The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

There is a possibility that Obama could be Satan.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,212 times Debate No: 48829
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)




Standard stuff.


I accept!
Debate Round No. 1


The first thing we have to look at is the resolution. The resolution states there could be a possibility that Obama is satan.

Possibility - The fact or state of being possible. [1]

Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.[2]

So for this to be a possible there must be a chance that it could be possible. For something to be possible it must have the chance to be true without contradicting empirical facts. The fact that satan exists is possible. There is no empirical evidence to show that he does not. Most people can only logically assume that he does not exist. This does not mean that it is true, it means that there is a high probability that he may not exist. So we can acknowledge that satan could exist, because there is no way to show that him existing is contradicting proven facts or empirical evidence.

Luke 10:18 - "And He said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning falling from the heavens" [3]

Note when Jesus spoke these words it was in Aramaic, which is regarded as one of the oldest versions of Hebrew.

Now lighting in the Hebrew language translates to Baraq this also means to cast forth, or cast forward. [4]

The next key note is heavens, or as this translates from Hebrew "High Place". High place or heavens in Hebrew translates to O Bamah. [4]

when you break that down literally Baraq U Bamah in Hebrew would translate to lighting from the heavens or lighting from a high place.

Also when we look at that verse it would translate to

I saw Satan as Baraq U Bamah (Barack Obama)

There is a possibility even if a slim one that Satan could be Barack Obama. Hide your Kids, Hide your Wives, he is going to make you dine in hell tonight.

[3] The bible



And Mikal has done it again!

Ultimately, I think we need to take this resolution on the preponderance of evidence, since the debate has begun without a clear buren of proof, in spite of the fact that we cannot hope to prove a negative.

My main case is that it is impossible for Obama to be Satan because it is impossible for Satan to exist, and thus the Bible is not a credible source. Moreover, I will argue that Mikal does have the burden of proof to show that it is at least possible for President Obama to be Satan.

First, I'm going to borrow a bit from one of Mikal's previous debates on God. I hope he doesn't mind!

Russel's Teapot

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

Following from this, it is clear that the burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative, but for Mikal to prove a positive -- that there is indeed a possibility that Satan exists. In the process, he must prove that there is a God, that the Bible is a credible source that hasn't been translated several times over, and there have been bible scholars who have argued that as much as half of the New Testament -- the part that Christians like -- has been forged (2). In fact, parts of the New Testament were not even written by the apostles, so this source is not the least bit credible (3).

Occam's Razor

This pirnciple can be distilled in one sentence: "When you have two competitng theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better" (4)

Again, this shifts the burden of proof to Pro -- his theory that Obama could be Satan is overly complex and requires that we address a whole host of questions: Why is he a Christian? Why does he begin every day with a devotional? Why did he attend a prayer breakfast? Why does he end every one of his speeches with "God Bless America," when Satan himself -- if he ever existed (I'm not sure if you read Paradise Lost) -- would never lower himself to do that. It's impossible. In Paradise Lost, even when there was no hope that Satan could ever overtake God, he still refused to give in and praise him.

Thus, his theory is overly complex and he must provide genuine evidence. Even the theory that a God exists is an application of this theory, for we cannot prove it. Carl Sagan remarked that “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.” So the question becomes this: who created God so that he could create Satan? Were God and Satan created at the same time? Does this extend ad infinitum?

The preponderence of evidence does not fulfill Mikal's case.

Debate Round No. 2


My adversary claims this resolution is about the preponderance of evidence, but that is false. I explained how something could be a possibility. Just because there is a significance amount of evidence to show that something could not exist, does not mean that it does not.

He also claims I made a non clear burden of proof. The burden of proof is on me, and I have fulfilled it already. The resolution is quite clear in this regard. I must show that there is a possibility that Obama is Satan. I have shown facts to support how and what a possiblity is. I do not need to show that he is Satan, but just that there is a possibility.

I have shown in the first round how something can be possible as long as it does not contradict any empirical or proven facts. The concept of God and Satan not existing is not a proven fact, the same goes the other way. Since there is no contradiction of factual evidence, I have upheld and fulfilled my Bop.

My adversary is trying to argue with probability, but because something may not be probable does not mean that it is not possible. The same argument is often used in reference to a God. There is no way to show that Obama is or is not Satan, so there is always a possibility that he could be.

Russel's Teapot Fallacy.

My adversary is arguing that I must prove a positive and show that Obama is Satan. This is not the resolution and is only the case if I claimed he was Satan. This is often brought and used against Christians who claim there "is" a God.

No where in the resolution did I state that Obama "is" Satan. I stated there is a possibility that he could be. This entire analogy is irrelevant and can be dropped because he is trying to tamper with the resolution.

Occam's Razor

Again irrelevant to me upholding my BOP. If I were claiming he "is" Satan, then this would be a valid argument just as Russel's teapot would. I did not claim that, as I mentioned. I just simply said there is a possibility, and I have laid out and defined how the possibility of Obama being Satan is possible. It does not contradict any given facts or evidence that can be observed. Almost anything can be possible

My adversary is asking me to show that he "is" Satan, that is not the topic of this debate

Also Occam's razor does not address this question at its heart. Just because a theory is simpler or easier does not mean it is accurate. It is asking you to use the theory that is simpler because it stands a higher probability of being the most logical. That theory falls apart a lot as well. It is just a principle of reasoning that we can often use to compare theories, it does often fail

As I said the simplest explanation is not always the correct one. If that were the case God creating the universe is much simpler than it causing itself to exist. That is not even the principle behind the theory itself. The principle is that when you have two existing theories, and you have a working model for one then there is no need to over complicate it. Again this is irrelevant to this debate

This entire argument can be dropped because he is using Occam's Razor to try and make me prove an "is". I do not have to show that Obama "is" Satan, but just that there could be a possibility.

Obama In Hebrew



My adverary has tried to shift the resoultion to

"Obama is Satan"

and then shift the new resoultion and the BOP to me. I do have the BOP but not under that resoulltion. My BOP is to uphold the initial resoultion and the resouiltion that my adversary accepted.

"There is a Possibility that Obama is Satan"

I have upheld this and met my end of the BOP. My adversaries attempts at altering the BOP and saying I have to prove a posistive are false. I must only show that there is a possibility that he is Satan. I did this in all of round 1


[1]For something to not be possible it must contradict empirical and factual evidence

[2]The Idea of Satan existing and being Obama does not contradict any factual evidence

[3]Therefore It is possible



My conclusion is this: There is a possibility Mikal is in fact Satan. Therefore, he is lying to everyone and throwing Obama under the bus -- no, he doesn't need to assert that Obama IS Satan in order to do that.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 7 years ago
it is not possible that Obama is Satan.......Obama is Obama, and Satan is Satan. .........and it is not possible that you or I are Satan, you are you and I am I and Satan is Satan. And it is not possible that Obama is a duck......a duck is a duck, Obama is Obama.
Posted by BobTurner 7 years ago
For the record, I didn't call Mikal Satan. It was a de facto concession. For goodness' sake, some voters are so silly (read: illiterate).
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 7 years ago
My d*ck could be Satan for all I know.
Posted by Kathryn3014 7 years ago
Your photoshop skills are truly terrible. And if u got these off the internet, could you really not have found better ones? Really?
Posted by dtaylor971 7 years ago
:O you just opened my eyes...
Posted by BobTurner 7 years ago
Hey, if it quacks....
Posted by DeletedUser 7 years ago
This is an absolute statement (the debate topic) and can only be disproved by a paradox. There is a possibility that Obama could be a duck.
Posted by Finalfan 7 years ago
I think Mikal profile picture demonstrates that he is bored with all of us and wants to find someone who can pose a challenge!
Posted by BobTurner 7 years ago
Of course not. He's doing a classic "I only said there was a possibility so I don't have the burden of proof" type thing, probably as a part of his recent victory lap. It's clever, but I have a plan!
Posted by Finalfan 7 years ago
Does Mikal really believe in Satan (As in the fallen angel)? Many have thought he was the Anti-Christ. But we all know that cannot be. His name is not Damien !
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Jifpop09 7 years 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't call your opponent Satan con. I actually think that con had the burden of proof. Theirs a possibility for everything, but Con failed to prove it is impossible, which is near impossible. I will actually argue that Con had better sources though, as Pro's were mostly definition, and did not link to the bible verses.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. lol
Vote Placed by Romanii 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never addressed Pro's argument about the Hebrew-Obama thing. He just said something about BOP that wasn't applicable to the given resolution, as Pro showed.

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