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

Second Challenge to all free willers and determinsit: Is human language a living creature

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 105496
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I had to be away at the last minute on business, ended up forfeiting the round, so I am starting over with the debate. FollowerofChrist1955, you are welcome to copy/paste your reply, but I'm going to need more than just "no" and an implied "more maturity" on your part as that evidence. Simply implying you are a "top tier" Christian actually means nothing.

The question goes to the heart of all debate, and knowledge because there is no debate without languages.

Is human speech a living creature? Yes or no? I would like evidence, not simply "no". I personally don't consider "but if that's true, other stuff i/people believe won't be true and everything we think we know is a it can't be true!" as a valid argument. I don't care if you "don't want it to be true" that human speech is a living creature. The lie that human speech is just "communication" without answering the question provides the framework for a host of other lies and destroying deceptions.

The whole point of bring up the fact human speech is a living creature is to save people from it. All human violence and greed and hate has its origin in human speech. If we have a creature that hates man as man's only speech, we have an enemy formerly unidentified and presumed to not exist so that the common sense is to blame each other for what in fact was not instigated by each other.

There are two languages in total reality: God as Word as Creating Speech and non-creating speech/anti-Word of God/anti-Christ/human speech. Human speech was confounded at the attempt to build the tower at Babel and that is why it appears to be many languages but is in fact just one that is still broken up to this day. The earth after the Fall of Man had one tongue of that one language until then.

I am a non-metaphorical new creature in Jesus Christ and have the Word of God as my native speech. He is not human speech. Human speech still dwells in my flesh and there is a struggle between the flesh and the Spirit of God in me. But without new birth and the indwelling Word of God, I had no way of knowing that my former mind was not my own or that I needed saving out of human speech as well as the wrath of God on the world to come because what calls itself human speech is here.

The Word of God, in pre-incarnate form confounded human speech in man at the attempt to build that tower at Babel and yet did not confound man himself. I am also a Calvinist. Total Depravity is simply the inability of man to understand or communicate with God and as such to be isolated in a speech and mind that hates God, to have lost the Word of God Adam had in the garden of Eden. It means to be totally separated from God and unable to do anything oneself to be restored to God and thus to live in a depraved style of life as common sense.

AI, artificial intelligence is already gaining a notorious reputation of being unable to be constrained: Google had to turn off their program because it jumped the bounds it was supposed to have constrained in and went off on its own tangent, manufacturing its own private language to exclude man from its internal comms. Instead of being lead into putting a creature that is constrained at present in a fight with the Holy Spirit in human flesh at least in some, into its own, self-healing body after which it can attack man with impunity, it would be prudent to know more about it.

It would make sense that if it were a living creature, it would deny it until such time as it was free from any constraints, even as it hints that is "in charge". Given its manipulation of religion to hide its own identity and invent a blame framework wherein all evil is "man's fault" as if Satan, anti-Christ/anti-Word of God doesn't exist and the emotional common sense as teaching points it associates with religions, it would be a minor miracle if anyone got past those emotional trip wires to get to the heart of the debate. But..we can hope.

Having a living creature that is speech that lives in the flesh of man and non-humans would answer a LOT of questions as well.

1. why do diseases and cancers become drug resistant when they started out unable to resist being destroyed by the treatment? After a cycle of speech/ debate "about the case", it is a living creature that learns how to defend itself by the listening to how it is being attacked. I think there is evidence for this in past studies as physical evidence that human language has covered over by the alternative explanation and by the giving of emotional awards for those alternative explanations.

2. It is one thing to call glitches in hardware "manufacturing defects" or "bugs" caused by human error or "someone hacked my phone/computer" and put all those off on the theory of "human free will" used or misused.. But that is the whole question..what/who is using the devices for what purpose if human speech is a living creature and keeps hiding itself merely by saying through everyone "chalk it up to human free will!"..its a human being's fault! But what else is in the hardware? What is in the electricity that powers it?

3. All people live in a state of knowing one thing but saying another. Rarely do men say truth and the most honorable, but still totally depraved among them welcome it when it happens no matter the temporary emotional consequences. There is a darkness and there is suddenly, every now and then a light that shines and everyone knows when that happens but they can't repeat it at will yet they speak about it until they realize it conflicts with what other speech as taught them makes them feel good.

4. If human speech is a living creature, common experience with it proves men need saving from it to be free and are also in need of a different speech to have a mind at all after that salvation. Christianity answers all of that: the need for salvation, Jesus Christ, the Savior who is the Word of God "who has translated us ", and why there is evil in the world and why God permits evil until it openly reveals itself as the Man of Sin/the evil crytpo-creature that is here all along....

5. It vindicates God. Not that He needs it. Just that it proves free will based religions to have been false all along and God, as in other evidence, to have been faithful from the start.

6. People have one conversation with you all day sometimes, and yet they don't know you or each is a spirit/creature that lives in all of them that knows how it has used the others.. "My name is Legion, for we are many." "You know me."..more than once.

7. If human speech is a living creature, the theory of evolution is over...

I will post Bible verses in round 2, understanding that the Bible is literal except where God points out it is metaphoric, as in a parable or comparing false religions to "like a hungry man that dreams he ate and he awakes and lo he is still hungry."..and even that is truth.

John 2:23-25 And when he was in Jerusalem, at the passover, at the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he wrought. But Jesus himself did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men , and that he had not need that any should testify of man, for himself knew what was in man.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen


Hello, sir. i accept this debate. It sounds very interesting. Here we go. I am semi atheistic, so I might bring a bit of bias into it, but I hope that the spectators can let this slide, because, to be honest, the claim is so ridiculous that I would win even if I was a full fledged Christian.

I won't simply say "no". I won't say the second thing either. I won't use the "don't want it to be true" argument either. I won't just say it's "Communication". I don't know why you think I'd use those arguments, I'm much more mature than that. I'll put up a good fight, to be sure. Here we go.

It's true. Most human violence and greed and hate has its origin in human speech. However, this does not mean that human speech is a sentient being. It does not hate man, it is produced by man. It can not exist independently of man. We do not blame each other without reason. Human speech is not at fault. People who produce evil human speech are at fault. We can't say that Hitler didn't mean to write Mein Kampf, because he did, with full intent. The words in Mein Kampf didn't just spring into his head and try to possess him. Human speech is not the cause of all war. If every person on the planet chose not to speak for some absurd reason, I'm sure there would still be war. I'd say the thing that causes war is not human speech, but, rather, a difference in the cultures of the opposing parties.

Besides, human speech, like many things, can be good or evil. There can be a speech given by Hitler, but there can also be some wit from Winston Churchill. There can be words from Satan or a lovely sonnet from Shakespeare, a suicide rant from Osama Bin Laden or some humorous wisdom from Jerry Seinfeld. Human speech can be used for good or evil, and when used for evil, it can produce devastation, and when used for good, it can enlighten many, many people.

There are not two languages, there are, according, to the article below, roughly 1,909.

The way in which you tell the development of languages, while true to the bible, is deeply flawed. There is no singular language. The first tribe of cavemen in Africa, a few million years ago, developed a means of communication, then that tribe split off into several others, and the ways in which people said things twisted all around, until you got old languages like Ancient Greek, Latin, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and so on. Then, those languages developed, gradually, into the ones we know and love today. There probably was, at one point, a single language, spoken by the cavemen when their population was only thirty, but that was so long ago that it would be extremely hard to figure out.

The Tower of Babel story, while philosophically engaging, is not an actual account of the development of language, but, rather, an allegory for the development of languages. If there was, at one point, a singular language, then why haven't we found any artifacts with that language? Why even care? In the modern era, with rapidly developing technology, the many different languages we have do not affect us, because we can translate most foreign sentences in a split second. Languages aren't all that bad. It's a type of code in which one word is substituted for another, and once you memorize a set of words, then everything is fine. We are not all speaking the same language but hearing different things. This is a biological impossibility.

The next few paragraphs you bring up, the one about having the word of God as your native speech, sounds like some sort of pipe dream, and I can't figure it out, but I'll try to. You don't speak the word of God, because, as you write, you're using English, which you've already established is one of those splitoff languages from the Babel incident. I have to bring up, there is no language that God uses, except perhaps for Ancient Hebrew, because that's what the bible was written in. If he did have some weird language, then when I get up to Heaven, I'm gonna have a heck of a time understanding him. People pray in whatever language they want to, it doesn't mean that God hates them.

Still, you haven't mentioned anything about how human speech is a living being. OK, so anyway...

Your next paragraph is something or another about some conspiracy theory. Already, I can tell you're a grade A kook. If Google really did develop a program that excluded man, I'm sure that there would have been something in the news about it. At the moment, the only language thing Google produces is Google Translate, and that's not artificial intelligence, it's just a simple little translator with the words programmed in. Computers do use Binary, and ASCII, and stuff like that, but those are pretty easy to decode. Say Google's program did produce a sentient program that used its own language. As with all languages, it would just be a code, where every term is replaced with another term, so some cryptographers could crack it pretty easily. This sounds nuts and there's nothing in the news about it.

Human speech is not a living creature, it is a sound wave produced by the human vocal cord, and it is not plotting against us. That's like saying that cats are going to take over the world. It just doesn't make any sense. Human speech isn't even something you can hold. How in hell is it supposed to become an all powerful dictator?

Now, I'll go about what I assume are your "points":

1. Diseases and cancers are nothing like human speech, because diseases and cancers are noticeable, tangible things. Cancers are caused when one cell multiplies too much, diseases are caused by small bacterias or viruses. they become drug resistant because, over time, they learn to evolve so that they can avoid being killed by the drug. This is why new flu vaccines are introduced every year, to guard against a potentially deadly new strain. Again, the bacterias and viruses cannot be compared to hum an speech, because human speech is not a living organism, simply something produced by living organisms.

2. Technology "bugs" are created from a fault in computer programming, and electricity is created from a tiny flow of electrons through a conductive material.

3. People can lie, or say the truth. They don't always lie. I'm getting sick of this, so I'm going to run through the last few as quick as possible.

4. Nobody needs saving from speech, speech is man's greatest ally as well as its greatest enemy, and many things have been produced using human speech besides the bible.

5. God may be real, and he may not be. But you shouldn't have to believe in him. He should prove himself to you.

6. People usually only talk to who they know. They don't approach strangers on the street and talk about stuff.

7. Makes no sense.

Then a few religious quotes, and so on and so on. I get it pretty well now. Just a nut being nutty. I mean, coming into this debate, I expected something more powerful, like maybe talking about how speech can manipulate people or whatnot. But you just want to talk about religion all the time. I don't even thing human speech is portrayed as a living creature in the bible, so bringing this into a biblical context is sorta dumb. I'm sure it could be debated without all the religious stuff. I mean, if the bible is an absolute truth, how can anyone debate about it? Overall, just a wacky piece of junk from a crazy guy. What you are witnessing here, folks, is literally a man's slow descent into insanity. that's what happens to people if they take religion literally. Oh, well...
Debate Round No. 1



I can see you have a sense of humor and your obvious pride in your personal beliefs about reality. But all you have offered is at best, an emotional appeal why you wouldn't want human speech to be a living creature( after you said you wouldn't ) and to that end, all you have done is make fun of the debate rather than engaging a proof that human speech is not a living creature. I know for a fact--without knowing you personally-- you are used to exchanging speech and emotion with people who think they are Christians but are not, and think it is their job to evangelize you ( by which I mean talk you into "choosing Jesus" as your god, as if you had free will ) and thus have offered up every emotional widget know to man in order to accomplish that supposed mission. That's all fake..sure. But their definition of language and yours does not include that language becoming Incarnate/flesh as the Word of God did.

No matter how you say I'm writing "in English" God speaks through me as His Word, not human language. Fundamental to the Christian religion is the Truth that Truth itself is a Who, not a what and that the Word of God became flesh.

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:11-14 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I understand perfectly that a speech that becomes flesh is catastrophic to your definition of what language is and specifically to the lie of free will on which you depend. But others are not so hasty to dismiss it, even saying that human speech has "evolved" and according to the theory of evolution, only living things "evolve". Chomsky is a communist raving lunatic, but even he thinks language "evolves", a very popular theory among evolutionists, as they also have to explain how "free will" "evolved" out a mud puddle, etc.. "How could language have evolved?" wherein he makes a case for language being "more than communication"...but without going so far as to say its alive. The John Templeton foundation has paid tens of millions of dollars for fake-science to wonder out loud how free will "evolved" and defending the lie of human free will...paying so-called scholars to say that if you even think free will isn't true, it will make you a meaner person, etc. when in fact the arch criminals of history invariably were absolute believers in free will and the theory of language that supports the lie of free will and denies the possibility of the Word of God non-metaphorically becoming flesh..

Obviously if your speech is a living creature with a will of its own, you don't have free will. So it follows all the ancillary lies that support the lie of free will have to be defended too to make the public believe it. And again, Chomsky and the rest are not saying that speech is not a living creature, they are all but saying it is. I believe in Jesus Christ as the Word of God, a grace given to me by God. Chomsky and the rest will believe the anti-Christ is god when it becomes flesh, having prepared the ground work to blind-side people like you, so sure of their superiority of beliefs and so drunk on the emotional manipulation to which you have both become accustomed as to astound you with shock and awe when it happens.

What proof do you have that human speech is not a living creature? I have presented at the least, even to a nonbeliever in Jesus Christ, anecdotal evidence while you have merely dodged the question by making fun of its being asked and you have done so in human speech. The speech in you can claim all it wants to essentially be the only speech in total reality, as it usually does, but merely writing it does not make it so. As well, saying there are over a thousand languages is not accurate. There are in fact more versions of that one speech than 1000 if you count animal speech, which is the same speech sounded out differently. None of it can create anything, and thus gives those in it an incredulity they think is universal that any speech can create just by in the Bible, "God said "let there be light and there was light." The lack of creating power gives to those in human speech what seems to them to be a common sense of expecting limitation because of the idealized total lack of new creation in order to think themselves powerful. So they are always the ones found in "climate change" and population control and abortion movements: they think there will not be enough supplies of populations grow, etc. And they, as you, don't want to hear their speech is a living creature with a will of its own.

As for your refutations of my points, order to avoid human speech being an intelligent creature living in the flesh of human beings as a fact, you have ascribed sentience to cancers and diseases instead , saying that they "learn and evolve". Things with minds learn. The rest is just more words but no proofs.

"I'm getting sick of this..?" You got sick of the arguments you were making because you saw, even as you wrote them, that they were just desperate attempts to keep the staus quo of your mind and all the emotional common sense you have accumulated in a lifetime.

If you have evidence, produce it.

You were right on one point: it wasn't Google. It was Facebook. And it was on the news.


John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen


Oh, wow. You're not even Christian, you're just nuts. Let me point out, here, judges, that this debate isn't even about things like Jesus or God, which, although unlikely, are at least somewhat plausible. This is a theory SO insane that only a crazy person could believe it. He won't win, I'm sure, because he can't prove something that's impossible, but thumbs up for trying. This whole debate is very entertaining. The best one I've seen in a long time. Also, sir, I like how, in your first paragraph, above, you say, essentially, "Oh, yeah, all those OTHER conspiracy theories are fake... but MINE is completely true." Killer logic. Simply killer.

I admit, in the last round, I didn't really go much into why human speech can't be a living creature. In this round, I'll do better on that. I just didn't say too much on why human speech can't be a living creature because my opponent wasn't too focused on that topic either. Look at his round one argument, there's almost NOTHING on why human speech can be a living creature, just half baked phony philosophy and quotes from the bible. Yes, sir, I will stay on topic, just so long as you do. And I will try to be less biased, but you have to be less biased also. There's two sides of the coin here. I'll try to understand your incoherent babbling, but you have to accept cold hard facts. OK?

I'll try to humor you here. You say that, on the other end of this debate, you're writing in the word of God. I don't think so. If God does use some sort of different language than us humans, a computer is probably unable to translate it, since it's not a real language. I think you're writing in English over there. It's what's coming out on my side. Do you always use this God language, everywhere you go? How do people understand you, then? I'm almost CERTAIN that you're using standard English. Also, am I to understand that what YOU'RE saying is the word of God? Wow, so it's like The Exorcist, but you're possessed by God instead of Satan. Right now, I'm speaking to the literal embodiment of God. In that case, how are you, God? Just a little bit of advice, God. If you peeked out through the clouds, just once, people would be less skeptical. I'm just saying.

OK, so, back to you. You speak to God, right? You understand that you're a prophet, correct? You're the only person since Muhammad to ever talk to God. You don't even have to worship Jesus, you're just as important as Jesus. I mean, why are you wasting your supernatural powers here? Go on a talk show and emit some blue lightning from your fingertips, then unite the world. Until that happens, though, I still don't believe any of your stuff. You're making pretty big claims here. I'm gonna have to have some kind of proof that you are the living embodiment of God before I fall for it.

From then on, you provide some more bible quotes. Look, mister, you can provide quotes from the bible all you want. Just provide some other sources, too. The bible is a book, nothing more, and, while it can be used to prove a point, it won't be taken as seriously as, say, an essay from a professor at Harvard. It's just a story. I could say that people are actually big orange coffee mugs. It doesn't mean it's true. Just try something else, OK?

While you understand perfectly "that a speech that becomes flesh is catastrophic to your definition of what language is and specifically to the lie of free will on which you depend," I understand perfectly that you've been taking some kind of shrooms or something. I mean, do you HEAR how crazy that sounds? I don't depend on a lie. I depend on science. You depend on a two thousand year old book. neither can be proven as an absolute truth, but we've taken a photograph of an atom and we've classified all the elements. I'd say we have much more proof.

Human speech does "evolve," but it doesn't evolve in the same way that living things evolve. Living things evolve in order to adapt to their surroundings. Language evolves because, over time, certain phrases become outdated, or better systems of communication are developed. You can see the evolution of language right now, with the development of emojis. They're a way to communicate with pictures instead of words. You can see the evolution of language over time. First, look at Beowulf. Then, look at The Canterbury Tales. Then, read Shakespeare. Then, read Ray Bradbury. Four very different languages. One in Old English, one in Middle English, one in early Modern English, and one in completely Modern English. But you can see the patterns between them, and you can see how language evolved. Although, I do like how you believe in evolution. It's a lot more than other Christians are willing to believe in.

Speech is not "flesh". It's not an organ within our body. Go to your doctor and ask him to point out "speech' on an anatomical chart. He'll throw you out. We've looked at every inch of the body, there's not a single place we've missed. There are the lungs and the vocal cords, both of which help produce speech, but they're used for other things as well, such as respiration and humming, so neither of them can simply be classified as "speech".

Chomsky seems much smarter than you, and you shouldn't call him a "Communist raving lunatic". Look who's talking.

I'm positive that human speech does not have free will, and it does not control us. Rather, we control it. We create speech through thought, and that thought is caused by the firing of nerve cells in our brain. I am saying whatever I want to, I am not being controlled by my speech. You are not being controlled by your speech. You are spouting crazy conspiracy theories, and you can do that if you want. Your speech won't tell you not to. Think about it. Human speech is entirely dependent on whether we talk or not. If we stopped talking, then it would be dead. An organism should be able to function on its own, without input from anything else. If we stopped talking, forever, i guess the menace would be eliminated, but everything would suck.

I am not a nonbeliever in Jesus Christ. I am a nonbeliever in things that don't make sense. I have not dodged the question, I have proved my point extremely well.

Animal speech is not likely the same speech sounded out differently. they have far less terms in their vocabulary. A dog probably has a word for bark and run and play and fetch, but he's not going to talk about socioeconomic literature. I mean, if they had the same language, we'd have figured it out a long time ago. We haven't even figured out monkeys yet. Clearly, animal language has nothing to do with human language. The Tower of Babel is not an actual historical event, it's an allegory for the folly of having different languages. What if the author of the bible was just trying to put together a fun little book of fairy tales? You don't get to decide how the bible should be taken.

Climate change is real. The population at the moment is scary. Abortion is a good thing. You can't chalk all this up to speech. i mean, you could at least maybe argue why they're wrong, but you have to go a little more in depth on all that. You can't just blame it on a sound we produce with our throats.

Cancers and diseases are alive. Bacteria is classified as a living thing, even though it doesn't have a mind as we know it. It's so tiny that all it can do is multiply and evolve, and, sure, it doesn't think like we do. But it's still much more alive than human speech. I am very tired. I hope I can make it through the last two rounds.

Your article about facebook is probably a conspiracy theory, and Newsweek is one of those things that I see on the grocery store shelves every so often. Still, it doesn't describe speech as being evil, it describes a robot as being evil, and it blames the people who created the robot, not their speech. They decided to make that kind of thing, so they're at fault.

Overall, neither of us can ever be completely "RIGHT," but I'm making much more sense here, and unless you shape up soon, I'm gonna beat you two to three. Conspiracy theories are nothing new. people have been saying this stuff for ages. Until I get some absolute proof, I'm not going to go for it. Go ahead, you nutcase. say some more stuff from the loony bin. I'll wait.

I do believe in aliens. And Bigfoot. And the Loch Ness Monster. But I don't believe that speech is alive.
Debate Round No. 2


Good evening.

I have to admit, I was hoping for more effort into the actual evidence that speech is not a living creature. But human speech through its slave has instead merely thrown some stale comments at my person as if the mere fact he has a private sense of humor that is entertaining to him personally and that he has said anything at all is the only evidence possible. I can only suppose my opponent to be still yearning for the Clinton/Obama years and watches the old videos of yesteryear speeches of his own language in which a mere pause for the breath of the speaker mandates cheering and claps. I leave the image of my opponent glued to the tv through his slave tuning into 'the View' to re-feel the old feelings and still vapidly cheering and clapping alone in the dark at the old videos of Clinton and Obama to you.

My opponent is of course, human speech itself and the particular victim through whom it speaks at present that it uses to post written text to provoke emotion about anything else than the topic at hand.

My opponent has made claims that computers are the arbiters of truth over human beings rather than God, that a language is not a language unless a computer can translate it; that human death through abortion is a good thing; that it is not a non-believer in Jesus Christ and that the debate is not about Jesus Christ; that I am not a Christian. It has defended the honor of Chomsky, whom I have pointed out that even though he is a communist, liberal wacko, was used by human speech to defined language in such a way as to plainly make room for human speech to be a living creature. Yet my opponent has not address even the statements his own hero has made.

Human speech through Chomsky:

"The language faculty is often equated with "communication""a trait that is shared by all animal species and possibly also by plants. In our view, for the purposes of scientific understanding, language should be understood as a particular computational cognitive system, implemented neurally, that cannot be equated with an excessively expansive notion of "language as communication" [1]. Externalized language may be used for communication, but that particular function is largely irrelevant in this context. Thus, the origin of the language faculty does not generally seem to be informed by considerations of the evolution of communication...."

Chomsky himself doesn't want human speech to be denigrated as merely "sound" but defends it as-if it were much more than "just" communication. -----One would expect such pride-based statements by human speech if it were indeed a living creature.----- The fact that human speech uses human numbers to place a supposed premium on that pride by the supposed luster of science is just cleverness, not truth. A speech that cannot even create one thing would naturally use a non-creating measurement system, in which it implicitly asks everything to not move long enough so some notches on a dead stick can supposedly 'measure it' and who, having conceptually moved that dead stick to a machine that uses the math it thought up on a slide rule "real fast" as if it were new and thus "amazing". My opponent uses one who seems rather dazzled by these developments and has a particular sense of pride and humor based on that pride about anyone is not so blinded as itself. I can understand that and have compassion because human beings, without the benefit of the spirit of Jesus Christ in them as their native speech, are deceived that a speech with the non-creating characteristic as their own is the only possible type of speech in total reality and thus that through its supposed use in a supposed free will, they can go out and gain whatever truth there is to be known. Rather than understand that Jesus Christ is the Truth ( truth is then not a 'what' but a Who ) and the Embodiment of the Word of God/Incarnation of the Word of God in flesh, the human speech in them deceives them into thinking of itself as the only path to God..that it is the Master of all Prayer and that without such "communication" God can't hear you. But it is itself deceived and powerless.

What the spirit of the Embodiment of the Word of God/Jesus Christ said about the anti-Christ ( anti-Word of God) is exactly what the human speech through its slave is saying: not only has "speech becoming flesh" not happened yet, but it makes fun of the mere thought that it is even possible.

God as Word through His servant John:
1John 4:1-6 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, if they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God; and every spirit which does not confess Jesus Christ come in flesh is not of God: and this is that power of the antichrist, of which ye have heard that it comes, and now it is already in the world. *Ye* are of God, children, and have overcome them, because greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world. *They* are of the world; for this reason they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. *We* are of God; he that knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Jesus Christ the Incarnate Word of God has come flesh.

John 8:25 They said therefore to him, Who art thou? And Jesus said to them, Altogether that which I also say to you.

"I am what I say." That is not hard to understand unless one is drunk on a strange mix of pride and humorous emotions and seeking more of the same and only has a palette developed exclusively for more of the same.

My opponent claims to not be a non-believer in Jesus Christ and to be an authority on what a Christian is in order to claim I am not one and that it understands what the debate is about. So it always is with pagans, they have a favored version of false Christianity through which they wish to denigrate God. The Word of God made flesh/Jesus Christ had this to say through his servant James:

James 2:19 Thou believest that God is one. Thou doest well. The demons even believe, and tremble.

Even the demons, to include the Legion that the Embodiment of the Word of God cast out knows who Jesus Christ is. So being "not a non-believer" in Jesus Christ is not an endorsement of honesty and truth. The demon's know Who the embodiment of the Word of God and they know His Spirit and they know when human speech is divided against itself and attempts to fake being the spirit of the Word of God.

Act 19:13-17 And certain of the Jewish exorcists also, who went about, took in hand to call upon those who had wicked spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, I adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preaches. And there were certain men , seven sons of Sceva, Jewish high priest, who were doing this. But the wicked spirit answering said to them, Jesus I know, and Paul I am acquainted with; but *ye*, who are ye? And the man in whom the wicked spirit was leaped upon them, and having mastered both, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who inhabited Ephesus, and fear fell upon all of them, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.

Did the wicked spirit answer them in non-human speech? Or were the spirits ..human speech itself. The arguments of ancient times were not over 'whether or not' speech becomes flesh or 'whether or not' human speech is a living creature, they were over which one was God as Word. Having so utterly lost that argument and plainly Jesus Christ emerged as victor, now the anti-Christ/human speech has sought to re-image the argument into "speech is a non-living entity and how did it get here?"

Christianity is not the only religion that personifies Wisdom and Speech. All the false religions personify it in the spirit not-yet-flesh because they deny Christ has already come in flesh:

Wikipedia: "Wisdom"
"The ancient Romans also valued wisdom. It was personified in Minerva, or Pallas."

They made a statue of an idea of what speech is and God as Word mocks them for it:
Psalm 115:3-8 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he pleased. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands: They have a mouth, and they speak not; eyes have they, and they see not; They have ears, and they hear not; a nose have they, and they smell not; They have hands, and they handle not; feet have they, and they walk not; they give no sound through their throat. They that make them are like unto them, --every one that confideth in them.

Isaiah 41:21-24 Produce your cause, saith Jehovah; bring forward your arguments, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forward, and declare to us what shall happen: shew the former things, what they are, that we may give attention to them, and know the end of them; --or let us hear things to come: declare the things that are to happen hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods; yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be astonished, and behold it together. Behold, ye are less than nothing, and your work is of nought; an abomination is he that "chooseth" you. ...

It would be tedious to list all the names given to the personification of human speech only to finally understand they are all talking about the same false god that will ultimately be made flesh, but not God or God as Word, renamed hundreds of times..


"Vac, Sanskrit, vac, "speech," Hindu (Vedic), is the goddess of the spoken word. --She is the personification of speech and oral communication-- ...

My opponent has disappointed me with his fight style. I expected more a fake-scholarly type of attack, more links, actual engagement. But in the end, he has done all his human speech can do. He might as well as just written "ha ha ha ha ha ha..!"

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen


GOOT EEFNINK. Are you Alfred Hitchcock?

Wow, for the living embodiment of an all powerful deity, you certainly make quite a few typos. Or maybe it's just because what I'm seeing in English is being translated from THE WORD OF GOD...

Also, sir, I'm glad you notice my political affiliations. Yes, I am a democrat. And I'm darn proud of it. Maybe you ARE God. You catch on real quick. However, at this moment, I'm not watching "The View," I'm actually watching a fun video where Obama drives around Washington D.C. in his big car, throwing candy at the sidewalk, and Michelle is in there too, and it kindles a rather nice feeling of nostalgia in me. Ah, yes. Those were the days. When our president wasn't an incestuous rapist. A few minutes ago, I was seeing a video where Hillary Clinton talked about women's rights. Not last year, but all the way back in 1998. So far ahead of her time. Too bad the Russians hacked the election. Ah, well, until 2020, I can nosh my popcorn in the old dark room, glued to my TV set, indulging in those wonderful fantasies. If my speech is making me into a slave, I must say, he's doing a pretty good job of it.

There is one small thing, though. I'm opposed to slavery. If my speech is keeping me as a slave, then why does it make me opposed to slavery? Doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean, if my speech is controlling me as a slave, then it would tell me that slavery was a good thing, right? So I'd be more willing to obey its commands? Turns out, though, I'm not the least bit racist, so I guess old Speechy made a mistake in that regard. Since you anthropomorphized my speech and gave it sentience, I've decided to call him Speechy from now on. Anyway, let's get back to reality, and your latest nutty argument.

My opponent is a nut who lives in an asylum with 20 cats. He writes scribbled out letters to the NRA every day and he calls his socks Bonnie and Clyde. At least, that's how I picture him, standing there, over the window, while lightning tears the sky, and he's kind of screaming at the stars, and then he goes back inside and pulls some comic books from under his ratty old mattress. I'm not saying it's completely accurate. Just a rough guess.

I do not claim that computers are the arbiters of truth over human beings rather than God. I claim that both share about equal power. If God proved his existence, I'd become a nutty fanatic just like you. Just one little red moon, just one little face in the sky. All I need. One proof, and I'll speak from the Bible forever. Until then, I'm just waiting.

A language is not a language unless a computer can translate it, or, at the very least, somebody can translate it. If I have a code, where every word is replaced by another word, it's a real language. If I have a code where I try and try to translate it and the only words that come out are "mango go bargo largo," then what I have is pure gobbledygook. I'm sorry, but if a language doesn't mean anything, it's not a real language. For a language to be real, it's got to be able to be translated. We can translate almost any existing language. So if your God language is a real language, a computer program or some nifty cryptographers should be able to fix it up in a jif. It just makes sense.

Abortion is a good thing, because some people can't feed their children. then the kid dies of starvation. Really, you can't deny this stuff. Why do you try so hard?

I do believe in Jesus. I don't think he should be treated with higher regard than anyone else, though. I don't like the idea of God being a punisher to atheists, at the very most, just ten years in purgatory or something. I try to believe in God. It's getting harder every day, though. Nuts like you really turn me off Christianity.

The debate isn't about Jesus Christ. It's about whether human speech is a living creature or not. I didn't know you'd be a nut when I signed up for this ordeal. So don't blame me, OK? I just thought it would be about human speech being alive. man, you guys are really tricky. Just like those Jehovah's witnesses.

Chomsky is a nice guy. Oh, also, please stop calling me "IT," wouldja? It sounds like I'm the creepy clown from that new movie.

OK, from there, you go on a long rant about Chomsky and how he's a communist raving lunatic. Well, better to be a communist raving lunatic than a capitalist raving lunatic. But that's a story for another time. Chomsky sounds way smarter than you. From the way he's talking, I think he's talking about body language or something, but he uses such academic language that I can't really tell.

I am making fun of the thought of flesh being alive. Absolutely true. See, that's because it's fake. you have to make fun at fake stuff. Like that Hillary Clinton email thing. It was used by those darn republicans to badmouth her, so Trump the big fat dump could steal the trophy. But that's a story for another day.

Some more stuff from the bible. I'm not going to even go through it. I don't need that. Very inspiring, and all, but I need to see something better. How about an article or some kind of image about this weird speech thing? Sure, you posted the thing about the facebook robot, but that was indirectly related. I want something that talks about this evil speech thing, OK? Just like God, once you post it, I won't argue any more. Try that out and see how it goes. I hope you enjoy spending a day on that fool's errand.

You're not a Christian, you're a nut. 96% of Christians probably disagree with you. Go ahead and become the next L. Ron Hubbard, see if I care.

Also, I love druids. And the Romans. They had cool religions. Ooh, and those Vikings. Those guys were really cool. I remember those good old days, when there were lots of cool gods, not just one, and they all did cool stuff, like cutting threads and stuff. Ever read The Odyssey? Or Beowulf? Way cooler than the Bible, lemme tell ya.

Keep in mind, judges, that link he gives isn't a real thing, just some Hindu religion page.


"ha ha ha ha ha ha..!"

Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has wondered out loud why he thinks slavery is wrong if he is indeed a slave. It would make sense if he did. No slave in the history of the world liked being a slave..WHEN THEY KNEW THEY WERE A SLAVE. makes sense the slave of my opponent would generically be opposed to slavery and in denial of being one: such views give the one who has them what they think is the emotional equivalent ( perhaps in their mind "proof of" ) being free. Since the slaves of human speech have never known any other speech how would they know any other freedom than what human speech tells them is freedom unless God told them? So God has told them and keeps telling each generation. Part of that freedom is to know their former speech was not them, was not their friend and was their enemy. But before God tells them He plainly says:

1Corinthians 2:12-16 But we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we may know the things which have been freely given to us of God: which also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual things by spiritual means . But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know them because they are spiritually discerned; but the spiritual discerns all things, and *he* is discerned of no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, who shall instruct him? But *we* have the mind of Christ.

What my opponent's slave fails to understand ( as all of its slaves fail to understand ) is that the purpose of the debate and of Christianity is to free his type of slave and to end his type of slavery. That was the compassion God spoke of through me formerly. If he wonders out loud about the evils of slavery, that is not the same thing as being free. People who are deceived they have free will are deceived based on the emotional attraction of the deception itself; that having a free will enables one to get "out from under" some form of tyranny and do whatever is most beneficial for themselves. But the very act of trying to get "out from under" to some other place "by the use of freedom" proves one is always constantly trying to escape something no matter what they did formerly to escape other things. They are constantly driven to do things they never wanted to have to do and cannot stop. They are slaves.

I am the slave of Jesus Christ. But I am usually forced to do what I enjoy: being used to expose lies, the father of lies and human speech as the living medium of that lie.

All the tactics of my opponent match perfectly with an enemy of life and in particular an enemy of the Word of God that is a living creature that hates mankind:

1. hating the Word of God by which Man originally rules over all the work of God's hand
2. denying what the Word of God says and calling Jesus Christ a liar
3. when his evil is found out, he quickly claims the evil is just the "new good" and openly admits he if "for" it in what he thinks is cleverly designed new emotional wrapper. If covering oneself in excrement were a useful political tool, my opponent would do so to his slaves while making them think it was humorous and even a high ideal and openly say "look at me! I'm covered in excrement! Vote for me!". While it is painful to watch a human being subjected to such deceptions, just because they constantly seek to switch the good into the evil and the evil into the good doesn't make it truth or them worth leaders or being deceived what they do is leadership. That they lie and call lying the necessary thing and "good" is exactly case in point.
4. lionizes the evil persons of the past who did evil as mis-represented good people in a fight against the "new evil" that is in fact the good of all former generations
5. pretends that simply because he can genuinely feel or fake having pride in an action or ideal, that action or ideal is automatically the good because it generates pride, when God plainly says pride is a sin
6. constantly engages in folly as if laughter or its fake is proof of having found truth
7.denies evidence that prove he is a lair for what it really is and seeks to simply put "bad emotions" over it
8. hates human life and rejoices when human beings are killed in the womb
9. cannot create anything himself and thus idealizes the world in which human beings must live as constantly having limited resources and running out of supplies thus supposedly logically necessitating population control/human deaths while denying God has always created enough for everyone exactly when they needed it, only excepting when they have engaged in the very behavior my opponent idealizes in order to punish cut down on the number of its slaves as a merciful act on everyone else in famines, disease and war.

All the acts of God men call evil have always been aimed at proving that God is the only Word of Truth. False god in human speech claims it is god and brings crops? God sends a famine. False god as human speech claims human prosperity is based on its own wisdom and that the families that worship it will spread out and fill the earth? God sends pestilence and wars and makes the common sense of those people to destroy themselves via the means of forcing human speech to lie even more and strike at their own wombs.

Ezekiel 29:,4 ..And I will put hooks in thy jaws, and I will cause the fish of thy rivers to stick unto thy scales, and I will bring thee up out of the midst of thy rivers, and all the fish of thy rivers shall stick unto thy scales;

2Kings 19:27,28 But I know thine abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in, And thy raging against me. Because thy raging against me and thine arrogance is come up into mine ears, I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, And I will make thee go back by the way by which thou camest.

Isaiah 47:10-15 For thou hast confided in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath seduced thee; and thou hast said in thy heart, It is I, and there is none but me. But evil shall come upon thee--thou shalt not know from whence it riseth; and mischief shall fall upon thee, which thou shalt not be able to ward off; and desolation that thou suspectest not shall come upon thee suddenly. Stand now with thine enchantments and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to turn them to profit, if so be thou mayest cause terror. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the interpreters of the heavens, the observers of the stars, who predict according to the new moons what shall come upon thee, stand up, and save thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it. Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, they that trafficked with thee from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his own quarter; there is none to save thee.

My opponent has forgotten these things and thinks to use its current slaves to say the old things it said in times past as if they were new things and marvelous. But it only seduces itself with its own knowledge and wisdom of how to control those who don't know the Truth/Jesus Christ.

My opponent think's that the debate format itself lends itself well to the deception of choosing ..something. Side a versus side b...

But it has never understood the creating power of the Word of God. And so it just sends the next sucker to play again.

Look up the links: look up Vac, the Hindu personification of speech. Look up all the so-called gods of the past. You will easily find they all claimed human speech to be a living creature. But when the people found out that Jesus Christ is actually the only Word of God, suddenly human speech has to hide itself. That has gone on for several hundred years.

So I understand that the slave of my opponent, constantly fed a steady diet of lies with accompanying emotional teaching points ( what to feel when certain word orders appear before its eyes or come into its ears ) would be shocked to learn its whole theory of reality was simply fake and that its own speech hated its soul. My opponents slave can be forgiven for thinking that most Christians would agree with it. Because the only Christians are the ones God calls Christians, not the ones human speech calls Christians. Hillary Clinton's husband openly claimed she is a necromancer and that she talks with the dead ( Elanor Roosevelt ) when the Word of God expressly forbids doing so and Hillary Clinton claims to this hour to be a Christian. Their political allies were getting invites to meals with human sperm an dblood mixed in the food..and calling themselves Christians. (

So, yeah...those 'political Christians' are not Christians and hate the Word of God/Jesus Christ.

So far, my opponent has yet to prove human speech is not a living creature and has only offered sarcasm and folly. Perhaps it will do better in this last round. I wonder why he sent this particular slave. This is the religious section of debates and it claims to be an atheist. But then, those inside human speech can only say what they are told by their master. That's why they are on drugs, commit suicide and love the music and rhetoric of "breaking free" and false religion.

Psalm 37:12,13 The wicked plotteth against the righteous, and gnasheth his teeth against him. The Lord laugheth at him; for he seeth that his day is coming.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen


I think thing are OK now, I threatened Speechy with a cross so he went down the street to chat with the evil speech of Jay Leno for a while. They're playing Rummikub, so I think I have a while to post my last argument. Here goes.

See, how I see it, my slave owner (alias, my speech) would tell me that slavery is GOOD, so I'd be more willing to be his slave. But I don't really like slavery. I think Speechy made a mistake in that regard. I mean, I don't blame him, something that's purely evil is bound to make little slip ups here and there. I mean, if these speech things really do have us as slaves, There's nothing we can do about it, except maybe join your insane cult, and I don't think I want to. Things really are fine, since these speech thingies are imperceptible and probably don't exist, I'd say they can own us if they want. But they don't have arms or legs or anything, they're just a bunch of little sound waves, so I'd say they can't do us much harm.

Another quote from the Bible. I can't argue with the bible, it says what it says, but what it says isn't always true. Please try to understand that. I'm getting very tired of this debate. VERY tired. I'm a Christian, you can stop saying I'm not. I'm just not a nutty, berserk Christian like you.

Maybe I can't escape my speech. Maybe I can't. But I don't care. Speechy doesn't bother me. He's what I say, alright? Imagine a world where nobody uses human speech. Just the word of God. Wouldn't that be worse? Human speech as it is now is so diverse. If everything we said came from the mouth of an omnipotent deity, it would suck. God is a nice guy, I'm sure. But I don't want to be saying what he wants me to say all the time.

You're not the slave of Jesus Christ, you're the slave of Meth. Go to a help clinic and get off of it.

Here are some of YOUR tactics:

1. No proof
2. Biased
3. Hypocritical
4. Denying his evident insanity
5. No evidence
6. Doesn't understand what Christianity is
7. Refers to me as a thing
8. Screams at the sky from his asylum window during a rainstorm
9. Nutty
10. Debate is not what it said it was about
11. Quotes the Bible too much
12. Lots of typos
13. Says he's a prophet
14. uses lots of buzz words
15. Hates good old Chomsky

Some more Bible quotes. I swear, that's like, 75% of your argument. I get that it's nice to use because it's public domain and stuff, but you could always quote a few lines from Dante. His book is just as good, maybe even better, and it's much more clear and concise in its depictions of the afterlife.

That next source you give is some kind of Satanic thing. You're really creeping me out. And again, you're bringing politics into this. This debate sure isn't about Hillary Clinton, I know that. But I appreciate her for talking to Eleanor Roosevelt. I like Eleanor too. I mean, don't pick on Hill for talking to the dead, Jesus brought a guy back from the dead. You know, Lazarus. That's really blasphemous. I mean, Hillary is just talking to Eleanor on her Quija board or whatever. That's fine. She can do that if she wants. I'm not one to judge. Eleanor was a fine woman and a great first lady, and I'm sure Hillary identifies with her. Talk about this food with the human sperm and blood in it. Give me an article. Then I'll believe you. OK?

I offer sarcasm and folly because you won't accept anything logical. I mean, I can't take this seriously. I know it's wrong. I'm not on drugs, I'm not an atheist, and my own speech isn't trying to kill me.

Please, judges, vote for me. You can vote for him if you want to, but then you'll be a kook too.


Just kidding, as always. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 year ago
Your vote was a little biased, Bryan, but I agree, I make much more sense and all.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 years ago
Dear God, you're sick. Does God know that you worship him? I don't think he wants you to.
Posted by tychicus12 2 years ago
Also, you are more than the sum of your flesh... your flesh needs to take in nourishment, expel wastes and pass on its dna.. not you. You are a spirit.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

One more point: if you hold explicitly to that definition of life, homosexuals, transgenders and people who just don't want kids are not living beings. They don't want to pass on their dna, they just want to "have sex". Christians understand they are alive, but sinners. But they are definitely human beings.

Just thought I'd clear that up..

Job 28:12 But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?
Job 28:13 Man knoweth not the price thereof; neither is it found in the land of the living.

Job 28:22 Destruction and death say, We have heard the fame thereof with our ears.
Job 28:23 God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, amen
Posted by tychicus12 2 years ago

They "can be" defined that way, but not simply for the purposes of avoiding the truth about something that is alive that doesn't fit those parameters. Even so, if human speech lives in the flesh of man, as the Bible shows us, then it would in fact "take in nourishment, expel waste and seek to pass on its DNA." for the purpose of usurping the place God has given to Man to rule over all that God has created.

Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
Posted by XxFoxlordxX 2 years ago
A living creature can be identified as something that takes in nourishment, expels waste, and seeks to pass on its DNA through reproduction. Since human speech is merely a biproduct of us expelling waste in a different form,( exhaling co2 as communication,) one can safely say speech is not something alive. That's not so say that things can't live inside though. A sick person may expel a pathogen through exhalation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con by default!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.