The Instigator
Samacado
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
TheConservative
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

The recent removal of a inoperable tumor was an act of God.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/25/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,105 times Debate No: 3375
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (9)

 

Samacado

Con

Well let's asume for a second that there is a God. It was the surguons who done it, not some deity in the sky taking care of the entire universe.
TheConservative

Pro

First I would like to point out some errors that bothered me.

Wrong:asume
Correct: assume

Wrong: surguons
Correct: surgeons

Wrong: "who done it,"
Correct "who did it,"

Ok well now lets get started,

"Well let's assume for a second that there is a God."

- Fine by me, I don't have to pretend.

Ok so by the statement above regardless of what your beliefs are (spectators) me and Samacado have both agreed that in regards to this debate we will both agree that there is a God. So just please keep that in mind.

"It was the surgeons who did it, not some deity in the sky taking care of the entire universe."

- Well, by making this statement you are basically discluding any point of prayer. With a high risk operation like the one mentioned above you can be certain that the family members (who believe in God because in this debate we have both agreed that we will assume God exists) have been praying. In the bible it clearly states that those who prayer will be heard regardless of Gods will.

-So, when you are in an operation such as the topic when the risk factor is high and the statistics are against you BUT the operation goes well and the tumor is removed, assuming that there is a God and that family members where praying it is common sense to assume that God did help in some way.
Debate Round No. 1
Samacado

Con

Samacado forfeited this round.
TheConservative

Pro

I really don't have anything to say, my argument is kind of weak but. Prayer and Faith are a major part of being religious. If in fact we are to assume that God is real and everyone acknowledges it, based on that why is it so hard to admit a loving God helps people in every day situations.
Debate Round No. 2
Samacado

Con

Samacado forfeited this round.
TheConservative

Pro

100 words...thats ridiculous you know I think that if an opponent forfeits 2 rounds that the site should give you a win automatic win.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
I think courtesy is really quite irrelevant. Let me explain to you my definition of freedom.

Freedom of thought, action, word and dancing.

The only time freedom can be limited is when it endagers another man's freedom, and I do not see, I repeat, do not see someone making fun of Christianity or making fun of Evolution deteriorating from someone elses freedom. Therefore, all is just. Also, it's an interesting point and I think it's a valid one about the ignorance of people in today's world. I preach freedom to everyone, some people preach freedom to themselves. (Evolutionaries, Christians, doesn't matter)

Thanks for the thought =D
Posted by Traditionalist 8 years ago
Traditionalist
Regardless Obama has also said he was a Christian.

The problem with this statement: "I feel that you are allowed to have your own religion, anyone can practice it and worship it. However, this also means I can feel free to make fun of it as I wish, and anyone who follows it."

Thats all fine and dandy but the courtesy you get is not mutual. In a public University if a professor would stand up and say "I think Evolution is stupid, and I think the people that follow Evolution are stupid" do you think that he would get a free pass because it's everyones right to believe what he wants? no but if a teacher would stand up and say the same thing about Christianity no one would bat an eye....
Posted by TheConservative 8 years ago
TheConservative
For the record I am done with this site. Sorry for any feathers I ruffled I really just don't have time for this anymore I have to get to work.
Posted by HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
For the record, I don't support Hillary. The picture is a joke.
Posted by HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
My candidate for president is a Christian, and so are all the others. I don't think these needs refutation, there are limited candidates for presidency, so I choose the one that will best serve the country, regardless of religious ideals.

Your argument period had no weight, you could've created a much stronger argument around the idea of predestination (or something of the sort) when he agreed that God exists.

What? You misunderstand my opinions. I feel that you are allowed to have your own religion, anyone can practice it and worship it. However, this also means I can feel free to make fun of it as I wish, and anyone who follows it. Does this make sense? I'm accepting as in I don't think it's OK to oppress a religion, but i'm also accepting enough that I think it IS OK to make fun of another's religion instead of oppress them and tell them that, "It's offensive, stop!"

I want to argue with you, I have just challenged you. Please accept it. I want to crush you.
Posted by TheConservative 8 years ago
TheConservative
"This debate is ridiculous. I don't know who I want to punch more, the Con for being such a waste of brain tissue, or the Pro for being a Christian, and actually believing in it."

- Your candidate for president has made the statement "I pray to Jesus every night" so...?

"Regardless of personal opinions, I feel as if you both could've elaborated much more on your cases and created a somewhat valid argument."

- It's more difficult to debate against an argument that is non existent hence the fact I said my argument is weak.

"Thoroughly stupid debate, I voted Con because, while he types like my 8 year old sister, is at least intelligent enough to understand that a tumor removal isn't Jesus smiling down at the earth."

- Ok so the accepting Liberal who is open and "down to earth" and is accepting of everyone blatantly disregards thats 84% of the people that make up this country claim to be Christians, CHRIST(Jesus)ians?

Also, It seems to me that I get attacked on the sidelines in every debate I take place in.

I know I don't have the perfect grammar and sometime I make spelling mistakes as well. However I when I open an argument and I don't see any resemblance to even an attempt to speak English is when I make corrections.

I am sorry that you find my religion and my political opinion so "terrible."

If you want to argue with me challenge me and stop attacking me; where I have to check every debate to make sure I am not being smeared. Stop being scummy little cowards..
Posted by HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
This debate is ridiculous. I don't know who I want to punch more, the Con for being such a waste of brain tissue, or the Pro for being a Christian, and actually believing in it.

Regardless of personal opinions, I feel as if you both could've elaborated much more on your cases and created a somewhat valid argument.

Con could've easily run a nihilism-esque argument and just asked for you to prove the existence of God. Seeing as that's impossible, you'd have to default Con.

Pro, since the Con accepted the existence of God, you could've run predestination and won, as ludicrous (spelling?) as that is.

Thoroughly stupid debate, I voted Con because, while he types like my 8 year old sister, is at least intelligent enough to understand that a tumor removal isn't Jesus smiling down at the earth.
Posted by sarsin 8 years ago
sarsin
"In the bible it clearly states that those who prayer will be heard regardless of Gods will."

So if you pray, you can change God's will. Is there a threshold you have to cross for that? I figured since people die and/or are not healed all the time, I would assume that these people either are not praying hard enough or aren't saying the right thing.
Posted by Spiral 8 years ago
Spiral
Hahaha, nice work, Lwerd.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
TheConservative,

Because you're a real smart guy who finds it bothersome when people misspell words or use improper grammar (as I have gathered from your other debates), and you're also nice enough to point out the mistakes others make obviously so we can all learn from them, I thought I'd do you a favor by giving you a study guide of your own:

- The first few times you typed the word, you incorrectly wrote LETS instead of LET'S

- You said "me and Samacado" instead of "Samacado and I"

- You also said "have both agreed that in regards to this debate we will both agree" which is redundant

- "In the bible it clearly states that those who prayer will be heard..." Umm, didn't you mean PRAY, not prayer?

"when you are in an operation such as the topic..." <-- This sentence makes no grammatical sense

- "I really don't have anything to say, my argument is kind of weak but. Prayer and Faith are a major part of being religious."

Ok you used a comma instead of a period. You also capitalized faith unnecessarily. You also improperly placed a period after the word but

"based on that why is it so hard to admit a loving God helps people in every day situations."

- Didn't you mean to use a question mark instead of a period?

- In Round 3 you wrote THATS instead of THAT'S

- In that same round you combined 2 sentences to make one long run-on sentence... maybe even 3

- In Round 3 you wrote that instead of then

- Finally in Round 3 you wrote "should give you a win automatic win" ... tsk tsk
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by livi 8 years ago
livi
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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 
Vote Placed by uiop 8 years ago
uiop
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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 
Vote Placed by HadenQuinlan 8 years ago
HadenQuinlan
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
SamacadoTheConservativeTied
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