The Instigator
Masterful
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Agonist
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Sinfullness will turn you into a potato retard

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...
Agonist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 98223
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Masterful

Pro

I believe is a tru statement
Agonist

Con

I contend that sin (whatever we may mean by it) will not turn you into a "potato retard."
Debate Round No. 1
Masterful

Pro

I grew up in a small village in the Henan Province, China. It was in that small village that I was taught about a mysterious power called "Karma" and its effects.
It was my mothers teachings that taught me, if I were to hurt another, then I would feel consequence one way or another.

It is now my understanding that, if I were to kill or hurt someone enough, then Karma would take action against me.
I was always told that when I die in this life, I would come back in another. However if I sinned a lot, then I could come back as an insect, vegetable or in some cases I would have mental health problems.

This is how I am able to make the claim:
"Sinfulness will turn you into a potato retard"

My opponent makes the claim that "Sinfulness will NOT turn you into a potato retard."
How can my opponent be 100% so certain? how can he pretend to have knowledge about what happens after death?

I make my claim because that is what my ancestors have believed for 10,000s of years, and to say with 100% certainty that there is no after life or even new life is arrogant.

You accepted this debate hoping to hate on my beliefs, but I hope by the end of this debate you realise, it is your beliefs that are in need to criticism.

You have verbally attacked me in the past.
I will not forget.
I will not forgive.
I will defeat you.
Agonist

Con

I grew up in a large city in the Naneh Province, China. It was in that large city that I was taught about a mysterious power called "Mumbo-Jumbo" and its effects.

It was my father's teachings that taught me, if I were to hurt another, then I would never feel the consequence, one way or another.

It is now my understanding that, if I were to kill or hurt someone enough, then Mumbo-Jumbo would not take action against me. I was always told that when I die in this life, I would not come back in another. However, if I sinned a lot, I would not come back as an insect, vegetable, or, in no case, would I have mental health problems.

This is how I am able to make the claim:
"Sinfulness will not turn you into a potato retard."

My opponent makes the claim that, "Sinfulness WILL turn you into a potato retard."
How can my opponent be 100% certain? How can he/she pretend to have knowledge about what happens after death?

I make my claim because that I what my ancestors have believed for 10,000's of years and to say with 100% certainty that there is life after death or even new life is arrogant.
Debate Round No. 2
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: David_Debates// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is one for Karma, that it has the ability to reincarnate. Pro gives no sources. Con's response is simply a negation of Pro's argument, essentially stating the same things that Pro did, but as evidence for his side. No sources used. This in mind, we have two people who used the same argument. I must give this to Con, as he has the burden to disprove Pro's argument, and his word for word refutation was enough to counter Pro's source-less argument. With Pro's argument sucessfully neutralized, we see that Pro has no other argument for "coming back as a potato retard." I give arguments to Con for this reason.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter clearly explains their decision in the context of the arguments given by both sides in the debate, making it clear that he understands that one side repeated and twisted the arguments of the other, and explaining why he voted for that debater nonetheless. It is not the position of moderation to decide whether or not this is good logic and either keep or remove the vote on that basis. Moderation is here to ensure that the voter does his due diligence in assessing the debate. He did so, therefore this vote is sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
Yeah there is a problem with your vote. Copying your opponents argument, isn't an argument. He never a single source to disprove my claims either.
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
If there is a problem with my vote, please message me with your RTP.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: ca2005// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Con Used better spelling and logic

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to show that the S&G of one of the debaters substantially interfered in the understanding of that debater"s arguments. Merely restating the point allocation is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
My argument, at least had a reason as to why there is a possibility that you might turn into a potato retard. The reason I stated was to do with karma dictating what you would turn into in another life. You made no attempt to debunk my argument, regardless of how weak my argument was, yours was non existent.
Posted by Agonist 1 year ago
Agonist
By parodying your argument, I demonstrated that it was without merit. True, I am opening myself up to a tie. Yet, you made no claim that I did not match in rhetorical strength.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
Your position was to contend. You didn't contend you simply copied my argument.
Posted by Agonist 1 year ago
Agonist
An easy win? Seems about even to me. I don't see anyplace in which my opponent made a more convincing case.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
I would like to thank my opponent for his lack of creativity and making this debate an easy win for me.
So thank you.
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
Agonist, my nemesis.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
MasterfulAgonistTied
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 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: Pro's argument is one for Karma, that it has the ability to reincarnate. Pro gives no sources. Con's response is simply a negation of Pro's argument, essentially stating the same things that Pro did, but as evidence for his side. No sources used. This in mind, we have two people who used the same argument. I must give this to Con, as he has the burden to disprove Pro's argument, and his word for word refutation was enough to counter Pro's source-less argument. With Pro's argument sucessfully neutralized, we see that Pro has no other argument for "coming back as a potato retard." I give arguments to Con for this reason.