The Instigator
KingHenrikLundqvist
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
johnlubba
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Man is the master of everything and decides everything

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 6 votes the winner is...
johnlubba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,063 times Debate No: 37344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

First round is acceptance. I believe that man is the master of everything and decides everything. Con will obviously take the stance that "God is the master of everything and decides everything"
johnlubba

Con

Ok, to be clear I am taking the role of Con and have no burden to prove the resolution true, that burden rests on Pro, I shall take the stance of arguing that man is not the master of everything and verily does not decide everything.

First I would like to give some definitions as my opponent never bothered to provide any.

Definition of Man

an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Definition of Master

3. One who has control over or ownership of something:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Definition of everything

: all that exists

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Note; I do not need to show that God is the master of everything to win this debate, All I need to do as Con, is show that man is not the master, which is defined in this debate as someone who has control or ownership over everything. If the resolution is negated then I win.

As the first round is used for definitions and acceptance only, I will let my opponent proceed with his first argument.

Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

Point One: Through out man's history, man has affected every change and progression.

Every historical event which has taken place was due to a man's decision. Every bullet fired, every word written, every speech spoken, and every bomb dropped was due to a man making a decision at the very moment. Every progression in human history was at the hands of a human and nothing other then that.

Point Two: What or who else is there to consciously decide everything?

There is nothing else in this world or universe that could possibly consciously decide to progress or make a change in the moment. Only man is the master to his own destiny. All other claims of a deity causing change is physically unprovable.
johnlubba

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his contribution to the debate.

Now I will being by showing the flaws in my opponents resolution and show why it simply can not be true that man is the master of everything and decides everything.
Firstly lets take a re-cap of the definitions I offered and to which my opponent didn't contend.

Man is a singular human being, which has control over or ownership over everything, All that exists.

My opponent offers a few examples where man has the ability to make decisions and mistakes this to be the all in all,
He claims.
Every historical event which has taken place was due to a man's decision. Pro.

This is simply false and flawed logic, For example the Big bang was a historical event but man had no control or ownership over it's outcome, also the formation of our sun and moon, the planet earth, and the expansion of our universe, as well the force of gravity and the way the atom is held together....Man has no control over these events and IF God exists then obviously God set the laws of the universe to work in the order they do work in.

Stephen Hawkins said this about the laws of the universe in 2007.

I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.

Quoted in "Stephen Hawking prepares for weightless flight", New Scientist (26 April 2007)

God may or may not exist, but it is not my burden to prove it, my opponent must show that God does not exist and also how man is the controller and owner of all that exists, obviously my opponent has a tough task ahead. So I will urge the audience to vote Con as the resolution has obviously been negated in this debate.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
KingHenrikLundqvist

Pro

As Con, you should have a stance and be able to refute my arguments, but as displayed, Con does not provide any of them.
Con hasn't even taken the time to read my statements, he put the words in my mouth that I apparently said "Man changes everything in history." He goes on to state the big bang. But as I clearly stated in POINT ONE: "Through out man's history, man has affected every change and progression." I said THROUGH OUT MAN'S HISTORY.


Thank you Con for wasting my time on this topic, I will find another person that can form their own opinion and stance on this topic while providing evidences not quotes.
Also, its very rude to simply put "Vote Me" in your ROUND 2 argument, its very unprofessional.
johnlubba

Con

My opponent has dropped all my arguments and only contended the argument of the Big Bang, stating that this event was before mans history, even if that argument doesn't stand, my other points do, and more so seeing as my opponent never bothered to contend them, The expansion of the universe is up until the present day and obviously man has not control ownership or master-ship over the rate of it's expansion, man also has no control over the force of gravity, or how the atom is held together, all these events occur within the history of man, and man Is not the master over these events, as my opponent has falsely assumed...

Also my opponent dropped the argument about God may having decreed the laws of science, as stated by Stephen Hawkins in the quote I provided, so this argument also still stands..

Also
Has Man been the master of natural disaster's, or has man been the master over his own body aging, let's admit it, nobody like's getting old, can man decide that he will never age. The answer is No, How about his death, is man the master of his own death? and does a man decide when he is going to die, or is that outside of mans ability to know his time of death?

Obviously the resolution has not been affirmed and has further been negated herein.

Therefore I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
I am sorry to hear that KingHenrik, Maybe you should learn a lesson from this. Instead of strutting around debates with obviously flawed resolutions, you should put a bit more thought into it, the reason I didn't have to was because you didn't even attempt at making a good arguement. So instead of blaming me, take at look at the way you worded your resolution and think about how hard it was to defend it. Even if you allow the argument to consist of everything throught mans history instead of everything throughout history, I could even afford to allow that although you only introduced that idea in your second round and didn't imply that in the resolution or the first round, take lesson from this to strenghth
further debates. As I also need to see my mistakes, such as not providing a link for my sources. It was a poor debate in terms of application and effort, for me also.
Posted by KingHenrikLundqvist 4 years ago
KingHenrikLundqvist
Con, you have to be one of the worst people I have debated in my time on this site.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Easy debate to score.

Arguments CON, big bang is a convincing rebuttal to PRO's subjective application of the meaning of "everything".

S&G to PRO, because CON did not quote properly, and did not source properly what he quoted. Not exactly worth more than one point, but noteworthy nonetheless.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by rajun 4 years ago
rajun
KingHenrikLundqvistjohnlubbaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con crushed the resolution well...
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
KingHenrikLundqvistjohnlubbaTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: ARGUMENT (con): This was embarrassing to read; pro pretty much lost this due to a sloppy resolution which con exploited. Con proved more convincingly that God was to blame (or "master") of everything than man. CONDUCT (pro): This is somewhat lightly given... Con did not quote from sources properly (the one point now, is better than being accused of a certain P word on a later argument); plus the attitude he went into the debate with of disagreeing with the set terms of it (even if his argument later paid tribute to such terms). This would shift against pro if the comment section counted.
Vote Placed by Fruitytree 4 years ago
Fruitytree
KingHenrikLundqvistjohnlubbaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Even what Pro called the control of man should be better called the influence of Man , Con have shown successfully that Man doesn't control everything.
Vote Placed by Miles_Donahue 4 years ago
Miles_Donahue
KingHenrikLundqvistjohnlubbaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Clearly, Con won this debate. I feel no need to point out why, as it is so obvious. I would like to make a note on Con's concession in round two: even if Pro only stated that man controlled everything in man's history, that wouldn't show that man is in control of everything, which is what Pro needs to do if he is to prove the resolution. So it just doesn't matter that the Big Bang didn't happen during man's history, because the resolution is, "Man is the master of everything and decides everything", and "everything" includes the Big Bang.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
KingHenrikLundqvistjohnlubbaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Man had no control over anything that was prior to the existence of men, solid argument by con and it defeated the resolution
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
KingHenrikLundqvistjohnlubbaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments