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

This House Believes that God Does Not Exist! (Troll Debate)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,423 times Debate No: 59540
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (32)
Votes (3)




Debate Resolution: God Does Not Exist

Overview and Rules

1. First round is for acceptance. If you wish to accept this debate please comment in the comments section. If anyone finds a way to accept this debate without my permission it will result in an auto loss.

2. This is a troll debate, and thus no serious arguments nor rebuttals will be given by either debater. This debate is meant to be light, humorous, and imaginative to be enjoyed by the debaters and the audience.

3. Shared BOP among the debaters. Pro will offer arguments and rebuttals as will Con.

4. 8000 character limit.

5. No Semantics. All definitions will be used in context of the resolution.

6. Standard conduct applies.


God - A being that which none greater can be concieved. This includes traits such as perfection, rationality, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence, in addition to having a special interest in human beings like that of the Christian God. That is, God is a personal God and not one uninterested in the universe it has created.

Exist - To be within reality. We are assuming that there is no such thing as "outside" of reality. Everything that is, is within reality.



It breaks my little, white, southern heart to see that Crypto here is questioning the existence of our almighty father in heaven! Well, I'll show him! I have undeniable proof that our God exists!
Debate Round No. 1



In this debate I will present undeniable scientific and logically truths that all religious people are simply to blind to see. Out of the thousands upon thousands of arguments that blatantly disprove the existence of “god” I have chosen the three arguments that I believe simply cannot be refuted.

The Problem of Justin Bieber

P1. If an omnibenevolent God exists, then Justin Bieber would not exist.

P2. Justin Bieber exists.

C1. Therefore an omnibenevolent God does not exist.

Defense of Premise 1

Is God willing to destroy Justin Bieber but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh Justin Bieber? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

It is without a doubt that this world would be relieved of a level of unseen douchbaginess if Justin Bieber (or shall we call him the bane of all that is good) had never become the cult leader that he is today. Justin Bieber makes Joe Biden look like a good guy.

Truly, do I even need to argue about the things he has done for this premise to hold true?

Justin Bieber:

1. Has created a cult of mindless teenage girls who are now, because of Bieber, attracted to #$w@g and douchebags.

2. Has created a cult of mindless teenage girls that hate good music.

3. Has successfully created a cult of mindless teenage girls who hate good music and are attracted to #$w@g and douchbags. I mean at this point you gotta feel bad for that nice guy who got friend zoned because of Justin Bieber, whom all girls have sworn their virginity to.

4. Pretended he was crippled so he could get to the front of the line at Disney Land. That sick b@stard. He might as well be holding a sign saying “I have no sympathy or care for you, you autistic diseased cripple!” Dude has enough money to buy Disney Land, but nooo he’s gotta pretend to be crippled to get any joy out of life.

5. Is a confirmed KKK member, Nazi, and White Supremacist as emphasized by his parody song “one less lonely n****r” in addition to using the “N” word while telling a racist joke. …And I thought Canadians were supposed to be polite. VTL Justin Bieber.

6. Smoked so much weed on his flight from Canada to New Jersey that pilots had to wear oxygen masks. On the same flight, he and his crew harassed a female flight attendant to the point that she decided she’d rather hide in the cockpit then be around them. I guess this makes Bieber a Male Supremacist also.

7. Has spit on his loyal fans who were below on the street from his hotel balcony. Man, the very people who created who you are and you are spitting on them? Wait… this kind of makes sense.

And if this isn’t convincing enough, here is a list of 33 of the douchiest (and outright evil) things Justin Bieber has ever done:

To summarize:

Justin Bieber is a cult leader who hates his own followers, has created music that destroys the meaning of good music, is a KKK member, Nazi member, hates females, smokes weed, hates crippled children, and disrespects and mistreats everyone in the name of his #$w@g level being too high to respect them.

It is without a doubt, that if God loved his creation, Justin Bieber would not be who he is.

Defense of Premise 2

Picture proof of Justin Bieber:

Whoops, wrong picture. Let’s see… ah here we go!


Argument from Richard Dawkins

P1. Richard Dawkins wrote a book called the God Delusion which proves God doesn’t exist.

P2. Richard Dawkins is smart, and smart people write about the truth.

C1. Therefore God does not exist.

Defense of Premise 1

This is called a book. I'm not sure whether you have ever seen a book besides the Bible but now you know that other ones exist.

Defense of Premise 2

Albert Einstein wore glasses and he is really smart. Richard Dawkins also wears glasses and he is really smart. Coincidence? I think not. After all, sources find that people who wear glasses are considerably smarter than those who do not -

Not only that, but only really smart guys can have inspirational quotes on pictures of them staring out at the sea:

In addition, Dawkins was also rewarded a Doctor of Science award from Oxford University, thus proving he is an advocate of science and of course, the truth. To disagree with him is to disagree with science. Since science is the truth of reality, then to argue against Dawkins is to essentially argue against reality, which therefore makes anyone who disagrees with Dawkins delusional, irrational, and illogical.

Argument from Formal Logic

P1. Either God doesn’t exist, or God doesn’t exist.

P2. God doesn’t exist.

C1. Therefore God doesn’t exist.

This argument is completely sound because it correctly follows formal logic. If you argue against this it means you are arguing against logic, therefore proving you are illogical. Since it is necessary that one who believes in God must argue against logic via my argument from formal logic, we can therefore conclude that all people who believe in God are illogical and irrational.



I thank my misguided friend, and am praying for his soul to not rot forever in Hell. Five centuries should be sufficient for his blasphemous last round. On to debunking his foolish arguments and establishing the obvious truths for why God exists.

Argument from Produce:

Wanna know what the Bible and a banana have in common? They both prove that God exists!(1)

Go watch that beautiful, moustached man blow your mother flipping minds.

Argument from Literature:

P1 - If the Bible is true, then God most certainly exists.
P2 - God wrote the Bible
P3 - God is incapable of being wrong
C1 - The bible is true
C2 - God exists

Defending P1:

This is self-evident. The bible claims god is real, so if it's right then god must be real.

Defending P2:

Duh, self-evident again.

Defending P3:

It's clearly written in the bible that God is perfect and capable of doing no wrong.

Therefore, the conclusions logically follow from the premises. And using logic is important because without it hurkaderkaderkderk becomes a five page dissertation on how Hitler never existed, as was proven here(2).

Refuting Opponent's Arguments:

Let's start with my opponents first argument where he spends five thousand years bashing on Bieber.

1. Don't trust his argument here because Crypto's really just jealous of how successful Bieber became with his beautiful singing voice and smooth dance moves. Now there are no m'ladies for Crypto to tip his Fedora to and woo into blissful matrimony, therefore he is taking his anger and frustration out on God, for some reason or another. #niceguysfinishlast

2. My opponent is blatantly wrong. In fact, this argument can be turned in my favor because Justin Bieber's continued existence is a testament to God's a) everlasting grace and b) his ability to physically stop people from doing things, meaning he can do anything.

Proving a:

The fact that Justin Bieber is still alive is a testament to God's forgiveness and everlasting grace. Even though JB's made a few mistakes in his lifetime, God has withheld his wrath to allow JB to repent from his wicked ways and accept Jesus Christ into his heart. If god were not merciful, JB would've most certainly smited down after releasing "Baby". Thus, since Justin Bieber is still alive, God most certainly exists.

Proving b:

There are literally hundreds of ways plotted to kill this poor kid(3). The fact that he isn't dead yet is either a) gross incompetence (caused by god) or b) amazing security work (blessed by god). Either way, it's divine intervention.

Now, move on to where Crypto spends thirty minutes giving Dawkins a bro-job.

This argument is dumb. God made science. So the mere fact he's trying to use science against me is a) proof of God's work and b) proof that my opponent is a dumb-dumb.

And lastly, go to the final argument where Crypto tries to be poindexter.

1. Logic sucks. Logic tells us to do things we really don't want to do sometimes. Logic tells us that eating healthy is good for us, and that we shouldn't have things like ice cream (who doesn't want ice cream!?!?!?!?!?!). Who cares about logic?

2. But even if we like using logic (for some dumb reason), my arguments use logic. So suck it, dumb-dumb.


1. First video
3. Second video link
Debate Round No. 2



Typical theist, denying both logic and science. Obviously if he had any respect for either of them he wouldn’t be a theist after all. Anyways, I will now waste my valuable and precious time refute this numbskull’s poor arguments and rebuttals

Argument from Produce

What that mustached man is mistaken about is that even though bannanas may fit in your hand well (thank you evolution), bananas are also tools for evil according to your fairy tale Bible!

First off, they teach young girls to be naughty, which is obviously against the will of your god.

This obviously leads to teenage pregnancies, sex before marriage, and all of your other dumb rules!

Not only that, but according to a study conducted by, bananas on average kill 157 people every year. No loving god would create such a dangerous fruit! In fact, look at these black market banana guns with a range of 1200 yards!

Bannanas are deadly weapons, and certainly do not point to the existence of a god.

And how the hell does that video explain the pineapple? The pineapple is large, bulky, and spiky in addition to be difficult to get open. I call this video an example of cherry (punz) picking.

Argument from Literature

Attack on Premise 2

First off, god did not write the Bible. There is no evidence that a big man with a white beard on a cloud sat down with a pencil and paper then sent it down from the sky down to Earth. No, it is quite clear that humans wrote the Bible. After all, god doesn’t exist so who else could have written the Bible? Humans are dumb and flawed human beings (I’m looking at you Bieber), and obviously the bible must therefore be a story book just like Harry Potter and the Hunger Games. And if god did exist, then Satan obviously who have tempted the human beings into writing lies, and therefore any argument based off the Bible proving god’s existence are necessarily false.

Attack on Premise 3

God murderd a bunch of cute and innocent babies.

Yet Justin Bieber has not been destroyed.

‘Nuf said.

Problem of Justin Bieber

Here Zaradi defends a KKK, Nazi, woman hating, music destroying, douchbag. I think we can consider y argument conceded. His angelic voice only serves to brainwash his cult members. Obviously Zaradi has been mesmerized and has therefore too become part of his cult.

We wish you well Zaradi.

My opponent’s second (failed) rebuttal simply doesn’t make sense. As mentioned before, god will massacre a bunch of innocent babies

Yet not destroy Justin Bieber? The fact that Justin Bieber is still alive is a testament to god not existing! God won’t even protect babies then why would god protect Justin Bieber? The argument implies godi s a malevolent being, but this contradicts the definition of god set forth in round 1!

Argument from Richard Dawkins

Zaradi concedes that Richard Dawkins is a smart man because he wears glasses. It simply follows then that sense smart people write about the truth, and Dawkins argues against god’s existence, then god therefore does not exist.

And please, theists don’t believe in science! If they did they wouldn’t believe in god obviously! Nonono, if god exists, then the universe was made in 6 days, the Flood was a real event, evolution is false, Adam and Eve were two real people, ect .ect.

God is obviously incompatible with science!

Argument from Formal Logic

As I suspected, my irrefutable argument stands strong.

Zaradi’s argument basically follows:

P1. Logic is stupid.

P2. But I used logic on my other arguments anyways.

C1. Therefore I am stupid.

So Zaradi is basically calling himself stupid while conceding the argument. And by the way Zaradi, ice cream and logic are still compatible.

P1. Humans should be happy.

P2. Icecream makes humans happy.

C1. Therefore humans should eat icecream.

Zaradi my dear ignorant theist, logic is a promoter of happiness, not an enemy of it!



Argument From Produce

My foolish opponent attempts to show how bannana's are a tool of the devil by showing a girl eating a banana....




She's eating a banana? Get your mind out of the gutter, you pervert! It's not bananas that are making people worse, it's you!

My foolish opponent also attempts to say that bananas are dangerous and they kill people, but his stats don't prove anything. Just because some misguided youth decides to beat a guy to death with a banana, that doesn't make banana's bad. A (banana) gun is only as dangerous as the finger behind the trigger.

Also, banana guns sound like a great invention. Now I can give delicious fruit to my friend 1200 yards away! That's a great idea!

Also, I'm not explaining the pinapple? I'm explaining the banana. The lack of reading makes me believe that it's the return of the dumb-dumb.

Argument From Literature

God did too! It says so right in the Bible! (Truthiticus Chapter 2 veruse 12).

Also, even if it's a story book, have you ever heard of non-fiction?

And if Satan were really tempting people to write lies, it would be more evident. There would be much more talk of sinful things, such as pornography, violence, hatred, abuse of kittens, etc. etc. And since it's not there, your refutation is clearly bogus.

God killed babies? No he didn't. Sin did. And God saved their souls from eternal torment in Hell. Turned that argument like a pro, you dumb-dumb!

Problem of Justin Bieber

My opponent fails to resond to the argument I make that he's 100% just totally jealous of Bieber's amazing skills stealing all da womenz from him so his fedora-tipping, neckbeard ways can't woo any of the m'ladies without them calling the police on him anymore. This undermines all of his arguments because it becomes clear that there isn't any kind of sense behind his position.


And, again, God never killed any babies, he saved babies. I don't understand my opponent's fascination with dead babies. You should probably get some help...

Argument From Richard Dawkins

This argument is still as dumb as before. My opponent doesn't actually respond to what I talked about (typical Atheist). God made science, so God cannot be against science. That would be like if I made a delicious apple pie, but refused to eat it becaus I don't like apple pie. That doesn't make sense!

And theists wear glasses too. So if smart people are talking about god, by my opponent's logic, then God must surely exist! Another argument in favor of me!

Argument from Formal Logic

My opponent's just being rude now.

My refutation was a debating tactic known as layering the debate. It's something that's done by non-dumb-dumbs to show that "My opponetn is being dumb, but even if he's not being dumb, he's still dumb."

And of course, being the dumb-dumb that you are it goes waaaaaay over your head. I'm praying for your poor soul.

And, of course, ice cream and logic are not compatable.

P1. Humans should eat in consistency with a healthy diet.

P2. Ice cream is not a part of a healthy diet.

C1. Humans should not eat ice cream.

Debate Round No. 3


Argument from Produce

Whether she is eating that banana or not, she is clearly doing so in a seductive manner. And of course, according to your bible, if a woman tempts a man she is sinning obviously.

My opponent seems to have completely forgotten about the horrible murders, and even massacres bananas have caused throughout the centuries!

Must I remind you of the horrifying massacre at Guatalmea in 1979?

Or what about the serial banana, Banana Joe who murdered 17 people?

This is of course, not to mention that bananas all around the world, especially in South America (where they are most prominent) have been brutally murdering monkeys!

Cute baby monkeys!

It is clear that bananas are evil fruit, and that no loving god would ever create them, nor should such evil fruit somehow serve to be proof of god.

Argument from Literature

Attack on premise 2

You have to think, if Satan did take control of the human authors of the Bible, then all of the good things in the Bible are actually evil! In other words, your god actually wants you to murder people and watch pornography!

Attack on premise 3

What about Bloodinonomy 21:17?

“And God saw that thine infants were cuter than thee, and thrusted the almighty hand upon them, and smite them all.”

Your god was jealous of the babies being cuter than him. So jealous in fact, that when he noticed loving parents were giving more care and attention to their children than god, that god destroyed all the babies! Yeah, that sure sounds like a great god to me.

I mean, if I were god I’d be jealous to. Here he is with a scraggly old beard and a mean face:

And then of course there are these adorable wittle babies.

So god destroys babies because they are really cute and adorable, yet again, Justin Bieber has not been destroyed. I would definitely say god is wrong on this one.

The Problem of Justin Bieber

Oh gee, Zaradi is in a far worse condition of mind control than I thought. *shakes Zaradi ferociously* ZARADI SNAP OUT OF IT! YOU ARE A ZOMBIE!

Sh*t, if Zaradi has been taken over, this must be far worse than I originally thought. THE BIEBER APOCALYPSE IS AMONG US!

Crap, I gotta get to Walmart ASAP and get some ear plugs for my wife and kids.


Dear whoever may be reading this,

My name is Cris Arcos. Over the past years Justin Bieber has been brainwashing innocent people, and thus causing them to join his army In order to destroy all that is good. Today, I found out my friend Zaradi has been severely brainwashed among by Bieber. I respected Zaradi, even if he was a theist. Now that I have noticed my loved ones have been brainwashed, I have decided it is time to act. I have gone to a store to by the highest quality ear plugs I could so I could protect my family. While I was there I noticed it was not just Zaradi that had been brainwashed, but also a great many of the public. The time of doom is upon us. I urge you all to take great caution, especially in stores and around teenage girls who seem especially prone to sharing Bieber’s voice. Right now I am in a safehouse in the mountains writing this letter. To any who find this, please do not lose hope. We can rise and defeat this.

Back to the Argument

As Bloodinonomy stated, god did indeed kill babies. Geeze, you call yourself a theist and you haven’t even read your own bible. I suppose it is typical that a genius atheist like myself would know it better than you do. After all, why else would you be a theist?

So again, god killed babies and Bieber is still alive. Something is seriously wrong here, and I think it is god’s existence.

Argument from Richard Dawkins

Look, god made the world in 6 days, but science says it was like a really long time. So just saying, your god totally didn’t create science.

And by the way, Jesus didn’t wear glasses, so argument refuted. Your very own teacher didn’t wear glasses, which obviously proves he wasn’t smart. So this means all of you theists are following the teachings of a dumb guy. Whereas my leader, Richard Dawkins does wear glasses, thereby proving he is smart and that atheism is correct.

Argument from Formal Logic

Sorry, but this debate is already layered enough as is. Even though you are a theist, your arguments have somehow been good enough that this may be the most complex and intricate debate on the existence of god ever held. So the fact that you are trying to make it more layered is just mean to the readers and is poor conduct on your part.

And I didn’t understand your whole explanation on this layering thing, but since I am an atheist (and therefore smarter) I’m just going to assume you’re wrong.

By the way, you using logic (congrats! Its your first time!) to show that humans shouldn’t eat icecream is just flawed, because using your last argument you admitted yourself that you are stupid, so obviously your logic must be stupid also.

To reiterate what Zaradi said:

P1. Logic is stupid.

P2. But I used logic on my other arguments anyways.

C1. Therefore I am stupid.

So Zaradi says logic is stupid and Zaradi admits that he is stupid, so Zaradi’s logic must obviously be flawed.

I assure you all, that logic is pro icecream! A vote for me is a vote for icecream!


Thank you Zaradi for this debate, it has been lots of fun.



Zaradi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Raisor 2 years ago
I didn't really read the debate, anyone who thinks god is real is a brainwashed belieber so there's no reason to read this since I already know pro is right.

A loving god would not have created bieber, this should be obvious to everyone.

Conduct to pro for forfeit.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
Aw i was so sad to see after reading this whole thing through that Zaradi forfieted the last round; this was probably one of the most humerous troll debates I've read so far. Looking at the arguments...

Clearly, crypto has proven that zaradi is brainwashed by justin beiber and therefore cannot form a coherent argument against him due to bias. Looking back on my seventh grade year, I tell you this; I too was brainwashed by biebs. Even if zaradi has shown that crypto is secretly jealous of justin beiber (i'm sure he is because who wouldnt want to brainwash women), the existance of justin beiber still obviously proves that god is a lie. This incredibly convincing argument goes to crypto.

Indeed I buy cryto's point that only the most intelligent people wear glasses and get pictures of their faces taken by the sea with quotes next to them. However, the wise zaradi brings up that theists can do this as well. Even if, as crypto points out, god does not wear glasses.... he could still exist.

Zaradi's apple pie analogy was really pretty entertaining. Why indeed would god make science if he was against it? But of course god couldn't have made science if the world wasn't made in six days (as science has proven); crypto wisely points out that the world *has* to be made in six days for god to have created the science we use today.

Zaradi uses logic throughout the debate, claiming at the end that logic is dumb. Crypto successfully proves that this makes zaradi stupid; however, even if zaradi is stupid for using logic and then criticizing it, crypto hasn't done anything to prove that formal logic is the way to go when proving god's existance.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
BANANAS (argument from produce)
Crypto successfully shows, that as with justin bieber, bananas disprove god's existance.

Zaradi's point ultimately has to fall because it uses logic; which zaradi claims is dumb. Moreover, god did not write the bible as crypto points out.

In conclusion, this was probably one of the funniest things I have ever read. Crypto ultimately wins this debate because he put a lot more effort into his arguments and his ideas were more humerous. The debate would have been way closer (and perhaps zaradi could have won) if he presented a final round. Crypto and zaradi both have different senses of humor; both were pretty entertianing to me. Anyways, good debate.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
Zaradi :(
Posted by Zaradi 2 years ago
God crypto. Such a friggin tryhard.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
Lol thanks DA, I appreciate the positive feedback.
Posted by DevilsAdvocate66 2 years ago
The formal logic argument made was not only totally hilarious, but also the most profound and mind bending proof that god cant exist. I literally see no way that zaradii could win.
Also the glasses argument seems so water tight it probably caused the invention of the wetsuit. It was the briefly written article on aol that convinced me i think. As well as the clear logical consistency.
I love it.
Better have some tasty witticisms and equally valid arguments in your pocket con, or this may have to go to crypto...
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
I think 2500 but I'm not positive. If not that, then 3000.
Posted by debatability 2 years ago
what exactly are the elo restrictions? i want to attemt to raise my elo to that point by the end of this debate so i can vote, lol
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
It profoundly disturbs me that such primates are discussing such grand possibilities with answer-ability rather than question-ability.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Raisor 2 years 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Rfd in comments
Vote Placed by debatability 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: look at the comments homies
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: A quite fun debate to read. In the end, though, it's clear that if Biebs exists, God does not--all bananas notwithstanding.