The Instigator
WOLF.J
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlfredCSM
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Bible Cain was emotionally neglected as a child

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...
AlfredCSM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 231 times Debate No: 107809
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

WOLF.J

Pro

TELL ME HE WAS NOT, i KNOW HE WAS! HIS MOMMA WAS TO BUSY TALKING TO SNAKES.
AlfredCSM

Con

Although I myself am an agnostic, my limited experience with religion has led me to observe that every individual may be considered the "child of God". As such, will it be possible to accurately debate if Cain as a "child of God" was neglected by his parent figure?

Suppose we instead, define Cain as the "child of his earthly parents". This debate will then become more acceptable, because religion strongly promotes the infallibility of "God".
There is insufficient evidence that Cain was emotionally neglected by his "earthly parents". However, assuming that all religious texts (although re-written and re-interpreted over time) can serve as compulsive evidence, please feel free to make quotations and I will address every one of them.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Leaning// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 point to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con argument that there is lack of evidence sounded more convincing than MOMMA WAS BUSY TALKING TO SNAKES. Lack of sources made judging more difficult. Pro saying vote for Con made it easier.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter could have gone into more detail, he is clear that Con made an argument that was relevant to the debate, while Pro did not. As such, the vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by AlfredCSM 5 months ago
AlfredCSM
@WOLF.J
Thank you, your topic happened to catch my attention as I was browsing the open debates.
Posted by WOLF.J 5 months ago
WOLF.J
i was just bored mate, don't take it seriously looool, vote for him tho for making serious. it can actually become an interesting topic
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 5 months ago
Leaning
WOLF.JAlfredCSMTied
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: Con argument that there is lack of evidence sounded more convincing than MOMMA WAS BUSY TALKING TO SNAKES. Lack of sources made judging more difficult. Pro saying vote for Con made it easier.