God Loves You
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Raymond_Reddington
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 6/13/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 2,155 times | Debate No: | 56553 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (7)
 Pro If these guidelines are not clear, please say so in the comments, not after you accept the debate challenge.  Con I accept. I will be taking the position that there is no reason to believe in a personal god rather than an impersonal one. Also if there was a personal god there is no reason to believe that he would be loving rather than malevolent. The full Burden of Proof is on Pro here and since he is affirming the resolution he must give verifiable and empirical proof that god loves me. If Pro happens to prove that god is personal and loving I will take the position that I could be satan or a demon. If god does not love satan or demons he does not love me. So pro must prove that god is personal rather than impersonal, loving rather than malevolent or neutral, and I am a human being rather than satan or a demon. Pro has an impossible Burden of Proof. |
 |
|
Pro "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments. Con My opponent seems to have misunderstood me.... I completely believe there is a god and I never said there was not. I just said he might be impersonal, malevolent, or just not love me. I never forfeited and I would like to see the quote that Pro is referring to that violated the rules... Also please make your case next round since the burden of proof is completely on you. This round has been wasted which is bad for you... |
 |
|
Pro "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments. Con Again I never said any of that... Thanks for wasting the debate. You just earned yourself a loss. |
 |
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 7 years ago
| LifeMeansGodIsGood | Raymond_Reddington | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro falsely claimed con violated the terms of the debate. also, pro made no arguments.
Vote Placed by Ajab 7 years ago
| LifeMeansGodIsGood | Raymond_Reddington | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: I'm pretty sure LMGIG is a troll
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
| LifeMeansGodIsGood | Raymond_Reddington | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: Pro loses points for trying to stack the deck, so Pro can have a chance of winning, this is not good debating tactics, it is similar to the poisoning of the Well fallacy William Lane Craig practices in his debates, which is idiotic. Thus Con gets the conduct points and There is no way of making the extreme Malevolence of the Bible God appear as Love, that is impossible for starters.
Any reading of the first few Books of the Bible would make even the dumbest person on Earth realize that the only Love the God of the Bible has is For Itself, thus the first 4 commandments.
Vote Placed by XLAV 7 years ago
| LifeMeansGodIsGood | Raymond_Reddington | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 5 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the BoP. Pro did no provide the reason why a god loves Con. Arguments to Con. Con had better spelling and grammar. Pro misunderstood Con's round 2 arguments and for the rest of the round he kept on reposting his terms. Conduct goes to Con.
Vote Placed by bsh1 7 years ago
| LifeMeansGodIsGood | Raymond_Reddington | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: Pro misunderstood Cons's arguments, leading Pro to falsely believe that Con violated the rules. Con wins because he was the only one to forward any topic analysis, and Pro's refusal to communicate showed poor conduct and petulance.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 7 years ago
| LifeMeansGodIsGood | Raymond_Reddington | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: Points Con. He fulfilled the demands of Pro by implying a Deist (non-personal) god may exist. Bad conduct on Pro.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 7 years ago
| LifeMeansGodIsGood | Raymond_Reddington | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: Ha, this was a laugh. Con was not arguing that god doesn't exist, but that he is a utilitarian entity who seeks to benefit himself. Could Pro not grasp this concept? Therefore, I give con conduct and arguments. It was up to Pro to uphold the BOP, and he just copy and pasted his rule break thingy.
Ladies and Gentlemen who are unfortunate enough to be in this comment section, I recommend that we refrain from insulting each other.
The report feature exists for a reason, and this is just a bad road to go down one way or another.
The debate was very interesting, but I do not think that attacking people in the comments is a wise move. It, at the very least, distracts from the debate when you could have made more points instead.
Why in the world you think winning debates like this says anyting good about you is beyond me. God still loves you, even though you feel like He does not. God wants to change you from a dead liar into a child of God with eternal life in heaven. God loves you still, even though you act and talk like you hate Him.
Hardly a good reason to accept them as friends.
I am a softy and hate rejecting offers of friendship, but to maintain sanity and an unbiased vote, rejecting them is sometimes a must do situation.
Either that, tell them not to expect my vote if their arguments are not good enough to win, regardless of a so called friendship.
Quite often they cut the friendship off, as the votes don't always go their way.
Which indicates why they requested the friendship in the first place.
Because I lived a "Life Of Brian" issue, with others following me around like I was some kind of Messiah.
Being popular has it's drawbacks.
It was nice to get away from them and get to know a different group of people.
None of the students ever knew about my sport dates.
So I made a bet with the group of boys in my Theology class that I could score a passionate kiss out of the most beautiful girl in the church choir, with long blond wavy hair.
As I noticed they were all ogling her during services.
So much for not thinking of the flesh.
They bet their weekly pocket money that I couldn't get her to kiss me passionately, a peck didn't count.
I won the bet!
Though I didn't tell them that I had met her playing squash and we had been dating when I scored sports leave once a week, as it was an all male Christian boarding school, so meeting a girl for most was a luxury.
LOL
:-D~
LMGiG essentially has no Intelligence, which we can attribute to severe indoctrination into Extreme Nonsense.
I've met many like LMGiG, when I was into Theology as a young teen.
You should have heard their attacks on me when I left Theology for science and history studies.
Yes, I was condemned to burn in hell almost every day I attended school.
They even scribbled my condemnation on toilet walls and my locker, and they certainly swore at me when I would stick the piece of rice paper (sacrament) to the roof of my mouth and peel it off outside of church, tear it up and feed it to the birds or stamp it into the ground in front of them.
LOL! I was certainly hated by those naive nutjobs