The Instigator
JasonMc
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
anwermate
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

When you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/19/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,552 times Debate No: 2783
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (11)

 

JasonMc

Pro

I'm a Frisbitarian. I believe that when you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house and remains in that spot for all of eternity.

Prove me wrong.
anwermate

Con

So, this is my second debate, i comment on debates and such, but generally dont partake in them because they are time consuming, but this was too hilarious to resist.

First, i assume that my opponent refers to the human "soul", not sole, such as one has on a shoe. If my opponent wishes to be tricky and argue that he did mean the sole of a shoe, then my argument will be that many people dont wear shoes, but hopefully that was simply a typo.

Next, since my opponent has no clear cut definition for house, ill define it to be a shelter or place of residence. I could be a real jerk, and define house, as the house of representatives, and make the debate all about how my opponent should have defined things properly, but i resist the urge to do something that fun.

In addition he compares a human soul to a frisbee, and claims that our souls will stay stuck on a house roof for all eternity. This creates several mistakes in his theory.

1) In many rural regions people unfortunately do not have a roof over their heads, and upon death, which roof would their souls get stuck on? Of course he may be referring to a metaphorical roof, like the sky, or heaven or something to that extent, but since he failed to define house, the duty fell to me to define what it was, therefore i would urge voters to stick him to my definition.

2) It is an inaccurate comparison to say that a soul is like a frisbee and will get stuck on a roof. A frisbee flies both horizontally and vertically, and is affected by gravity. How can a spiritual object be subject to gravity and be pulled down onto a house. In addition if the dead person is inside a house, pure vertical movement would be required to get a soul stuck on the roof, any horizontal movement, as implied would occur by the frisbee analogy, would make it impossible to get on the roof.

3) Saying eternity destroys his argument; say hypothetically a frisbee is thrown onto a house and gets stuck and stays there for years upon years. But eventually by human forces or forces of nature, the house will be demolished and the frisbee will escape the grasps of the roof, if we are to assume a soul is like a frisbee, then it too will be eventually freed.

If I win any one of these three points, then his original claim is proved entirely false, and therefore he loses.

In addition

heres a cool counter interp

Upon death ours souls go on to exist in nirvana with the flying spaghetti monster, and are pulled up to him by his noodly appendage. If you cannot prove this wrong, then you will lose as it isn't possible for your theory to exist if mine does.

I thank you for choosing such a serious topic, this promises to be a education filled debate. But for real, im sorry for being picky about definitions and such, but i like to be on the safe side.

Voters, please read the arguments instead of voting based on personal decision, although i doubt there are many hardcore frisbeeists out there. Thanks again for what will most likely be a cool debate, jason.
Debate Round No. 1
JasonMc

Pro

First, thank you for accepting this debate. Secondly, sorry for the typo. I did intend to soul and not sole.

In response to your argument:

1) My claim is that a person's soul gets stuck up on a house, not necessarily their own.

2) Just because a soul could end up in the same place as a Frisbee doesn't mean that the same forces brought it to that place, or apply to a soul at all. Also, a person wouldn't necessarily have to be in a house at the time of death in order for their soul to end up on a roof.

3) My claim is that "I believe that when you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house and remains in that spot for all of eternity." Just because a house with a soul on top eventually will be demolished doesn't mean that the sole won't still occupy the same spot for eternity. Perhaps once a soul becomes stuck on a roof, it remains suspended in that spot for all of eternity, whether the house is there or not.

4) Your claim that it isn't possible for my theory to exist if your spaghetti monster theory exists is false. Just because a theory regarding the same subject exists doesn't mean that the other cannot. It just means that at least one of those theories is wrong.

I'm glad that you recognize the serious nature of this debate. That said, do be careful not to anger the Church of Frisbitarianism and invoke its wrath by referring to us as "Frisbeeist", "Frisbeers", or "Diskies." There was a bitter separation from the Frisbitarian Church several hundred years ago when the Church was known under a different name. The defecting Frisbitarians refer to themselves as "Frisbeeists" or "Frisbeers", and now seek to infiltrate the Church of Frisbitarianism and destroy it from within. It's a secret, hidden war that few know about, but the casualties of which are too numerous to count. The term "Diskies" is just an offensive religious slur, which enrages Frisbitarians.
anwermate

Con

I will refute your arguments by quoting what you say, and then answering with my own arguments, i apologize for any difficulty in reading this.

"My claim is that a person's soul gets stuck up on a house, not necessarily their own."

My argument is that in underdeveloped areas of poverty where people do not have houses, as in nobody in the entire region has a house, or in a nomadic population where people don't have roofs to their houses where frisbees can effectively get stuck. If the nearest roof for a frisbee to get stuck on is hundreds of miles away, and a soul is compared to a frisbee, it is impossible for the soul to get stuck. At the point that I prove that even one soul would not get stuck on a roof for all eternity, his entire argument is nullified and he loses the debate. And I prove this in several ways; first, in areas without houses for tens of miles, souls cannot get stuck. Second, in nomadic groups, the roofs of houses are generally not possible for frisbees or souls to get stuck on, and in addition, the houses are packed away after sometime, making it so that the soul isn't trapped for all eternity.

"Just because a soul could end up in the same place as a Frisbee doesn't mean that the same forces brought it to that place, or apply to a soul at all. Also, a person wouldn't necessarily have to be in a house at the time of death in order for their soul to end up on a roof."

You specifically say in the title of your debate, as well as the first speech, that "your soul makes like a frisbee". What can I, and the voters, possibly assume other than that you say a soul is subject to the exact same everything as a frisbee would be, therefore you must stick by your original interpretation. My argument is that a non material object cannot be subject to material laws of physics, your argument contradicts itself. Next when you say that a person wouldn't necessarily have to be in a house at the time of death, you effectively attack yourself. What if a person died in a plane, the soul would then by your interpretation float gently down as would a frisbee, and say that the plane was flying over a desert. The soul would then simply land on the ground, proving that not all souls would get stuck on roofs.

"My claim is that "I believe that when you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house and remains in that spot for all of eternity." Just because a house with a soul on top eventually will be demolished doesn't mean that the sole won't still occupy the same spot for eternity. Perhaps once a soul becomes stuck on a roof, it remains suspended in that spot for all of eternity, whether the house is there or not."

This argument makes absolutely no sense, when something is demolished, its spatial location is changed and therefore it is not in the same place for all eternity. In addition, when you say that a soul might remain suspended in that spot for all eternity despite the house being there, you radically skew from your original interpretation of a soul's movement, which you say is like a frisbee's. A frisbee simply cannot float in one spot for eternity, and at the point that you say a soul will make like a frisbee, the soul is subject to all laws that a frisbee is.

"Your claim that it isn't possible for my theory to exist if your spaghetti monster theory exists is false. Just because a theory regarding the same subject exists doesn't mean that the other cannot. It just means that at least one of those theories is wrong."

You admit that at least one of the theories is wrong, therefore if i present to you an alternative solution to what happens to souls, and you fail to refute it, it means that my theory has more standing than yours since i have refuted yours. At this point, it means that my theory has a greater chance of being true, and then you lose since your original argument has a greater chance of being incorrect, and at the point that there is a chance of you being wrong, you lose because you have the burden of proof.

Everything you said about the seriousness of the debate i assume is directed towards voters, as i have taken you seriously. It's your right to say this, but it shouldn't be regarded as an argument.

Now, please remember, if i win a single one of my arguments, it means he has failed his duty of the burden of proof and you should vote him down immediately.

Thanks for commenting, debating and voting, everyone.
Debate Round No. 2
JasonMc

Pro

JasonMc forfeited this round.
anwermate

Con

I would enjoy it if my opponent were present, this could have been a fun debate, oh well. The people that run this site should also consider removing the 100 character rule, there really is no reason for it. :y
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Can you please explain how i failed to do that, at the point that i had several arguments which prove that his theory isnt universal, which he drops, which prove that his theory cannot be true?
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
Pro wins because he told his opponent to prove him wrong and he didn't.

Furthermore, I think that is a genius way to clown religion lmao!
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
I apologize for whatever negative connotations my argument may have had, but i believe you have misinterpreted it. I don't assume so called "country folk" to be homeless, in fact, some of my family is "country folk". What I did mean by my argument is that in some places in the world that are stricken by poverty, people literally do not have a roof over their heads. For example, a family in sudan, whos house has been destroyed by fighting parties, does not have a roof or a house. In addition my statement also refers to nomadic groups, where people are considered rural, as they dont live in an urban environment, and they dont have roofs over their heads. I really do apologize for whatever ill meaning you and others may have seen from my statement, but believe me when i say that i meant no harm in it, and that i am not a post modern racist and consider anyone inferior to myself. I as a debater recognize that words have great power, and try in everything i say to keep what i say from affecting others in a bad way. I merely stated the harsh reality that occasionally, while obviously not a large portion, people are forced by some unfortunate situation to not have a house.
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
"In many rural regions people unfortunately do not have a roof over their heads"

Really?

Do you honestly think this is even close to an accurate statement?

And what's wrong upstairs to make you think that "country folk", or whatever more derogatory term you would use must be homeless?
Posted by JasonMc 9 years ago
JasonMc
Thank you for the clarification wingnut.
Posted by wingnut2280 9 years ago
wingnut2280
Frisbitarians...not frisbeeists. We are a bountiful, yet usually softspoken and therefore unnoticed people.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Oh I will, and wow i wrote an unnecessarily long response
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Crap, you beat me by about 15 seconds it seems. Enjoy.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jamcke 9 years ago
Jamcke
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 PenguinBuddha 9 years ago
PenguinBuddha
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 vinavinx 9 years ago
vinavinx
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 kenicks 9 years ago
kenicks
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 DaPofoKing 9 years ago
DaPofoKing
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 zander 9 years ago
zander
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 Kusfraba 9 years ago
Kusfraba
JasonMcanwermateTied
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 Daisssy 9 years ago
Daisssy
JasonMcanwermateTied
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