The Instigator
SuperTrooper44
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mharman
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Churches Are Slaughtering America's children for not believing in Christmas, can churches be bombed

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 1 vote the winner is...
Mharman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2017 Category: People
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 860 times Debate No: 102510
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (41)
Votes (1)

 

SuperTrooper44

Con

No they shouldn't because kids are weak stupid and ridiculous!!!!
The military is weak, who needs it
Churches aren't completely innocent but still no nos.
So that's it
Mharman

Pro

Let's take a look at the resolution.

"can churches be bombed"

First, I'm going to discount the first part of the resolution because this is objectively false, I am part of a church myself and I can tell you that the statement is definitely false; also, there is a lack of evidence to back up that claim. However, it is the second half of the resolution that got my interest.The key word there is the word "can". This means that the debate is about whether churces *can* be bombed, not if they *should* be bombed. My opponent argues why they *should* be bombed, and then says "but still no nos", despite seeming to argue that they *should* be bombed; also he never argues about whether or not they *can* be bombed. Thus, all I have to do to win is to successfully argue that churches *can* be bombed.They can be bombed.

Churches have been bombed before, 100% proving that they can be bombed.

(Source in comments section).

Please vote pro.
Debate Round No. 1
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Forever23// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Better

[*Reason for removal*] The voting period on this debate ended before this vote was cast. Votes placed after the end of the voting period are against site rules, regardless of what errors on the site allow.
************************************************************************
Posted by Mharman 5 months ago
Mharman
And he left the site. Goodbye, you troll! Hasta La Vista!
Posted by Mharman 5 months ago
Mharman
Wow. You still resort to insults when you are losing. How childish.

When you examine primary sources, it is easy to conclude that Jesus was a real person.

I am not in denial, you are. There is no conspiracy, you are just a crazy conspiracy theorist. I am not lying, you are.

Hitler may have been Christian, but he wasn't acting like one.

People do all sorts of things in the name of religion, even when their religion is against it.

Such persecution is not happening within the church.

Don't you dare bring your stupidity back here ever again.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 8 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Mharman just stop denying it you repudiate idiot
Jesus never existed
Your denials are a conspiracy now
It is a fact
You still prove that they do, stop denying it, quit being out of character.

Did you know that Hitler was a Catholic Christian?
He slaughtered innocent Jewish children for not conforming to his beliefs, this could be the same case for today.
Posted by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
Oh look! SuperTrooper44 was banned! Finally! Hasta La Vista, you stupid troll! HA!
Posted by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
@SuperTrooper43

First off, when children start questioning Christmas, they're talking about Santa. And when they do question Jesus existence, we do not slaughter them.

Second, it truly is true, there is so much evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Third, it is not a secret because it doesn't exist. The "Believe or Die" effect is talking about eternal death in Hell, not physical death on Earth.

Fourth, priests do not threaten children. You are lying, you made this up, and you have no evidence for this.

Finally, the priest does NOT slaughter the child, and we do NOT burn the body and celebrate the child's death, and there is no conspiracy cover-up.

You are lying. You made this entire thing up, and you are treating it like it is a fact. Get off the site.
Posted by SuperTrooper44 8 months ago
SuperTrooper44
Here is verbal evidence that the first resolution is true:
Here is some clarification:
(1)The disbelief that children have about not believing in christmas, they would worry that whatever they hear isn't true.
(2)The church-goer, pastor or priest tries to assure to them that whatever they were told was true, but it truly isn't.
(3) The clear validation is this secret that churches slaughter america's children is hidden secret to make sure nobody knows about it, also that it makes sense that they do it in the way of The Believe or Die Effect, which would occur 6 steps:

(Step One) The Child May Ask Questions like "Is it true?"

(Step Two) The Church-goer,pastor, or priest re-assures them with another lie, in which is "Of course it's true!"

(Step Three) The Child Complains, but the Church-goer, pastor, or priest doesn't listen.

(Step Four) The Church-goer, pastor, or priest threatens to slaughter them with a sharp knife they have in the church's kitchen.

(Step Five) The Child Complains and throws a temper tantrum.

(Step Six) The Church-goer, pastor, or priest slaughters the child, puts the dead body in a huge garbage bag, and burns it in which they call a "bonfire to celebrate the charities in which we gave" as their excuse to cover it up. They also clean up the scene with Bleach to clean the floor and they use another can of white paint to re-paint the wall, and they carry on with their lives."
which is seen in the comment section in this debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
@Brya('a', not 'i'- my bad)nmullins: That was a simple selling mistake. I told you it happens.

Incorrect. It is not true. It is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of because it is so blatantly false.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 8 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@Mharman you spelt my first name wrong, which is disrespectful
I don't misspell your name, why do it to mine?
even though it is "the dumbest thing" you've ever heard but its true.
Posted by Mharman 8 months ago
Mharman
@BryinMullinsBRAINCANCER2 This is a troll debate, look at the resolution. Obviously he is trolling. Counter-trolling is trolling yes, but I don't see anything wrong with counter-trolling.

I'm no liar, you are. You say your songs are fact, you say your opinion is the truth, you say I am lying... etc

So you're saying that because I put "conservative" down, that means I am the opposite? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

No, you're an online troll.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
SuperTrooper44MharmanTied
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: The resolution asked if they CAN be bombed, but Con only argued if they SHOULD be bombed. Pro is the only one who offered an argument on the topic of CAN, so arguments to Pro by default.