The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

"More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason." George Carlin

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 103729
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)




Here's a portion of George Carlin's famous skit and he's 100% correct. I can't use all of the skit because there's far too many curse words.

When it comes to B.S., big-time, major league B.S., you have to stand in awe, in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest B.S. story ever told. Think about it. religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man... living in the sky... who watches everything you do... every minute of every day... And the invisible man has a special list of TEN things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!.......... But He loves you!!! He loves you, and he needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good B.S. story... Holy BEEP!

And for those of you who look to The bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no god. None, not one, no god, never was."

In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a god, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a god, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my b---s hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

So your job as Con is to prove that god is NOT "the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims" that he's kind, caring, nurturing and caring and just an alright cool good snookums that you'd want at your local neighborhood girlscout campfire.

If you pretend you have some insight for the subject in which this debate is based upon and you really don’t, and you thus invent excuses and or flat out lie in order for your derriere pristine crystal bald top to shine brighter as so many christians do rather than saying the words “I don’t know”, I will embroider your roids with subatomic blasts of radioactive insults and deservedly so.

No creationist will be accepted. Why? Because there’s not one creationist that will dare put his god on trial again. After all, the creationist is not stupid. He 100% knows that he will flat out lose every---single---time---he---tries. Why? Because all he has to go on is faith. All the creationist has is faith based oriented. And faith cannot be proved.



Hello backwardseden, I accept this debate.
To begin with, we have a few claims that must be addressed.

First off, I assume we're dealing with the "Judean-Christian" God considering you talked about creationists and the Bible. Therefore, we must understand what the Bible actually teaches about hell. Hell is not a "place", at least not in the same way as we experience matter and space in the universe. The reason the prophets in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in the New Testament describe hell as a "fiery furnace" where there will be "wailing and grinding of teeth" is because there is no other way to describe it. Some things are extremely hard to convey using words. You can describe all you want about how it felt to have your arm cut off, but unless they experienced the same exact thing in the same exact way, that person won't completely understand what it felt like. Also, God does not send you to hell if you disobey Him. By sinning, you are subconsciously saying that you don't love him, that you don't want to be with Him forever. If God is all-good, then why would He force you to be with Him in His presence for all eternity? That would be wrong and cruel, something God wouldn't do if He truly loves you.

Secondly, in the excerpt from George Carlin, he states that "Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man... living in the sky... who watches everything you do... every minute of every day... ". This is flat out wrong. Now while I can't speak for other denominations of Christianity, I can say say that for myself, as a Catholic Christian, we do not believe that God is an actual man in the sky that watches you. God is a being, a supernatural entity that exists as existence itself. This may sound ridiculous at first but if you consider that there is such a thing as existence, then why can't that thing(existence) be a being? As Catholics we believe that God exists as existence itself and therefore exhibits other qualities that are inherent with Him by His very nature. God is all good, all powerful, eternal, all knowing, etc. He is all this because of His very nature. He is all-good by definition.
Also keep in mind that the "acts" God does in the Old Testament are not necessarily literally true. The books of the Old Testament are not an account of history, and they are not supposed to be taken as literal. The point of the books is to tell a story to convey a message. Some of the stories are literally true, but certain parts are exaggerated to make a point about whatever is being explained. Take for example the book of Jonah. Jonah was not a real person, at least not to our knowledge, and his swallowing up by a large fish is not to be taken literally true. The point of the book is to teach people to trust in God and follow his plan.

There is much more that I could get into but I'm just getting a good starting point, I'll discuss more in the following rounds.
Debate Round No. 1


Seasoned beatings. Whooopppsss. I meant to say greetings. Yeah. that’s it. A deliberate miss-steak on my part. I know, hurl a brick shipyard at my innards so I can heave a runny babbit into a can a can of fake dog poop.

Now let’s see if you are intelligent enough to carry-on with a meaningful intelligent and slightly sarcastic, because I am very sarcastic, debate. Let’s see where you go… and right off the bat you run into extreme trouble.
I never mentioned the bible, did I? Nope. Its George Carlin that did. In fact if god were a true god, in no way, shape or form would he ever communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible, so that right there proves that your god is not a god at all, but more or less a trampoline factory.

“If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty

“We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty

So getting into YOUR argument, actually it is many priests, pastors, saints, ministers that in fact do teach the fires and torments of hell. Interpretation is a funny thing isn’t it? Do you know who Hong Xiuquan was? Probably not - correct? Look him up for a truly great human being. Your god created him for hell on earth a well as he created Hitler - a devout christian, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, all serial killers, all rapists, all torturers, all pedophiles etc etc etc.
“Hell is not a "place", at least not in the same way as we experience matter and space in the universe.” Well no duh.

You do realize that you cannot lecture me because it rather clear that you do not know your bible well enough. Also, God does not send you to hell if you disobey Him.” No he does much worse. He murders you. Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 He hates gays, murders them with stones. If you curse at your parents, its death. As the matter of fact 9 of the 10 commandments if broken warrants death. Breaking the sabbath is very special in which your christ was granted a leisurely pass proving he’s not the savior as he broke many of your god’s laws rules and regulations in which required death. So which is worse… hell or death? Hey hell as described in the OT and as described in the NT are 2 completely different things. So was god.

Then you mention “sinning”. Do you really think you know what you are talking about? Really? There really is no such thing as sinning in YOUR bible because its so utterly abstract and so complacent and utterly confusing because one verse says one thing and then another verse says completely another.
Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

“If you try to get clarification, if you try to get what the christian orthodox view is on the law, you're not going to find consensus. You’re not going to find christians ‘oh here’s what christians think about’ they’re all going to have this concept of this different thing now. But as far as it applies and why and what to do with it, they’re all different. Its going to be a hard argument because most have different ideas about it and most are going to change their ideas and start tweeking them as soon as they have to start answering questions because they haven’t looked into it before most of them.” Tracie Harris

“If God is all-good,” Well god isn’t all good now is he? Nope. He after all creates every single man woman and child especially for daddy to KNOWINGLY rape, beat and torture his own daughter. Oh but wait, your god created satan as well. So how on earth is god all “good”. Oh but wait, your god created the bubonic plague, hurricane Harvey, every single child that goes to bed hungry, he hates children,creates massive genocides, loves raped women, hates gays, hates women, hey over 2/3’s the planet’s population. “something God wouldn't do if He truly loves you” Its called “power” which this book of yours is in love with. Then comes fear and then comes control.

Oh and oh yeah. Gee. I almost forgot. You can’t even prove that your god exists. .

Secondly, in the excerpt from George Carlin..."This is flat out wrong.” No its not. Again, you cannot even prove that YOUR god exists. So you therefore have no definition of what your god is. Nor can you speak for others. What you have stated is an utterly teeny bopper answer. Now of you were to have actually watched the skit, you would have heard an uproar iris genuine (which is something that there’;s nothing from your so-called god) laughter from the crowd when George mentioned “but he loves you” because its such a true MAJOR hypocritical contradiction in which your bible is lock and load super shotgun on with at least 1,000 of them making it truly unreadable. But as previously stated, no god would ever communicate in text form.

“As Catholics we believe that God exists as existence itself…” Well that is the first sensible thing you’ve said. I agree. Even though billions of catholics may disagree because you really shouldn’t speak for them. Because you may never know how they feel. They may say that your unproved god exists beyond space and time into different universes as examples. You shouldn’t speak for others in other words.

“God is all good,...” well you were proven 100% wrong.” all powerful, eternal, all knowing, etc.” show me where, and what hint does the bible say this and why should you believe it? Oh I get it. The bible says so. Great! Show me where. AND who printed it. Now show me why satan is evil and bad. After all he only has 10 verses.
Your god murdered 2,821,364 in HIS bible which most assuredly would have had to have included babies still suckling on their mothers nipples. It would have included pregnant mothers. So much goes for you christians believing that abortions are evil. Talk about being completely hypocritical. Oh and oh yeah since your god murders babies and children and everyone and everything else as he did in the great flood, which never happened btw, this also makes him a contradictory hypocrite. Thou shalt not kill. Remember that one? My how you christians forget so easily. So do NOT tell me your god is all good you complete contradictory hypocrite.

“Also keep in mind that the "acts" God does in the Old Testament are not necessarily literally true. The books of the Old Testament are not an account of history,” Well then you do not believe in your god. Its that simple. Then the same thing, according to you can be stated about the NT because the memory is the least reliable source there is. You do not believe in creation. You do not believe in adam and eve, you do not believe in noah, you do not believe in the great flood,. You do not believe in moses, you do not believe in exodus, you do not believe in the 10 commandments, you do not believe in the 10 plagues, you do not believe in Sodom and Gomorrah etc etc etc. You in fact do not believe in any of it. Awe no, either you believe in all of it, or you believe in none of it. You cannot make up things as you go along. There’s no consensus as Tracie Harris has stated. How can you possibly communicate with each other and get along with each other? Indeed George Carlin is right “More people have died in the name of god than for any other reason.” So god is all good? Try guessing again..

“The point of the book is to teach people to trust in God and follow his plan.” You nor anybody knows what god’s plan is because there’s no consensus. You just proved it. Billions of christians will absolutely take in the OT as being hard fact. Who are you to say “no”?



Woah, ok, there's a lot to clarify and delve into here. Not a problem, but this may be long.
First off, why do you assume that text form is the worst form of communication possible?
Secondly, the Bible was not written by an omnipotent being. God did NOT write the Bible. The Bible is the "inspired word" of God, that means that people wrote it, and those people were inspired by God to do so. God made sure that the books he wanted in the Bible were put in.
Thirdly, we CAN know what to take literally and what not to take literally because Jesus Christ instituted a Church that was made for this purpose(among many other things).
Fourthly, you assume that the best way to have God reveal himself would be to come down and talk to us. The reason He doesn't do this is because if he did then no one would truly love him. If God came down in all his glory and power, then you would be terrified of his power and only follow his rules because you would be afraid of going to hell. You wouldn't love him out of true selfless love. But that's what God wants, he wants you to love him without any fear. He wants you to love him without fear of his infinite power and majesty. That's why he came into this world as a lowly baby in a manger. He could have come in power and glory and taken everything back that Satan took; but he didn't. If he did that then he wouldn't have saved anyone from their sin. Only on rare occasions does God reveal himself directly to people (ex. Saint Paul). And he usually only reveals himself to people who already love him.
Fifthly, priests and pastors are not infallible, they can be wrong about things. The bishops of the Church are the only ones who can teach infallibly on issues of morality and faith, and even then they have to be in an official council to do so.
Sixthly, Hitler was not a devout Christian. Hitler grew up in a Christian(Catholic) household but then later in life renounced religion altogether and became the head of the Nazi movement, a movement inspired by the atheistic philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche and his idea of the "bermensch.
Seventhly, God does not kill people. The "acts God does in the OT" are not to be taken literally true. I don't know why you believe that I either have to believe everything literally in the Bible or believe nothing literally. The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, history shows that this idea of literal interpretation was only recently made up. It was created by fundamentalist Christians during the 18th century!! If you look at early documents of the Church fathers you can clearly see that none of them had this view.
To the point that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he broke the law of the Sabbath, this is a misunderstanding of the law. Jesus's point after "breaking" the law was that the Pharisees took the law to the extreme. They accused him of having his disciples violate the law by gather wheat on the Sabbath. Jesus told them that it is more important to help others than to follow a law to the very point, with no exceptions. There are only two commandments that are absolute, in the sense that they are the first and most important. Jesus basically just condensed the 10 commandments with the two Greatest Commandments. They are: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." - Mark 12:30-32
From these two commandments all others follow. So the disciples were doing God's will by helping others, in this case, gathering wheat for themselves.
You ask what is worse, death or hell? Hell is worse, far worse than death. The Jewish people in the Old Testament believed that there was no heaven or hell, only Sheol. That's why heaven and hell seem to be different in the OT and the NT. Heaven and Hell are Christian beliefs, not Jewish ones.
The point of 1 John 5:1 is that if you live in Christ you cannot sin. That does not mean if you're a Christian you automatically cannot not sin. Christians sin all the time, I know I do. The meaning of this passage is that when you sin you lose grace(Life in Christ). Grace is what gives us the strength to not sin, but does not automatically make you impervious to temptation.
I agree that the Bible is confusing, that's why Jesus established his Church to make sure that there was an absolute interpretation of God's word.
At one point in your argument you bring up that God doesn't exist so I can't prove that he's all good. So wait a minute. Hold up, I thought the whole point of this debate was for me to prove that God was good based on the assumption that he exists. If you're going to argue against God's existence, I can disprove that on another debate, but right now, this debate is starting with the assumption that he does. So please stay on track.
I also don't care what other "Catholics" think or feel about their faith. You cannot consider yourself a true Catholic if you don't accept the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Don't get me wrong, even I struggle with certain doctrines, but I don't just completely decide to not believe in those doctrines then. You are allowed to struggle with your faith, but you cannot not accept them.
You said you wanted proof that God is all powerful, eternal, ect. Here you go:
Omnipresence - Jeremiah 23:24
Omniscience - Psalm 147:5
Omnipotence - Colossians 1:6, Colossians 1:7, Matthew 19:26
Eternal - Genesis 21:33
You also asked why Satan is evil. Satan is evil because he rejected God and went his own way. If a human did this, that doesn't mean he's evil, but because Satan is an angel, a spirit, he is unchanging. If you exist outside of time, then you cannot change your mind(like God). Once you make a decision you cannot go back, it's just not possible. Change requires time. Outside of time there cannot be change. That's why after you die you cannot change your mind. If you are in a state of mortal sin(meaning you don't love God and therefore don't want to be with him) and you die, then you are going to want to separate yourself from Him (Hell). Anyways, Satan was given a choice, and he chose to defy God. His defiance is eternal. Now think, if Satan defies God, whom is all good, and his [Satan's] choice is for all time, then it would follow that Satan is evil.
Finally, you said that the New Testament is the most unreliable source in the Bible. I can understand the confusion here, but in actuality, the Old Testament is the least reliable of the two. Consider this, the Old Testament was written hundreds of years after the events written about actually took place. The stories were passed down orally, told from one generation to the next. During this time, it is likely that the stories were embellished with small tweaks and other changes. Now consider that the first book ever written in the New Testament (The Gospel of Mark), was written only 30 to 40 years after Jesus's Death and Resurrection. The letters of Saint Paul were written by Paul himself 50 to 60 years after, and the rest of the gospels only 50 to 60 years after. There's a lot more reliability in the NT than in the OT. You might ask why the Bible wasn't written immediately after Jesus's D&R. Well, at first the apostles thought Jesus was going to come very soon, like in a few years. They started preaching and spread out but eventually, they started dying off, little by little. By the time word reached those[apostles] still alive, they began to realize that it may take a while longer than first expected for Jesus to return and they should probably write down what happened before it was lost.
To end with, you asked that "who am I to say no to what other Christians believe". Well, it's not just me. I don't make things up, in fact, I've never come to a conclusion that someone else didn't already have before me. When I came to different conclusions that I thought were completely original, I later found out that several people already came to that same conclusion hundreds or thousands of years before. Nothing I say is original, I merely repeat what others have discovered before me. So to answer your question on how can I speak on other Christians'(Catholics) behalf, my answer is "Well, I'm not, I'm just repeating the things that Christians (more specifically Catholics) are supposed to believe."
Debate Round No. 2


Since you shoed a showed of a 0% intelligence as well as is the same thing is true for a lack there of an edumacation, this round shall be rightly be claimed by myself. "First off, why do you assume that text form is the worst form of communication possible?" Now you figure it out and then get back to me should anything be left in that jigsaw scatterbrain lifeless goo you consider your hi karate tar pit lungs that you drag along with you should you have the nerve and the guts. And you blunder why I shouldn’t insult you when you flat out fricken deserve it? One can only hope for an intelligent debate. Nah. Not with christians as solidly proved by you.


Wow. I thought the point of debate was to prove your arguments. You claim that text form of communication is the best form of communication and yet you provide no evidence for this claim. Not only that, but then you go on to tell me that round 3 should be claimed for yourself. Wow. Well, no it shouldn't, I responded more than adequately to your rebuttal. I don't know what exactly you want. What evidence will you listen to if you won't even assume God exists for the sake of this argument?
I get that you're an atheist, but for my evidence to work you must assume for the sake of this debate that God does exist. If you won't even accept that, then this whole debate is pointless. No matter what evidence I bring up that God is good, loving, ect. you will always fall back by saying "Well, God doesn't exists anyway". What must I do? You've asked me to disprove that something isn't this, but then say that that something doesn't even exist. Really? Come on.
Debate Round No. 3


“Wow. I thought…” Ehhh. Zzzzzz… Stop right there. That’s your problem. You are totally incapable of thinking. No first you must have intelligence and an education on the subject at hand before you can have a debate in which case you clearly don’t. You fumble through everything. Your posturing is so batbrained ludicrous that nobody can take you seriously. If you were on the witness stand, how do you think you would do amongst your way way way way wayyyyyyyyyyy below average jury especially when you ask dunderhead questions and the answer is right there in front of your fricken face and you don’t even have the ability to do something as wide and as vast as “reading”?

“You claim that text form of communication is the best form of communication and yet you provide no evidence for this claim.” See? That’s why my education and intelligence is so much greater than yours. That’s why I have graduated from college and why you are still stuck in high school with a high school edumacation. And with that stupid king lard greasy pinhead eggshell mind statement, there’s absolutely no way that you will ---ever--- get beyond high school. It is also solid proof as to why those that are religious have a lesser education that those who are not. Google it smarty who like to stalk people.

Absolutely RD3 is claimed by me. Gee whatever gave an infidel like you the first clue from your zit cream which isn’t much of a weapon a clue?
Awe does the poor wittle wost won thinks he’s responded to me? I haven’t even read what you’ve posted after your utter dismal completely fractured failure that you coughed upped with your only one question that I read from your RD2. So whatever with your scratch and sniff cardboard cutouts.
See, that’s the problem with you and your kind, you think that you can get the best of me. But I’ve seen rubber stamps on your foreheads come and boy have I seen you go. And trust me little one, you will go.
Oh and btw, who cares about this little debate? I don’t. You do. I’ll post it again. Or if I get kicked off because of my “conduct” big whoop which is just fine btw. Its NOT something I will lose sleep over. Whereas you WILL lose plenty of sleep over me. I’m the thorn in your side. My recomendations… GET A LIFE YOU FRICKEN TROLL and stop stalking me because I have reported you for ---every--- one of your votes. Now let’s see if something comes of it. Its so ridiculously easy to see just like so many on here why you have no genuine friends or loved ones. None.

Now should I report you like you did me for YOUR stating something comepletly false because you do not have the ability to read? Because the evidence to support the claim that no god would use text form was posted you dimwitted dullard snot meat sow.



...Umm... I don't really know how to conclude this.
I could respond to each of your ad hominem attacks but I think that's what you want me to do.
I could respond to the text communication thing, but I think you want me to.
It's hard not to, it's one of my few weaknesses. I hate not responding and proving it wrong but I know you just want a reaction.
But I can't let you get the satisfaction that you want. So I won't respond.
Anyways, thanks for the debate I guess.
Good luck I suppose, and may the truth win.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 4 months ago
Looks like someone has found out how to report votes. Good for you!
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
@whiteflame Wow what EXACTLY is a source? I mean jeez. I used several of them in round 2. Aron Ra, Matt Dillahunty, the bible for god's sake with several different verses to look up should the debater choose to and if not its his loss. I can't post all of them because there's far too many and it takes up far too much space within the 10,000 character limit in which there should be no character limit in which someone in one debate went way way way way over the 10,000 character limit in all of his rounds, and Tracie Harris with several different quotes.
Is it any wonder when I threw in the towel when the stupid idiot opponent can't even fricken read when he tells me ""First off, why do you assume that text form is the worst form of communication possible?" when its all there right there smack dab point blank right in from of him and he can't even read? Sheesh. I would like nothing better than to debate with INTELLIGENT people. And those that are EDUCATED. NOT those that are clearly pay grades below preschool burping classes.
Well thank you for you esteemed time. I appreciate it.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
>Reported vote: QueenDaisy// Mod action: Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro threw around a bunch of insults- hence, poor conduct. Neither side offered sources. Both sides made some grammar errors, but neither significantly affected the readability of their case. Both debaters got very sidetracked, and none of what they said seemed directly relevant to the motion- hence no argument points. Didn't change my mind because the claim seems obviously false- throughout all human history, most people have died through disease, famine, injury, dehydration and so on.

[*Reason for removal*] While it may seem obvious to the voter that insults were thrown, it must be clarified as part of this RFD what at least one of those insults was in order to award conduct.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Von "batbrained" in round four, and called him a "fricken troll". This is poor conduct.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Let me be absolutely clear on this. If a voter copy-pastes votes from one debate to the next, we have a problem. A vote can be removed on the basis that it bears no specificity to the debate in question. That being said, this vote clearly references specific points made in the debate. If a voter is going around to a multitude of debates involving a specific debater, their vote is not subject to removal solely on that basis. That voter must be violating the standards in some way, which is not clearly occurring here. I understand that one of the debaters is frustrated by this particular voter, but once again, he has not violated any standards of voting, and it is up to the debater to exclude the voter from further debates. That is not the purview of moderation.
Posted by NKaloms 6 months ago
Thank you shannon83, I'll make sure to check it out.
Posted by shannon83 6 months ago
NKaloms - well you are using half truths. The double slit experiment only showed that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles. I also think you need to research your sources some as the Collective-Evolution site is not reliable at all. The other two are magazines though I can accept what they say they do not suggest what you stated. Factually this statement you made is wrong "The double slit experiment showed that when we measure a wave it collapses into a particle." as the particles in question act as a wave and a particle at the same time. They are not collapsing and it does not suggest something other than atoms composing it.

below is a fact checker site on the collective-evolution site, a site with a list of the article types that the site has, Wikipedia link for the results of the original double slit experiment, and a current journal entry for quantum particles.
Posted by NKaloms 6 months ago
Sure. Basically, there's very good evidence that supports that something outside the material world is causing the measurement of quantum particles.
The double slit experiment showed that when we measure a wave it collapses into a particle. This means that something must be causing the wave to collapse other than our atoms making us up.
I'll link some articles below for your reading pleasure. They will be able to explain this far better than I ever could.
Posted by shannon83 6 months ago
NKaloms - Its ok I take no part of the bible as literally true. The bible may contain some true facts though I would not confirm they are true from the bible. I would use an outside source to confirm they are true.

Ok please go ahead and tell me how the soul is linked to human consciousness? Plus you do realize the consciousness is a result from the human brain? That there has been reports of humans with brain injuries having completely different personalities and points of view after their injury? I am just pointing out that if the soul is consciousness then the soul can be changed and converted with brain injuries.
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
Russell "Yeah." Vick "Look at the problems in the world today." Russell "There are a lot of problems." Vick "It spawns unbelief by design because it has (southern priest accent) SKRewed up from the get go. You know here it is. The messiah did not come up to the earth to create a god damned religion. Now here me out when I say this"" Russell interrupting "How do you know?" Vick "I"m talking english. He came to this earth to create a god blessed invisible kingdom and revealed that kingdom to people who would listen to him." Russell "How-do-you-know?" Vick "The problem is mankind... "Russell interrupting "Alright you are not having a conversation with me you are just doing a preacher thing and I"m not going to stand for it. Are you going to answer my question or not?" Vick "Answer it again and I"ll give you an answer." Russell "How do you know a messiah came to earth and how do you know what he wanted? Where"d you get that information" Vick "I"m a researcher. I"m a"" Russell "What did you" What sources did you use to research this novel information?" Vick "OK are you ready?" Russell "Uh huh" Vick "Youtube, books, Amazon"" CLICK. Russell "Get the F(*$u#@u^"*c@!k out of here. Yeah. All these ancient books didn"t have the right idea about god, but some dude on youtube has SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!!!! .
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
Don Baker and Russell Glasser. Russell from the atheist experience answering a call from Vick "But your god belief happens to be the right one, despite all these blind people who follow all these various religions, somehow out of all these different belief systems you"ve happen to land on the one that most people didn't see.Is that it?" Don Baker "So instead of telling us what you believe, tell us WHY you believe it? Why do you have the magic that everybody else lacks?" Vick "Well I wouldn"t say everybody else. There"s always a remnant." Russell "A handful. You"re one of the chosen few I guess." Vick "Well ultimately I guess you could say chosen. But its not anything I"ve done to make myself worthy. Its not a free will its a free (spells it) W-H-E-E-L. If you went down to the earth against the earth against the clay and plops somethin on his spinning wheel and makes someth" out of it .You don"t have a choice in the matter. "Russell "Its pretty lucky that with all the clueless people in the world you happen to be the one who knows the truth about god" Don "Yeah that"s pretty awesome." Russell "Where"d that come from?" Vick "You"re not hearing me. I"m not the only one. You can be sure of that" Russell "But like how many people have the right belief. Like is it 1% of humanity?" Vick "I have no fricken idea. Nor do I care. I don"t wanna clump with them if I happen to find them.Clumping is going to get these people into trouble.You know you don"t clump together. The boy scouts in the wilderness don"t put all their flashlights in a bigger pile so you have a bigger light called a steeple. Its not about clumping." Vicks voice gets drowned out. Russell "K so I get it, you didn"t get your information from other people or books. Where"d you get it?" Vick "Why are you so hung up on source here?" Russell "Because I think you"re full of crap to I"m just gonna say." Vick "Look at how religion has raped the earth.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 6 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Von "batbrained" in round four, and called him a "fricken troll". This is poor conduct.