Christian Religion Is Beneficial For Society
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
We should scare children by telling them God will burn them alive.Wrong, Pro. You shouldnt traumatize children. Children deserve freedom from religious oppression and its fear teachers.
I simply do not get where the trauma comes from that.
Sure, they are told that they will go to hell if they perform any sins.
However, what's the alternative? The alternative is the existence of prison which children are also traumatized by.
Sadly, there always has to be the existence of punishment to discourage someone from performing an immoral act.
Moreover, the existence of the Hell isn't the only thing that discourages crime, as I stated, unlike in non Christian areas, where the existence of prison is the only thing that prevents someone from committing a crime.
Lastly, you have failed to say the definition of "Freedom", because killing another human being and performing immoral acts is certainly not protected by "freedom".
Moreover, some freedom has to be sacrificed to keep a tidy, moral and secure society, it is the sad truth which you can't seem to accept.
First of all, let me debunk something; Masturbation is not a sin.
What actually is a sin, is Lustfulness which is actually considered immoral, by all of the religions and actually by a lot of atheists as well.
Moreover, your central argument against Christianity seems to be "Oh, its so outdated", which it isn't.
Christian values are simply not outdated as they are needed for a proper society to function.
For example, our above example of "lustfulness". A society where lustfulness is condemned and considered immoral is 10x better than a society where lustfulness is considered moral.
Let's look at the US as a prime example as what happens when a society moves away from Christianity. The US, as of speaking is currently the worlds largest consumer of Porn, and a lot of US citizens have some sort of porn addiction.
Moreover, we have websites like OnlyFans and Tiktok raging in the younger generation, and we have celebrity pedophiles being caught every day or so.
Lastly, I have previously stated, I am not here to debate if Christian values are good
what I am here to debate on is if the facts show that Christianity is good for society, and they clearly do.
Moreover, what you seem to be debating is the doctrine of Christianity, not if Christianity benefits society. I have made it clear, I am not debating if Christian doctrine is morally justified, rather if it helps society, which it clearly does.
Firstly, you lack to show proof of any of your accusations, such as "Christians are bullying kids", not a single piece of evidence.
Moreover, what you seem to be debating is the doctrine of Christianity, not if Christianity benefits society. I have made it clear, I am not debating if Christian doctrine is morally justified, rather if it helps society, which it clearly does.
No person with a functional brain is debating that porn is freedom. Watching women do inappropriate things with their body is not freedom, it is disgusting and should not be tolerated
I vote Pro, here's why:
1. I buy that IF Christianity traumatizes children, this doesn't benefit society. The debate, however, isn't about morality but social health.
2. I buy that crime rates go down under Christianity.
3. I buy that marriages are stronger under Christianity.
4. I buy that the sense of community goes up under Christianity.
5. I buy that criminalizing masturbation, which is the pragmatic act of lust, is bad as it creates the equivalent of thought crimes.
6. Since I buy that the creation of thought crimes, is bad, I buy that this proves that Christianity is outdated.
7. I buy that porn is freedom AND disgusting.
8. I buy there is no evidence of bullying to children, but the good and bad things of Christianity affects children.
9. I buy that punishing gays and atheists is not freedom.
In conclusion, social health is measured through the traumatization of children. This is a flawed definition, but it is the only one I'm given by Con. With that, I buy that Christianity doesn't directly bully children, so I have to evaluate how each issue affects children. This work isn't done for me, so I have to sort it myself. Children can be targets of crime. Divorced houses probably uniquely hurt children. Children need community like any person. Children can be punished for being gay or atheist, and this is bad. Children also lose access to porn, which means they lose access to freedom. (As a sidenote, I don't personally agree with what I'm typing totally, but I'm voting on a debate, not typing my thoughts.) Since all the issues affect children, here's how I rank their importance. Divorce, sense of community, freedom/porn access, identity affirmation, crime. Since Pro has the two largest factors, I give them the ballot.
Notes for Pro
1. Answer this punishing gays and atheists warrant, as it is damning.
2. Extend your case. If I didn't extend it for you since it was unanswered, you would surely lose.
3. Give me some weighing. Why is crime more or less important than freedom to access pornography?
4. Answer the argument they made that traumatization of children is the metric for social health, because a much lazier judge would use that to ignore all your points and not do the work I did.
Notes for Con
1. If you are liblarping or being outrageous intentionally, I like it. However, you can make that competitive and do it as either better argumentation in general or a kritik that forces us to question how we engage with the "outrageous". I would be honored if you wanted help turning your unique style of engagement into a competitive strategy.
2. Assuming that this isn't some kind of performance, You need to answer the specific warrants of the Pro. You answer crime, but you just call masturbation crime and don't answer that things like murder go down.
3. You need to weigh freedom and bigotry against the Pro and tell me why yours matter to social health more than Pro's case.
So Pro starts off by defending the benefits of Christianity by observing the effects it has on reducing crime, lowering divorce rates, and creating stronger relationships between people.
Con tries too hard to force a narrative that Christianity’s toxicity is harmful to children. (The concept of eternal fire.) He doubles down on the trauma it causes and goes as far to wish this suffering on Pro and make deliberate personal attacks.
This argument would have been successful if he went into detail about specific disorders like PTSD and talked about the damage cults do.
Pro refuses to take the bait and calmly refutes Con’s arguments by mentioning that Hell is a deterrent for crime. Con proceeds to make a lot of disturbing statements for shock value like suggesting Pro needs to be crucified.
Con approached this debate with a lot more aggression and hostility than in other debates.
Spelling and grammar was equal. Conduct goes to Pro clearly.
Pro used sources, Con didn’t.
All in all, yikes.
Sarcasm alone isn't worth it, but a pivot in a performance kritik, who knows.
You may. I do see some potential uses, like:
"One sarcastic claim" + "Explanation why the sarcastic claim is wrong"
Or
"Presenting the case" + "One sarcastic claim" + "Explanation why the claim is wrong" or "Explanation that claim doesnt lead to conclusion".
These are some ideas that I think could work.
Although, in trolling, I usually used the structure:
"Sarcastic claims" + "Insult" and sometimes "Explanation".
Then I might steal your trolling styler for the kritik idea I have.
Thank you for your vote.
I was trolling in this debate, and used a lot of sarcasm. It is an old debate.
I agree that sarcasm can be fun and everything. Its just that I abandoned it when I decided to stop trolling.
I forgot to tell yall that yall should feel free to reach out in any way if yall have any questions or comments about my vote!
I recommend you read my vote, or at least the notes for Con.
Trump says he is a Christian.
Your trolling is awful, but you really have a knack for comedy.