Arts (557)
Economics (400)
Education (1,573)
Entertainment (2,175)
Health (1,156)
Miscellaneous (2,899)
News (324)
Philosophy (1,413)
Politics (5,877)
Religion (3,205)
Science (1,217)
Society (3,341)
Sports (864)
Technology (675)

The Instigator

Pro (for)

Sketchy

Winning

48 Points

The Contender

Con (against)

Calvincambridge

Losing

0 Points

The biblical God probably doesn't exist.

Add to My FavoritesReport this DebateShare with My Friends

Do you like this debate?No Yes-3

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 - Required

1,000 Characters Remaining

The voting period for this debate does not end.

Started:	9/4/2011	Category:	Religion
Updated:	1 year ago	Status:	Voting Period
Viewed:	640 times	Debate No:	18174

Debate Rounds (4)

Comments (10)

Votes (8)

Pro By Pro, I am arguing that God probably doesn't exist. For the purposes of this debate, God shall refer to the Judeo-Christian deity. God - (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The omnipotent creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority Exist - To have actual being Rules: The burden of proof shall be shared. No arguments in the first round. Con must state in Round 1 if God is also omniscient and/or omnibenevolent. If Con doesn't choose, I will assume God is both. Any ad hominem attacks will result in disqualification. You may quote and use the Bible as a source, but I will not accept it as proof. Example: "Genesis says this, and it is much more reliable than fossils!" = BAD "Ezekiel 23:20 is an example of how the Bible is family-friendly." = GOOD If you have any questions, or would like me to change the rules in any way, please comment or message me. Thank you! Report this Argument Con I accept but what is ad hominem Report this Argument
Pro Ad hominem is when you insult someone to prove their argument wrong. My opponent didn’t choose God’s ‘omni’s, so as the rules clearly state, you will argue that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists. The Evil/Suffering Problem Suffering and evil are present on Earth. Since God is omniscient He knows evil is happening, He is omnibenevolent so He must end all evil, and He is omnipotent so he has the power to end all evil. Therefore, God doesn’t exist. Omnipotence Paradox Since God is omnipotent, he can do anything, right? Can he microwave a piece of pizza so hot, that he himself can’t eat it? My arguments are short, but sweet. I will add additional arguments to the following rounds if needed. Report this Argument Con The thing is that God is all loving to people therefore he could not kill the evildoers because in doing that would not be loving therefore the only way to be all loving is to let things play out. Good point he could do so but he can also make anything as hot as he wants and still eat it P.S no offence just stating my belief on this I think God dosent like pizza. I think his favoratie food is lamb. Report this Argument
Pro "The thing is that God is all loving to people therefore he could not kill the evildoers because in doing that would not be loving therefore the only way to be all loving is to let things play out." But God is omnipotent, so why couldn't He simply make the evildoers good? "P.S no offence just stating my belief on this I think God dosent like pizza. I think his favoratie food is lamb." I don't see how that would offend me...how does this pertains to this debate? My opponent failed to counter my arguments or propose any of his own, so I will extend my arguments for this round. Report this Argument Con Why would God want to make a pizza so hot he couldent eat it Report this Argument
Pro "Why would God want to make a pizza so hot he couldent eat it" It doesn't matter if God wants to make it. It is impossible for Him to create it, so He is not omnipotent. My opponent STILL has yet to post any arguments or valid rebuttals. We agreed to share the burden of proof and Con has failed completely in that aspect alone. Even if Con were to present amazing, irrefutable arguments in the final round, I believe I still win because he has wasted two whole rounds focusing on trivial issues that are obviously unimportant in this debate. Vote Pro! Report this Argument Con He could make a pizza so hot he couldn't eat it because it would disintegrate Report this Argument

Post a Comment

10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.

Posted by Double_R 1 year ago

Falcon, he is pretty funny but he wastes peoples time who are trying to instigate a serious challenge. Of course by now I think people know that if he accepts don't even bother with a real argument. It won't be necessary.

Report this Comment

Posted by Man-is-good 1 year ago

Calvin mixed up this debate with his daily comics...Oops.

Report this Comment

Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago

I was just saying that CalvinCambridge is really funny and random and provides great entertainment.

Report this Comment

Posted by Double_R 1 year ago

Falcon, you of all people are the last person I would expect to defend his nonsense. What happened to all those ideas of yours?

Report this Comment

Posted by kohai 1 year ago

CON needs to stop trolling. Don't accept debates unless you're serious about then. He accepted my debate, oh boy; can't wait to see this.

Report this Comment

Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago

CalvinCambridge is favorite troll. He is just too funny. Did you see in the Electric cars, he suggested that we go back to using horses? Or on the welfare debate, he also suggested using horses?

Report this Comment

Posted by Double_R 1 year ago

Calvincambridge, do you have a purpose for being here?

Report this Comment

Posted by Sketchy 1 year ago

Really? Well, I'll at least try. Maybe I'll get a good laugh out of it.

Report this Comment

Posted by thett3 1 year ago

free win for sketchy, calvincambridge is a troll.

Report this Comment

Posted by Sketchy 1 year ago

I know all of the rules just say '1.', but the DDO editor was acting up and I couldn't fix it.

Report this Comment

8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.

Vote Placed by Man-is-good 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:		-	-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:		-	-	0 points
Who had better conduct:	-	-		1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:		-	-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-	-		2 points
Total points awarded:	4	0

Reasons for voting decision: While Pro had some problems with his arguments, Con rebutted none of his points...Con also didn't know his grammar book as well.

Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-	-		0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-	-		0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:		-	-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:		-	-	2 points
Total points awarded:	7	0

Reasons for voting decision: Troll user is a troll.

Vote Placed by seraine 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-	-		0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-	-		0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:		-	-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:		-	-	2 points
Total points awarded:	7	0

Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.

Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:		-	-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:		-	-	0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:		-	-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:		-	-	2 points
Total points awarded:	7	0

Reasons for voting decision: Obvious. Con did not rebut effectively.

Vote Placed by kohai 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-	-		0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-	-		0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:		-	-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:		-	-	2 points
Total points awarded:	7	0

Reasons for voting decision: Con needs to stop trolling

Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:		-	-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:		-	-	0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:	-	-		3 points
Used the most reliable sources:	-	-		2 points
Total points awarded:	2	0

Reasons for voting decision: Tough call. Arguments are tied since Pro's logic was fallacious. "so hot that he coudn't eat it". I am not exactly sure which fallacy it is but there are tons of ways Pro could have made his argument. Conduct to Pro because Con was trolling. SG to Pro because Con spelt coudn't as couldent.

Vote Placed by Double_R 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:		-	-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:		-	-	2 points
Total points awarded:	7	0

Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't make a very thorough argument but I think he knew that he didn't have to against a troll.

Vote Placed by thett3 1 year ago

	Sketchy	Calvincambridge	Tied
Agreed with before the debate:	-		-	0 points
Agreed with after the debate:	-		-	0 points
Who had better conduct:		-	-	1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:		-	-	1 point
Made more convincing arguments:		-	-	3 points
Used the most reliable sources:		-	-	2 points
Total points awarded:	7	0

Reasons for voting decision: close call. The "Why would God want to make a pizza so hot he couldent eat it" defense was highly convincing. Still AFF wins.