i chalenge you to creatrionism is real debate
Debate Rounds (3)
bable confirms story
design of the univerde is prefect
atheistr are dumb
big bang = explosion from nothing, close my hand and say bang, no universe
therefore god esist and athesm is incorect. amen to my brothers and sisters in Cris; got bless you all
Firstly, I will address some of Pro's points:
In his inclusion of 'proof', Pro asserts that the 'bable confirms story', which correctly translated into English means: 'the Bible confirms the story'.
Also according Pro 'the design of the univerde is prefect', which again, is grammatically incorrect. 'Universe' and 'perfect' are the words that Pro should have used.
His third assertion is that 'atheistr are dumb', which also has a major spelling mistake. 'Atheists' is what Pro should have written.
Lastly Pro argues the 'big bang-explosion from nothing, close my hand and say bang, no universe'. While there is an improvement in the spelling in this particular sentence, it is still logically unfathomable. For example, there is far more to the Big Bang theory than one closing their hand and saying bang.
On the basis of his so-called 'proof', Pro reaches the conclusion that 'god esist and athesm is incorect.' Before adding 'amen to my brothers and sisters (no capital letter with 'Amen') in Cris; got bless you all (assuming that Pro meant 'god', which should technically be spelled with a capital letter and outlined as 'God'.)
As well as that, Pro was not even able to spell 'Christ' properly or indeed use a full-stop at the end of his sentence.
In order to affirm his resolution (which is also a grammatical travesty) and his additional inclusions of 'proof', Pro will have to provide *valid* evidence for the following things:
-That the 'bable' (AKA Bible) confirms the story, which Pro hasn't actually specified. An example here would be that I could assume he's referring to Leo Tolstoy's 'Anna Kerenina' , or perhaps Vladimir Nabokov's 'Lolita'? This is primarily because he has failed to define his terms or clarify exactly what 'story' he is arguing for.
-That the universe is indeed 'prefect' (meaning perfect.) Pro is obliged to do more that simply state this if he's to substantiate his arguments.
-That atheists are 'dumb'. This is another statement that is in fact easily refuted. Research has actually shown that there is sufficient evidence to show that atheists and the non-religious, are on average more intelligent than atheists [1.] http://www.independent.co.uk...
-That 'athesm' (I.E 'atheism') is 'incorrect', this is a major thing for Pro to prove.
-That God 'esist' (correct spelling: 'exists'.) For Pro to actually affirm his case, he's going to have to provide scientific *evidence* that not only suggests an existence of God, but confirms it.
vhy are atheit are damb because gos mad the dumb.
non beliers ar dunb"
Now if evolusion is real!, who did dinesotr evolwe.
wher dit uniwerse come from?
they were creted by got!!!
to confer the balble i will show becuasse the vbible say there willl be athiest ins ythe end it troue.
wy not yu try expirenemt yure self
Thank you jeet and dun nee
Once again, Pro has made an array of spelling errors--ensuring that is his 'case' can only really be described as a grammatical genocide. Instead of taking note of my previous argument and making an *effort* to rectify his mistakes, he's returned with even worse spelling and has now started to refer to the Bible as the 'balble'.
In addition to that, he has completely failed to provide *any* evidence and support his claims.
He's continued to assert that 'atheit are damb'--which in English, translates as 'atheists are dumb.' In round one I provided a link confirming that atheists are statistically more intelligent than theists, which thus negates this point. Pro however has chosen to ignore this evidence and continue in repeating this claim.
So not only has he *not* addressed that properly, but he has also *not* made any attempt at expounding on or corroborating his other assertions--that I specifically outlined in round one.
i onli spel bad becuas im in grads 6, but mrmount is nice let us ply dsoccer and he his creatism say is babler ans salso oos is to mr mount ofso homeoroom andhe nice i slo klike my mucisa teacher mrs smith shed lest me play favorite instrumenrtr thre bas drum, is hard butt i have sex paked ab so don mes, i need gf sas well, i aske crystal out she regected me so i fel a bite dpress so i go ont hsi debet,.orgi so i cant pwn u losrs to the gROUNDD! this make me bettr felling so i go pls vote me, i hot, smrt an had bg ons pnsd asldo ther the and yeahh
i prove u rong
Being in grade six (assuming he is) is absolutely NO excuse whatsoever and Pro has exhibited DISGRACEFUL behaviour.
So much so that he should be banned from using the Internet for a number of weeks and sent to a special camp, where he can only have one glass of juice and half a banana a DAY.
Do not vote Pro, vote ME.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by logical-master123 1 year 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||4|
Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to Con because Pro wrote "dunno" and not even existing words. Also Pro's arguments were nonsense. I will give this debate to Con.
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.