Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

god is real


The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
Points: 3
No information
Round 1
adapted or created

evolution believes that there was an explosion that produced life and over millions of years life adapted to there surroundings the polar bear became white because it lived in the snow and needed to hide. bats were black because they roam at night and it would be easier to hide. they also have echo location because its harder to see at night and so on so forth

i believe god created the polar bear white so that it can hide in the snow. i believe he also colored the bat black because it roams at night and would be harder to see. and that he created the bats with echo location because it would be hard for them to see at night

what makes my example more probable then evolution

there is a huge problem that evolution does not explain why do plants have medical properties.

how would an explosion from nothing produce a plant that regenerates the brain and heals damage from the brain stem.


the only possibility for this plant to have such properties plants to have these medical properties is that god created 

now i can see you saying why are there so many poison plants.

and i say to that god cursed the ground when Adam ate the forbidden fruit 
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you shall eat the plants of the field; (Genesis 3:17-18)

thing that the bible says that can be backed up today

in the bible the kid who brother sold to Egypt the female who lied and got him imprisoned wanted him because he ate right back in the day when chemicals were not in food 

with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything except the food he ate. Now Joseph was well-built and handsome, 
7 and after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, “Come to bed with me!” 

in genesis in 39 

you know on how almost all the haunted houses are big mansions. why is it always rich people and not poor people i believe that this is because these houses once belonged to people who had sold there souls to satan in exchange for wealth 

 god predicted the the earth floats in space years before anyone had been to space. back in the day when everyone believed the earth was flat job:28 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. 

honey health benefits can change depending on wear the bees got the nectore for the honey. for example if a bee got honey from a chamomile flower the honey would have the health benefit of easy sleeping or if the bee got the honey from a blackberry bush then the honey would have the health benefits of a blackberries 

" Know also that wisdom is like honey for you: If you find it, there is a future hope for you, and your hope will not be cut off." proverbs 26 

it is called multi flower honey and its health benefits taste and other change based on the flowers and herbs the honey is produced from 

we all know how being unhappy can kill you early. and how stress can have a huge negative effect on your health 

we all know what stress can do to the body who said this first

Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones

alright lets get out of this rebuttal
we found out that drinking wine while pregnant was bad at 1970s. but in the bibles angel says it would be bad somewhere around 300bc

"The angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, “You are barren and childless, but you are going to become pregnant and give birth to a son. 4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean"

"Then the woman went to her husband and told him, “A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel of God, very awesome. I didn’t ask him where he came from, and he didn’t tell me his name. 7 But he said to me, ‘You will become pregnant and have a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from the womb "

alright so when the angel told samson mother that she was going to be pregnant with him. she said do not drink any wine or strong drinks it was the 1970s when we found out that that drinking while pregnant was bad

my mom who is like 70 i'm adopted told me that she drank while pregnant. i not related to her so don't worry 

demons sexual preferences

you know how all the ancient story's on how gods came down and mated with female for example Hercules 

i believe that these gods are actually demon but they set themselves up as gods 
and that's why there are so many religeons 

storys gods came down and mated with female 

bible demon came down and mated with females 

demons mated with female and produced giants 

of the days before Noah’s Flood: “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose … There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:1-2; Genesis 6:4). 

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days— and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” 
Genesis 6:4 

angels are referred to as “sons of God” in Job 38:7 because God is their “Father” through creation and they were destroyed in the flood 
btw sons of gods are demons 

so as you may know almost all the giants that appear in ancient story's are depicted with red hair . why is that 

The Paiute Indians have legends about giants and how they killed them. The race of giants they called Si-Te-Ca were very tall, red-haired cannibals. 

U.S. Soldier Claims To Have Shot & Killed A 12-Foot Giant In Afghanistan its also was red haired 

This is a story I have not covered yet, a story with giant mummies, giant artifacts, Native American legends and Smithsonian Institution involvement. Paiute Indian Sarah Winnemucca wrote about the legends of her tribe many years before the giant red haired mummies were found. 

tribe we exterminated had 'reddish' hair. I have some of their hair, which has been handed down..." 

Red Headed Viking Giants Found Buried in Nevada 

Someone apparently wrote a book on the red head giants 

The Red Haired Race - Red Haired Giants and Gods The myths and legends of Greece, India and South America describe the rule of Osiris and Isis. 

Home > History decoded > Native Americans Tell The Story of The Ruthless Red-Haired Giants of Nevada 

Native Americans Tell The Story of The Ruthless Red-Haired Giants of Nevada 

Thousands of giant skeletons have been reported with blond or red hair streaks. The occupation dates more than 30,000 thousand years ago and would have ended there about 11,000 years ago. This story attracts the attention of tourists who visit the strange Ralph Glidden museum on Catalina Island … 

New Zealand's red-haired gaints (self.history) submitted 2 years ago * by MarcusDrakus Apparently when the Maori arrived in New Zealand 800 years ago, there were very tall white-skinned, red-haired people already living there, just as the native Americans have said of the lands they moved to in the US. 

Like their red-haired counterparts, The Ronnongwetowanca of the Ohio River Valley, the Sitecahs were the enemies of many Indian tribes of the region, and according to the Paiutes, they were hostile and warlike 

The person who stars in this movie is a red head female 

The Paiute Indians have a legend about their ancestors and red-haired giants. 

The creature had long, red hair and skewered one operator, identified as “Dan,” with a pike-like weapon. The remainder of the team opened fire, repeatedly shooting the creature in the face and eventually killing it. The full length of the engagement was only 30 seconds. 

For those that really want to know what's going on today along with the past, here's some information. These things are about 15 foot tall, have six fingers, six toes, red hair, and double rows of teeth. The nephalimm of the days of Noah. 

the most uncommon hair color in the world is red only one percent of the population is red head 

Red hair girls stereotypes depict them as soulless 

So lets review the information here 

Demons mated with females and were Sayed to produce giants. Giants are mostly red head, red heads are only one percent of the population. and red heads are stereotyped as soulless 

My theory demons came down to had fun with females they were selecting mates there were lots to pick from they were lots of blonds lots of brunets but there were only a few red heads. They might have seen them as more valuable because of their rarity and developed fetishes for them and thus when they fluffed there giant offspring were mostly red heads and the red head group gained the stereotype of soulless 

But you would say why in the hell would god give angels reproductive organs to breed with humans. He did not in the book of enoch it is explained that the demons transformed into their husbands of their female prey so that they could trick the females into mating with them. The book of enoch was not put in the bible because it is weird. also satan transformed into a serpent to trick eve into eating the forbidden fruit and Egyptian king magicians dropped there staffs and the 2 staffs turned into serpents and then Moses dropped his staff and it turned into a snake then Moses snake devoured the other 2 snakes. so they have the power 

Fie, foh, fum, I smell the blood of an Englishman 

I hope we have all heard this saying but what if they smell the blood of jesus christ 

took it from this guy who make giant videos 

the indians story of the flood is very similar to the bibles 

indians version 

“Buffalo Bill” Cody tells of meeting a Pawnee Indian carrying, what an army surgeon declared to be a thigh bone of a giant man. When asked where the bone came from, the Indian said that long ago a race of giants had lived in the area who were 15 feet tall! “They could outrun a buffalo and even carry it in one hand” The Indian went on to say that these giants did not believe in a Great Spirit. So He caused a great rain to come, and the water kept rising higher and higher. So it drove them to the hills and then to the mountains and finally to the mountain tops. But even the mountain tops were submerged so all the giant men were drowned. After the flood, the Great spirit decided that he had made man too large and powerful. So He would correct the mistake and make man of smaller size and less strength. He said this story is a matter of Indian history passed down from time immemorial. 

The Sioux say that the earth was originally peopled by giants, who were three times the size of modern man. They too say that the giants denied belief in a Creator. They too say that the giants were wiped out by a great flood. 

in the bible god flooded the earth by making it rain and all the giants were wiped out in the flood because and they were all killed because they denied god. and god shortened mans life span to 100 plus a couple years 

this is a reference to how god shortened mans lifespans 
So He would correct the mistake and make man of smaller size and less strength 

How do we know that anything is real?

This is something that Pro needs to establish, not Con. If there is no objectively verifiable way to ascertain what is ‘real’ or ‘unreal’ then Pro cannot prove that God is real.

There is a snowball-Kritik here that follows:

  1. If nothing is real, then God can’t be real unless God is nothing and to be nothing is to fail to be a real ‘thing’ by definition.
  2. Alternatively, if God is necessitated to have created all that is real, it follows that either God itself necessitates such a creator or is to be deemed impossible to be real or that God operates outside of all the real things it created and to operate outside all that is real is to not be inside ‘all that is real’ meaning you are unreal.

Con needn’t lift a finger at this point, Pro has not brought to the table anything that proves God but has rather argued against evolution. If evolution is false, we could be totally randomly generated without any God involved or, alternatively, it could be that a non-omnipotent, non-omniscient very limited creator (or team of creators) created us without evolution.

I stand here annihilating Pro in just 3 paragraphs-worth of debating. Pro step up to the plate, I will bring sources and detailed rebuttal to you in Round 2.

Round 2
what i was saying that there would have to be thought in order for life to happen

you would have to know that you would have to chew food in order to give someone teeth

you would need to know that something would need to walk in order to give it legs

my debater beleive in the notion that you need something to create something and that nothing comes from nothing

alright lets say that something happened and that something created the universe who created the something and if something created that something who created that something and if something created that what created that something. it becomes an endless loop  right until you say that something came from nothing

god says that he has existed forever that there was no start nor end. if there was a start what was before that start if there was a beginning what was before that beginning. this to is an endless loop. aka he would have to had existed forever. 

an example i would use to give you a better picture of what i am thinking darth revan has an infinite army he has this factory called the starfordge and lets say for connivance that it can create an endless amount of fleets he does not need an resources all he does is press a couple of buttons on a generator thing and it generates a star ship from nothing. and goes off to destroy the Jedi.

i have a question for you who created something

what was before the beginning

You have not proven that God is real.
Round 3

evolution says that this fish grew a light bulb because  it lived deep in the ocean were you cannot see so over millions of years it grew a lightbulb. because it needed to see

is it not more likely that god created it with a lightbulb so that it see in the deep ocean were there is no light

evolution says that the lizard develop a defense mechanism were if an animal like a bird grabs him by the tail and trys to eat him it can make his tail fall off so it can get away and later grows it back

is it not more likely that god designed the lizard with a tail that falls off it if it grabbed  so that it can get away

chipmunks have balloons for mouths that they use to carry nuts. evolution says that over millions of years the chipmunks mouths turned relastic because it could only carry a single nut with its paws and needed a better way to carry nuts so over millions of years it adapted to the nature and grew ballon cheeks

is it not more realistic to say that god designed the chipmunk with elastic cheeks so it can carry more nuts

evolution says that over millions of years the lion turned yellow to blend into the yellow desert so that it can hide thus hunt better

is it not more realistic to say that god created the lion yellow so that it can blend into the yellow desert so that it can hide better when hunting

evolution says that over millions of year the polor bear adapted to its nature and became white so that it can hide better in the snow is it not more likely that it was created white so that it can hide

Evolution can be false, God can be false. 

Creationism doesn't demand God. It also supercedes itself in that God requires God for its own creation. Non-omnipotent beings could create us and thus, no God is necessitated if evolution is held false.
Round 4
i don't think con is getting my point.  i am saying that life would demand a god to exist

\you would have to know that we are going to need to chew food in order for us to get a body part specifically for that like teeth

god would have to know that owls roam at night for god to give them night vision i have many examples of this

more examples of this philosophy i debate on more than one site

How do we know that anything is real?

This is something that Pro needs to establish, not Con. If there is no objectively verifiable way to ascertain what is ‘real’ or ‘unreal’ then Pro cannot prove that God is real.

There is a snowball-Kritik here that follows:

  1. If nothing is real, then God can’t be real unless God is nothing and to be nothing is to fail to be a real ‘thing’ by definition.
  2. Alternatively, if God is necessitated to have created all that is real, it follows that either God itself necessitates such a creator or is to be deemed impossible to be real or that God operates outside of all the real things it created and to operate outside all that is real is to not be inside ‘all that is real’ meaning you are unreal.

--> @Ragnar
Totally agree with 'more contention wins' being a faulty judgement system. My specialty is decimating 100 points with 2 brutal fundamental attacks etc.
Thanks for the useful feedback.
---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).
Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."
In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.
After both debaters reach their BoP (most debates), voters weigh arguments presented in relation to the resolution to determine the winner. The default position however is a tie.
A vote based on BoP is only valid if it details why one side failed, and/or what would have allowed them to reach their BoP.
Continued in Late Debate Shenanigans: BoP!
--> @Ragnar
Did as you said, simple as I could. Pls vote?
Ouch ouch ouch! ... Sorry, it's just after a light skimming of Pro's R1, and knowing the type of debater Con is, this is going to be painful to watch.
A word of advice for Pro: Next time start a debate on just one of your lines of reasoning. That way you go in depth on it, and avoid risk of anyone pointing out that 'Even If True...'
--> @Alec
you are allowed to debate against what you believe
I thought Con was Pagan, meaning he believes in at least 1 God.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Con did very well in this debate, and it was Con's conciseness that made it easy to see Pro's case refuted. Though Con was being slightly mean by saying "I stand here annihilating Pro in just 3 paragraphs-worth of debating" Con is correct, because in the three paragraphs Con made the case that nothing is real. Con simply had to point out that evolution could be false and the bible could be correct about things and demons and creationism could all be true and it would not show any realness in God so Con uses a K that nothing is real and this is left untouched by Pro. It is a silly argument, but I view this as a dropped K that successfully negates the resolution that God is real. If nothing is real, (untouched by Pro) then god is not real...I'm sold. Pro should make more relevant arguments and make them much much shorter for everyone to read. Con was cocky, but concise.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
I consider pro to have the burden of proof here.
Importantly, for pro to meet this initial burden to me as a voter, pro must provide me some facts and/or argument that shows that Gods existence is necessary. So let’s move on to argument.
1.) Evolution can’t explain X.
If I assume this is true, it doesn’t mean God is real.
2.) The Bible says some things about that can be validated today.
If I accept this premise on its face, it doesn’t mean God is real.
The examples given, in my view are terrible.
2.a) Even If the Bible said the guy ate well, I don’t feel this shows God exists
2.b) Even If the Bible says honey is healthy, I don’t feel this shows God exists.
2.c) Even If the Bible says stress causes illness, I don’t feel this shows God exists.
2.d) Pro correlates “hauntings”, with the rich people. This is hugely tenuous, as it requires me to accept hauntings are real, and to accept pros facts on their face.
2.e) Even If the Bible says you should drink while pregnant, I don’t feel this shows God exists.
3.) Even if everything Pro said was true about giants, I don’t feel this shows God exists. Most of this argument seems fairly tenuous, and along the ilk of conspiracy theory where pro seeks to explain facts, not justify the resolution.
4.) Pro asserts that there must be thought for life to happen. Pro provides no meaningful justification for why he feels this is true. In my view pro has to offer a more detailed explanation for me to consider this as valid.
So at best, pro offers only the most tenuous of arguments, without supporting facts, and primarily asserted. I can assume everything he said were true and it doesn’t logically follow that God is real.
As in my opinion the BoP falls to pro here, the absence of pro establishing his burden is that con wins.
Cons only made two attempts at an argument. The first was to point that proving evolution false does not show God exists. The second was a fairly tenuous Kritik, in my view a pre fiat Kritik has to be pretty solid in order to win, and this one was fairly lax - but pro doesn’t bother to refute it.
All told con gets arguments here as a result - even though he appeared to do everything he could to lose this debate.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Simply put, BoP.
Pro's case offered 5 key areas.
1, that random evolution is false, which was countered by con with the vague possibility of aliens (I.e., any one particular god is not required). The defense tried to be entertaining with talk of Jedi and lightbulb-fish, but the idea that there's an originator fails to imply the particular one required for the resolution (pro, I am not trying to be mean, but rather help you improve).
2, that the bible has wisdom.
3, haunted houses (this was supposed to support #2, not sure how... or how it supports the resolution for that matter).
4, sex/monsters being featured in many mythologies to include the bible and conspiracy theories.
5, gingers are soulless!
Con focused his efforts on a counter case instead of pure refutation, that case being a very annoying K to the topic (PRO: You don't need to prove existence exists, but you'll see this K a lot in debating, so study the logical fallacies related so you can counter it concisely). ... Despite the heading, con made a well-reasoned point that if some god created everything but resides outside our reality, then said god is not real as we understand it (this point should have been addressed by con!).

IMAGES: Images cannot be displayed inside debates here. If it's important, give a link; just be selective as no one wants 20 windows open for one debate.
SOURCES: I really want to give this to pro for effort. However, crossing into source spam to say there's a lot of them, doesn't make any of them utilized to support the case beyond a bandwagon appeal. If I could give 1 point for sources instead of 2, pro could get this.
CONDUCT: Plagiarism forgiven this time, due to high probability of pro being the original author of the copied works (next time cite yourself... or at least clean them up a little, refine the copies on your harddrive).
NOTE 1: yeah, read the debate before realizing it's the argument only standard.
NOTE 2: Some judging standards would insist pro has won, due to con dropping such matters as gingers being soulless ('pro won a greater number of contentions'). Firstly, the connection to the resolution was too unclear to me for this to be valid evidence; secondly, I care more if the resolution is adequately supported/countered or not.
ADVICE: Next time do a simple logic map on each premise, and only share them in a debate where they directly support the conclusion. Any one of them could be its own debate, so that might be a good place to practice.