You are born as an atheist *not* .
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
You cannot be born an atheist. Atheism takes knowledge that is to know what you're rejecting or disbelieving . Many make the mistake starting with the faulty understanding or premise that a newborn starts off as an atheist so therefore it's the default or neutral position. Atheism is a lack of a belief and babies appropriately enough don't have beliefs to begin with coming into the world.
The fault in that line of reasoning goes back to the definition of atheism. It's not only a lack of a belief but no belief in God. In order for me to not believe in something, I have to know what it is or what it amounts to.
If you were to ask me, do I believe in support of the such and such amendment, I can't be honest with a yay or nay. I don't know what it is or if even I'm directly , indirectly doing something , saying something in practice of it.
A lack of belief or knowledge does not automatically mean I'm negative or in rejection.
I can be a committed vegetarian caught with a conflicting diet. You may say "You're no vegetarian. That cuisine was fixed with the oil of animal product."
I'm doing something unknowingly. That is rejection unbeknownst to me. But I wouldn't tell you I reject whatever it is. I wouldn't know whatever it is I'm supposedly or apparently rejecting inadvertently.
I don't believe this is controversial. But in case somebody thinks there's an argument against it, come forth with it here and now.
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
I vote Con simply because it's all in this definition debate of "does atheism constitute lack of belief or blatant disbelief?" In the end, I sided with Con because Con had a source for his definition and the two answers Pro had didn't win it for me. The first was that we need blatant differences in language, but Con brought up gnostic vs agnostic atheism, which is two different kinds that creates a linguistic difference. The second was that the description needs to be how we base the conversation but this ends up feeling unfair because your description was just your first speech plus a little. If we really held that as what the debate had to be, then you can't be challenged. I think that Pro just doesn't inherently know how to write descriptions.
Tips to get better
Pro - When you challenge his definition, give a laundry list of reasons why your definition is better for the debate in terms of fairness and education. At this point, it's a challenge of the definition, which is a pretty fifty-fifty debate and just depends on your technical skill as a debater.
Con - You post all of your definitions early in the debate, but you don't really tell me why they apply, so they just kind of hang there until your application of logic in the second speech. If you see that your opponent's points don't really answer your definition, use those definitions as important points early in the round to gain a good boost to the conversation.
con notes that agnostic = atheist, and pro didn't refute that. Also, no sources.
Pro's entire argument revolves around "You cannot be born as a gnostic atheist", even if after RM refuted it already. And yes, a shoelace is a vegetarian simply because it consumes no meat. Not being able to consume vegetables does not make shoelaces non-vegans, just like removing religion is everything needed to make one an atheist, gnostic or not.
RM put up syllogisms proving that babies are born agnostic, which is still an atheist category. Pro never refuted the syllogisms ever. Args to Con.
Sources, Con is the only one using any sources at all.
S&G, tie. Nothing wrong either side anyways.
Conduct: Pro. Con forfeited.
No contest and foregone conclusion...
Ok, so R1 pro almost immediately concedes "Atheism is a lack of a belief," to which con agrees, so pro disagrees citing (nice improvement by the way) that it's also "synonymous with disbelief" which doesn't actually change the primary definitions or there being multiple types of atheists (gnostic and agnostic as con specifically points out).
Con gets sources for the educational value of trying to teach syllogisms (with a citation, and a full walkthrough of how to apply it). Otherwise there's just dictionary links vs no sources from the other side.
Conduct for forfeiture.
I see you changed your profile picture, very good!
Sure, whatever you say.
That's because they ask tough questions and try to have a conversation, and the liberals retreat into their feelings when they don't have anything to back up their claims
Did so, what I see is deep sadistic relishing in triggering liberals into frustration and sadness from right wing YouTubers and newspeople. I barely see the same from the Left
Literally look up any youtube video. Or look at the protesters and rioters. Conservatives like to have dialogue and free speech, liberals shut it down.
Right wingers yell profanities and severely hurtful insults to others far more readily than leftists, outside of rap. No idea where you're inventing these things but I'd like to see the data.
No idea where you got the idea that it's exclusively on the left. Trump's entire campaign and debate strategy is what you said the left do.
I don't admire a lot of leftist points of views either. However, when I talk about tolerance sarcastically, I'm referencing a very large group of people on the left who refuse to have conversations with conservatives and talk about their views, and instead we just see insults and name-calling and hate. In fact, this is almost exclusively on the left. You will hardly ever see conservatives unwilling to have a conversation about their views, nonetheless yell meaningless profanities and insults.
I can see what your saying about people paying attention when you use that profile picture, but I think it can only go so far, and only works somewhat on the internet. People will be a lot less open-minded to your views if the first thing they see is "f*ck you for voting Trump." This especially would be a turn off in real life. It could be more useful to get their attention and discuss issues with you, but it would most likely manifest into trying to win a debate rather than a friendly discussion.
It's very subjective what one considers to be offensive or how they take something. That's why I don't think freedom of speech should have any limitations even if it is deemed offensive or hurtful. I can 100% disagree if a person is supporting white supremacy and calling black people or minority groups as a waste of human life, but I 100% support their free speech rights to that opinion.
Of course I'd be willing to discuss your views. My problem is the propensity of the further right's usage of that "Freedom of Speech". Particularly when they use it to abuse the disadvantaged, discriminated, and harmed individuals.
Besides, what you call 'tolerance' is just a word game. I genuinely tolerate Trump supporters and all their hypocrisy and stupidity, what I don't do is admire it or consider it morally valid.
I think they need to have their minds opened up and that they only respond to insults (after all, Trump literally debates by 100% insults 0% logic). So saying 'fuck you for voting Trump' actually is a good thing to do to them, it makes them even pay you some attention and listen to what you have to say.
Fair enough
I will reason with a Trump supporter but I don't want to waste too much time and energy on the impossible if you catch my drift.
If they're genuinely openminded and I got some time to spare, I'll talk with them about politics.
I'm simply saying that there is nothing you are achieving by that. Conservatives laugh at leftists when they just can't stand a different opinion. I said nothing about the 1st amendment, I'm a conservative, of course I love the constitution. If anyone, it's the leftists silencing free speech with people they disagree with.
"will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction."
So if you believe that's what people think, then you have no problem with having a conversation with them to actually understand what they believe? Perfect! I love productive discussions and free speech.
My money is on RM in this one.
I agree..... I dont like that you're right in this case, but you are
He will use a different definition of tolerance that means we should tolerate corruption and injustice.
Yes, I see no issue with me exercising my right to tolerated free speech in saying 'fuck you' to thoss who voted Trump. Are you against the First Amendment?
Or... you know,
Tolerate: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
RationalMadman means that progressives and social democrats will not allow harmful rhetoric towards the discriminated minorities without contradiction.
ah, so in other words: "We don't tolerate people who disagree with us politically. Screaming "f*ck half the country who voted" is a very necessary way to achieve progress as a country👍"
When Social Democrats and Progressives say that they support tolerance in society, they mean that they want everyone in the society to accept one another and give each other a fair, humane chance to be healthy and prosper. It would make no sense to wholeheartedly 'tolerate' the political factions that act against this outcome. I do tolerate their existence, but I don't need to tolerate their genuine regime.
Tolerating systemic intolerance and segregation is more of an idiotic paradoxical position than the reverse. This becomes very clear wgen you actually understand what tolerance is.
Con has a very tolerant profile picture 😂
Well you are born not believing in God, which is the definition of atheism. Atheism is any person that doesn't believe in God.
Just what are you arguing for?
If Pro can just make his resolution a "little" more clear, then it might be possible. Kritiking the resolution is a scum move, but to a resolution this unclear it is viable.