The Instigator
timcooley
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
CrappyDebater
Con (against)
Winning
81 Points

Is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster living in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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: 2/19/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,664 times Debate No: 11234
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (57)
Votes (22)

 

timcooley

Pro

You cannot disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster who lives in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn.

Look around you. Everything you see is evidence that the teapot unicornian FSM must exist. Everything you see proves creation and his noodly godliness.

The FSM is out of space and time, therefore does not need to be created.

And I know all this because I have faith. Thank you.
CrappyDebater

Con

You cannot prove there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who lives in a teapot hanging on the horn of a pink unicorn

Look around you. Everything you see is evidence that the teapot unicornian FSM does not exist. Everything you see disproves creation and his noodly godliness.

The FSM is out of space and time, therefore does not need to be created.

And I know all this because I have no faith. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
timcooley

Pro

Con argues that I cannot prove the existence of the pink unicorn. This is untrue. Throughout history there has been many eye-witness accounts of this magical creature. For example, the unicorn fossil found in the Harz Mountains region in Germany. There has been a lot of eye witness testimonies too. Furthermore, a close relative of the unicorn, Elasmotherium, is further proof that unicorns exist. Likewise, there is abundant proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Lines of evidence include cosmological images, ancient carvings, mysterious imprints and microscopic patterns which look like the FSM, evident of its intelligent designer.

Con argues that "everything we see disprove FSM". But wait, complexity implies design! You aren't suggesting that we came about by random chance, right? Now look at the genetic code, DNA. It's shaped like spaghetti. The human eye too. The membranes look like spaghetti. This is definitely a signature from our creator, FSM.
CrappyDebater

Con

||||"Throughout history there has been many eye-witness accounts of this magical creature. "
||||And "There has been a lot of eye witness testimonies too"

There have also been accounts of Big foot and UFO's, does that prove them? No.

||||"Furthermore, a close relative of the unicorn, Elasmotherium, is further proof that unicorns exist."

More like additional evidence for Evolution and a common ancestor if you ask me.

||||"evident of its intelligent designer"

FSM has an intelligent designer? That's a new one for me. Did you mean, it *is* the intelligent designer?

||||"DNA. It's shaped like spaghetti. The human eye too. The membranes look like spaghetti. This is definitely a ||||signature from our creator, FSM"

No, it's actually due to evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org...

My opponents incoherent ramblings have done nothing to prove FSM exists. Pro bears the burden of proof. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
timcooley

Pro

:: "More like additional evidence for Evolution and a common ancestor if you ask me."

But... that's microevolution, reproduction within its kind! The unicorn didn't give birth to a blind mole rat, did it? That would be evidence for macroevolution. Sadly, you can't prove it.

:: "No, it's actually due to evolution."

No. Explain why cosmological or microscopic patterns are usually shaped like spaghetti then. Look at the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy. That is solid proof of FSM's signature in creation.

Moving on.

If the FSM doesn't exist, where would you get your moral values from? There must be a moral giver, and, as shown above by many lines of evidence, that moral giver has to be FSM.

Vote PRO. He's a teapotistic pastafarian. You don't get many of those around.
CrappyDebater

Con

|||||"macroevolution. Sadly, you can't prove it."

See http://www.talkorigins.org...
for 29+ evidences of it. Proof? not exactly no, your right, but evidence is in my favor. You still bear the burden of proof.

|||||"Explain why cosmological or microscopic patterns are usually shaped like spaghetti then"

You can shape spaghetti to look like anything. So are you talking regular Spaghetti? or Tagliatelle, Cavatappi, Stringozzi, Pizzoccheri, Pappardelle, Mafaldine, Linguine, Lasagne, Fettuccine? FFS I could list these all day...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anyway, they are all Pastas. Pasta (Italian pasta, from Latin pasta "dough, pastry cake", [1]) is a generic term for foods made from an unleavened dough of wheat or buckwheat flour and water, sometimes with other ingredients such as eggs and vegetable extracts. http://en.wikipedia.org...

|||||"If the FSM doesn't exist, where would you get your moral values from?"

Evolution, read: http://www.talkorigins.org... or http://www.talkorigins.org...

Pros arguments have been utterly decimated. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
timcooley

Pro

But... but there are no transishunal fossils...

In order to prove macroevolution, show me ONE fossil that shows an animal transforming into another. Like a mermaid. Half human half fish. See, you can't.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is immaterial. He only "appears" pasta. He is actually beyond space and time. I can easily prove this with a form of the cosmological argument. Everything needs a cause. That cause must be an uncaused cause. That cause has to be FSM. Simple logic is simple, isn't it?

Your pasta "rebuttal" further proves my point. Double helix pasta equates to double helix DNA. This proves FSM.

So you are suggesting that morality came about through natural causes? Through evolutionary gradations? If there are no set morals then why don't we just go on a killing spree?

Moving on.

Design can be found in all of nature. Look at the bacterial flagellum (incidentally, it looks like a pasta too). How do you propose that such a complex thing came about by random chance? Like in a mousetrap, every part needs to be functional in order for the flagellum to work. Irreducible complexity. This blows Darwinism right out of the water.

You didn't decimate anything. Vote pro. Free spaghetti bolognese in heaven.
CrappyDebater

Con

Transishunal? If your going to screw around at least forfeit.
Anyway, see.... http://www.talkorigins.org...

And the cosmological argument is a valid argument, however this neither proves or disproves FSM.

|||||then why don't we just go on a killing spree?

Because you don't want to go to prison and get raped.

|||||Look at the bacterial flagellum (incidentally, it looks like a pasta too). How do you propose that such a complex thing came about by random chance?

Scientists do not quite know exactly how yet, but that does not imply that they will never know.

So far, you have failed to prove anything. I hope in the last round you can at least use spell check.
Debate Round No. 4
timcooley

Pro

Lalala I'm not listening lalala.

Thanks for playing, I really had fun.
CrappyDebater

Con

This was by far the most disappointing FSM argument I have ever seen.

Not only did you fail at the FSM argument, but you also failed at making creationists look silly. The uneducated creationists do a good job of that on their own.

That being said, I think you need to keep in mind that Evolution does not conflict with a non literal reading of Genesis. See http://www.debate.org... for a fantastic debate on that subject.

Cheers, Vote CON
Debate Round No. 5
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jat93 6 years ago
jat93
timcooley, i literally laughed out loud to every one of your posts. not to be all self righteous but can't believe some people didn't pick up on the satirical nature of your comments. you really summed up theistic arguments quite well.
Posted by mrnemo 7 years ago
mrnemo
this is like the dragon in the garage argument.
Posted by Voltar143 7 years ago
Voltar143
if im an existentialist, I say it is more probable because of the universe being insanely big and dense, there has got to be some flying spagetti monster whatever out there. If im a chirstian, Everything is possible through God. Im a christian and I don't need to ask God to make me a flying spagetti monster, but existentialist do, sadly they don't believe in God.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Geo, "He stated in the first line: "

But he didn't say he was clarifying the resolution, so it seemed like he was making a debate assertion. The point is that the wording of the resolution in debates is important.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
@Geo,
We know it is satire. We get it. We have watched the church of the FSM do this for years. Some of us were simply trying to judge the debate on its face. He made his point regardless of the score.
Posted by timcooley 7 years ago
timcooley
http://www.sushiesque.com...

It's called cherry-picking.

Adam's rib is actually the DNA's helix curve. Cos I wish to translate it that way, so that it would comply with our current knowledge of molecular biology.
Posted by CrappyDebater 7 years ago
CrappyDebater
@GEO

This is absurd. I don't care how you interpret Genesis, it makes it clear that God created man directly. It does not in any way imply that God created a self-replicating molecule that developed into a singe-celled to a multi-cellular organism, and over the course of millions of years, humans arised. That would contradict the Biblical claim that God made man, when in fact he had absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
Evolution is NOT compatible with Genesis, bottom line.

False....? This really just shows you are not completely familiar with Genesis, nor the multiple interpretations. I suggest listening to http://www.rfmedia.org...
William Lane Craig explains these fairly well.

You seem so mad by the way? Why so hostile?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
I think there were several instances where he captured the absurdities of theist arguments pretty well.

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is immaterial. He only "appears" pasta. He is actually beyond space and time. I can easily prove this with a form of the cosmological argument. Everything needs a cause. That cause must be an uncaused cause. That cause has to be FSM."

"But... that's microevolution, reproduction within its kind!"

"If the FSM doesn't exist, where would you get your moral values from? There must be a moral giver"

"complexity implies design! You aren't suggesting that we came about by random chance, right?"
Posted by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
"Nah, I just find it frustrating that people don't see the satire in Pro's arguments."

That's because his satire wasn't that good.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Nah, I just find it frustrating that people don't see the satire in Pro's arguments. Which he was making a point that theist arguments for God are equally (in)valid for FSM. I think Con did good in the first round by satirizing atheist beliefs, however, he went downhill from there. Pro consistently and cleverly satirized theist arguments. Pro clearly won this.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Callen13 5 years ago
Callen13
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: In the name of the butter, sauce, and garlic toast. blessings be spun unto your forks. -_- amen.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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 
Vote Placed by jimmye 6 years ago
jimmye
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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 jat93 6 years ago
jat93
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Anacharsis 7 years ago
Anacharsis
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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 degtop 7 years ago
degtop
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Steelerman6794 7 years ago
Steelerman6794
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Bernardio 7 years ago
Bernardio
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by maplebar 7 years ago
maplebar
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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 Brussian 7 years ago
Brussian
timcooleyCrappyDebaterTied
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