Instigator / Pro
6
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3469

Religious pluralism is false

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

Pro:

* Has to show why all religions can't be equal in truth

Con:

* Has to defend the idea of religious pluralism

rules:

* don't commit these fallacies:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* Follow site TOS
* Do not offend or insult anyone.

misc:

* The instigator is a former pluralist

Well... if pluralism means multiple truths, then no. There is no religious pluralism. But if religious pluralism means multiple religions coexisting, then that is possible.

CON and PRO basically didn't agree on definitions early on lol

-->
@Barney

Thanks for voting!

-->
@Undefeatable

Thx for voting!

I doubt I'll get around to this. Whiteflame can pull some very detailed votes on short notice, so asking him would be ideal.

-->
@RationalMadman

Not contesting that, but it if both sides missed the others point, it depends on what the voter thinks the better foundation was.

-->
@ComputerNerd

I honestly think Oromagi was seriously weak here at engaging the case of Pro on a fundamental level, both of them actually were completely missing the foundation of the other's case.

-->
@oromagi

Apologies. I know if I do vote I will be called out for being "narrowminded" or "biased" towards you.

-->
@ComputerNerd

We are in agreement there. I regret you won't be voting.

While I do not believe myself qualified to vote on a debate of this caliber, I will offer this:

Agnosticism is NOT a religion, and since every religion has an amount of agnosticism rooted in it, they all have an equal amount of truth, that of a possibly or most likely truth.

(Dissertation of the most important argument CON offered, does not break rules about arguments in comments)

-->
@RationalMadman

That's right. I don't want to continue arguments outside of the debate but it really should just come down to which definition of RELIGIOUS PLURALISM is more accurate and more fairly presented and whether PRO violated his own prohibition against informal fallacy.

-->
@oromagi

How are the points of disagreement straightforward? It seems you both had very different ideas in mind of the debate itself.

Three days remaining.

-->
@oromagi

I can’t vote

vote now

-->
@FLRW

That is what I meant to put

-->
@FLRW

Because that wasn't the topic? In the same way that the topic isn't "birds are good."

I don't know why Instigator didn't list the topic as; Only Christianity is True.

Yeah, I didn't expect such a performance. Very interesting. Very good job to the instigator here.

This debate was never about religious freedom. This debate was about whether all religions are equally true or not.

-->
@oromagi

I hope your next reason is based on this definition of religious pluralism: "The belief that all religions are equal in truth." which is what I meant to debate here.

-->
@oromagi

yay (:

-->
@Conservallectual

=> Although this does not matter to me because I just defend my points like a mother bear defending her cub.

That's right, scores can be deceptive and have no influence on this debate's outcome. Every debate should be scored on its own merits. I look forward to your R2!

-->
@oromagi

Hah! I'm debating with the guy with the highest score in the site. Although this does not matter to me because I just defend my points like a mother bear defending her cub.

Note that I was once a religious pluralist, but now I am an anti-pluralist Christian.