The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
TheTraitorToTyranny
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

god of destruction.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
vi_spex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 92809
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

vi_spex

Pro

god of destruction.
darkness, destroyer of creation or lights from god.

one who makes it all rubble, or less

for each grain of sand in a unicorn riders desert, was measured and found non existent
TheTraitorToTyranny

Con

I'm going to assume that your argument is that the only god that exists is a "God of Destruction," and that it intends to destroy. I believe that this notion is a romantic, Victorian era of God. During that time period, religion was seen on a basis of good and evil, everlasting and destruction, etc. When Friedrich Nietzsche wrote his "Beyond Good and Evil" in 1886, these views on religion were strengthened by what was seen as philosophical fact... which of course failed, and resulted in newer ideas of social Darwinism to be accepted. What is important to recognize is the vast differences in both humanity and its philosophy. A middle Nietzche ideal is that destruction, torture, and death of fellow humans is not universally objectionable. Some people will accept it, and some will even revel in it. It is the morals, ethics, and prejudice of the individual man that change his reaction to such events. Personally, I extremely dislike torture, rather preferring euthanasia, but I would gladly injure or kill another human being if they were attempting to rob or injure me. It is oddly normal that humanity is so hypocritical; many would be fine with killing another human being, but would repulse at the idea of torture. To answer the idea whether a god is of destruction; it is probable that it is a Victorian era idea, that is was the hope of some dreamless romantic, based off of the ideology of the middle Nietzsche, that you have decided to adopt, as well. I do hope that you decide to respond, as my last debate with someone took a week to reply, and was with obscene words. Best of wishes. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

matter can not be destroyed.. gods are not real

there is no light to see in total darkness

destroyed.
TheTraitorToTyranny

Con

TheTraitorToTyranny forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Theguy1789// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit

[*Reason for non-removal*] Voters are allowed to award conduct only votes on debates where half or more of the rounds were forfeited.
***********************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
there is no light to see in total darkness
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
there is no light in total darkness
Posted by Hakkayo 11 months ago
Hakkayo
I gotta say I really don't see it, you have a solid base but your argument really fails to have legs on your second and third point
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
there is no light in total darkness
Posted by SJM 11 months ago
SJM
Are you proving a god of destruction?
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
its clear to me
Posted by SJM 11 months ago
SJM
Clarify the resolution.
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
one who has the power to makes it all rubble, or less*
Posted by vi_spex 11 months ago
vi_spex
like the impacting bullet from the god gun beats god..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Theguy1789 11 months ago
Theguy1789
vi_spexTheTraitorToTyrannyTied
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: Forfeit