- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Personal belief and faith are completely acceptable, I can have faith in that my vehicle will safely get me to work. Though it is not a truth it is a belief, and faith is a belief put into action. Belief essentially being based off of personal experience, since everyone experiences different things throughout their lives hosting different beliefs is something everyone does.
However, when one takes their personal belief and believes in it so strongly that they begin believing that their ideology is correct and those whom do not believe the same are incorrect that is when religion comes into play. As a religion does not have to be reasons for why the universe has come into being, it can be as simplistic as a fundamental set of beliefs and practices; though generally believed in by a group of people could even be believed in by a singular person.
For example: Joecavalry believes that Sunday should be a day of grilling and football. He believes this so strongly that those whom believe anything different are wrong, he will argue his position that Sunday being the day before the workweek deserves to be a day of relaxation filled with grilled food and a sport played with the skin of a pig. Not only does this belief hurt himself, it hurts his relationship with other people. As Joe will argue his position to the grave, and hears no other sides. Because of his strong belief in Sunday grilling and football he has missed great opportunities and missed wonderful things. Since personal religion can evidently be negative, imagine that closed minded thought process being branched out among millions of people in an organized manner. Your average organized religion teaches you that your religion is right, and that the others are, of course, incorrect.
With the thought process that I am correct, my fellow believers are correct, and you are wrong is obviously a detrimental way to think. You can try and lightly bring up the ideology of evolution around certain people and they will become not only upset but even hostile at the mere mentioning of the idea.
Mob mentality is something that religion definitely creates, as the individual average Joe would never do things that people have done over the years without the prompting of someone who is preaching, in the minds of the listeners and believers, absolute truths ( NAZI Germany, the crusades etc. ).
Throughout history people have taken a personal belief and turned them into the beliefs of their religion, then as those whom do not believe and reject the lunacy are essentially thought of as people attacking the religion. Which is where ignorance gets amalgamated with religion. The first thought that comes to mind is the positions behind homosexuals and their restrictive rights as human beings. People have been told that homosexuals are bad for society, and with the negative thought processes they have become a hated group of people by the majority. It is almost funny how people when asked if there should be equal rights for all, the winning side is always by a landslide.
People can be tricked into believing things simplistically due to someone in a position of power stating that whatever he/she wants or does not want directly corresponds to whatever religious group he/she is identifying with. Then you have people who are taking in 'absolute truths' and being directed into believing certain ideals and leading people into believing that certain religious groups ought to be hated for their atrocities or that some religions are better than others...
Religion has been and will more than likely always be a tool for manipulation. Using the mixture of fear, hatred, ignorance, added into religious belief gives those in positions of power the ability to direct people down paths they would normally never go down by themselves. If the action is believed to be justified by any given persons religion whomever is directing the manipulation has nearly 100% support from the ignorant followers whom would blindly do as they are told, whether it be killing witches, bombing churches, schools, or embassies, works of art destroyed, child abuse, and countless other atrocities that have been linked to people whom have been influenced by someone puppeteering their religion so that whatever is essentially wanted will be accomplished at whatever cost in the mind of any given extremist leader.
When it all comes down to it, I think religion has had a net negative influence on society.
People can argue that it should be Leif Erickson Day, but in actuality Columbus brought Europe to the new world. That is what we should be celebrating. Not the discovery of, to argue that anyone other than the native Americans discovered the land is ridiculous in itself.
Really? Who fought in the war that lead to the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima? Was it just the Marines?
So the Marines guard the white house, and that makes them by definition the best branch huh?
Who are the first responders? Depends on the situation and even if they are the first branch on land they didn't get there by themselves.
Try having some respect for all of the men and women who serve their damn country, instead of putting on a little biased show to prove your branch is the best (all your reasons prove absolutely nothing by the way) why don't you just give equal credibility to all of the branches whom serve and are ready to die for their country.
Funny, you are saying that they hardly ever get truly injured. Just minor things huh? The players whom work in the trenches, the running backs, and normally the quarterbacks as well end up developing brain issues.
I am personally a soldier and though I think we ought to be paid more, at the same time we signed up for what we receive. The military isn't begging us to join, civilians are begging the military to join. So I have no issues with our pay rates, in actuality making what we make with all living expenses paid for is a pretty good gig.
Penn Jillette, like so many Godhaters fabricates lies from God's word. First of all, God was absolutely NOT okay with Lot's daughters being raped, because they were NOT raped. Lot offered them to the angry mob that wanted to seduce the visiting angels, but that was Lot, NOT God. Anyway, the mob refused Lot's daughters because they were homosexual, and they wanted to have sex with the male angels. The two daughters later seduced Lot because they truly believed all men were destroyed when God rained fire and brimstone down upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Now I like the logical reasoning you had, it was in fact absolutely outstanding.
My only issue is all of the support for your argument sounds completely and wholly insane. You backed your argument with what you believe to be true and you did use logic to back yourself, it is just what you are defending. The specific story that is, the bible isn't wholly rediculous all the time... just a solid chunk of the time.
So how did you do in English grammar and spelling in school?
Just wanted to break the ice there, I haven't watched either of Joe's videos because I am sure I have seen enough of those on Youtube and other sources before... The point of the video is probably that after the gentleman read the bible in depth, whilst using logical reasoning, he realized that after reading the unbelievably amazing and extraordinary happenstances that Christianity or Catholocism or whatever his specific denomination happened to be; he decided it was all rediculous.
I tried to challenge Joe's status as 1st place, that was back when he had roughly 3,500. TERMINATOR was the last person to try and topple Joe, he however reached his essential "breaking point" as we all have.
You can sure as hell try, I gave up around 2,500, and all points accumulated after that have been for what I think this site was originally set up for; debating.
You would need to hold onto that weekly leader board for a long, long time. TERMINATOR held onto it for about 3 months, he still didn't even come close.
That award was nothing more than a publicity stunt
disgraced the honor and prestige of the Nobel Peace Society
Probably not that bad, I tell you what is a disgrace to the Nobel family: the NSHSS run by a distant cousin who has the last name "Nobel", that is a disgrace to the family name. Obama being the recipient of an award of peace in a time of peace really does not seem that horrendous as you make it seem to be.
Don't really care but he should be forced from office
Well that is an incredulously worthless point to make.
Give me at least some reasoning opposed to homosexual slander, as to why.
The question asked of you was whether or not Obama should be forced to give his Nobel Peace Prize back, as we ( being the United States ) are currently involved in a conflict with another country; making Obama as an upholder of peace an antithetic label as he has brought us as the United States into a conflict with another country whilst having a Nobel Peace Prize.
Whoever gave you the downvote was correct in doing so, as you had no basis to your point and made an empty argument.
Did I say theory?
How about a false ideology which oppresses those whom hold differentiating beliefs?
Well I am going to make the assumption that you are of the Christian faith and I shall ask you a question, this will be a 2 part question; A.) do you feel that homosexuals commit a sin in being who they are ( homosexuals ) B.) using simple logic and deduction why would someone want to be a homosexual? They are a hated group of people by the masses whom are attacked constantly ( both physically and verbally ) based off of their orientation which, as long as it is consensual, hurts absolutely nobody.
If I am correct in my assumption then I am just begging this question, and you sir belong in the same category as those whom follow the ideology of "ignorance is bliss", implicit or not may the force of hatred be with you and those whom take their beliefs to the extremist levels in any faith.
I never said you were repeating my argument I just said that I had already argued against something which you had repreated.
You cannot deny that the person who I originally disputed was a bad logician.
I was refuting you, I did not read the disputee's arguments very thoroughly.
We had the world to control as well as fighting your rebbelion.
Nothing to argue with there.
Most of our ships were destroyed just trying to get to your country it doesn't matter how equipped your weapons are when you're drowning.
Nothing there either.
exactly my point.
Took you a while.
I was just getting annoyed with your monotony and decided to state very bluntly that you telling me the size of Great Britain changed nothing within any argument I made.
I dont see how this is disputing my current statement apart from the fact that you are repeating what I argued against.
You originally used the size of the US to give credit to why Great Britain lost the war, I simply made the point that using size could easily be refuted by Great Britain hosting a population well over double that of the U.S.
I made my own argument for your argument, I'm not repeating you unless it is in italics...
I have I said that guys logic was stupid you highlighted that sentance and said that was stupid logic and I don't understand what you're talking about
Your quote which said "if loads of people got it wrong that means its right." the quote can be easily be flipped, which makes the logic within it flawed.
1) Their army simply wasn't large enough to occupy enough square miles of territory in North America.
Once again Great Britain had double the population that America had, we couldn't cover our own land either.
2) Distance. The American rebels had the "Home Field" advantage, while Britain had to maintain long supply lines back to the Mother Country.
Great Britain was, regardless of distance, better equipped for war.
3) The American Spirit. So long as the colonists were determined to resist, the British would have a difficult time retaining all the thirteen colonies. They had to break the American will to fight or at least disrupt America's unity to make it too painful for the colonists to wage a sustained rebellion."
A whole country who revolts in the name of nationalism is a hard revolt to thwart.
Notice that the first one clearly states that land size was a big point.
I realize that the United States is bigger than Great Britain.
Though this is the less popular technique to reviving an economy; I am unable to find one example of the Pump Prime working, whereas I am able to find at least two where the Trickle Down ended up working.
I feel like the Obama Administration should have gone with the Trickle Down opposed to the Pump Prime; my reason being that the unemployment rate didn't go down it actually went up even after the massive stimulus bill was put into effect.
Country size makes a big difference to the enemy attempting to conquer it
You used the United States' size to defend a reason behind defeat, I simply stated to use size was a useless argument when the population of the defending country was literally more than half that of the attacking country.
Try reading my post again.
Not only that but we also had to manage controling the world, which is a pretty large place, and all that from 1 small island.
Well they ruled the world didn't they? So why couldn't this itty bitty country that ruled the world ( a pretty large place ) not defeat a country whose population was half that of the itty bitty country and whose army consisted of civilians?
How pathetic do you have to be to go back 300 years to find a war you won on your own, and that was with a country 100th your size.
Ha, I thought we beat the number one military power in the world?
I guess that doesn't matter when your country is bigger right?
Unless you happen to be Russia.
Either way; to use the size of the United States is an idiotic argument when back 300 years ago the population of the U.S. did not match that of England, which makes your argument a pathetic one. According the the US Census Bureau in 1776 the population of the US was put at 2.5 million, that of England judging from two seperate sites have told me that in 1750 the population was put at 5.4 million; it only went up from there.
So your argument is that a country that had 100 times more land to cover beat another invading country whose population was over double the country with 100 times the land?
Makes England look pretty bad if you ask me.
We invented the road how can we drive on the wrong side of it?
Ha, good one.
Because you are the one's who go around blowing up towns with nukes.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked saved millions of lives, however it was an idiotic move as doing so breached the terms of war: we killed civilians. In actuality if we had taken to invade and conquer Japan it would have taken several more years to island hop until the deed was done, it would have cost millions of lives as the emperor would not have surrendererd until we were beating down the door to his palace.
Was the bombing a necessity? It could go both ways but I'm not going to delve into it any further as it would be pointless and end up in a totally different debate which has been addressed on this site many times before.
That's just stupid logic: if loads of people got it wrong that means its right.
That is equally stupid logic.