The Instigator
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

A Self Evident Fact: Churches Slaughter America's Children for Not Believing in Christmas

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 102699
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

It is a self evident fact because it has no evidence to back it up.

For Example,
Just because they win the debate saying "you have no evidence to back up your argument" doesn't mean that they disproved it, it just means that it has no evidence to back it up because it is self evident.
Even though 2,642 children are slaughtered every day since the 1998 release of "All Dogs Go To Heaven Christmas Carol" doesn't mean that they don't cover up and erase the evidence, It doesn't mean that it is blatantly false, it means that they do it, clean up the evidence and went on with their day, and nobody knew of it ever since.
Even though it has no evidence to back it up, it has never been disproven.
It has only been proven, but it is self evident
But, it is still a fact.
Jonbonbon

Con

My opponent blatantly admits to having no evidence to prove his assertion. He literally just says that it has no evidence because it's self evident. Obviously if it was happening. There would be some evidence. Regardless of your opinion of the Christian community, there's no way they have the money to cover up the deaths of over 18 million children. I did that math. According to my opponent, over 18 million first degree murders have taken place since 1998 without any evidence being produced or without anyone reporting this. Because if you look it up, you won't find it.

And it's not possible to cover up that kind of evidence. Killing 18 million children would at least create a definite pattern for the police to follow. This isn't a horror movie, this is the real world. If this was actually happening we would actually know about it.
Debate Round No. 1
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
One more thing; if you want me to vote for you, make 4 Round debates, and debate on that. I never take comments into account in my votes. (And even if I did, you still haven't shown how it's possible to hide 18 million deaths.)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: PowerPikachu21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence nor evidence of being. Con pointed out that it would be really hard to clean up 18 million murders, and Pro has nothing to refute this. As far as I believe, Pro has the Burden of Proof since I've never heard of this as proven fact. Seeing as how he doesn't even try to meet the burden (instead suggesting it's a truth without showing why), arguments to Con by default. Neither side used sources, so it's tied.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter both examines arguments made by both sides and takes the time to explain who has the burden of proof, why they have it, how they failed to meet it, and why that matters. Simply because the reporter has a different view of who has that burden is not sufficient reason for removal.
************************************************************************
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I'm not replying until you respond to the last part I said. Police catch people on a pattern. Unless the parents of 18 million kids never reported a missing kid, your conclusion doesn't make sense
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Jonbonbon I never said it was a horror movie (There, I refuted part of con's argument) , I know it is the real world, also you repudiated this truth, not burden of proof, if it was a burden of proof, It would be me only making something up for it, not making a commitment to prove, the definition for "Burden of Proof" makes no sense at all.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Jonbonbon it is possible to cover that up, that's why there is no evidence to see it, they cover it up so well. You did not refute my argument, you only said that it is impossible because there is no evidence, but you were half right, the part you got wrong is that it is "impossible"
For example it wouldn't necessarily be impossible if nobody had evidence about a serial killer killing innocent women. They would just know.
For evidence, If a dog went missing, I wouldn't need evidence to back it up, the dog is just missing.
Like this if over 18 million children are missing and slaughtered, I wouldn't need evidence to back it up, they would just be slaughtered without their parents consent which is against their will.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
You're right, not everything has to be backed up by evidence. Some things can be proven through logical paths using logical syllogisms. Nothing is ever proven simply by saying it's true, however. And something like this does need evidence. You really mean to tell me that parents who have a psychological bond to their kid never reported their kids missing? So 18 million children were murdered without anyone knowing because parents didn't say anything. No one could possibly do that without anyone finding out. You clearly have significant distance between your perception of how the world works and how the world actually works. What you're suggesting is literally impossible.

I need some kind of evidence to prove that over 36 million human adults with a psychological attachment to over 18 million kids never suggested anything. Even a significant number of these people being police officers with the ability to start a case for their missing kid. Does that really make sense to you?
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Jonbonbon okay, if you did the math, you need to show me evidence.
There's just no evidence to back up this truth, okay?
It is self evident, most police don't realize that they do it, they even reward churches with their "normalcy" but they don't know that they do it, they just go along with their day.
I'm not debating just for you to kick my butt, okay?
They do imply murder even though there is simply no evidence to back that up, it is still true, not everything has to be backed up with evidence.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
I listened to your video about this. It's sad that you honestly think that. It's not a reasonable belief. Police find people who have only committed one crime. You think parents just don't say anything as people slaughter their children? That's not a reasonable belief, and your evidence for it is that your church had a lot of paint, which can easily be explained in multiple ways that do not imply murder. What other evidence do you have?

It's not obvious or self-evident. If it was self-evident, you wouldn't be the only one who believed that. There would at least be a couple other people who had figured it out and wrote something online. But you're the only one who believes it. So your month of studying it has lead you closer to insanity than the truth.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Lol you really want to get your butt kicked again?
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
This is also truism
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
PowerPikachu21
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2JonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence nor evidence of being. Con pointed out that it would be really hard to clean up 18 million murders, and Pro has nothing to refute this. As far as I believe, Pro has the Burden of Proof since I've never heard of this as proven fact. Seeing as how he doesn't even try to meet the burden (instead suggesting it's a truth without showing why), arguments to Con by default. Neither side used sources, so it's tied.