The Instigator
jewgirl
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
ollieb
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

can god create a stone he cant lift

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 18682
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

jewgirl

Pro

Resolved: The question "can god create a stone he cant lift" does not disprove the existence of god.
ollieb

Con

no he can't
Debate Round No. 1
jewgirl

Pro

I am a newb to this site so I'm not shore what to expect. Thanks 4 accepting.

I don't know what my opponent means. so I'll just state my argument.

Professor gottlieb points out that the question is not even a question since it is inherently contradictory.

There is no such thing as "a stone god cannot lift".

It is like saying god cannot create a square circle.

Since the phrase "a stone god cannot lift" has no meaning no question has been posed, thus it cannot prove anything.
ollieb

Con

ollieb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by jewgirl 6 years ago
jewgirl
what are you saying?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
jewgirlolliebTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were somehow hard to follow, though I believe she was inherently referring to God's supposed omnipotence that contradicts with the part 'a stone he cannot lift'...Nevertheless, ollieb made no argument whatsoever and forfeited multiple times...As Brian stated, it's sad to see pro's first experience squandered...
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
jewgirlolliebTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay. Pro's arguments were unrefuted so they are assumed to be true.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 6 years ago
jm_notguilty
jewgirlolliebTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 6 years ago
brian_eggleston
jewgirlolliebTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a shame that a new member's debate was squandered by Con like that.