better if you condensed your 3 contentions into R1.

Arguments:

I liked the LGBTQ argument, but I think it could've been even stronger. You made no mention of Islam, the "we hate gays and women 101" of the religious world, easily reflected by the policies in Islam-predominant countries:
https://www.statista.com/chart/17587/countries-where-homosexuality-can-result-in-the-death-penalty/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/slideshows/10-worst-countries-for-gender-equality-ranked-by-perception

The child abuse argument was weaker to me. For every child that felt "mentally harmed" by the threat of hell, CON can conjure up dozens more that are thrilled to be apart of something bigger than themselves. Obviously, CON didn't DO this, but you were pretty much setting up that rebuttal.

I did, however, like the religious wars & forced conversion arguments, as it uses CON's own "we can view the past" turn AGAINST them. Talking about the Spanish would've been appropriate.

CON:

Look above, and you'll see I agreed with your approach to challenge the definition of harms.

As for your call to view religion as it has been from its inception, I don't think the resolution entails such a view. PRO didn't challenge it, but they definitely could have... and I think they would have won that point. You would have done better to work within the present-tense framework of the debate.

Your attempt to downplay the actual amount of people being harmed is good, but you need to also give me a more tangible benefit to religion than "it makes me feel nice" for me to be swayed.

You've got plenty to choose from, for example:
https://www.nadadventist.org/news/research-shows-correlation-between-faith-and-recovery

(Note: you did introduce arguments like this later on, but it should have been presented way earlier, before PRO was able to make so much headway.)

Another thing you could have done is take the homosexual thing head on, and argue that there is more benefit to heterosexual relationships (childbirth, economic gain, perhaps increased happiness, etc) so discouraging homosexuality is a net positive. That may sound bigoted of me to suggest, but the arguments exist.

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:

Said I wasn't going to vote, but it was a concession.

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:

Ultimately a concession.

Regarding the definitions, the disagreement should have been offered prior to accepting the debate. That said, con's is a preferable standard,as pro's risks absurdity (a doctor removing your ruptured appendix, or a federal agent shooting a terrorist to prevent them from killing people, etc.).

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:

. .

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:

Concession.