The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
zmikecuber
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

We all deserve to die, none of us deserve another breathe of air

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
zmikecuber
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,612 times Debate No: 51033
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (163)
Votes (8)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

If we deserve to live or even to breathe one more breath of air, why don't we live and breathe forverer? Since we don't live and breathe forever, we have to conclude either that we deserve to die or that death is not fair. If we say death is fair because it applies to everybody, then it must be fair if we do not get another breath of air and we really don't deserve another breath of air because death is fair. If we say death is unfair and we deserve to live forever, we must be fooling ourselves. Is there anybody who will say they deserve to live? Many believe death is an illusion or simply a change of experience of life and they never really die...........so to them, this debate is meaningless and they are not the one I am seeking to debate this topic......if somebody with such unrealistic debates takes me on here, then the topic will shift to discussion of what death is, and is it real?
zmikecuber

Con

My opponent has the burden to show that we all deserve to die, and that none of us deserves another breath of air.

He states, "If we deserve to live or even to breathe one more breath of air, why don't we live and breathe forverer?"

The answer is simple. Because our bodies eventually break down.

Also, my opponent assumes that not deserving to live, and deserving to die are the same thing. If I do not deserve to get paid, does that mean I deserve to get robbed? Not really. Just because I don't deserve continued existence, this doesn't mean I deserve destruction or death.

Also, we could view "deserve" as social contstructs which are subjective. We don't really deserve anything. We don't deserve life or death.

So Pro has simply not shown that we all deserve to die.
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

con states we don't deserve life and we don't deserve death. wellllll.......if you don't deserve life, then you do deserve death. If you don't deserve death, you do deserve life. ........that is unless you do not exist. Do you exist?
If you don't deserve death, then death is not fari because death is what you have.........or what you get if you insist on having more time, though nobody can really gaurantee you more time to breathe.
Con's double talk attempt to avoid the fact that we all deserve to die does not disprove the fact that we all deserve to die and we do not deserve more time. Con is also avoiding the argument that if we do not deserve to die, then death is not fair; saying our bodies break down is saying we die, that is not debatable and is not the topic here.. Con simply does not want to admit he deserves to die.
Death is fair or it's unfair, deserved or undeserved. We either deserve to live or we do not, we deserve to die or we do not; can't have it both ways.
zmikecuber

Con

Pro ignores my analogy.

If I do not deserve to get paid, do I deserve to be robbed? Not necessarily.

Pro also ignores my point that "deserve" may be a man-made construct.

Thus, my arguments stand.
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Con's anology is at best a poor comparison. Getting paid or getting robbed is not life or death. The analogy really merited no response as it was barely on topic. The debate is whether we deserve to die or not. You can't say "we don't deserve to die" and "we don't deserve to live". If Con stands on this arguement, he is standing on double-talk and not being rational. You can't have it both ways. If you don't deserve to live, you deserve to die. If you don't deserve to die, you deserve to live. You can't have it both ways. We all know what deserve means. Con sure uses the word "deserve" to construct his weak analogy, and then says "deserve" is a "man made concept" implying the strongest word in his analogy has no sure meaning, thereby negating his own anology which made little if any sense for comparison to start with. If we die only because our bodies break down, then we deserve to die because our bodies are imperfect. Or is death unfair? Con is dodging the issue.
zmikecuber

Con

Pro misunderstands what I am saying. There's two options:

(i) "Deserve" is not a man-made concept
(ii) "Deserve" is a man-made concept

Pro has to justify (i). He has not done so. This is a failure to prove his burden.

Now, I've assumed that IF (i) is true, it's not clear how we deserve death. First of all, it's not clear that we don't deserve life. Pro has not defended this at all. Simply because we don't live forever, this doesn't mean that we don't deserve life at all. Second of all, if we don't deserve life, then it's not clear this means we deserve death.

Death is defined as: "the action or fact of dying or being killed; the end of the life of a person or organism." (1)

Now this is assuming (i) is true. Which Pro has not even attempted to prove.

There's also the alternative that (ii) is true, which Pro must deal with.

==Sources==
(1)https://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

I have supported all points and refuted all of con's attempts to deny that he deserves to die. I cannot argue will willfull ignorance.
zmikecuber

Con

I've refuted my opponent's arguments. His main argument is as follows:

P1: IF we deserved to live, THEN there would be enough oxygen and we would live forever.
P2: We don't live forever.
C1: We don't deserve to live.
P3: If we don't deserve to live, we deserve to die.
C2: We deserve to die.

I've debunked P1 completely. Simply because we don't live forever is absolutely no basis for saying we deserve to die. It's merely a biological fact that our bodies break down. This has nothing to do with whether or not we deserve life.

I've also shown that my opponent has failed to demonstrate that "deserve" is an objective fact of reality, rather than a man-made social construct.

So my opponent has not met his burden.
Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

How can you argue with somebody who refuses to admit to the validity and definition of a word? To say a word may or may not mean what it is, even though the obscurer uses the word to attempt to substantiate an argument that has no substance apart from denying or obscuring the meaning of words. Con can try to fool himself and everybody else untill he is blue in the face saying he does not deserve to die, and the word "deserve" has no valid meaning, but the fact remains that the con is held under death penalty and deserves to die the same as everybody else. We all deserve to die, and the proof of it is that we all die. Saying "I don't deserve to die" will never change the fact that you are held under death penalty untill you get what you deserve. Who are you trying to fool by saying you do not deserve to die? If you can't admit that you deserve to die, then you can vote against me but you still deserve to die and you will get what you deserve, the same as me.
zmikecuber

Con

Pro seems to think that there's two options:

(i) We all deserve to die, and do not deserve to live
(ii) We all deserve to live, and do not deserve to die

However, "death" doesn't mean "non-being." It's a process of our body decomposing. So it's a false dilemma in the first place.

But I've shown there's a third option...

(iii) I don't deserve to live, and I do not deserve to die

This is because my opponent has not given one argument to think that we "deserve" anything in the first place. It might be the case that we don't deserve either, because we don't deserve anything. He's just dismissed this argument and has not addressed it.

My opponent has also used ad hominem attacks against me, in an attempt to undermine my arguments. This should result in a loss of conduct points.

Pro has simply not met his burden of proof. He's making a tremendous claim, and so it deserve a tremendous amount of proof. But he can't even show that we "deserve" anything in the first place.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
163 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
ooops..........forgot I was done here.........I'm done with mike, anyways, too much double talk and bold faced lying.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
that's dumb. You get what you deserve, and it's not air to breathe........you know what is coming and you need to know the danger you are in of the second death which is the lake of fire.
Posted by SemperVI 2 years ago
SemperVI
I the words of Clint Eastwood, "Deserve gotz nuthin to do with it..."
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
I'M GOING TO HELL, BOYZ!! LMGiG has cast his divine judgment upon me, and now I shall have worms crawling through my flesh for the rest of eternity, because I was the wrong denomination of Christianity.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Good. Maybe then I won't be spammed in the notifications ;P

Nice job trolling, btw. You had me at first ;)
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
No I didn't change it. It would say if I changed it, because then you recast your vote... so if I changed it 15 minutes ago, it would say that my vote is cast 15 minutes ago. But it doesn't. Modus tollens, BADABOOM!
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
i'm done here
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
because you keep looing worse and worse in it. .........."looking"
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
doesnt matter, even in voting tied in the first two categories, you make yourself out to be a liar saying you are a christian. A christian cannot give a tie to an atheis. A christian knows the atheist is wrong from the start and after the debate is over is still wrong. A real christian cannot award a tie to an atheist who says it is not possible for there to be a universe with a god. You are a liar saying you are a christian and voting that way. you need to go back and change that vote again, liar.
You are lying so much, it's getting deeper and deeper and harder for you to admit you are lying. The more you keep on lying, the more you feel you need to cover it up........because you keep looing worse and worse in it. You need to get saved before it is too late because you don't know where you are going with all your lies
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you changed it from for sambuck on the first two categories to tied on the first two categories, liar....less than fifteen minutes ago you changed it. You coud change it again if you want to. your pojouryng spinner who tries to cover for your lies changed his vote against me in this debate and admitted in the comments here that he did it. You changed yours and even in the tie you awarded, you make yourself a lar saying you are a christina but you give equal credibility to an atheist. A real christian cannot give equal creidibility to an atheist
you are a liar.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G- Pro needs to pay attention to spelling and punctuation. Convincing Arguments- Pro did not handle rebuttals well while zmikecuber obliterated his. Sources- Con used sources while LifeMeansGodIsGood did not.
Vote Placed by Polevaulter1 2 years ago
Polevaulter1
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Hey, better argument by con completely.
Vote Placed by Dakota-Hiltzman 2 years ago
Dakota-Hiltzman
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro fails to meet the burden he establishes for himself.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 loses conduct point for attempting to get out of the debate by nonsense accusations of "willful ignorance". He also loses the arguments point because he made no sense whatsoever.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro essentially ignores con's arguments all 5 rounds. This honestly would have had the same affect as a 2 round debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro dropped Con's argument for 2 rounds due to misunderstanding and claiming that the argument was irrelevant. S & G - Con. Pro made several spelling errors and failed to use proper punctuation. Arguments - Con. Pro dropped Con's argument for 2 rounds before attempting to rebut it unsuccessfully. Con successfully rebutted against Pro's initial claim with his analogy. Pro failed to grasp the importance of defining the term "deserve" while also dropping Con's point about needing to prove that we deserve death. Sources - Con. Pro failed to use any sources to validate his claims, whereas Con at-least shared one source.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's premises were simply weak without any evidence to back up the Resolution. Con did a sufficient job in providing refutation with sources to support his case with minimal effort.
Vote Placed by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
LifeMeansGodIsGoodzmikecuberTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has not met his burden of proof. Con's analogy is certainly valid and has effectively refuted Pro's arguments in the first round. Though I could see where Pro was getting at, I do not feel that Pro's "rebuttal" was adequate enough to receive points for arguments, therefore those points go to Con. Pro also did not understand what Con was saying, which wasted 2 rounds, losing him points in conduct. Pro's spelling and grammar errors stood out a lot, like in the title when he said "another breathe of air", thus losing him points in spelling and grammar.