The Christian version of God is evil

If my 'friend' only liked me because I was timid and scared shitless to vote on his debate or because I was not brave enough to vote on a vote AGAINST the other friend, neither were my friends to begin with.

You are the fake one who is angry that you had to be timid and fake this whole time just to feel that you didn't hurt me. Hurt me all you want, you want the claws, let's bring them out my G. Gives a whole new meaning to 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours' ;).

I can handle the heat, I didn't come back to be liked, never really have. I know this site is a pit of backstabbing snakes, didn't you read my 'about me' since I returned? I know exactly what this place is and am grateful to Lancelot for helping me watch others turn a blind eye and stand by to pure abuse. I'm not here to be liked by socially awkward losers who debate online, I'm here to debate them as it's a hobby I enjoy and maybe destroy them at mafia while they think I'm shit at it maybe not. I don't care, it's a passtime and gives me a dopamine rush and even soothes some autistic urges I have to write and write and write at times.

You seem to think I come here to make friends, if you're my friend you like me not timid scared me too scared to report a vote and be who I am. You're just a douchebag who wants to bully me out of my freedom to be who I am which is ironic given what you are here and how much freedom has been granted to you to be that way. You don't have a single real friend here BK, not one. If you got permabanned right now some would only care because you were fun to laugh at, they don't give a single shit about you. I am not saying that to be cruel or make you hate yourself, this part is me teaching you to not care what people here think of you which I thought you knew given the vile crap you post here. Don't base your ego, not even slightly, on genuine friendship on a site of internet strangers that are snakes. Just do you and be proud of who you are, if they ban you for it it's their loss and they're a shit community for you to be in. You think I put on some grand fake act to gain friends, I'm the opposite dude. I'll chat with you to get you out of suicidal thoughts and encourage you to get help more than most here would but I am not your real friend, I see you for what you are and you've never really respected me or been someone I respect and that's okay. It's what we are. We aren't friends, we're internet strangers.

Mharman is my 'enemy' boo hoo you didn't save me from shit but you brough tup an interesting point unlike your usual shitposting so well done there.

and what is it i really did that they forget? Reported a vote?

I was never the bad guy here, I'm the guy the bad guys hate. Always have been, always will be, it's not even an ego thing, it's just what it is. If you haven't noticed most of this site is on the autistic spectrum or some sort of spectrum one way or another and it's a bunch of socially awkward weirdos who love to either debate, troll or both. That's just what the crowd is, making enemies is inevitable, they aren't here to make genuine friends and those that are leave the site.

It was also a mistake to vote on your songs debate. I liked your songs more, I thought they were better, I voted honestly. But I should have just not voted so you lose and then you would rage in comments as usual.

Then you go making mhar your enemy, and I do you a favor and make you guys friends again with just one comment, where otherwise he wouldnt be your friend either anymore.

I should just sit back and let you make enemies. I shouldnt defend you anymore. Thats what your plan on this site is, after all. Make bunch of enemies, then quit the site so people forget what you did, then come back after few months and do it all over again.

Just do me a favor. When Lancelot comes back to bully you again, dont ask me to save you again like you did before. That one time, I told Lancelot to stop and he stopped. However, next time, I wont be there to save you.

And that book, 48 laws of power? Do yourself a favor and throw it in garbage.

Enjoy losing friends, it seems that you lost 2 today.

If someone thinks that I reported a vote, I say I didn't and they know I'm telling the truth.

Ask yourself why they didn't believe you when you insisted you didn't. Try to be less of that guy in their eyes... Well, actually don't change who you are just to appease them, hell stay the circus clown of the site all you want buddy, just don't expect them to realise you're putting on your serious face behind the makeup.

Lancelot picked on what he saw as his greatest obstacle and rival to his ego and him being the main 'show' here. The dude was bullying others during the 2-3 month hiatus I took prior to the bigger one. He also ragequit the site for good or at least a long time and didn't make an alt we know of at least who acts like him since then because he honestly only came on here to shit on me and bully others. The reason he picked on me is I saw him for what he was, nothing more and nothing less. I respected his skill while still looking down on him and his ego couldn't handle it so he lashed out, so much so he needed to use 2 other guys from elsewhere, talk them into coming here and votebombing me into fearing to even engage in rated debates or rap battles etc, that's the level of spite and envy he had it was so pathetic I didn't even know what to say.

I was the only user rivalling his quantity plus quality of content here in his eyes, in mine he didn't equal the quality quite as much but that's very subjective as he did do quality debates and votes (prior to dedicating to votebombing me) in ways, just less so forum posts.

Idk what exactly you're saying but you don't have to read what I write or anything. You are literally hurtling abuse at me and trying to make me feel bad about myself to disturbing levels just because I voted you to win in a debate and reported a corrupt vote. You're like the opposite of a sore loser and it's so extreme it's kind of worrying. If you hate winning this much and can't handle this situation what's wrong with you.

All you do here is post garbage to entertain others, I accept that's your thing and some like your so-to-say vandalism of the website and it gives them and even me a chuckle at times. If you think I'm fragile and can't handle being bullied you're wrong, I have been around the block with that enough to tell you, I'd break you if you bullied me enough whether online or irl. I'd break your very spirit as you realise over time, you're gonna end up just like Lancelot did if you keep it up, too ashamed to even show your face and stand by the bullshit you type.

You run around here supporting pedophilia, genocide, communism and more and then constantly flip around your stances for a laugh at other's expense. You show tactical empathy to me and fishchaser and others and then flip it around as soon as you feel like it. That's your thing, I don't go around shitting on it. Don't come to me telling me that I can't value voting integrity if I'm not participating in the debate, you wouldn't say that to anyone with any other hobby about caring about theirs it's only because you're here and I seem to have 'embarassed' you or something that this happened.

Guess what? You don't give a shit about hurting me? Good. I do not give a shit about you either. Go type to the air about:

"oh nooo this guy tries hard to be high quality here and encourage standards he's such a scumbag loser blablabla"

Everyone can see YOU for what YOU are though. You're the laughing stock and/or goofy loser here in the eyes of everyone including the people laughing at and/or thinking that of me and it's sad that you're proud of being that. You're a shitposter who sometimes hits gold, well done. You're doing your thing, I'm doing mine. Judge it all you want.

I dont see you as a pathetic joke, because jokes are at least funny, but this is not funny. Your reporting is sad.

It was a mistake for me to vote on any of your debates, because I see that a debater like you doesnt even deserve to win.

In fact, no one should even read your debates, as you dont deserve that.

I shouldnt have taken your side when Lancelot bullied you, but I did because I was feeling bad that you were being hurt so much even tho you probably started it.

I guess your goal here was to give me the win and pretend that my definitions were somehow better than my opponent's definitions.

I know someone reported the vote on one of my debates before, and people accussed me of doing it, but now its clear who reports votes on my debates, so any time someone again thinks I reported the vote, I will just link them this so they see who is really doing the reporting.

You are just trying to justify a biased vote. Your goal is for me to lose, not to be objective.

They should remove your report button again.

I dont know why they even gave it back to you.

Maybe they enjoy having to respond to your constant reporting.

If I were mod, I would just ignore your reports.

Most of your reports are fake anyway.

You constantly complain, and of course people are gonna ridicule that.

Enjoy making enemies, I guess.

You know you are bad at handling when other people attack you, yet you do everything to make other people attack you.

I dont know why I was glad when you returned to the site. I guess I thought site will have more activity, but I dont think its worth it.

I'm going for now ttyl

You didn't attack him at all, you tried to be sarcastic and ended up conceding it in Round 2. You have the first BoP both as instigator and Pro of a positive affirmation.

The wrong side should always win the debate if they debated their side better.

If superior logic proves pain is caused and so-called inferior logic proves that pain doesn't equal evil, the latter wins.

You are not seeing this correctly. You saw a weak opponent seeming weak and let your guard down without paying attention to the win condition, so to speak.

That makes no sense. I was logical and he was illogical. I was right and he was wrong.

Also the BOP isn't all on me just because I made the proposition when the opponent is making claims. You're acting as if Con's appeal to authority doesn't have BOP when it does.

If you wish to ridicule me for wanting rule abiding votes go right ahead. I can't bully you back as you hate yourself too much.

You keep making it about being smart.

The best judge approaches you as a baby or mentally challenged person it's a concept known as Tabula Rasa. From the first word of the debate they're a blank slate other than knowing enough English (or debating language if not English) to comprehend linguistics, both lexical and semantical but beyond that know NOTHING.

The only reason my vote went non-Tabula-Rasa to explain hedonism etc is to prove I grasped where you may have been leading with it as the debate went on, I can't factor in a failure to go there.

The lazier debater should always win if the opponent failed their side harder.

Losing and winning is up to voters, and I dont care how voters vote on my debates, and if my opponent doesnt report vote either, no one should complain about it at all.

And about giving free wins, you know very well that I can give free wins if I want to, I can make unwinnable debates for me. If that was my goal, you wouldnt be able to stop it in any way, and this reporting of yours that you do is honestly pathetic and even makes me look bad because if you keep quiet it seems like I reported the vote.

I wouldnt waste my time even reading votes on non-my debates, let alone reporting them.

The fact that you do that honestly makes me wanna ban you from voting on my debates, and mods should publically reveal who reports so that such person can be subject to ridicule.

Our definitions were clear. It was an appeal to authority VS evil being defined as unnecessary harm. One definition is retarded and the other makes a lot of sense and I think you're smart enough to know which is which. Therefore I conclude that you want me to lose out of spite.

His Round 3 was 100% sheer trolling but the first 2 Rounds were tactical and he correctly spotted the laziest path to win this if you didn't define evil or flesh that out.

I objectively should have won this debate. My opponents arguments were ridiculous and there is a good chance he even knows it and was trolling.

Whatever guys. I'll come back to this at the end of the day when I have actual time to respond.

I'm going to remove an obviously fraudulent vote when I see one.

I'm going to do what I can about other votes when I have the time to do that. I work an 8 to 5 job. I'm taking time out of that to deal with the dozen or so pings I keep getting on this debate. And if anyone knows I'm not prone to taking their side often, it's RM.

Then you can have consensual win trading on Rated debates where one side doesn't even lose but agrees to let voters make them lose.

I suggest you introduce a new policy.

Only remove votes on my debates if they are bad and if me or my opponent report them.

I dont see the point in removing a vote neither debater reported.

In all previous moderation (not just vote btw) actions you've never ever moderated based on gleaned intent or Lancelot would have been permad long ago and others would have been reprimanded.

What I mean is Lancelot conceded intent to collude against me with his henchmen that did the alt abuse votebombing. Everyone with a good brain here that paid attention knows this, only those who lack either deny it.

Barney, yourself and Oromagi have made clear your role is never to glean intent only to moderate output and directly probable issues.

Therefore, if this were a court of law I am even allowed to go on stand, say I intended to vote against Fishchaser and that I did and say I also think he lost.

You're admitting you don't have time to analyze the debate or the situation properly but you're still sucking RM's dick when you should stay out of something you don't have time to analyze.

I honestly do not have time to sift through the debate and determine how accurate RM's vote is, as I have to get back to work in a few minutes. From a brief perusal, it looks like he has several issues with Pro's arguments through the debate and points to specific arguments from Con that were convincing. Telling me that you defined what you "see as good and evil in the final round" isn't going to help you much because voters often dismiss arguments made for the first time in the final round, and not without merit.

I can't speak to the issue of whether a concession was actually made without looking deeper into the presented points, nor can I speak to who better upheld their BoP (the latter of which isn't something that would affect moderation anyway). If RM made his vote entirely dependent on that concession, I'd be more concerned about it, but he brings up several points that he believes favor Con. So this would be a case of Mod action: Not Removed based on what I can glean within 10 minutes.

Whether RM is making a targeted effort to vote against FishChaser for some unknown reason is not something I can glean from this vote in the time I have.

If I were a pussy I'd be too scared to interact. I'm allowed to vote but I'll cut down on replying to or around you if you want that.

No I didn't disrespect the shit out of you. I was probably nicer and invested more into helping you want to improve your life than any online person has ever done to you not saying irl person, based on my time knowing you.

It is you who can't take what you dish out and I'm not here to dish it. Telling you some insults and gore isn't going to help you or me.

You can't take even a fraction of what you dish out. All I have to say is "shut up" and you block me and hold it against me when you literally disrespected the shit out of me on discord.

You're a fucking pussy, you can go back to having me blocked and never interact with me or my debates again.

Lazier and stupid are at times opposites even.

You're making debating all about intelligence. You can be very intelligent and get stomped in a debate by a lower IQ person who has better grasp on their side Vs yours, burden of proof and what arguments they can easily drop Vs which ones to flesh out.

Lucky you, it looks like whiteflame is a biased piece of shit who eats out of the palm of your hand and you lost me a debate that I had every right to win. Best.Korea's arguments were fucking retarded compared to mine and you know it.

But in your words less than a day ago, shut up and get lost. We can just block each other, though that doesn't stop us voting on each other's debates.

Read my vote, while I wrote it fast and made a couple grammar errors, it clearly communicates why I believe you lost.

"I didn't murder them, because if I murdered them I would have done this, that's how I knew to avoid doing that so it didn't look like I murdered them after I murdered them".

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: CronicPain2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to pro (arguments, conduct)
>Reason for Decision: Didn’t need to read through all of the debate to decide this one. PRO brought up his arguments and CON pretty much replied with “that’s a lie” , barely addressed any of PRO’s arguments or just dropped them. I haven’t read any of the comments because Im not sure if they count. If CON did address everything it should’ve been in the debate not in the comments

>Reason for Mod Action:

The voter doesn't provide any reasoning to justify awarding conduct. Saying that one side barely addressed an argument is not sufficient.
Arguments are also insufficiently justified. It is not sufficient for the voter to simply state that one side brought up points that the other did not address. The voter has to explain what points were convincing from Pro, and provide reasons why Con's arguments were not convincing, citing specific examples. Telling me that you "Didn't need to read through all of the debate to decide this one" does not help.
**************************************************

This is also the problem being an active debater and voter and why I stuck to grinding FF votes and opposed automating that to skip voting.

If I vote like this people are too biased and spiteful to think I'm an honest voter so they grudge me or quit. Neither benefits me. It's why Barney and Ramshutu and other more sporadic frequent voters avoid debating outside of clear wins, they know how revenge voting works and also other frequent debaters but sporadic voters don't want to make weaker debaters rage quit since they want to Vs them instead.

I am online rn, if I wanted to illegitimately vote you into a loss Id do it closer to this time or not at all.

Then I'd get punished for abusive voting by the mods as I've been here too long where my voting record is one of the only areas I genuinely have a relatively clean record of no removals etc .

You're just trying to make sure I lose.

I don't have much time, but I'll do what I can.

I also report Cronic's vote as he admits he skipped the end and ignored key Round from Con. He lies that Con only called Pro's arguments lies.

What is the conduct vote for?

Your inability to appreciate my vote is objective isn't my issue.

You dropped Con's key point too.

Con dropped my arguments, if the mods weren't corrupt they would leave Cronic's vote and delete yours.

I repot cronic's conduct allocation.

40 mins left to moderate the votes btw.

I am reporting RationalMadman's vote as biased. He just voted against me in two debates immediately after blocking me.

"Pro never define his version of evil, not once in the entire debate."

I defined what I see as good and evil in the final round, RM is literally lying here.

"In Round 2, Pro concedes that Con is able to redefine evil to axiomatically pivot all good around God."

I made no such concession, and if God hating pleasure while supporting genocide, slavery and bigotry doesn't count as evil idk what to tell you. In what universe is "You're wrong because God says so" a stronger argument than that?

"On top of this, Pro forgot his BoP is to prove God is evil"

My arguments were clearly better than Con's and con has BP to prove his claim that everything God does is good because God, I am not the only one who made claims in this debate even though I made the proposition.

Good points!

There are two main ways to present Christian God as not evil, and there is a third one which is somewhat weaker, and a fourth one which is a bit debatable.

1. God as owner of everything (anything he does is good, because he does what he wants with his property)

2. God didnt create human's choices (free will)

3. God determines whats good and whats evil

4. God does more good than evil (so he is not evil)

So if any of these prove true, it stands that Christian God is not evil.

Of course, the problem of evil is usually about God not containing any evil, but this particular debate allows 4 as well.

Fun topic, especially since it can go either way.

If I was actively debating, I'd accept. My tactic would be to dismiss the OT and focus on the Christ part.
Of course were I on the other side, there's plenty of examples from the NT.

Either way, rather than spewing out giant confusing paragraphs, use of summaries and links are best. If there's any reenactment videos all the better (like Job in Good Omens, even while that changed the story a bit).