The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Raymond_Reddington
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

God Loves You

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 7 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,179 times Debate No: 56553
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

The Con postion for this debate is "God does not love me". "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments. Can can ask questions, but a rhetorical question that allows only for denial of God's existence is disqualiying and forfeits the debate. Con must argue how he knows God does not love him or her, and not argue that God is not there.

If these guidelines are not clear, please say so in the comments, not after you accept the debate challenge.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

I accept. I will be taking the position that there is no reason to believe in a personal god rather than an impersonal one. Also if there was a personal god there is no reason to believe that he would be loving rather than malevolent. The full Burden of Proof is on Pro here and since he is affirming the resolution he must give verifiable and empirical proof that god loves me. If Pro happens to prove that god is personal and loving I will take the position that I could be satan or a demon. If god does not love satan or demons he does not love me. So pro must prove that god is personal rather than impersonal, loving rather than malevolent or neutral, and I am a human being rather than satan or a demon. Pro has an impossible Burden of Proof.
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

you have violated the terms agreed to and you have forfeited the debate. Repeating the round 1 guidelines which were to be agreed to in accepting this challenge..........

"God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

My opponent seems to have misunderstood me.... I completely believe there is a god and I never said there was not. I just said he might be impersonal, malevolent, or just not love me. I never forfeited and I would like to see the quote that Pro is referring to that violated the rules... Also please make your case next round since the burden of proof is completely on you. This round has been wasted which is bad for you...
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

you have violated the terms agreed to and you have forfeited the debate. Repeating the round 1 guidelines which were to be agreed to in accepting this challenge..........

"God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments.
Raymond_Reddington

Con

Again I never said any of that... Thanks for wasting the debate. You just earned yourself a loss.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posted by Masons_State 2 hours ago
Ladies and Gentlemen who are unfortunate enough to be in this comment section, I recommend that we refrain from insulting each other.

The report feature exists for a reason, and this is just a bad road to go down one way or another.

The debate was very interesting, but I do not think that attacking people in the comments is a wise move. It, at the very least, distracts from the debate when you could have made more points instead.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Raymond, you are annoying but not like chosenwolf and Sagey who are repeatedly harrassing, using hate speech, and sexually explicit vulgarity and I am reporting therm repeatedly asking they be banned from this site or at least sternly warned to stop harassing me. I can put up with you being annoying, but if you start going off like those two punks, I will report you the same as I am reporting them.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you are really happy that you argued God does not love you and the voters agreed? I think you are a sore winner........because what you really won is points for saying God does not love you. You are wrong, God loves you. I think you are angry at God and that is why you can't simply be happy you won this debate and you feel you have to keep on insulting me........and the same with that last debate about mercy and suffering .........you won that but in the comments I exposed how much of a liar you are....your own votes expose how much of a liar you are.

Why in the world you think winning debates like this says anyting good about you is beyond me. God still loves you, even though you feel like He does not. God wants to change you from a dead liar into a child of God with eternal life in heaven. God loves you still, even though you act and talk like you hate Him.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Sore loser?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
it's a sad victory when somebody argues that God does not love them and many voters agree that God does not love them and they all pat each other on the back claiming they have proved that God does not love them. So they have no hope other than to get pats on the back from each other saying "God does not love you, but I'm your friend and it's ok, even good, for you to believe God does not love you".........and that's victory?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con has argued that God does not love him and the voters have agreed that he won the argument. The voters are wrong God loves Con and God loves all of you voters also.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I also noticed that it is easy to get friends on DDO, mostly just those wanting votes so they request friendship so as to secure votes.
Hardly a good reason to accept them as friends.
I am a softy and hate rejecting offers of friendship, but to maintain sanity and an unbiased vote, rejecting them is sometimes a must do situation.
Either that, tell them not to expect my vote if their arguments are not good enough to win, regardless of a so called friendship.
Quite often they cut the friendship off, as the votes don't always go their way.
Which indicates why they requested the friendship in the first place.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The reason I never told them is obvious, as then they would all want to tag along with me to squash coaching as they knew they could meet girls, so I told them it was an all male squash squad. Just so I'd have some time to myself, without hangers on.
Because I lived a "Life Of Brian" issue, with others following me around like I was some kind of Messiah.
Being popular has it's drawbacks.
It was nice to get away from them and get to know a different group of people.
None of the students ever knew about my sport dates.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Because I couldn't escape church in a Christian school, I had to make the most of it.
So I made a bet with the group of boys in my Theology class that I could score a passionate kiss out of the most beautiful girl in the church choir, with long blond wavy hair.
As I noticed they were all ogling her during services.
So much for not thinking of the flesh.
They bet their weekly pocket money that I couldn't get her to kiss me passionately, a peck didn't count.
I won the bet!
Though I didn't tell them that I had met her playing squash and we had been dating when I scored sports leave once a week, as it was an all male Christian boarding school, so meeting a girl for most was a luxury.
LOL
:-D~
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LMGiG is living proof that Heavy Indoctrination into religion, completely destroys a person's Intellect.

LMGiG essentially has no Intelligence, which we can attribute to severe indoctrination into Extreme Nonsense.
I've met many like LMGiG, when I was into Theology as a young teen.
You should have heard their attacks on me when I left Theology for science and history studies.
Yes, I was condemned to burn in hell almost every day I attended school.
They even scribbled my condemnation on toilet walls and my locker, and they certainly swore at me when I would stick the piece of rice paper (sacrament) to the roof of my mouth and peel it off outside of church, tear it up and feed it to the birds or stamp it into the ground in front of them.

LOL! I was certainly hated by those naive nutjobs
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro falsely claimed con violated the terms of the debate. also, pro made no arguments.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: I'm pretty sure LMGIG is a troll
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Pro loses points for trying to stack the deck, so Pro can have a chance of winning, this is not good debating tactics, it is similar to the poisoning of the Well fallacy William Lane Craig practices in his debates, which is idiotic. Thus Con gets the conduct points and There is no way of making the extreme Malevolence of the Bible God appear as Love, that is impossible for starters. Any reading of the first few Books of the Bible would make even the dumbest person on Earth realize that the only Love the God of the Bible has is For Itself, thus the first 4 commandments.
Vote Placed by XLAV 2 years ago
XLAV
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP. Pro did no provide the reason why a god loves Con. Arguments to Con. Con had better spelling and grammar. Pro misunderstood Con's round 2 arguments and for the rest of the round he kept on reposting his terms. Conduct goes to Con.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Pro misunderstood Cons's arguments, leading Pro to falsely believe that Con violated the rules. Con wins because he was the only one to forward any topic analysis, and Pro's refusal to communicate showed poor conduct and petulance.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Points Con. He fulfilled the demands of Pro by implying a Deist (non-personal) god may exist. Bad conduct on Pro.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
LifeMeansGodIsGoodRaymond_ReddingtonTied
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: Ha, this was a laugh. Con was not arguing that god doesn't exist, but that he is a utilitarian entity who seeks to benefit himself. Could Pro not grasp this concept? Therefore, I give con conduct and arguments. It was up to Pro to uphold the BOP, and he just copy and pasted his rule break thingy.