The Instigator
cheesedingo1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Troll Debate Week 3: Satan and Morals

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 995 times Debate No: 24601
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

cheesedingo1

Pro

Hello, and welcome to Cheesedingo1's 3rd weekly troll debate. I decided to do this debate from one of my friends who loves insane conspiracy theories and making fun of afterlife deities and demons. So, without further ado, I will state the resolution.

Resolution: Morals should be defined as "All that Satan deems is true".

It should be duely noted I said SHOULD be defined, not IS defined, because I'm sure some people would just accept this and look up the defenition of Morals into dictionary.com and say that satan has nothing to do with it. I'm saying that the defenition of morals should be about the judgement and decision of Hell's loving father and all he finds true.
1st round: Acceptance
2nd: Arguments (and ONLY arguments. No rebutles and attacks.)
3rd: Attacks on opponent's arguments and strengthening of your own arguments.
4th: Rebutles, final attacks, and conclusions.

That is all. BRING IT ON!!!!!
socialpinko

Con

===Definitions===


Satan will be defined synonymously with the Devil and Lucifer as portrayed in Christianity. Lucifer was originally an angel in Heaven but was cast out along with his followers after he attempted to become on par with God's greatness.

Morals regard right or wrong conduct in the broadest sense.


===
As per my opponent's rules I'll refrain from posting an argument this round, opting to simply define the relevant terms of the resolution and to wish my opponent the best of luck in this upcoming debate.
===
Debate Round No. 1
cheesedingo1

Pro

cheesedingo1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
cheesedingo1

Pro

Well, here I am. I am sorry for the misfortunate failure on my part for not having an argument. I'm sure a bunch of anal voters will be all "FF" and "he didn't do a round" and thus, I will probably lose. I will still try to win though. Now, FOR THE ARGUMENTS.

(And to Spinko: rounds 3 and 4 will be fused, if that's ok with you)

I agree to the defenition of Satan, but not to the defenition of Morals, because what i'm supporting is the DIFFERENT defenition of morals.

Now, when you think of morals and people with right morals, you think of those lolipop people that are all fun and happy. Then you think of people without morals. They are mean, depressing, and will lick a big part of your $8.95 ice cream cone and not even say sorry about it at all. Both of these people are like this because of one nice ol' person....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
SATAN.

Now, I will provide two arguments. A troll argument, and a real argument, since I know Spinko to be very intelectual. First, 2 real points about satan and morals, and then 2 troll points about satan and morals.

REAL POINTS:

1) Satan is the cause of both good and evil existing simutaneously.
We all know the story in genesis of Adam, Eve, the Snake(Satan), and the tree of good and evil. (If not, here's a link to it: http://www.biblegateway.com...) In this story, Adam and Eve are all peaches and gravy. They couldn't be happier. They prance around nude and happy in the Garden of Eden. God puts them in this beautiful garden, and says they can do everything except eat of the tree of good and evil. Then, all of a sudden, Mr. Snake slithers on up, but it is Satan in disguise (you can tell where this is going). So, of course, Satan convinces the WOMEN, Eve, to eat the apple on the tree of good and evil. She does, and then gives it to ignorant ol' Adam who eats it too. Then, they realize that they're naked, get leaves to cover their ta-ta's and groin areas, and God is über pissed. He thrusts them into the world of sin, and thus, the human race is born.
The point of all this is saying that none of this couldn't be possible without Satan. Satan was the one key factor in choosing if the human race would be perfect, or be full of sin. Perfection, could be defined as "good", and sin could be defined as "evil". So, it could be said that he created both good and evil to coexist in the same world. By this, I mean, is that he wanted it to be true, and to happen, and it did, thus, morals can be defined as all that Satan deems is true.

2) Good cannot exist without out Evil
It can't. As we can see in the story of Adam and Eve, there was not all good. There was Satan. If there was absolutely no evil in this world, there wouldn't be good either. Good would be defined as: That which is morally right; righteousness. (google.com/dictionary) Now, if evil didn't exist, good wouldn't, because there is nothing evil in this world, so what would good be? If there is no bad, and everyone was good, good would be seen as a neutral and even state, since there is nothing evil nor good about it. In science terms, without the electron, there is no proton. Everything would be a neutron. Satan is the cause of having both good and evil, therefore having morals to begin with. It is because of him that there is morals.

Now, the TROLL points

1) Dinosaurs
Now, I know alot of you uptight debaters are all "Like, OMG. Dinosaurs?!?! What does that have to do with morals or satan? I'm automatically voting for Spinko now." Well, I will now tell you why Satan has to do with Dinosaurs.


Satan is the cause of the dinosaurs.


Now, I know alot of you voters will now just automatically vote for Spinko. But I will tell you why i think Satan did: Satan created morals, as I proved above. Since God created the dinosaurs, and Satan is the cause of right and wrong, and God and Satan are the embodiment of right and wrong, Dinosaurs were created.


2) The ultimate tool of Evil is Airplanes, and the ultimate tool of Good is Platypi.
This point doesn't necessarilly help or hurt neither my nor spinko's argument. Still, it should be covered nontheless. Airplanes are evil. You don't hear about terrorists or Osama Bin Laden stealing and bombing American Monuments with platypi. You hear about airplains. Airplanes are the absolute evil. Lots of people hate plains because they're scared of hights...... OR ARE THEY?!?!?!? The people that say they are "scared of hights" are actually people that have seen the truth, and know that Airplanes are evil. Now, onto the Platypus. When you see a platypus, you don't think "wow, that is the pure embodiment of evil".
No, you think "Holy sh*t, I wan't to cuddle the f*ck out of that motherf*cker." That is because Platypus are the ultimate tool of good. My argument speaks for itself.

Thank you

I apoligize for the delay of my argument, for my first round forfeit, and for my incredible insanity in my argument's this round.

Good luck, Spinko.
socialpinko

Con

===Pro Case===


C1. Satan Causing Good and Evil.


In order to see exactly where and how my opponent's point fails, I think it would be best to examine everything Satan did in the Garden and the immediate repercussions of such actions. My opponent claims Satan to be the cause of good and evil so in his argument he provided a case where Satan did something to directly facilitate the creation of morality. The claim by my beloved opponent here is that by prodding the weak-minded woman (surprise surprise) into eating the forbidden fruit, that Satan is somehow *creating* morality. But is he? Really? To say that Satan created anything is pure folly though Pure poppycock actually. All Satan did was show Adam and Eve what God had already determined was right and wrong. Otherwise how does one explain that the "Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil" already existed prior to Eve's unsurprising damning of the human race. The existence of such a thing implies that there were already properties to go along with it. Satan didn't create morality, he just showed us what God had already determined it to be.


C2. Good Existing Without Evil.


Cool point. Though there are a few problems. Babydingo doesn't show why it is Satan that creates morality and not God. For instance, he says good cannot exist without evil. But can evil exist without good? Probably not as per my opponent's own argument and the fact that the logic behind both positions is identical. So my opponent doesn't really prove anything other than that the two positions (good and evil) are necessary for each other one's existence. So the question is then, which entity is more likely to be the source of morality, God (who created the world and everything in it, therefore including morality) or one of God's punk ex-associates (who he also created). The answer is clear. God as the ultimate originator of all that exists and ever will exist is the ultimate definer of morality.


C3. Dinosaurs.


While Babydingo has certainly made a scientific breakthrough regarding the origin of the various species known as dinosaurs in his contention, I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the origin of morality. So while this point deserves a vote for Babydingo for a Clarke Medal[1], his point falls short of deserving a vote in his favor for this debate.


C4. Airplanes and Evil, Platypi and Virtue.


I've done the math, ran the numbers, did science stuff, and have arrived at the conclusion that conceding this totally unrelated point to the resolution would not affect my case. Therefore I concede that airplanes are evil, that the TSA ought to be severely punished for allowing so many vulnerable citizens to board those death machines, and that Southwest Airlines ought to be charged with crimes against humanity. But I do not concede Satan's role in the conception of morality good sir. Satan was not an engineer and Babydingo has not proved any Satanic involvement in the Wright brother's unholy creation of evil. P.s. burn in hell Wright brothers.


troll.jpg


===Sources===


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
cheesedingo1

Pro

C1. My opponent in this contention go's on to say lots about how Satan was there but he wasn't the cause of Morality. He said "satan just showed us what God had already determined it to be." So, by this he is saying it was already predetermined by God. So, my opponent is really saying that God planned that all out, he made the devil do the act because he already determined it to happen, and he just needed someone to get the blame besides him. God is fair, and he would not send someone to f*ck up mankind for all of eternity. If it was not for Satan, the fruit of the tree of good and evil (The cause of morality and mortality) would not have been eaten. Therefore, my friends, it is becuase of him that this happened.

1)First, Antisocialpinko starts talking about how I stated good can't exist without evil, and then says how it's supposed to hurt my argument because I didn't say that evil can't exist without good. That was rather implied a lot in my argument. Like with my Atom analogy, I said how without an electron, their is no proton, and everyone would be neutrons. But, also, without protons, there cannot be electrons. (I thought this all was already implied and not needed so say, but I guess spinko need help). Then, he says that the main way to win this contention is to prove who created morality: God or satan. I say satan, Spinko says God. This is Spinkos argument for God: God as the ultimate originator of all that exists and ever will exist is the ultimate definer of morality. It is true that God created everything physically, but he did not create the things that humans created themselves or by intervention from unknown origin. God did not create cell phones, humans did. God did not create cars, or sliced bread, or duct tape, no, it was humans. But for moral, moral wasn't there at first. In the garden of eden, Adam and Eve did not know morals before eating the fruit. Their hearts were completely pure, no sin at all. Then, they ate the fruit, deliberately going AGAINST GOD. As in not obeying God. As in it wasn't God who made them eat the fruit. Now, wait a second. Who was it that convinced them to eat the fruit? Oh yeah, Satan. I remember now. My point is made.

C3) You basterd, Spinko. I am here, trollin' it up, and then you come over and do this.

:)-I-< (<----Spinko)
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
===--# (<--- Dynamite)


:'(-I-< (<-----Me)


You just destroyed me with emotional dynamite. I am hurt. HOW DARE YOU. >:(


c4) Aha. My opponent sacrafices this point and probably the entire debate. Thank you, Spinko. Now, first of all he concedes this point. The point is now mine. Yay. Ok, and then my opponent concedes maybe this entire debate by saying " P.s. burn in hell Wright brothers.". Thank you for that, first off, Spinko. Now, you prove that the airplains are the unholiest weapon in the known universe. Now, by stating this, i ask: Why did you say this? Why do they deserve to go to hell? Is it because they created the ultimate tool of hell? If you guessed yes, you would be CORRECT. Thank you for conceding, Spinko. You kindly made the inevitable easier on me. :D

I thank all of the voters and readers for reading this stupid debate, and Antispinko for his arguments. I encourage the voters not to vote because of my forfeit. It would be more fair, and I apoligize for doing so in the first place. Thank you for the compelling arguments, Spinko. I look forward to debating you again!

Now, let this be the day that you ALMOST caught, captain....Jack.....Sparrow.....
socialpinko

Con

C1. Satan Causing Good and Evil


Con misses my point entirely. I never contended that God planned any of this out. I merely pointed out that what we are dealing with in this debate is the creation of good and evil and who was responsible. Obviously since there was a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil BEFORE Adam and Eve ate from it, there was good and evil before Satan came into the picture. If my opponent is correct and there wasn't any metaphysical good or evil before Satan tricked that brainless woman, then why call the tree by the name at all? It was clearly meant to signify something and the thing it signified was that evil already existed in the world. It was just not yet apparent in God's creation. The act of biting into the fruit signified the first act of rebellion and going against God (on Earth). Therefore evil became pronounced. It did not begin to exist though, it just became apparent throughout the world.


C2. Good Existing Without Evil.


The question is, who is more likely to have created morality, God or that dlck head punk Satan. Con's argument may be summarized as follows: God created the world but not what man created for himself. God didn't himself create duct tape or blindfolds or car trunks or shovels or secluded locations. No, my opponent argues, people created those things. And since it was Satan that induced people to create morality, Satan deserves the credit. Now the main flaw in this argument is that Con fails to notice the causal line always going back to God. Who created humans? Who created Satan? God. So by extension, God was the causal mechanism necessary for anything which his own creations create. But even besides this Con's argument still fails hard considering he has not really defended why it was eating of the apple that CREATED morality and not what simply made it pronounced in the world and caused humanity to recognize it. As I've shown in C1, the mere existence of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil implies already the existence of moral properties in the world.


C3. Dinosaurs. Yo dawg, trolling or no trolling I really do think you deserve a Clarke Medal. No disrespect man.


C4. Airplanes and Evil, Platypi and Virtue. Yes I conceded the point and I have enough cojones to admit it like a man. It is my opponent who fails to understand the true point at *steak* here. Everyone knows platypi (blessed be their name) and airplanes (burn in hell Wright brothers) have nothing to do with any of this. My opponent has simply added this point in order to confuse the readers. Because really, he is an agent of Satan. Was it not obvious? I mean come on, he's trying to convert you to Satanism. Well I for one hope you can all see through his pathetic tricks. Remember, vote Con....for Jesus.





===Conclusion===



I agree with Babydingo on voting. Don't give me arguments for his forfeit. Give me arguments because my arguments are better. Thank you.




....and remember kids, troll to infinity and beyond.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
Shut it. Its Peaches and gravy.
Posted by AshleysTrueLove 5 years ago
AshleysTrueLove
Ok its biscuits and gravy
OR
Peaches and Cream
LMAO JS
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
Lulz
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
Oh no. Socialpinko accepted this. im f*cked.
Posted by cheesedingo1 5 years ago
cheesedingo1
Wait are you serious?
Posted by bossyburrito 5 years ago
bossyburrito
"making fun of afterlife deities and demons"
I hate people who do that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
cheesedingo1socialpinkoTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempts to be "funny" several times throughout the debate, but I don't seem to get his sense of humor. I feel socialpink get's conduct for this, given some unruly comments also made by pro, combined with the forfeit. A troll debate, doesn't mean you get to drop the formalities, it just means you get to play around with them. Anyways, While Spinko didn't really troll, he still kind of half attempted it, but got on the stickler debate side as usual. I still feel overall he did better in this.