The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
seraphobia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

I deserve to burn in Hell

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 3 votes the winner is...
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 60796
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

If you don't agree with me that I deserve to burn in Hell, I can probably annoy you enough that you will tell me where to go, and it won't be heaven. Just read the comments of the people who hate God and are annoyed by me already. You can see enough truth in their accusations against me that we must conclude that I deserve to burn in Hell. Anybody like me who tells everybody they deserve to burn in Hell and God will let them go there and burn if they won't believe the gospel (the good news of the death for mankind's sin, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ) and receive Jesus as their Saviour to be saved from Hell, surely deserves to burn in Hell. I sure an glad I'm forgiven and going to heaven, because I know ()even without all the hate groupies on here who follow me around) I deserve to burn in Hell. (And by the way, you deserve to burn in Hell too, but that is not the topic of this debate. This debate is about me. I deserve to burn in Hell)
seraphobia

Con

This is quite possibly one of the funniest debates I have ever seen. I believe nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion, that is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell. I have no religion therefore it will not be easy for you to offend me. I accept your challenge, I am Con.
This is hilarious.
Lol.
Rofl.
Lolshicomtmsfo. (Laughing Out Loud So Hard I Choked On My Taco and My Sombrero Fell Off.)
XD
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro



    • My opponent's "belief"



" I believe nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion, that is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell"

I'm not sure what is meant by this. My opponent believes nobody deserves to burn in hell because of religion? Does that mean she knows of an infallible religion that teaches that nobody goes to hell? Does that mean religion is to blame if people burn in Hell? Does that mean religion keeps everybody or anybody out of Hell? I have to ask my opponent to clarify this statement of her belief. She says she has no religion, so I have to ask if she is an animal who lives only by instinct and cannot speak of God?

In my opponent's statement of her belief, she says something is a stupid reason for you to want to burn in hell.

I'm not sure what she means by this. Who wants to burn in Hell? Does religion make people want to burn in Hell? Does my opponent think I want to burn in Hell?

My opponent seems to be confused and not focused on the debate. Combined with all of the giggling she is displaying, I have to wonder if she is smoking marijuana. She obviously is not qualified to handle this debate in a mature manner. If marijuana is involved here, that explains her behaviour. If it's simply childish poor conduct, I hope she grows up some before this debate is over.

I know without a doubt that I deserve to burn in Hell. I am unholy like the devil. I do not deserve to kick up dust on God's earth, and I do not deserve to be spared from the devil's Hell fire. I have broken every one of God's commandments except for murder. I stopped short of murdering a man because I knew I would get in trouble if I finished him off, so I let him go. I know my heart is full of evil and prone to self-satisfaction. I have broke a lot of hearts and done a lot of damage and caused a lot of pain in the world. I know I deserve to burn in Hell...and I know my opponent deserves to burn in Hell also because I know she has broken God's law.
seraphobia

Con

Okay. Now you have proved that you deserve to burn in hell, but you have no proof that I should burn in hell as well.
1. I am not on drugs
2. How would you know if I broke "gods laws"?
3. I have no beliefs so "gods laws" dont really apply to me.

Laughing because this debate is really stupid, does not mean I am on drugs.

Voters, PLEASE VOTE FOR PRO, HE REALLY DOES DESERVE TO BURN IN HELL.

Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

My opponent has conceded, stating so in her opening statement in this argument as well as in her closing statement of this argument.

"Okay. Now you have proved that you deserve to burn in hell, but you have no proof that I should burn in hell as well."


This is the position I took in the debate, I deserve to burn in Hell. The debate was not to prove my opponent deserves to burn in Hell. My opponent has conceded that I do deserve to burn in Hell. Most people will not believe they deserve to burn in Hell, I am aware of that. The fact remains that I deserve to burn in Hell and I know it and my opponent has not only agreed with me, she has asked the voters to agree with me.


"Voters, PLEASE VOTE FOR PRO, HE REALLY DOES DESERVE TO BURN IN HELL."


Again, my opponent displays poor conduct in excusing her childish laughter, which easily could be interpreted as the result of smoking marijuana, by saying the debate is really stupid. If my opponent thinks the debate is really stupid, she could have said so in a mature manner without using the thoughtless phrase "really stupid" and putting on a display of childish laughter.

My opponent might want to read the ten commandments and think about how many times she has broken God's law. Her assertion of innocence does not remove her guilt. Maybe she took this debate and acted so childish because she knows she is guilty and deserves to die and burn in Hell the same as me, but is in denial and trying to keep herself fooled.

Again, the point of the debate was not to prove that my opponent deserves to burn in Hell the same as me (though she does), the point of the debate was to prove that I deserve to burn in Hell. My arguments so surpassed my opponents arguments that she fully conceded that I deserve to burn in Hell and she asked the voters to award the win to me.


How many debates do you see where one of the parties fully concedes victory to their opponent. Thank you for being honest, Con.
seraphobia

Con

Fine. I give up, you deserve to burn in Hell, but I'm not on drugs.
You are a horrible human being. (Assuming you are human.)
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by seraphobia 2 years ago
seraphobia
Lol
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
I think he's a Poe.
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
LifeMeansGodIsGood you are so stupid i cant say if you acting or you just a moron.
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
lol you are what you eat and you are what it read, if you read junky stuff your mind will be junky if you eat junky your body will be junky :D
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
are atheist arguments allowed
Posted by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
wait, what are the restrictions for this....I seem to be able to accept but others don't. Please comment on my profile
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Is this debate only from a Christian standpoint?
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Is this debate only from a Christian standpoint?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I love God, but would still like to debate you on this subject. please allow me to debate you.
Posted by TheQuestion 2 years ago
TheQuestion
In an attempt to understand your last comment spaceking I take it you are referring to annihilation doctrine... or maybe even Catholic doctrine... I guess I'm basically asking you to clarify what you're talking about.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
LifeMeansGodIsGoodseraphobiaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con told me to vote for Pro, so I take that as a concession in arguments. Conduct to Pro for Con's nasty words (i.e. "burn in hell).
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LifeMeansGodIsGoodseraphobiaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is correct, Pro really does deserve to burn in Hell, even Con agreed with this.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
LifeMeansGodIsGoodseraphobiaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: So, a concession, I guess? This debate was kind of absurd. It seems pretty clearly a troll debate and, frankly, wasn't particularly funny. Had Con not conceded, I probably wouldn't have given Pro the win, considering the nature of things. But, a concession is a concession barring truly extenuating circumstances, and they just aren't here.