Instigator / Pro
5
1327
rating
62
debates
16.94%
won
Topic

Atheists are religious.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
2
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
1
2

With 2 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

BearMan
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
14
1626
rating
14
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 961 / 5,000

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.

So , atheists are or can be very religious. There's absolutely no doubt to not believing that this is controversial. This topic statement is so true particularly within a certain time of our history, it was really made so.

Now no spoilers, I don't want to give too much away. I'm hoping somebody will come along thinking they have an argument against the topic statement.

You can send a question for more information but it most likely won't be much more than what was said here.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

I'll bite that an athiest can be religious. However, what I don't think PRO realizes is that saying "something CAN BE another thing" is very different from saying "Something IS another thing."

I really don't buy their semantics argument here either. The resolution pretty clearly means all atheists (specifically because "are" is a third person plural verb). PRO could have fixed this by simply saying "Athiests can be religious." in the resolution. Since they didn't, their BoP remains unfulfilled.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

To give an overview: Pro: Prove this, Con: This definition proves this, Pro: But does it?

Arguments:
I would separate them according to rounds, but each round is practically a repetition of the last. The two points argued that aren't entirely semantic would be the definition of religion and atheist, and the Laveyan Satanists religiosity. Pro provides no counter sources, or even definitions beyond vague statements (that, again, aren't sourced anywhere).
As for the religiosity of Laveyan Satanists, Pro provides a non-sequitur to justify their position, which Con points out (though not citing the fallacy) and rebuts.
The rest is an assault on Con's character and the usage of "boxes" .

Sources: Pro provides zero sources (aside from citing the source that Con uses), while Con does provide sources to justify their position.

Conduct: Due to the attempted hit at Con's character with regard to an unjustified claim of closed-mindedness, cursing, intentional shifting of the goal post, etc, of Pro, I will be giving conduct to Con.