|
Yes, there are no facts behind religion and a successful debate needs to be backed by proven data. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree.
Of course, religion is an opinion, so should be a part of an argument, but not as proof. It should
be why you have that position.
Proof should be something that is and can be proven. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Absolutely.
'Because God forbids it' is not a relevant argument in reasoned debate. It is fine if one's only aim
is to merely state why one believes something, but if one wishes to convince others and make valid
points, a little more explanation is required. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If the goal of debate is to convince others of your point of view, citing the magical belief system
you happen to believe in isn't likely to be persuasive unless everyone reading your contribution
shares the same superstitions.
Some people seem to participate in debates just for the joy of venting their opinions, however.
Nothing wrong with that I suppose. But they're not likely to win over anyone who doesn't already
subscribe to their point of view. It's a shame, and amazing in some way, that the forces of
superstition are still so strong, at least in America. To the average European reading debate
contributions from Americans, it's simply amazing how much of this claptrap is still believed over
there. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
One should never use irrational claims without objective evidence as support for an argument, be it
religion or anything else. People who simply make claims without backing those claims up have no
legitimate argument to make. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agreed. A sensible debater uses evidence and logic to back their argument. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
09 Mar 2008 03:17
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
