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


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 786 times Debate No: 80508
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




if a fallen angel is a demon, is an angel then a demon rising?




I accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1


hard to miss..


Okay, my opponent has admitted it themself. A fallen angel is classified as a demon - however a fallen angel is a specific type of angel. The general term angel is defined by Oxford dictionary as follows:

"a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God, conventionally represented in human form with wings and a long robe."

Now this is the definition of a devil according to Oxford dictionary:

"the supreme spirit of evil; Satan"

The Oxford dictionary is classified as one of the most reliable online dictionary sources on the internet. Your argument is flawed and clearly you have not researched this topic as much as I would have hoped. The definitions clearly show distinct differences and unless you can point out a similarilty that outweighs the differences between the definitions then I have won this debate.

The Burden Of Proof is solely on Pro to prove that angels are devils. The position in this debate is defensive and so far I have refuted my opponent's arguments with success.

My opponent states that Atheism is theism which is irrelevant to the debate and makes no sense to me. Unless my opponent shows this comments relevance to the debate then I do not feel the need to refute this claim although I can if I have to.


Search: 'angel definition' into google

Search: 'devil definition' into google
Debate Round No. 2


i dont see any flaws.. you are just agreeing with me

point out a flaw con..

i said.. an angel is a demon rising

an angel is a demon for a demon to exist, there is no demon without a fallen angel.. angel=demon

demon=negative energy


santas angels believe they will get presents, and not getting presents this year is hell to some


My opponent asks me to point out a flaw. The flaw is that all that they have stated that actually makes any sense is that 1 type of angels are demons.

Yes, I know that you have stated that an angel is a demon rising. Explain to me what a demon rising is, since you have failed to define the terminology.

I agree, demons do equal negative energy but that statement has no purpose in this debate.
I also agree, that angels are equal to belief and belief is equal to positivity.

I disagree that a demon is equal to disbelief since by belief I am assuming that you mean the belief in God. In order to believe in the Christian God or various other Gods that believe in Hell then you still believe in the Devil.

Maybe Satan does have angels, however if Satan does then God definitely does and there is more evidence to back up this claim than there is to back up your claim. Since you have made this claim without a source I feel that I should not be critisized for making my claim without a source since it is a more well known fact that God has angels than it is a known fact that Satan does.
Debate Round No. 3


so which type of demon is not a fallen angel?

a demon rising, is an angel, demons are angels

im talking about, the guy believing in unicorn heaven that you disagree with, you are an atheist to

disbelief is belief to the contrary, you say yes to the priest while a guy that says get out of here lier, is an atheist.. unless he knows the bible is false or a lie..


adding is retracting, you cant add without retracting.. you cant put an apple on the table without taking it from somewhere or letting go of it



A demon rising may be an an angel however again you have provided 1 example. Due to a poorly phrased resolution (which I have been following and my opponent hasn't) this debate is being debated differently from both sides. Pro is arguing that there is one type of angel that can be considered as a devil however I am actually arguing against the resolution since the resolution only refers to angels in general which so far Pro has been unable to refute.

I honestly don't know how to respond to rest of my opponents argument. It is completely off topic since it has now turned into a God debate (apparently).

Why are we discussing atheism being theism and belief being disbelief. I believe that my opponent is attempting to make their argument look longer since we are now discussing 3 different topics within 1 debate!

Why on Earth are you talking about adding being retracting? What is that's relevance to the debate?
Debate Round No. 4


you havnt showed any kind of contradiction yet.. satan is a fallen angel, how does he exist if angels didnt exist in the first place?



1) I never claimed that angels didn't exist.

2.) Satan may be a fallen angel however that doesn't mean that all angels are fallen angels.

3.) Your contradiction is that you think that because one angel is Satan that means that all angels are devils. There is only 1 devil so how does it make sense that all angels are devils? That is your contradiction. That is your flaw.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
grim reaper(death) is a demon?

now you are describing other mythological constructs

you can assert my stuff is incoherent as long as you like, dosnt make a bit of difference to your inability to understand it in the first place..
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
it wasnt a rock falling..
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
a fallen angel is a demon, a fallen angel, is an angel.. demon=angel
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
I have a contradiction: There's all sorts of demons aside from the fallen angel. Succubus, Grim Reaper, Imp, Gorgon (Medusa), Alp! There's more!
"contradictions" what is this? Ace Attorney? There's more flaws than just errors. Here's a list of different flaws: Vaugeness; this means a statement needs clarification. Unstable claims; claims that must be proven with a reliable source. Irrelevant Statements; a remark which holds little relevance to the topic at hand. And Fallacy; a logical flaw that can be proven incorrect via information. This appears to be what vi_spex doesn't realize is wrong with his arguments. He might've been playing a little too much Ace Attorney and "learning" from this. Here are my thoughts on this matter. Go Con!
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
so there is a contradiction you can show real fast?
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 years ago
Con's arguments were very neatly and clearly presented. How will vi_spex counter?
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
any belief based position to the contrary*
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
Do you know what the shift key is? It would be useful for you to incorporate capital letters into your argument.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
atheism is any belief based counter position to the contrary of what i believe in, so i am an atheist to any other religious claims that contradict my beliefs as a theist.. in that case

if you believe i am showing 3 fingers behind my back, and another guy, believe that i am showing 4, you are atheists on each others claim by being theists, theism is athesim, a theism
Posted by Hayd 2 years ago

WHy did you have theist=atheist in the beginning, how is this true?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 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 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: RFD: Conduct was equal, both debaters were overall polite. Pro did not use correct capitalization throughout the debate, and thus loses the spelling and grammar point. Pro also failed to argue in favorite of the resolutions and went off topic with his arguments. Con was successfully able to counter the resolution and Pro had trouble refuting Con's statements. Sources were about equal, as neither debater was able to link any sources to the debate.