The Instigator
Alk09
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
163 Points

I am your God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,886 times Debate No: 9260
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (30)

 

Alk09

Pro

I am your god.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and will now submit my argument.

This will be a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument

GIVEN:

Alk09
14-year old male in Bellevue, Washington, United States.
Religion: Atheist

1. ASSUME Alk09 is my god.
2. My god is a 14 year old male Atheist
3. An Atheist is one who does not believe in any gods
4. My god does not believe in himself
5. My god has stated that he is my god and thus, that he exists.

Contradiction: My god has contradicted himself in the claim that he both exists and does not exist.

Therefore, reject the assumption.

Thank you to my opponent and to the audience.
Debate Round No. 1
Alk09

Pro

"Contradiction: My god has contradicted himself in the claim that he both exists and does not exist."

First off a god is a "supernatural creator and overseer of the universe"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore I can create the laws of physics
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Because I am your God I can go beyond your primitive human conceptions of reason and logic
I can exist and not exist at the same time ( this is a fact )
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Conclusion: My opponent does not understand that because I am your God. I can go beyond his human misconception of logic.
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now offer my rebuttal:

First, I would like to point out that none of my opponent's sources are valid or relevant.

My opponent's definition of "God" is merely a definition and thus, not a source, but statement of debate parameters.

Furthermore, his links to "Physics", "Logic", "Reason", and "Contradiction" are just meaningless citations. Each of those terms involve a large field of study and his reference was brief. Thus, these do not count as sources for his argument because they in no way contribute to it.

Second, my opponent's argument is flawed. Essentially, my opponent counters my argument in that he is a god that defies logic and nature.

1. Even if that were the case, he would only prove that he is *a* god, not necessarily that he is *my* god. I comprehend and conceive of things through logic. If this god transcends that, he is then imperceptible and incomprehensible and thus, cannot be *my* god, as I will be unable to perceive or comprehend him.

2. As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled that burden, only provided a possibility against my argument. However, his argument was an illogical one because it necessitates meta-physical realities. Thus, he has no good counterargument whereas I have one under the confines of logic.

3. I do not have a god. Possession is an attribute that follows existence, thus, my opponent must prove that he as a god exists before he can show that he is also my god. He has done neither.

Since my opponent has failed to meet his burden, I will await further arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Alk09

Pro

1. Even if that were the case, he would only prove that he is *a* god, not necessarily that he is *my* god. I comprehend and conceive of things through logic. If this god transcends that, he is then imperceptible and incomprehensible and thus, cannot be *my* god, as I will be unable to perceive or comprehend him.

Even if you cant comprehend me that doesn't change the fact that Im your god.

2. As the instigator, my opponent has the burden of proof. He has not fulfilled that burden, only provided a possibility against my argument. However, his argument was an illogical one because it necessitates meta-physical realities. Thus, he has no good counterargument whereas I have one under the confines of logic.

Proof? I have all the proof in the world
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com...
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

1. "Even if you cant comprehend me that doesn't change the fact that Im your god."

Circular logic. My opponent must assume that he is, indeed, my god before his argument follows through.

In addition, I have already stated that I can comprehend my god. Since my opponent has stated that I cannot comprehend him, he cannot be my god. Furthermore, even if he states otherwise, he cannot prove that he is *my* god and not the god of someone else.

2. "Proof? I have all the proof in the world"

My opponent includes sources on shampoo, ducks, horses, and the zeitgeist movement, none of which are relevant. I will take this as a concession that he has no proof for his claim, but plenty of proof for other things involving shampoo, ducks, horses, and the zeitgeist movement.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent has effectively forfeited this debate. All of my points are left standing and thus, the resolution is negated.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Alk09

Pro

"reason will be the death of us all"
-YARZACK BAKUNin
http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin

Con

My opponent has given an irrelevant statement and an irrelevant post, and has again, essentially forfeited this round. All of my arguments extend.

I look forward to my opponent's concluding round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
Alk09

Pro

YOU SILARGS SHEEP RAT I AM YOUR GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"death is logic is reason"
-Igblarg soviet russia

YOUR HEAD VILL BE PUT IN BURNING HOT CHIKEN SOUP
YOU VILL RUN THROUGHT THE DESSERT LOOKING FOR VATER IN THE SAND
HOLY ANCIENT SHAMANS WEARING TIN BUCKETS ARE THERE HEADS VILL BEAT VOU WITH WHIPS!
DEAD PEOPLE WILL PULL YOU BACK UNDER THE WATER
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now conclude this debate.

My opponent has forfeited the debate by not responding to any of my points. All of my arguments stand and thus, everyone should vote CON as I was the only one to continue taking this debate seriously.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
you know if people want to hold a retarded sounding debate then they should start with that in there opening round, like "this debate will be held in anti-logic still anything that makes sense should discourage you from giving your vote to that person."
I do like how these kind of debate can remind you to actually check out the source, they could put anything there and sound informed if you don't bother...
Posted by moonshine311111 8 years ago
moonshine311111
lol this is such a pointless debate
Posted by silntwaves 8 years ago
silntwaves
haha this debate is funny! and yes, if you were to vote on this debate as whether you would win for funnyness or not, pro would definately have you beat. haha vote pro :D
Posted by Chrysippus 8 years ago
Chrysippus
Con on all points, easily. Sources go to con because of the nonsense sources used by Pro.

...and yes, the one who makes the claim must prove it. BoP lies with the instigator by default in a non-policy debate.
http://www.ddofans.com...
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
"As instigator my opponent has the burden of proof" - Rofl.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
No RFD needed. Pro did nothing. Con for an easy win.
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Xer
"Is there a type of debate where one wins by being the least serious?"

Yes: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"[...] thus, everyone should vote CON as I was the only one to continue taking this debate seriously."

Is there a type of debate where one wins by being the least serious?
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
Conduct: Con - Pro forfeited twice.
S&G: Tie - I didn't like all of the caps in rounds three and four, but I'm not really counting that part.
Arguments: Con - Obvious reasons.
Sources: Con - Pro tried to inflate his sources.
Posted by theCall 8 years ago
theCall
If this is my God, then I'll rather be burned in hell.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 6 years ago
Doulos1202
Alk09KleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
Alk09KleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by GORGIAS 6 years ago
GORGIAS
Alk09KleptinTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
Alk09KleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Chaosflame 7 years ago
Chaosflame
Alk09KleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
Alk09KleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Alk09KleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by TalkingWhale 7 years ago
TalkingWhale
Alk09KleptinTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by silntwaves 7 years ago
silntwaves
Alk09KleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Eros 7 years ago
Eros
Alk09KleptinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02