Instigator / Pro
7
1458
rating
7
debates
21.43%
won
Topic
#3408

Religious Fundamentalism is a Bigger Problem Long-Term Than Current Radical Left-Wing Politics

Status
Finished

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

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

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Aowdd
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Description

Pro:
- Must demonstrate what radical left-wing politics is
- Must demonstrate why it is not harmful in its current iteration, or as harmful, as it has been in the past
- Must demonstrate what religious fundamentalism is
- Must demonstrate that religious fundamentalism is more dangerous, long-term, than radical left-wing politics

Con:
- Must demonstrate what radical left-wing politics is
- Must demonstrate why it is as harmful or more harmful in its current iteration than previous forms of left-wing politics
- Must demonstrate what religious fundamentalism is
- Must demonstrate that religious fundamentalism is less dangerous, long-term than radical left-wing politics

Debate should be judged on clarity of arguments, soundness in rationale and logic of arguments, and a lack of fallacies.

Please comment or message for suggestions on things to change, fix, add or remove.

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:

Pro argues that religious fundamentalism is a more dangerous problem in the long term because it operates under unprovable axioms, discourages skepticism or questioning, and leaves people vulnerable to a cult mindset. I wish Pro had provided some concrete examples, or maybe some data points about how much harm religious fundamentalism causes versus the current day. But Con doesn't engage much with his argument, and mostly dwells on irrelevant topics like the far right, the Republican Party, or Ron DeSantis, comparing them favorably to the radical left, or in the far right's case, arguing that they're relatively harmless. But this debate is specifically on the topic of religious fundamentalism, and Con keeps branching out to tangential topics to make this a more general debate of right vs left, which is not what the resolution stated. Con brings up Antifa and BLM looting and rioting, as well as policies he disagrees with such as abortion, marijuana legalization, and defunding the police, as points against radical left-wing politics. Pro rebuts these points, and also brings up the point that fundamentalism has also historically brought about rioting, killing, and defamation. That's another point in Pro's favor, since Con only discusses fundamentalism in its current iteration rather than the long term. And because Con forfeited the final round, he was unable to respond to this point. Arguments go to Pro, everything else was about even.