We need to ban FAT marriage
Debate Rounds (3)
Dear brother and sisters in Christ. We all know we need to ban gay marriage cause God created male and female. But another group of moral abominations has been given the right to marry. Now I know what I am about to say is not politically correct, and I am sure will arouse the anger of many, but we must speak the truth according to GODS WORD and not mans. And the truth is this, God didn't make Adam and Steve and God also didn't make Mr and Mrs fatty fat fat fat.
Now let me ask you, did God create Adam and eve at over 100 kilo's each ? stuffing their face with hamburgers ? of course not, this is the work of Satan, and we must drive it from our midst.
The bible clearly teaches that the body is the temple of the god, well these enlarged salad phobes, pollute the holy temple with their KFC. Now let me ask you what do you think will happen to those who pollute Gods holy temple ?
Now some of these fatties for satan, can't have children, probably cause their stomachs are so large as to prevent sexual intercourse, so they seek to adopt. They would bring innocent children into their food perversion life style. For the love of God, won't someone think of the children !!!
Here is a tip, drop your pants, stand up straight, and look down, can't see your penis ? well then you my friend are too fat.
Food is a gift from God, but some under the influence of the devil, have polluted it, and made eating food into a moral depravity, just like the gays do with their sex.
We must fight these wicked food perverts as much as we fight the sexual perverts, in the love of Jesus of course, by warning them often how they are going to a fiery hell.
In conclusion, these food delinquents, need to repent, accept Jesus as their lord and Saviour, and eat a God damm salad.
"Now let me ask you, did God create Adam and eve at over 100 kilo's each ? stuffing their face with hamburgers ? of course not". God made all people different, with different metabolisms. For some people, becoming overweight is easy. For others, it is very hard.
"The bible clearly teaches that the body is the temple of the god, well these enlarged salad phobes, pollute the holy temple with their KFC." God already learned from the incident in the Garden of Eden that even when instructions are explained outright, they will not always be followed. You can't really get much clearer than "Ye shall not touch it." Yet, Eve touched it.
"they seek to adopt. They would bring innocent children into their food perversion life style. For the love of God, won't someone think of the children". Stopping marriage of overweight people will not stop them from adopting. Many thinner people make single adoptions as well.
"Here is a tip, drop your pants, stand up straight, and look down, can't see your penis ? well then you my friend are too fat." Granted, being that overweight does have health risks which I won't get into right now, but this statement has one unfortunate implication: that my opponent is sexist. My opponent bases his argument upon the teachings of God, yet denies that all men are created equal, in that no person or group is more important than another by only the way God made them. This concept is one of the most predominant morals in Christianity, as well as the basic principle of civil rights. Should my opponent be taken seriously if what he believes is a mere skeleton of what he claims to believe? I will give him a chance to disprove my argument.
"We must fight these wicked food perverts as much as we fight the sexual perverts, in the love of Jesus of course, by warning them often how they are going to a fiery hell." If telling overweight people that they are going to Hell were my opponent's intent, he would not be arguing against overweight people's right to marry.
I will allow my opponent to overlook my rebuttal, and, hopefully, rethink his logic, which I believe I have shown to be flawed. I thank him again, and I await his argument.
Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
"Food is a gift from God, but some under the influence of the devil, have polluted it". This contradicts one of my opponent's previous points, which states that the body, the temple of God, is what is being polluted, by the food. This statement suggests that the food itself is being polluted, by the people. My opponent has forfeited his second argument, leaving his sole argument to contradict itself. Can we trust logic that contradicts itself? I say no.
"this statement has one unfortunate implication: that my opponent is sexist". I admit this accusation may have been incorrect. I had one statement to base it on, and I chose what was initially an insignificant part of it. I was probably premature, harsh, and misperceived. However, my opponent has refused his chance to prove that accusation wrong. I will give him another chance to do so in the 3rd round.
I await my opponent's response, if he choses to give one.
Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
My opponent's use of the Bible as a source is primarily conjectural, and one interpretation is not enough evidence to justify his points. He flaunts his opinion as if it were a fact that anyone should be able to understand. He is incorrect.
My opponent is very frank about his opinions, and makes no effort to make it appear as if he cares. Judging by his sole argument, it is clear he has no intention to make any distinction that he has a rational reason to believe the position he takes, and instead has chosen to rely on his own bias.
His logic can easily be disproved, as I have shown in my rebuttals.
He has shown no intention to win this argument, as evidenced by his consistent refusals to respond to my arguments. It seems clear that he realizes his point is weak, and merely wants to get his opinion out.
In conclusion, I have shown that his logic is flawed, and based on bias, opinion, and hatred. To my knowledge, these are not rational bases for an argument. I have proved him wrong to the best of my ability, and thus, I claim my own victory.
I thank my opponent for this argument, and I urge the voters to vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
|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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.