The Instigator
annanicole
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
DakotaKrafick
Con (against)
Losing
33 Points

A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 18 votes the winner is...
annanicole
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,564 times Debate No: 22394
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (18)

 

annanicole

Pro

Well, I'll try again since the last negative did not post an argument, and his account is no longer active.

I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved. I will define the terms:

A saved person: one who is saved, not lost

A Christian: synonym for "saved person" or child of God

May sin: the possibility exists that this person may believe or commit acts contrary to God's law

Eternally lost: eventually wind up in hell

The historic Baptist position is that a child of God (once saved) cannot possibly ever be lost (always saved). Of course, I deny this.

First round acceptance only. 5 rounds, 24 hr response. During each round after the 1st, each disputant is permitted to submit three questions which his peer is to answer in his next post. No new lines of argumentation permitted in the last round.
DakotaKrafick

Con

I accept. Good luck proving Hell even exists, let alone that we can somehow wind up there after we die.
Debate Round No. 1
annanicole

Pro

Questions:

(1) What was the salvation status of King Saul up until the point of I Samuel 11: 6? And what was his status at the point of his suicide?

(2) Does Heb 6: 4-6 describe a situation that actually happened or actually could happen?

(3) Does a believer - a saved believer - possess the free agency, the power of choice, to become an unbeliever?

I will submit, first of all, that a faithful child of God cannot be lost, but I predict the major difference, the major point in controvery will be this: "Can a man who believes today quit believing? Can his faith be severed? Can he depart from it? Can he have his faith overthrown? Can a saved person depart from the living God so as to wind up in unbelief?" Now, I think that will ultimately be the issue, and the negative is welcome to dispute that contention.

I will start with a general warning: "Let him the standeth take heed lest he fall." (I Cor 10: 12) Warnings such as this always imply danger, and so I pose the simply question: if no danger of falling exists, why waste time with warnings?

1. I begin with the OT narrative concerning King Saul.

Point 1: King Saul was chosen. "Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen." (I Sam 10: 24)
Point 2: King Saul was anointed. "Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head ... .the Lord hath anointed thee." (I Sam 10: 1)
Point 3: The Spirit of God was promised to come upon Saul. "And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee." (I Sam 10: 6)
Point 4: Likewise, the ability to prophesy was promised to Saul. "...and thou shalt prophesy with them." (I Sam 10: 6)
Point 5: Saul would be turned into 'another man.' "... and shalt be turned into another man." (I Sam 10: 6)
Point 6: Saul was given another heart. "God gave him another heart." (I Sam 10: 9)
Point 7: The other signs promised to Saul came to pass. "... and all those signs came to pass that day." (I Sam 10: 9)
Point 8: The Spirit of God came upon Saul. " .. the Spirit of God came upon him." (I Sam 10: 10)
Point 9: Saul prophesied. " ... he prophesied among them." (I Sam 10: 10)
Point 10: Again, the Spirit of God came upon Saul. (I Sam 11: 6)

I'll pause and state that no better description of a saved man exists: "chosen, anointed, given another heart, Spirit of God upon him, and able to prophesy." Surely any person who gave such an "experience" would be accepted into certain denominations. Alright, how did the whole affair turn out? As the story progresses, we find Saul in a sad state, disobedient, wicked and recreant, culminating in:

Point 11: The Spirit of God departed from Saul. "... the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul." (I Sam 16: 14)
Point 12: An evil spirit was upon Saul. (I Sam 16: 23)
Point 13: The Lord departed from Saul (I Sam 18: 12)
Point 14: Among other things, Saul plotted murder (I Sam 18: 11)
Point 15: The Lord became Saul's enemy (I Sam 15: 24)
Point 16: The kingdom was taken from Saul, and Saul ultimately committed suicide.

Alright, points 11 - 16 describe everything but a saved man, and I left quite a bit out. Spirit-departed, God-forsaken Saul committed suicide, and according to the negative position, Saul was either (1) never saved or (2) saved and never lost. My position is that Saul simply and unfortunately confirms I Chron 28: 9, spoken to Solomon, "if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever." I truly anticipate seeing some sort of explanation of King Saul's "early" status versus his "later" status.

2. The behavior and consequences of national Israel are types and shadows for our Christian example. "These things happened unto them by way of example." And what is the example?

Well, God's people can forget God. "The children of Israel did evil .. and forgot the Lord their God." (Judges 3: 7). "Beware lest thou forget the Lord." (Deut 6: 12). "So are the paths of all that forget God." (Job 8: 13). "...ye that forget God, lest I tear you into pieces. (Ps 50: 22)

What is God's response? "I. even I, will utterly forget you .. forsake you .. cast you out of my presence." (Jer 23: 39-40). "Whatsoever things were written aforetime" - here's one thing that was written - "were written for our learning." (Rom 15: 4). And here's the parallel in Hebrews 4: 11, "Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of unbelief" and I Cor 10: 11, "Now all these things happened to them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition ..."

I invite your attention to the possibility of a nation or a person forgetting God, God's response, and the fact that these are written that "no man fall after the same ensample of unbelief."

3. Remaining saved is conditional

Point 1: You are saved, "if .. " (there's the condition) "..ye keep in memory what I preached unto you .." (I Cor 15: 2)
Point 2: "We are made partakers of Christ, if ..." (there's the condition) "... we hold ... stedfast." (Heb 3: 14)
Point 3: "If (there's the condition) ye continue in the faith .. " (Col 1: 23)
Point 4: And, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (I Pet 1: 9)

Thus, "Be thou faithful until death (there's the condition), and I will give thee a crown of life."

4. Heb 6

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (v. 4-6). I can think of no better picture, no better description, of a saved person, and these persons under consideration did not merely "fall", but they "fell away." "Once enlightened" means "illuminated" by the rays of the gospel, as in Heb 10: 32. And what's more, the word "if" is added in verse 6, it should and does read "having fallen way" - perfect participle - in some translations. Why such a vivid description and such a stern warning if such an event is an utter impossibility? This class of Christians who not only ceased to believe, but re-embraced Judaism, not only "fell away" and "crucified Christ afresh, but also "it was impossible 'renew' or 'resave' them. I have actually had people tell me that this passage describes an impossibility! - that Paul wasted his ink and paper on something that could not possibly occur.

Here's your man:

1. Once enlightened
2. Tasted of the heavenly gift
3. Partakers of the Holy Ghost
4. Tasted the good word of God
5. (Tasted the) powers of the world to come

Now, "then fell away" (ASV, 1901). Well then what? It is impossible - not an unlikelihood - but impossible to renew them again. Ok, what becomes of them? There is a world of difference between "stumbling and falling" and "falling away." I can "stumble and fall" on a boat, but if I "fall away" from the boat, that's a different matter. Here are people that, by all indications, wound up rejecting Christ - after being saved. They reverted to unbelief and, hence, crucified the Son of God afresh. Were they ever saved? Did they wind up lost? Is Paul just making the whole scenario up? I invite your attention to the passage.

That should be enough: 4 brief affirmative arguments and 3 questions. I do not care for making twenty affirmative arguments so that the negative cannot possibly reply to them all. Of course, the last negative disputant never replied to anything and never answered a question. Anyway, thank you, and I await your reply.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Answers

"(1) What was the salvation status of King Saul up until the point of I Samuel 11: 6? And what was his status at the point of his suicide?"


I don't know if salvation is even possible, so I don't know whether King Saul was "saved" or not.

"(2) Does Heb 6: 4-6 describe a situation that actually happened or actually could happen?"

It probably describes fairytale, like nearly everything else in the Bible, unless you can prove otherwise.

"(3) Does a believer - a saved believer - possess the free agency, the power of choice, to become an unbeliever?"

No; belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice.

My Opponent's Argument

Pro quotes the Bible a lot without any warrant as to why we should believe it's true. Let me remind the audience of the resolution: "A Christian may sin in such a way as to eventually wind up in Hell."

There is no "according to the Bible's stories" in the resolution. My opponent must prove that (1) Hell exists, and (2) it's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up there. My opponent cannot use the Bible as evidence to prove the resolution until she has proven the Bible should actually be taken seriously as being factually correct (good luck).

Conclusion

Excuse the brevity, but nothing my opponent said necessitates a response at all. The resolution remains unsubstantiated.
Debate Round No. 2
annanicole

Pro

Let me remind the audience that "con" accepted not only the proposition but also the defined terms:

"I will define the terms:

A saved person: one who is saved, not lost

A Christian: synonym for "saved person" or child of God

May sin: the possibility exists that this person may believe or commit acts contrary to God's law

Eternally lost: eventually wind up in hell"

Con accepted all this before agreeing and in consideration of agreeing, and yet con:

1. Does not accept the term "saved". He believes there is nothing from which to be saved.
2. Does not accept the term "lost". He believes there is nothing from which to be lost.
3. Does not accept the term "Christian" as defined because he does not accept the term "saved person".
4. Does not accept the term "Christian" as defined because he does not accept the term "child of God."
5. Does not accept the term "may sin" because he does not believe God has a law.
6. Does not accept the term "eternally lost" because he does not accept any concept of Hell.

As best I can tell, he accepted a debate and yet does not accept the definition of any key term. That's singularly odd - perhaps a tad dishonest.

Not only that, but I said in the opening comments, "I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved." Since con surely knew that he was accepting a debate in which pro would submit arguments against Baptist position, why would con make a mockery of the debate system by not even feigning a shadow of an attempt to answer.

I might well have reworded the proposition, "The Bible teaches that ..... " but con would most likely have accepted, then just denied that the Bible teaches anything because it is a humanly-concocted fairy tale.

He says, "Pro quotes the Bible a lot without any warrant as to why we should believe it's true." Ya think maybe that's because pro did just what pro said she would do: argue "against the typical Baptist position"?

He says, "My opponent must prove that (1) Hell exists, and (2) it's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up there." Ummm ... not only that! It seems to me that to satisfy you, I'd have to "prove" every key word - including Christian, saved, God, sin, eternal, and lost." In other words, you are not trying to debate the topic, you are wanting to debate each and every term, beginning with Hell. Well, "saved" implies "heaven", and you could just as well want proof that "heaven" exists .. or "God", for the matter.

To summarize, con is nothing more than an atheist/agnostic/infidel (he hasn't said) trolling around under the "Religion" section, agreeing to debate religious topics, then asking for proof that God, heaven, and hell exist and, of course, never really getting to the proposition - and he never intended to. Then with a flourish and a sneer, he'll conclude (as he did), "My opponent cannot use the Bible as evidence to prove the resolution until she has proven the Bible should actually be taken seriously as being factually correct (good luck)." Well, I'll have to: for me to come onto a debate site, religion section, Christian topic pretty much implies references to the Bible, don't you think? For me to post such a proposition on a debate site, religion section with a Christian topic and NOT use the Bible would be intellectual dishonesty - and that would make two of us.

I can't imagine lurking on a "science" site, accepting a debate, and discussing religion - while not accepting a single definition of a single term: it's not the place for it, even some little one-by-four sophomores at a Theology School might do it. If so, they are in error - and they are wasting people's time. Likewise, a few little upspurts who have passed a few science classes and think they are the next Darwin sometimes do the same thing on "religion" sites. Go figure.

Bottom line: you shouldn't have accepted. You agree to no definition of terms. You might be happier in the Science section.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Disappointingly, it seems my opponent continues to not even attempt to prove any part of her resolution.

Terms of the Debate


I accept all of your terms' definitions, Pro; that doesn't mean I have to believe they exist. For instance, if I made a debate "It's possible for unicorns to live entirely off of fish" and then defined "unicorns" as "a horse with a single horn on its forehead," anyone is welcome to accept and attempt to negate the resolution anyway he/she sees fit, be it explaining that unicorns' diets must consists of more than just fish for survival or explaining that unicorns simply don't exist.

Unless, of course, it was clarified in the instigation that "Whoever accepts this debate must agree unicorns/Hell exist(s)" which you didn't do.

"Not only that, but I said in the opening comments, "I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of "once saved, always saved.""

Yes, you can argue whatever stance you want. Your disdain toward this Baptist belief was evident from the title alone, but you never said Con had to be a Baptist or to argue the Baptist belief.

"I might well have reworded the proposition, "The Bible teaches that ..... " but con would most likely have accepted, then just denied that the Bible teaches anything because it is a humanly-concocted fairy tale."

If your resolution had included "The Bible teaches that [...]" I would not have accepted, because you would be arguing what the Bible says, not what is actually true. (Note there were two of your debates available for acceptance at the same time. The other read "The Bible teaches that water baptism [...]"; I didn't accept that one, and I have no intentions of doing so.)

Conclusion

"To summarize, con is nothing more than an atheist/agnostic/infidel"

Go with "infidel". I like the sound of that.

"trolling around under the "Religion" section, agreeing to debate religious topics, then asking for proof that God, heaven, and hell exist and, of course, never really getting to the proposition - and he never intended to."

You make a lot of assumptions about me. I'm sure the regulars here are quite aware I debate religious topics seriously. I have done nothing but address the resolution of this debate; you have simply failed to meet your burden of proof.

Bottom line: you should have defined your position better (or, better yet, defined what you wanted your opponent's position to be better). If you make a resolution stating "It's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up in Hell" then it's only natural you will have to, you know... prove that. So far, you have not done so.


Debate Round No. 3
annanicole

Pro

You said: "I accept all of your terms' definitions, Pro; that doesn't mean I have to believe they exist."

You accept all the definitions, which included such words as God, saved, sin, child of God, hell, lost, yet you actually believe not a one of them? That's patently dishonest, as I said. Look at it:

1. "A saved person." You don't believe that - yet you sorta "accept the definition". Well, the apposition was used for clarification:
2. "A Christian" You don't believe that, either. You believe there is such a thing as a Christian, but you deny it as an appositive to "saved person may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost." Then this was further defined as:
3. "One who is ... not lost". Well, you don't accept that defintion, either, do you? Nope, because you do not believe in the concept of "lost" in the first place.
4. "May sin" was defined as .. what? Acts committed "contrary to God's law." You do not even believe God has a law.
5. "Eterally lost" defined as "eventually wind up in hell." You accept that "eventually wind up in hell" is an adequate definition, then turn right around and plead, "I don't even believe in a hell."

Alright, as quoted above, you said, "I accept all of your terms definitions." No, you don't: that's a blatant lie. You do not accept a one of them. If so, why don't you kindly point out for me which one(s) you do accept.

And it is a logical contradiction of the deepest dye to accept definitions, the basically un-accept them - toss them aside - and claim, "Well, they don't exist so I'm not bound by them."

You say: For instance, if I made a debate "It's possible for unicorns to live entirely off of fish" and then defined "unicorns" as "a horse with a single horn on its forehead," anyone is welcome to accept and attempt to negate the resolution anyway he/she sees fit, be it explaining that unicorns' diets must consists of more than just fish for survival or explaining that unicorns simply don't exist."

LOL No, they're not! You mean to tell me that any honest, logical person could read the proposition, accept it, read the terms, accept them, then do an "about-face" after accepting your definition, "a horse with a single horn ...", and then deny that a unicorn is a "horse with a single horn .." Sir, the person accepted the proposition and the terms/definitions: if he or she didn't agree with any of them, the time to point it out would be before clicking "accept" or else y'all won't be debating the proposition; you'll both be yapping about previously-accepted definitions.

You say: "Unless, of course, it was clarified in the instigation that "Whoever accepts this debate must agree unicorns/Hell exist(s)" which you didn't do." Yes, I did: notice the definition of "eternally lost": "eventually wind up in hell."

Why, you accepted that; thus, the issue of the existence of God, hell, and, implicitly, heaven became non-issues.

You: "Yes, you can argue whatever stance you want."

No, actually I can't - not after saying, "I am arguing against the typical Baptist position of 'once saved, always saved'." That means I'm not discussing Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine that there is no hell, doesn't it? Nor am I discussing the Univeralist position that everyone ultimately goes to heaven. I'm arguing against the typical Baptist position which, by the way, is that there is a hell: I have no dispute with them on that subject.

You: "I'm sure the regulars here are quite aware I debate religious topics seriously." <-- depends on the definition of "religion", and there are several. If one considers the definition, "to bind again (to God) or to connect again (with a higher power), then you patently do not debate that. You debate science under the "Religion" section.

You: "If you make a resolution stating "It's possible for a Christian to eventually wind up in Hell" then it's only natural you will have to, you know... prove that. So far, you have not done so." Ya think there are space constraints on the length of a proposition? The proposition was clarified in the definition: you knew the proposition, and you knew the terms/definitions. This is the deal:

1. You read the proposition - and accepted
2. You read the terms and definitions - and accepted
3. Then you said emphatically that you accept the definitions
4. Anyone with an ounce of logic can see that you accept NOTHING in the definitions except a few a's, of's, this's, and than's.
5. Then you try to turn the discussion into a defense of the existence of hell
6. THEN, to cap it off, blame me because the proposition was not worded to suit you even though you backed out of every definition.

You: "I have done nothing but address the resolution of this debate; you have simply failed to meet your burden of proof."

I think I've pretty well proved that your acceptance of this debate was a sham. Yet you have the colossal nerve and unmitigated gall to say, with a straight face, ""I accept all of your terms' definitions, Pro; that doesn't mean I have to believe they exist." Well, #1 ... you "accepted" them for a microsecond when you clicked "accept", then practiced some evolutionary "natural selection" and de-selected or de-accepted every one of them. And ... lol ... excused yourself by saying, "I don't believe they exist." Well, hell's bells - if there is a "hell", if the concepts embodied in the terms and definitions do not exist, then the terms are sorta misdefined, don't you think?

So, in your eyes, you accepted a debate and the terms, when in actuality you disagreed with every term/definition, then excuse yourself by saying, "I kinda agreed with 'em, but they don't even exist" - so let's argue about the terms. As I said, the dishonesty in the whole thing boils down to your acceptance of a debate when you appreciated fully my position, then your attempt to turn it into a free-for-all based upon (1) terms/definitions that you accepted, then un-accepted and (2) the word choice/semantics of the proposition.

How's this: you believe that protons have a positive charge. I'm quite sure you think you can prove it. You make out your proposition and define "proton." I accept your proposition and definitions. Then I'll state that you can't SEE a proton, you can't FEEL a proton, the Bible doesn't MENTION a proton, and there's just no such thing as a proton. You'd think I was an idiot - and I'd sorta have to agree with you. I accepted your proposition and terms/definitions .. I ACCEPTED ... then turned right around and claimed I did not accept your definitions at all. That's about what you've done, and I think most people can see right through it.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Sigh... you're now arguing my personal character instead of the resolution.

"You do not accept a one of them. If so, why don't you kindly point out for me which one(s) you do accept."

All of them, and at no point did I "un-accept" them. I accept that "Christian" means "saved person" and "eternally lost" means "eventually wind up in Hell"; now it's your burden of proof to show how it is possible for a "saved person" to "eventually wind up in Hell". You simply haven't even bothered doing that...

Extend all arguments and refutations since my opponent hasn't presenting anything new or substantial this last round pertaining to the actual resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
annanicole

Pro

All of them, and at no point did I "un-accept" them. I accept that "Christian" means "saved person" and "eternally lost" means "eventually wind up in Hell".

Alright then you accept "eventually (finally; ultimately; at some later time) wind up in Hell (the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits; Gehenna or Tartarus.) The definitions are taken straight off of Dictonary.com - and of course are the ordinary, customary meanings of the words, also. So, at a minimum, you are accepting that someone - no matter who - "finally, ultimately, at some later time" finds himself in "the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death, the abode of evil and condemned spirits."

No, you do not accept that. It's nothing but an infidel's word-game. " I accept it as true", but "since none of it exists, it's false." No need in a long response. It's like me saying "Yes, I accept that all good Indians go to the Happy Hunting Ground. Well, no, I sorta don't accept it: lemme un-accept it cuz there aint no such thing as a Happy Hunting Ground. Guess I just don't accept it. Prove there is a Happy Hunting Ground first, then we'll talk about it." That's your position to a Tee - if you wanna call it a position.
DakotaKrafick

Con

Extend all arguments and refutations again. Pathetic debate.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
"Christianity is assumed to be true for the purposes of this debate"

That was never clarified in the instigation.
Posted by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
Bad form, Con. There is this thing called "devil's advocate," you know; just because you disagree with the side you are defending doesn't mean you can't give it your best shot. I learn more about the way other people think when I attempt to defend their positions; you should have given it a try here, instead of making this debate yet another platform for bashing Christianity.

This debate had a specific context, and specific positions to be defended; your arguments were as out of line as if you had started comparing the relative merits of deodorants.

Her: "Christians can lose their salvation!" <<Implied context: Christian theology.

You: "The Bible is fake!" << Context: Apologetics?

There is a logical disconnect here. Sure, they'd have no salvation to lose if christianity is false, but that itsn't the question. Christianity is assumed to be true for the purposes of this debate, else it would have no meaning. If I were to debate Kirby's eating habits, telling me he's fictional isn't a relevant counter argument.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
"Why are you arguing this? I checked one of your several abortive attempts at having this debate and saw that you actually encouraged an opponent to do what DK did." Ummm, what exactly did I encourage anyone to do that was even remotely similar? And can you provide the link?
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Idauntiles. I haven't actually read the book lol
Posted by Idauntiles 4 years ago
Idauntiles
Why are you arguing this? I checked one of your several abortive attempts at having this debate and saw that you actually encouraged an opponent to do what DK did.

On another note, children get to Narnia by means of certain magical artifacts, not behavior.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
"If I make a debate with the resolution "A child can behave in such a way as to eventually wind up in Narnia" and define "Narnia" as "a magical place where it snows all the time, etc" you can accept this debate and accept the definition without automatically accepting that Narnia exists." Personally, I'd deny the definition and decline the debate, or I'd ask you to amend the definition to read "a mythical, magical place ..." or change it to "A magical place called Narnia exists.". Why not do that? Why shouldn't I do that? Trouble is: is you'd have done that, I would have changed it, and you wouldn't have debated, right? So really you couldn't afford to?

"Why accept a debate when you know the gyst of the subject, and you say, "I accept your definitions as true," then say, "Prove your definitions that I already accepted?" Why fool with it?" <-- I've asked this several times of several people and never really get an answer.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
If I make a debate with the resolution "A child can behave in such a way as to eventually wind up in Narnia" and define "Narnia" as "a magical place where it snows all the time, etc" you can accept this debate and accept the definition without automatically accepting that Narnia exists. And quoting The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe would not count as adequate evidence unless the resolution included "According to The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe" (or unless you prove the book is factually correct).

That's all there is to it. No semantics, no tricks, no nothing. I debated the resolution and for some reason you had a problem with that.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
"Why accept a debate when you know the gyst of the subject, and you say, "I accept your definitions as true," then say, "Prove your definitions that I already accepted?" Why fool with it?" <-- I've asked this several times of several people and never really get an answer.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
""Face it, you were looking for some 13 year old n00b who didn't know what they were talking about" That's not true at all, but if it were, I would have succeeded if not for his age.
Posted by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
"In order to be eternally lost, as you define, hell must exist for us to be eternally lost in. If hell doesn't exist, it's impossible to be eternally lost, as per your definition, thus making the resolution negated." CORRECT. I have a question: if hell doesn't exist, is my definition to which he agreed, a correct definition?

In other words, if I say "Zaradi, I think "eternally lost" means "lost in hell", is your response, "Anna, I think you're right - that's just what it means. I agree. Hell doesn't exist. Just cuz I went along with you and agreed with your definition doesn't mean I believe Hell exists." Man, even his own buddies, including you, are saying he was "maybe playing semantics" and "trolling". Proof? He said, "Maybe you should have worded your proposition better."
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was clearly set in a Christian Theology point of view, and I do not believe it was in the spirit of the debate to turn it into a "does god exist?"
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro set up a debate on a specific theological question, clearly defined within a specific context. Con took this with no intent of actually debating the resolution, instead derailing the debate to Hell's existence. This is the equivalent of taking the debate "It is possible for Harry to have died by the lake from the Dementor's attack" and arguing "Dementors are fictional. Derp." Conduct and arguments to Pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was a little rash but he did show how because this is all religious based and people have different religious beliefs that would make it impossible for the pro to fulfill her BOP. I gave conduct to the pro though because even though the con trolled, it was not in a funny matter (like what I do) so my hands are tied on the conduct vote. Well played though
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: For playing the semantics argument, and for basically ignoring Pro's arguments therefore, he loses arguments and conduct.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Accepting definitions is not equivalent to the presumption that God exists. Pro did not explicitly state that this was an assumption that had to be made, so Krafkick's approach was valid. I do not think that claiming it was implied is fair because in debate, nothing is assumed unless it is explicitly stated. Clear Con win.
Vote Placed by mongeese 4 years ago
mongeese
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was started under the assumption of Christian theology, but Con tried to turn it into a "does God exist?" debate.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's intentions and the overall spirit of the debate were clear to all. Con's refusal to acknowledge this meant Pro's arguments went unrefuted. Also, Con's attempt to undermine Pro's position was abusive. Arguments and conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Make it clearer next time Pro.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct as con called this a pathetic debate. I will come back and do arguments later.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
annanicoleDakotaKrafickTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con, it was implicit in the resolution that Pro has the burden to show someone can be "eternally lost" in the first place. Pro does not meet this burden. Pro also attacks Con's character, losing conduct points.