The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
20 Points

Better than Deserved

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,008 times Debate No: 56383
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (110)
Votes (7)




To whom this debate may be concern of,

Many people often ask me as an individual; why do you say, "your better than deserved?" Or "Why do you believe you don't deserve to be happy?" It has nothing to do with that. Here are my main arguments for this belief of mine,

Main Arguments

A. Holiness of God
B. Depravity of man-kind
C. Wrath and Love of God
D. Personal belief (humility)

For the rules:
1. No vulgar or profane language
2. Use any source you find relevant
3. be honest and willing to understand both sides
4. No FF please
5. Let's learn and have fun!

(Round 1 you may state your position or just accept, round 2 and 3 rebuttals and round 4 conclusion).

Best wishes to my opponent! :)


I accept this debate.

I have a feeling that there are probably better people to take this debate than myself, who can argue theologically. I don't intend to argue that way but in either case I will be negating the resolution to the effect of:

"GCL has it better than deserved (in life)".

I intend to question the notion of what it is to 'deserve something', and whether or not life is something tangible.

Best of luck to Pro, I hope this doesn't get too dark!
Debate Round No. 1


To clarify my position: AS human beings we all often are better than deserved. We are all alive; living and breathing. We also have been given a chance to seek God. Sorry I was not able to prepare my argment, so this is going against my own rules. :/

My apologies. I have been a bit busy today.

However, in simpler terms... Being better than deserved is to point directly to the Gospel of Christ.

God is Holy and thus- because He is holy makes Him just, righteous, perfect and good.
Whereas the depravity of man-kind is the total opposite because we all fall short of God's glory (Romans 3:23)...
we have broken God's law (Exodus 20:3-17) which in right, we are deserving nothing more than God's wrath in hell.
But John 3:16 addresses that because of God's love for the world we can be saved through the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
With this Gospel, in my personal belief, humility is a main reason to stand on the belief of being better than deserved.
If I or anyone were to say that they deserve to be saved or live a good life or be blessed than that is arrogant and cruelly stealing glory from God. The glory and point of direction should be based solely and only on God. Its not to say that God doesn't see me or anyone else deserving, because if He didn't then there would be no salvation of hope for any of us, but to stay humble this is the best way to approach when acknowledging the good things God has granted to us as believers and even non-believers.

Therefore, better than deserved is good to use for the sake of the understanding the Gospel and remaining humble. :)

(sorry its short, hope this answers everyone's questions though... And best wishes to my opponent!)


Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

My first message to GCL, which was a few months was very much on this topic, where I strongly disagreed with the notion that I felt that GCL was unjustifiably 'putting herself down' with every time 'better than deserved' and so on was mentioned. From where I stand it is a depressing mindset which is a negative effect of many interpretations of Christianity.

So my objective in this debate is to demonstrate that we are in no way better than deserved, and I will attempt to go a stretch further by asserting this even if one accepts the central tenets of Christianity.

Best of luck to us both, and without further ado..

II. Our rights/God's rights

As humans we need to be capable of standing on our own two feet when it comes to introspection and self evaluation, and as such we need to be able to see what we are deserving of even when under a divine power.

That means, humans should be regarded to have rights and their values judged independently of what God's opinion of these might be. God clearly has his own will and desires as described in Christianity, and one of the main tenets of Christianity are that god has granted us free will. We have been given the right... to judge God's and our own rights. As such, God's position as a divine authority should be irrelevant to such introspection.

Pro contends that God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. God's omnibenevolence is a questionable claim and there is no consensus amongst Christians on whether or not God fits this definition. Many will argue that God himself is the source of objective goodness in the world, but this is a very much questionable claim, especially given that views on morality amongst Christians has generally changed, with all people of all races now regarded as equal, slavery abolished, rape and underage sex generally seen morally wrong, as well as human and animal sacrifices. More recently, same sex marriage, and abortion views have changed in general. Of course this is not entirely consistent across Christians, but it is a clear indication that our values have largely changed independantly of the original values depicted by Christianity's literal reading of their texts.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to reassess our self-evaluation independantly as well. If God is onnibenevolent then our results of introspection, should yield results that are consistent with God's will.
Now. I have cleared up the foundations of my position, I will establish my first line of argument.

III. Depravity of Mankind

Much if what Pro argues actually works against her own position. One of most significant problems with the teaching of Christianity are that we are all born in sin, and must repent. Please note Pro's opening arguments:

"God is Holy and thus- because He is holy makes Him just, righteous, perfect and good.
Whereas the depravity of man-kind is the total opposite because we all fall short of God's glory"


"We have broken God's law (Exodus 20:3-17) which in right, we are deserving nothing more than God's wrath in hell."

Let me ask, why do we deserve nothing more than god's wrath in hell? If all humans fall short of God's glory then surely this is a black and white indication that reaching a level which is essentially unattainable as God is defined is an unfair situation. And is a situations that humans were never consulted on, or had a choice in the matte.

If Humans were given no choice in their state if goodness, and are originally born/created in a state that will invariably lead them to eternal torture, then clearly they are in a position that is far worse than their actions merit. *They are much worse than deserved*.

Another tenet of Christianity is that Adam & Eve brought about the fall of man by committing the original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge (Genesis 3), in essence every human is born in sin as a result of their actions that day.

"Romans 5:14 - Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come

Romans 5:19 - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

But this contradicts the resolution, because even though Adam & Eve's actions that day would arguably merit their own punishment in hell, and their own sin, it doesn't follow that all their descendants would also carry the same sin. We were all born without being a choice in the matter, we had to be born, and moreover we were forced to be born with a debt we never asked for.

Therefore, the whole concept of original sin, and the depravity of mankind are very much in contradiction with the resolution, we humans today never did ask for our existence, and never did ask for the burden that God has placed upon up with original sin and his setting if standards that no human can realistically achieve by their own will.

IV. Human life's intrinsic value

From Pro's opening argument:

"AS human beings we all often are better than deserved. We are all alive; living and breathing."

However this begins with the presupposition that being alive is intrinsically good, which Pro needs to support for her argument to work.

There are however, quite compelling arguments one can make for the reverse, that life is generally a sufferable existance, and it would be better if mankind simply just went extinct. This works both theologically and philosophically, since of the former there would no longer be any human's committing sin, as well as humans that steal God's glory (although this concept is prima facie questionable).

For the latter, life demonstrably exists as various states of discomfort, and suffering, and virtually every pleasure we experience come from fulfilling in a specific state of where we were experiencing discomfort. A meal becomes increasingly pleasurable the hungrier you get, a backscratch becomes increasingly pleasurable the itchier it is in the first place. All sources of discomfort act as pools for which satiation grants a temporary reprieve.

Life itself as we observe is a struggle for survival, your body is constantly fighting a losing battle against it's own decay, an unending cycle of fulfilling one aspect of discomfort after another as per our own God given biological makeup forces us to endure.

Satiation, or comfort are only temporary interludes, and inevitably the state of discomfort returns. This being the case, it is virtually impossible for humans to ever achieve a state of complete satiation, for which even if it was achieved would not fulfil what is required to make life generally a good thing.

Therefore, it is clear that even biologically, God has created us necessarily in a state which could have been substantially better, and worse than a state of non-existence, which is pretty much as close to being 'worse than deserved' as one can get. What is worse is in Christianity, death is not an escape from the sufferable existence of living, as we must face judgement, and our souls are immortal, whether we like it or not. As a result, we have no choice but to spend the rest of eternity in heaven or hell, it is a choice that a non-existent life doesn't need to make, and indeed, we are worse off than we deserve.

V. Conclusion

My main contentions this debate are to show that the depravity of mankind, and the sufferable mandatory existance which we had no choice in the matter, make for an unfair and undeserving life in depravity and discomfort. We are much worse off than we deserve to be by taking the standard of non-existance, and therefore the resolution is firmly negated.

I hand back this interesting albeit depressing debate to Pro, and look forward to her rebuttals
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for to con for those interesting thoughts and questions. I appreciate your honesty.

If I may, beginning with his first point, yes, we did have this discussion on this topic, but why my opponent seems to misunderstand is that it is not a negative phrase or a way of thinking because it is not something based off of my own personal introspectiveness rather it is of what my beliefs are based upon what I read solely from the Bible. To say, "I'm better than deserved" is simply to acknowledge that I have hope of gain in knowing that My God who is the God of everything is the reason for me being alive to begin with. It has nothing to do with much of the way of living in the state of being. Sure, I have struggles, we all have struggles, but it is necessary for the Glory of God.

Second point, my opponent makes an indication that we have rights as well as God, this may be the case; however, this does not give us a reason to live how we please without realizing the consequences in the end. Yes, things have changed, some for the better and some for the worst. My opponent does not realize that the free will of God has been given, is taken so lightly because if it was not, then clearly everyone would fall to their faces realizing just how much we need Him and that because we fall short that God is able to begin a good work in us and move us for His own glory. Otherwise just like a person who breaks the laws of lands, cities, states, countries; there are consequences even as far as death.

Third point, to answer the question, we ALL deserve God's wrath in hell simply because He has made Himself known to us just as He did with Adam and Eve. Provided life regulations to live by, not necessarily out of obligation, but to obtain perfection in accordance with His spirit. The reason of original sin is not because Adam and Eve just "fell" into sin, it was a matter of a choice. Catch phrase that pastor R. C. Sproul Sr. once said is, "were not sinners because we sin, we sin because were sinners"; in other words, our sin is not just something we do it's something we choose to do because we are in fact sinners. There is no excuse for any of us, and if anyone goes to hell it is because of themselves willing to continue in their sin with pleasure hating their sin as it is. John 3:18 confirms that those who do not believe in Him (christ) are already condemned. Why, because they do not believe. Yet, God in His sovereignty has made Himself known in so many ways, but for some reason people still question as if there is not anything to prove. (Just for clarity, this is not to spark up on another issue of whether God exists or not, I was merely answering my opponents question).

Fourth point, is directed at our sufferings as humans and how our mentality has effect on us whether good or bad, this may be true, but does not define the reason to believe that we are better than deserved. To be a alive at all is a blessing and to simply assume or complain that "we were not asked to be born" is too complex because it would presume of life being insignificant at all. God made each person for a purpose and that purpose was for His glory and to use us for His glory. Would people accept this fact? Or would anyone believe it is a good definition of life? Probably not, but unless one has been regenerated by God's spirit, it will remain as a non-purposeful life and left feeling like nothing is of worth and will assume that we are worse off than deserved, but nay, if it really was worse off than we deserved than we would all be in hell already. The fact that we still breathe now is by the Grace and Mercy of God. It can easily be removed, yet He is so long-suffering.

Finally, hopefully everything that my opponent opposed to can visually understand what it is is the definition to my resolution. It is to define our need for a savior for us because of course without one, we have no purpose or worth living for. Everything would just be all vanity in the end, but that is not the case here. We are so better off than deserved because God has granted us away to salvation, but it is up to us to obey His calling to our hearts and His spirit changing us.

Best wishes to my opponent as I await for his next rebuttal!


Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

I appreciate my opponent's views on what 'Better than deserved' means to her, but my position in this debate is to negate this, and I feel that because that the very notion that one does not deserve more is to be happy with less than the fruits of your labor. Why should we settle for less than we deserve? There is a reason why charities for less-well off people exist, as we do not think they are getting a fair treatment out of life, and that we can help improve that.

So I hold two views, first that the resolution is false, and second the resolution is harmful, but this debate is only about the former.

II. Presuppositions

My opponents arguments seem to lean on the presupposition that just living, being conscious, is a gift in itself. That this alone is intrinsically valuable. I find this problematic, and most my arguments have ignored this presupposition, as it is one that Pro has not supported until now, where the only line of argumentation is that we are born for a purpose, which is for God's glory.

However it is not at all apparent how the purpose of something makes it intrinsically valuable. By analogy let's take a spade. A spade alone usually has an intrinsic purpose when built, which is to dig, indeed that is it's design. But take exactly the same physical spade which was not designed for any particular purpose, it just exists in it's current form. Now, it is not at all spare t why either of these spades would be more valuable, or intrinsically 'better' than the other, they are the same entity after all, just the original purpose for both was different. It it not at all obvious why something built for a purpose should make it any more valuable than one that was not. The same seems to apply for humans.

In fact, even if we were to assume that purpose does imbue some value into life, it would not be an intrinsic value, but an extrinsic one, which is one prescribe by God. In essence we only have value because of what God has given us, in essence, our lives have value because we are God's property, or the efforts of God's labor.

This however ignores the rights and justice of the individual itself, and their ability to give value to their own lives, and hence, in an unfair position. As it is God's rights over a mans life over the man's rights over his own life. This is akin to ownership & slavery.

III. Better than deserved?

Please note that after death we are faced with two possibilities:

1. Eternity with God in heaven
2. Eternal torment in hell

Pro has attested to both of these. Now consider, in either if these cases, we still have our immortal soul, or our life. But in the latter example we are subject to hopeless torture and torment in the fires of hell, such pain and suffering would be endured that a very strong argument can be made in favor of non-existance is preferable to 'living' in hell for all eternity.

If we accept this assertion, which prima facie seems very plausible, then it follows that life is not an infinitely intrinsically good condition, since there are circumstances where non-existence is more preferable to existence/life/free will.

Remember we have two theologically justified situations:
We follow God's law and accept God & Jesus and can go to heaven
We do not do 1 and go to hell

If we accept that Pro has done #1 and is rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, then it does not demonstrate the truth of the resolution, as it can be viewed that life in heaven is a repayment for Pro's good deeds. Of course I think that Pro is very much the type of person who would qualify for this but that is besides the point.

If Pro has done #2 and goes to hell, then my previous argument that hell is an unjustifiably severe punishment, and anyone that a priori will go there is logically worse off than deserved (as argued in the last round).

Therefore, the only scenario that would fulfil the resolution of 'Better than deserved' is if Pro, or anyone has fulfilled the conditions for #2, but are likely to be rewarded with #1. So far there are two qualifiers that Pro and I have put forth that would entitle her to go to hell.

#1 Her Sins in this life
#2 Original Sin

Now, I have dealt with #2 in detail last round. The fact that we were never asked to be born, and since every human born is born with original sin (from Adam and Eve), then it clearly follows that every person is born entitled to receive eternal punishment in hell without having committed a single good or evil act. This very clearly is a case of being much worse off than deserved, unless Pro is to argue that eternal torment in hell is intrinsically good and favourable to non-existence, which seems unlikely.

By arguing against #2 alone I have already demonstrated this resolution to be false since we are all born with an unfair burden.

Against #1 I have argued that moral values have changed over time, for both Christians and non-Christians. It is not black and white where we strictly are in obedience of God's law. I accept that God would have granted us free will to choose whether or not to accept god' slaw and abide by it, but it does not solve this dilemma I have already given. Since free will is another thing that God has unwillingly burdened us with, and without Free Will then we wouldn't be blameable for our actions, and thus not subject to punishment. If we were subject able to punishment without free will, then it clearly would be a malevolent, unjust existence.

There are many things that influence free will, a person's mental well-being, with conditions such as depression, anxiety, trauma, enlightenment and even diet have effects on a person's ability and tendency to choose. Yet all these conditions we would regard as examples of free will. If this was true then why are we designed by God such that his law isn't something we are naturally automatically compelled to do. We aren't automatically compelled to never steal, to never kill, to always keep the sabbath holy. There are many life situations where these Sins are a compulsion to us, such as in self defence, or self-preservation or of a loved one.

It is a sin to steal to prevent your child from starving to death, for example. Most people would arguably do this if given the choice, yet it is against God's law. God, being omnipotent, could have created us to have a positive compulsion to do good. There would still be choice, and we could choose to do differently, but by similar mental drives to what are given by the mental conditions listed above God could have done things differently, and better for human's sake.

IV. Conundrum:

God has put us in an unjustifiably unfair position, of forcing us to fulfil unreasonably high standards which could never be accomplished short of salvation, by burdening us further with original sin, and by having us born without our permission, and created in such a way that living up to his standards is near-impossible.

I contend that anyone suffering in hell is suffering an unjustifiably large punishment, and is much worse off than deserved even if we account for non-existance. Pro needs to demonstrate she is receiving an unjustifiably high reward for her current position, and show that the presuppositions behind these are sound.

Until then, back to Pro!
Debate Round No. 3


Well, since this is the last round it is time for conclusion. Thank you my opponent for this time in debating this topic with me.
I would answer all of what you had in your 3rd round but to obey my own rules, we can discuss in comment section or PM if you'd like?

In concluding though, I have stated how "better than deserved" is nothing more but a Biblical belief and not of something to disregard myself or put myself down. The intent here is to define the Gospel of Christ and to show that through humility one can acknowledge goodness, but still acknowledge who we as people are; sinful. I have done my best to explain the importance of understanding how we fall and are nothing more but sinful creatures and that we deserve nothing more than God's wrath in hell, but that Christ came and died and rose to give us life so we didn't have to do a thing to earn God's unmerited favor (grace), it was freely given. So for this, in the most positively humbling way, this is why anyone who would say, "better than deserved" is to acknowledge who we are as humans and who God is!

Thanks again to my opponent for taking the time to debate me on this! Best wishes to you! :)


I. Preface

I greatly appreciate GCL for debating this topic, I hope I gave her the debate she wanted. I feel like giving her one big hug now.

II. Conclusion

To summarise, my major points of contention are:
Existence is not intrinsically good
We are unfairly punished for actions not our own
God's law, and standards are arbitrary and unfairly unreachable
Failing to reach these standards leads to a punishment and torment that is very easily arguably worse than existence
We were brought into existence against our wishes

We ought to expect more of ourselves, and value our rights where God seems to impinge on them. After all if God is benevolent, then it is only fair and logical.

III. Closing
I will leave you with a couple of quotes:

"We need men with moral courage to speak and write their real thoughts, and to stand by their convictions, even to the very death." -Robert Green Ingersoll

"To really be free, You need to be free in the mind." Alexander Loutis
Debate Round No. 4
110 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SONOFGOD2013 2 years ago
Hey godchooseslife how are you?
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
My apologies. I write all my stuff (except 1-3 liners) in Word doc, then copy and paste. I had to edit my comment to fit the word limit in Comment Section. My 1st copy & paste exceeded the word limit. My 2nd copy & paste was suppose to be broken into 3 parts but I only C&P-ed 2 parts missing the middle.
The SPACE between my original comment is where this middle was suppose to go:

Now one of the meanings for "uwph" (flying) is actual means "flying creature" or "flying insects".
Young"s Literal Translation reads: "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you." The text first states "all flying insects" then says "that creep on all fours". It singles out all flying insects then restricts these insects to the ones that walk on all four. There are flying insects that have 6 legs but only walk on four legs/feet. Grasshoppers, crickets, etc. (
Strong"s Concordance states that "halak" implies to "go" and "haholech" means to "walk". Halak is the root for haholech but the latter is used in most Hebrew manuscripts, and honestly, the latter ones. (
Also SEE "sherets" ( and this article (
So the original Hebrew word, wrongly translated "insects" means "birds", "fowls", "flying creatures" or "swarming creatures".

The first sentence of the 2nd part (actually 3rd part) of my original comment was supposed to highlight that "insect" was not used during the Leviticus era, only the the concept of birds, fowls, winged & swarming creatures. Insect was not a word used back then.

Sorry for the missing information. I made this error in another comment too. I will be more vigilant from now on.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Pls stop spamming my debate.

Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
I just stuck comments here as you got onto the front page of DDO.
So ppl visiting DDO can see them and some of them may disagree and thus challenge me on one of those comments.
It's fishing for contention!

Here fishy fishy, take my bait!

Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
@ GCL, you can debate me on any of those comments I've made, if you think you can??
So can anybody else, even LMGiG.

Not that winning debates prove anything at all, since that is an Ad-Populum Fallacy.
Debates are usually won by what the majority think is true, but that is so often wrong as Galileo demonstrated.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Birds and fowls do not have 4 legs, so again the Bible is stupidly wrong in Leviticus.
If you take Leviticus 11: 19-21, inclusive, it dispels the bird theory and definitely points to it meaning insects.
So your diatribe is incorrect and Errant.

If you watch the video I posted, then you will see other chronological/historical errors of the Bible.

Jonah inside the giant fish, is another problem for the Bible.
It was not a whale as the Bible definitely states 'Fish', so fish do not have air passages which could house a human.
Whales are not fish, they are mammals.
DNA proves this.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
Although this is not my fight, I'd like to straighten something, since most Christians cannot do it themselves.
But the English translations of the Hebrew & Greek Texts of the Heb. & Gk. manuscripts of the "Scriptures" are grammatically flawed. One can not logically prove the majority of the "Scriptures" bogus based on English translations of the "original Biblical languages" because the English translations do not adequately represent the Hebrew & Greek original versions. Evidence:
Leviticus 11:20 (NASB):
"All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you."
The original KJV stated "fowls" not "insects".
The Hebrew word translated "fowls" or "insects" is "haowp" (
Haowp comes from the root word "uwph" transliteration "oph" (
Uwph/oph/haowp, like many Hebraic words, has multiple meanings, primarily 4: bird, that flieth, flying, fowl (See 2nd Link above).

So the original Hebrew word, wrongly translated "insects" means "birds" or "fowls".
Many English Bibles are outright wrong.
The original Hebrew Bible is correct, therefore the words of God are correct.
Sagey, I find it amusing how people can compellingly dismantle the English Bibles to "Christians" and they never respond back with a provable counter-argument. This is one of the pillar reasons why most of the intelligent world lacks respect for Christians--they cannot logically prove what they believe in.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
Hi Sagey,

ummmm interesting things you had to say,..
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
BTW: I removed this from my favorites, but since it made the cover page of DDO, I had a look.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
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's arguments are full of delusive tendencies towards standard Christian fallacies. Original sin is a fallacy, if God made Adam perfect as in Genesis, Adam would not deliberately choose to defy god, being perfect, thus either God is imperfect and could not create a perfect being or Adam saw God's imperfections (being perfect ) so deliberately defied what he saw as an imperfect order. Either way God is imperfect. Con's arguments contained less of the typical Christian fallacious thinking exhibited by Pro. Thus my vote. My own spelling and grammar are quite poor so I'd be a hypocrite to attack anybody else's.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had quite a few spelling and grammatical errors so that point goes to pro. Pro second round was her weakest and that's when Con took advantage and won outright contentions 2&3. Con then was able to hold them the rest of the debate, though I do wish there was another round of full fledged debating.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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: Generally, it seems like this debate is dependent upon whether I buy the views expressed in the Bible. If so, I vote Pro, if not, I vote Con. Con gives me enough reason to say that the reasoning isn't there for the stance itself, and therefore that the basis for the Bible's making this point is weak or uncertain. I don't get any similar mitigation from Pro, just defense. So I vote Con.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate, I think Pro's intentions were to argue on the consensus that both contenders believe in personal salvation. Which would have easily won her debate. Con took a very clever stance in this debate, arguing that god is real but people who are condemned are not better than deserved. It was a very interesting read and while both did great, I think envisage argued from a very smart perspective winning arguments. Not to knit-pick but Envisage had numerous incorrect spellings so I'm giving GCL Spelling and grammar. Great job guys :)
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though I actually disagree with multiple points GodChoosesLife makes, I agree with her primary position and argument--most people deserve far worse than they get in life, because of their sins! She is correct to argue that humans are sinful animals, though I do wish she would mention more about what sin does in our communities and how it can even hurt innocent people. I agreed with GodChoosesLife's primary premise, hence why I awarded her the win!
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: 1st. Pro's titular premise conflicts with a correlation to the "Christian-worldview" of God. Based on Christianity & Biblical analysis: the fact that God created humans defines us as deserving to life--made in his image, AFTER his likeness. For ex., if we came into existence through an evolutionary process, that God didn't design or was powerless to prevent, then we'd be "better than deserved". Why? Because if our sins are "violations against God's law" and "God hates sin" and "God destroys sin" then he would have annihilated us umpteenth times over. Therefore, it is only logical to assume we deserve to existence. 2nd. Con's Biblical sources demonstrate why Pro's explanatory of her premise is lacking a solid foundation. 3rd. Although I respect one's religious & spiritual convictions, Pro was preaching a Biblical POV, not scholastically analyzing a Biblical POV. If she had only argued more as a Christian scholar than a Christian enthusiast, the holes in her premise might not be.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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: GCL's weak second round is responded with a mighty roar of Envisage, powerful flames of arguments directly from the Bible itself, fulfilling his points. While GCL did logically and calmly attempt to rebut the points, Envisage slashed away each and one of them, ending with a powerful "Conundrum", which made it near impossible for GCL to recover in the end.