The Instigator
SethBedeGB
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
rogue
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

ALL Souls in Creation have a right to LIVE, a STANDARD of LIFE and Continuity!

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 10 votes the winner is...
rogue
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 21466
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

SethBedeGB

Pro

Life is NOT Cheap.. It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!.. The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!.. In such a Case where a Soul has Sufficient "Value" then it has sufficient, "Claim" to Living Existence, RepreSentative of that Value AND More!.. Life must be allowed to have its doman of "Worth" at the Position it Requires?!.. AND Continuity to the limits of its "Extent"! This, Must remain as what amounts to "Commandment"!.. Any Opinions?!
rogue

Con

I will begin by pointing out that this debate presupposes the existence of a soul which is unproven. Pro must first prove there is a soul.

Secondly, Pro must state where these rights are coming from. Who or what validates these rights.

Until Pro establishes these things, there is nothing to rebute. His first arguments are unsupported assertions.
Debate Round No. 1
SethBedeGB

Pro

Life is NOT Cheap.. It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!.. The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!.. In such a Case where a Soul has Sufficient "Value" then it has sufficient, "Claim" to Living Existence, RepreSentative of that Value AND More!.. Life must be allowed to have its doman of "Worth" at the Position it Requires?!.. AND Continuity to the limits of its "Extent"! This, Must remain as what amounts to "Commandment"!.. Any Opinions?!

The Definition of "Soul" is Superfluous to Con's counter-claim.. Call it what you Like?!.. Basically, the "Premise" of Life, if you prefer is my reference to an absolute right for the "Owner" of a Span of Life to have its Value extend to the full limit of its Worth.. The argument here is Not about what a Soul, "Means".. It is about the basic, right for people not to be "Selected" or etc. etc. for Not-living but to Live the Full-span and Distance that their Life-right dictates.. The argument, simply states (once again) that Life is the "Soul's" birthright and is the Foremost Upholder in a Creation more than able to Sustain ALL such "Claims"?!.. If we need to talk semantics about "Soul" then ask a Kindergarten Kid to play the Year 2 exercise in what Soul is... No-one, alive cannot sense something that represents this definition... Round 2, simply states again that Life Must gain prevalence in an "Intelligent" "Universe" from Death and his "Weak" "Harvest".. That is the simplicity of a Universe that is 400bn Light-Years Wide?!.. Ok?!..
rogue

Con

"Life is NOT Cheap"- Cheap? Since when does life have monetary value?

"It is Dearer to God than anything except Creation itSelf?!"- This presupposes the existence of God which is not proven. Also. how does Pro know God's opinion?

"The right to Life should be ABSOLUTE!.. This does Not, neceSsarily apply to Unborn Life, but Does apply to "Established" Souls?!"- First of all, Pro assertion that the right to life is absolute is unsupported. Next, Pro goes on to contradict himself by saying that the right to life does not apply to the unborn, making the right to life not absolute. Established souls? What makes an established soul? Who says a soul exists?

I honestly don't understand what the rest of his paragraph was saying.

"The Definition of "Soul" is Superfluous to Con's counter-claim.. Call it what you Like?!"- It certainly is not. Pro has not established what a soul is, its relevance to his argument, or proved the existence of a "soul."

" It is about the basic, right for people not to be "Selected""- What does Pro mean by 'selected' and where does this right come from? Who or what validates it?

"If we need to talk semantics about "Soul" then ask a Kindergarten Kid to play the Year 2 exercise in what Soul is... No-one, alive cannot sense something that represents this definition"- I do not sense a "soul" and neither do many others. Pro needs to prove the existence of a soul before he keeps ranting on about it.

I honestly don't understand what Pro's argument is....
Debate Round No. 2
SethBedeGB

Pro

Ok... Lets start over from "I Honestly Don't, understand what Pro's argument Is...".. The Debate here IS Simple.. It's, if you like, an extension of (but not including) the Abortion Debate.. The Mind-"Soul"-Body (and Con clearly, DOES accept from the inference that Soul is easily "defined") represent Life that has a right to the Full existence-extent of its Value. All I am stating is that people have a right to live On and (cheesy) "Prosper" to the Limit of what their "Statement" of Life allows.. I am merely stating that Life cannot be held as cheaply as some areas of mankind and Earth Hold it So. Life is an Absolute right from the moment of "Personal", "Existence" Creation of Life to the Vanishing Point at which Life has Exhausted its overall value. Other "Souls" (existences) may not hold Life in Contempt wherein the case is that the Life is to be, shall we say, "Terminated" against the run of its "Race". Heaven (etc.) will assure you that Life is Second to God ONLY from Creation itself; in fact what can, "God" define as Greater than Life although (of course) Less than Creation?!.. So once accepted that the FULL extent of Life-sustenance, MUST be "Upheld" then that sort of "Library Loan" MUST NOT be, casually, "Dismissed"?!.. That is all.. The argument is Clear?!..
rogue

Con

"he Mind-"Soul"-Body (and Con clearly, DOES accept from the inference that Soul is easily "defined") represent Life that has a right to the Full existence-extent of its Value."- I didn't accept anything. The "soul" is not easily defined, nor is it proven to exist. What value does this "mind-body-soul" thing have? What gives it its value?

"I am merely stating that Life cannot be held as cheaply as some areas of mankind and Earth Hold it So."- But it is by some as you just stated, so therefore that statement contradicts itself. Maybe it SHOULD not but you have not supported that point.

"Life is an Absolute right from the moment of "Personal", "Existence" Creation of Life to the Vanishing Point at which Life has Exhausted its overall value."- As I keep asking Pro to explain, where does this absolute right come from? Who or what makes something an absolute right?

"Heaven (etc.) will assure you that Life is Second to God ONLY from Creation itself; in fact what can, "God" define as Greater than Life although (of course) Less than Creation?!.. So once accepted that the FULL extent of Life-sustenance, MUST be "Upheld" then that sort of "Library Loan" MUST NOT be, casually, "Dismissed"?!.. That is all.. The argument is Clear?!.."- I think so, but you have made it really convoluted. First of all you are presupposing the existence of God which you have not proven to exist, nor have you defined. You have also not proved the existence of heaven or defined heaven. You have also not shown why or how things such as life and creation are valued or where you are getting the information about these values.

Your points are completely unsupported assertions.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Bones.KK 5 years ago
Bones.KK
PRO IS RIGHT!!!!!!!! god put us on this earth of a reason, and we have only 1 chance to for fill this reason, so if god wasn't alive, u wouldn't be alive, god is here to revive us, and everyone should have the right to live
Posted by LokiLoks 5 years ago
LokiLoks
3 MONTHS for voting?
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
The unborn have souls so if you're going to be Pro, you would need to support them as well. A new soul is created when the individual is.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
SethBedeGBrogueTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Booty Juice
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
SethBedeGBrogueTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: As soon as I read the opening statements, I gave up. I'm giving s/g to con.
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
SethBedeGBrogueTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con proved what we all saw in plain sight, all pros points are completely unsupported assumptions, based on that con clearly wins, successful refutation of pros case (or whatever one my call it)
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
SethBedeGBrogueTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Jesus Christ, learn some grammar for ****s sake, that was painful.
Vote Placed by Xerge 5 years ago
Xerge
SethBedeGBrogueTied
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: Hmm...Pro's arguments was unsupported as stated by Con. Con refuted and had a stronger case.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
SethBedeGBrogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con refuted Pro's points. Pro had the burden of proof, but didn't make a case.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
SethBedeGBrogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: God this was just a flat-out awful debate. I can't even believe I read through all of that. Con gets the win in this off of so many levels, I can't possibly list them all here. Grammar is an obvious win for the con as well. Now excuse me while I try to cleanse my brain from this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
SethBedeGBrogueTied
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: pro clusterf*cked many debates into one debate, and then still failed to give a coherant argument at all, arguments to the con.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
SethBedeGBrogueTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Con's last statement summed up pro's arguments pretty well...unsupported assertions...also please not so many capital letters Pro
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SethBedeGBrogueTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: His case was based only on god, unsupported arguments, fallacies, and that life has monetary value. Con refuted all of his points, and won the debate. Having a case mainly off of god is poor as that may not apply to atheists.