The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
ChosenWolff
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

God loves you.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-8
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 16 votes the winner is...
ChosenWolff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,222 times Debate No: 56566
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (167)
Votes (16)

 

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. Con may 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.
ChosenWolff

Con

I will accept this debate. My resolution will be based on the assumption that there is not enough evidence that god is more than a utilitarian entity. Full BOP will be on my opponent. It is up to him 100% to prove that god, if he exists, loves you. It would also be in Con's best intrests to prove what god he is referring to. He has not, so I will assume divinity in general.

I eagerly await his arguments.

Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

You have violated the terms of this debate and you have forfeited.

. "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 accept 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.
ChosenWolff

Con

I did not violate the rules. I followed them to the number. My opponent can not accept the fact, that to prove god loves you, he must prove his existence. This is very different from denying or saying something deragotory against god. Seriously, he's a troll who has done this debate several times. I believe in divinity for gosh sakes. Maybe not the same god as this guy.

If my opponent will not argue his BOP, then all 7 points should be forfeited to me.

Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

You have violated the terms of this debate and you have forfeited.

. "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 accept 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.
ChosenWolff

Con

My opponent has no wishes to debate fairly or honestly. His BOP is negated, and all points should be given to me.

CRUSH THIS TROLL!!!

Cheers!
Debate Round No. 3
167 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
There was no violation, the only violation exists in Pro's head, nowhere else in the debate content.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Wolf, I said it several times and I'm getting tired of saying it. Read my comments on the last few pages.
You probably will not admit any violation, that's ok. I really think you do not understand. It's ok. I'm sorry the terms I wanted were not clear to you. I don't want to fight with you. You win this debate, it's ok. Next time I will be more careful to make sure my opponent understands my terms. You put in the time and you won the debate, it's ok.
I really think you and the voters who supported you simply don't understand the terms....I know some of the voters are truly biased agaisnt me and will always vote against God as God. I think most of the voters simply can't grasp the terims I requested for this debate. I don't want to fight with you, I don't want to argue with you any more.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Ellmig, I would not feel threatened by you unless you did what one raving anti-christian man did and threatened to hack my ISP address and hunt me down and do me bodily harm.......even if you did that, I would not be afraid.......the worst you can do is send me to heaven.

If you feel threatened when I say God has the right to reject you from heaven and leave you cast away into the fire of hell, you need to take that up with God. I'm only a man sitting here typing and trying to tell you God loves you and wants you to be saved from the fire of Hell and He made a way for you to be saved so you can remain with Him in eternal life forever.

If you think you have no need to be saved from death and the fire of hell, then why should you care what I say about it? Why not just ignore me and leave me alone? Why go to the trouble of making a cheap imitation of my screenname to try to ride along on my coat tails? What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to prove that you have the right to be spared from the fire of Hell? Do you think you can prove that?
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
Tell me exactly where I insulted god? Please tell me....
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
whatever you believe, you reduced God to less than God in your argument and I clearly stated in my opneing statments that I would provide no further argument if you did what you did.

Whatever you believe, you don't know God or you could not say God cannot be proven to be more than a utilitarian entity. A utilitarian entity is less than God and is not God. Whatever you say you believe as oriental christianity does not matter for this debae. The meaning and definition of God for this debate was to be understood and mutually agreed upon wiith no need for explanation or definition for this debate. You violated the terms by demanding explanations and defiintions of "God". You should not have taken this challenge and you sure wont be allowed to again. This debate has been argued honorably and won by my opponients in three debates exactly like this one was supposed to be. I give you no honor. The others who argued honorably and won deserve honor for recognizing and abiding by the rules which apparently are beyond your comprehension.....no insult intended there, you just didn't understand and I guess you sitll do not. That's ok, but it won't happen again.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I can't believe your still arguing here.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
I can't believe your still arguing here.
Posted by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
BTW, I believe in oriental Christianity, so saying I don't believe god exists is silly.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
if you say you believe in a magcal goofball, then go have a debate with somebody who dioes not believe in a magical goofball.

The terms I politely asked my opponent to agree to upon acceptance forbid and implications that God is less than God. If you can't understand or won't accept that God is God, then you have no business taking up this debate challenge and you forfiet if you imply God is less than God. My opponent never intended to recognize God as God and he never did........he should not have taken this debate and in the comments I clearly stated I would not debate with anybody who used arguments degrading to God as my opponent did.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
chosen wolf had no intention of recognizing God as God which was required for this debate.

If you think he did not violate the terms, I know you are not capable of accepting this challenge and you will not be allowed to accept the repeats of this challenge I will offer.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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 didn't even attempt to debate; he tried to lawyer his way through the debate. For that reason, conduct to CON; Arguments to CON because PRO failed to meet his BoP.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Con obviously ignored the point of this debate, that the con position must presume the existence of God. Con merely found a "loophole." in the rules this constitutes a full forfeiture. However, con had better grammar.
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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 failed to fulfill BOP and misinterpreted Con saying that to prove God loves one must prove God as Con saying God doesn't exist. The terms state that no negative statements about God's existence can be made, Con asked Pro to make a positive one.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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 failed to meet BOP.
Vote Placed by Kc1999 2 years ago
Kc1999
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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: Ad Hom in Pro's case and although he had the BoP, he didn't introduce any points for Con to refute.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Nvm
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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: Pro didn't meet the burden of proof.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not say that God did not exist, so no rules were broken. Since no arguments were made, I can award no points.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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: Con provided an argument which was withing the rules of the argument. Pro refused to engage the arguments instead and as such Con gets conduct and argument points. Definitions are important in the debate especially considering what God, so I hope Pro learns from this.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LifeMeansGodIsGoodChosenWolffTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: pro could not meet his BoP