Richard Dawkins is a gratuitously unpleasant man

My RefutaionsDawkins' religious criticismDawkins is against the idea of religion, he usually criticizes people associated with it because he detests what religion is about. Dawkins can get a bit over the top with criticizing religous people, but what he's trying to do is get his message out about the fallacies of religion. The comments are not so much about Dawkins being unpleasant, it's mostly about his controversial ideals. As Dawkins' quoted before: “I don’t think we want to use offensive language. We don’t want to use violent language. We want to win arguments by cogency. I think ridicule is a weapon, but it must be witty ridicule and not just abuse,”[1]All Dawkins is trying to do is get his point out. I don't think he's intentionally trying to be abusive.subjectivityDawkins criticism of Rebecca Watson through the "Dear Muslima" letter wasn't meant to be abusive. The letter was meant to be sarcastic, and how trivial Watson's experience was compared to abuses Muslim women deal with on a regulat basis.[2] Dawkins explains his thoughts: "The man in the elevator didn't physically touch her, didn't attempt to bar her way out of the elevator, didn't even use foul language at her. He spoke some words to her. Just words. She no doubt replied with words. That was that. Words. Only words, and apparently quite polite words at that....Rebecca's feeling that the man's proposition was 'creepy' was her own interpretation of his behavior, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me."[2] What Dawkins was trying to say is that she shouldn't have made a big deal out of it, and she wasn't in a high risk situation[2]. His rationalization for the Muslim comment was that some Muslim women suffer from physical misogyny and "legally sanctioned demeanings",religiously.[2] Really, this comment isn't necessarily gratuitous or unpleasant, just controversial. As for his rude followers, they follow him for the wrong reasons. They didn't understand the point Dawkins was trying to make.Dawkins charityPro states that the Richard Dawkins Foundation isn't really a charity, however, it is. The Richard Dawkins Foundation is about teaching kids about science and education which is a charity. As defined by Pro, "a charity is a non-profit organization that provides some benefit to a section of the community." The Richard Dawkins Foundation is doing this, while also trying to help society overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.[3] Pro concedes that Richard Dawkins does to do positive things, and one of them is his charity.gratuitously unpleasantDawkins criticism of Caroline Sparks' family wasn't necessarily unpleasant. As I've mentioned before, he's not trying to be abusive, he's saying what he thinks is true. Dawkins used the words "deeply stupid," "idiots," and "cretinous," because he was upset about what happened to the little girl, and let his comments out in the heat of the moment.Some of Dawkins comments are unpleasant but a lot of them are rationalized. His criticism of Rebecca Watson was trying to make a point. I think Dawkins can kind of be blunt, but some of his criticism of other people can be rationalized. Dawkins isn't trying to purposely be abusive, I think he's kind of a blunt person.My ArgumentsUnpleasant is subjectiveIf you or I met him in person, maybe we would have different opinions. Different people say different things about him. As Sri Lankan journalist, Smriti Daniel said: "So I am surprised to find that when we meet, my primary impression is actually one of, well, niceness." [4] People have different opinions on Richard Dawkins, but as Pro states: Richard Dawkins can have positive things to say. Obviously, some people find him unpleasant and some people see him as a nice person.Dawkins against religionPro concedes that Dawkins' criticism of religions aren't unpleasant, and that he can have some positive things to say. However, Dawkins protest against religion and it's ideals is a huge part of who he is. He's written numerous books on scientific, legitimate criticism of religion. If Richard Dawkins is so unpleasant, then why are none of his books quoted as abusive or insulting. As far as I know, he hasn't published a book that was deemed gratuitous or unpleasant. In fact, they're anyting but that. He's highly respected for his documentaries and books. Dawkins has dedicated his life to science and atheism, not abusing people.Dawkins isn't necessarily unpleasant or gratuitousDawkins mission is to promote his scientific ideals. He isn't trying to purposely be abusive. I've also refuted Pro's point about Dawkins being a bully, he's not. He's just trying to get his point out. If Dawkins has a charity and dedicates his life to ideals that aren't gratuitous, certainly he isn't a gratuitously unpleasant man.Conclusion: The Burden of Proof was on Pro, and I think I did a good job of negating the resolution. I think Pro's evidence is good, but not enough to uphold the Burden of Proof. I thank rross for an excellent debate!