CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
55
Yes he is a troll. No he's not
Debate Score:92
Arguments:63
Total Votes:102
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes he is a troll. (23)
 
 No he's not (28)

Debate Creator

animedude639(1578) pic



Is Lolzors a troll?

 This guy is really starting to piss me off. I really want to believe he is a troll. here's a link to our debate:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Is_deuteronomy_the_most_immoral_chapter_in_the_whole_bible

Scroll down and you'll find the whole debate between me and him.

 

Yes he is a troll.

Side Score: 37
VS.

No he's not

Side Score: 55

Honestly, I'm just gonna stop debating him for now on. Troll or not, it is obvious he wont listen to reason and logic.

Side: Yes he is a troll.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
0 points

I literally laughed out loud. What reason or logic have you used?

Side: No he's not
Cuaroc(8824) Disputed
3 points

more then you ever have.

Side: Yes he is a troll.
1 point

Well Lolzors it seems to me I was right after all. Most of the people here think you are not a troll.....so.....about the community not being open minded?

Side: Yes he is a troll.
2 points

I'd say yea he's a troll, but mostly because his views just seem so blurry, it makes me question not what he says, but how a person can honestly say it.

I feel this is also worth mentioning (even if it invalidates my point) I am certain Srom, goodmale, and prologos are trolls. In all of those cases, it's not so much what the people are saying that makes me thinks they are trolls (I've defended religion and bestiality before) but it was how the things they were saying, they seemed to say with absolute belief that made me feel they were trolls. I felt that if I had met these people in real life, that they would not have been saying they felt the way they felt about these things, they just seemed too outside of the norm for me to see seeing them as normal, as genuine.

So there's my views, take it as you see fit.

Side: Yes he is a troll.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

I'd say yea he's a troll, but mostly because his views just seem so blurry, it makes me question not what he says, but how a person can honestly say it.

Honestly say what? How do my views seem blurry?

Side: No he's not
DrawFour(2661) Clarified
1 point

Well a perfect example is this. On a recent debate with me you said that you don't consider Christianity blind faith, since the stories you believe are allegedly accurate retellings of historic events that happened to people from that time who documented it. I feel like no one could possibly actually believe this, so when I see someone say that they do, I feel because of my own sense of logic, and my own inquisitive nature that would never just believe that, that that person couldn't be sincere in that belief.

Side: Yes he is a troll.
DrawFour(2661) Clarified
-1 points

Side: Yes he is a troll.
ProLogos(2798) Disputed
1 point

I've pointed out to you and have posted in several other places on this site, that I don't believe most of what I post here.

So I don't see how I fit into that criterion of "troll".

Side: No he's not
DrawFour(2661) Disputed
1 point

You don't believe what you post here? So you're... disingenuous?

Side: Yes he is a troll.

He has been accused before of being a troll so it wouldn't surprise me.

Side: Yes he is a troll.

Hmm lets see here he's:

1. Falsely accused me of using illogical fallacies even though he himself did.

2. Doesn't answer any of my questions directly and try's to avoid a lot of them as much as possible cause he knows they prove a point.

3. Says things that have nothing to do with the debate.

4. Contradicts himself.

5.Thinks murder is ok.

Conclusion: Troll!

Side: Yes he is a troll.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
0 points

1. Falsely accused me of using illogical fallacies even though he himself did.

In what way on both points: me accusing falsely and me using them?

2. Doesn't answer any of my questions directly and try's to avoid a lot of them as much as possible cause he knows they prove a point.

What questions did I not answer?

3. Says things that have nothing to do with the debate.

They were more along the lines of my side thoughts that came from the debate; so, they are relevant, insofar as they have to do with me.

4. Contradicts himself.

In what way?

5.Thinks murder is ok.

When did I say this?

Conclusion: Troll!

Thats a non sequitur. But, like before, you simply assert. What justification do you have for any (or most) of these premises?

Every single time I ask you to justify your points, you never give an answer. I could apply your argument, therefore, to you, and conclude that you are a troll.

Side: No he's not
1 point

either that or insane.

Side: Yes he is a troll.

I used to think he was a troll when he first joined the site, but I don't think he is anymore. I honestly wouldn't waste your time debating him. It's pointless because he thinks anything god says is moral. If god tells people to go on a massive baby killing spree he would think it's moral because god commanded it. To him the word moral just means whatever god says and most of his arguments seem to rest on this assumption. It's just a game of semantics he plays. Semantical games seem to be at the heart of many of his arguments, which is why I don't waste my time debating him anymore.

He also rarely tells people the point he's trying to make, he just expects them to read his mind. Your debate with him that you linked to is a perfect example. What he failed to say in that debate is the point he was trying to make is that you can't say something is immoral because god defines morality, so if god says slaughter entire cities and keep the virgins as plunder, then it is moral.

Lolzors is a Calvinist, so he believes god specifically created "wicked" people just so he could punish them to show his chosen people that he is a just god. The Calvinist version of god is even more sick and twisted than the god most Christians worship. However, I think it's a more accurate depiction of the god of the Bible, so at least Calvinists don't sugar coat things the way most Christians do.

To his credit, Lolzors is very knowledgeable about the Bible and can be a strong debater when he doesn't resort to semantics.

Side: No he's not
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Like what semantics? Many philosophical arguments could be considered semantical, because they are analytic, but, then, who cares if they are semantics?

Moreover, what about God commanding all babies to be killed? Do you have a problem with that? Do you find that immoral? Why do you find that morally reprehensible? And are you not begging the question, if you are implying this, in neglecting how your moral intuitions would change, if God's commands were to change?

How does Calvinism make God out to be immoral? Does that not presuppose God, by presupposing morality? And does the Bible not already say that God makes Himself appear tortuous to the crooked (Psalm 18:26)?

Side: Yes he is a troll.
Atrag(5440) Disputed
2 points

Moreover, what about God commanding all babies to be killed? Do you have a problem with that? Do you find that immoral? Why do you find that morally reprehensible?

I don't want to die so I assume babies wouldn't want to die either. One of the nice things I experience in life is growing up and enjoying a variety of things, I want babies to do the same. The act of a baby dying makes the parents of the child suffer. It all comes down to minimising suffering and maximising enjoyment.

Morality with all its complexity is a difficult issue. However, giving up and saying "morality doesn't exist without my book, HA!" isn't the answer. We have to continue to analyse it and in many cases it is a matter of searching inside ourselves to discover what we consider to be immoral, whether that is shared by the structures of society, and then asking ourselves why. I think that is something you should be more open minded to. I don't believe you are as evil as you seem.

Side: No he's not
2 points

"Like what semantics?"

Like redefining the world moral as whatever god says. Show me an English dictionary that defines it that way. It was obvious from the debate linked to in the description that animedude639 was referring to the common usage of the word morality, in which causing unnecessary harm to people is immoral. If you want to argue that the harm is necessary, that would be fine, and it looks like you finally did that at the end of the debate, but you still tried to redefine the word moral from the one he had intended for the debate to one that suits your arguments. If I defined moral as whatever Jar Jar Binks says, do you think we would have a very meaninful debate? Redefining words is fine as long as both parties agree upon the definition, but you never even told animedude639 that you were trying to redefine the word.

Many philosophical arguments could be considered semantical, because they are analytic, but, then, who cares if they are semantics?

If people can just change the definition of words willy nilly to support their arguments it makes debating impossible.

Moreover, what about God commanding all babies to be killed? Do you have a problem with that? Do you find that immoral? Why do you find that morally reprehensible? And are you not begging the question, if you are implying this, in neglecting how your moral intuitions would change, if God's commands were to change?...

I'm not going to waste my time debating this with you because you have redefined the word moral to one that I do not agree with.

And does the Bible not already say that God makes Himself appear tortuous to the crooked (Psalm 18:26)?

I don't care what the Bible says, because it's primarily a work of fiction. It means no more to me than the Vedas means to you.

Side: No he's not
1 point

I agree mostly. A small argument with the guy has changed my opinion of him. I don't agree with the majority of what he says, but I now accept that he's genuine in saying it.

Side: No he's not
3 points

I've just debated the issue with her and concluded that no - not a troll. She is just an extremist that has some dangerous view points.

Side: No he's not
3 points

I'm noticing that a colloquial internet usage of "troll" that I believe has moved well beyond its intended meaning. A troll should be someone who gets a kick out of pissing people off, not someone who disagrees with you.

I do not agree with his stances at all, but there is a strong internal consistancy within his argumentation. I think he is quite sincere in these beliefs and comes to the site for the same reasons that the rest of us non-trolls do.

Also, I don't see him as being particularly rude, which is a hallmark of trolls far and wide.

Side: No he's not
4 points

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.
2 points

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.
1 point

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.
1 point

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.

He's far too commited to be a troll. If he were actually a troll, he'd be trolling himself the hardest.

No, these are his actual beliefs, and really aren't so extreme as to warrant assuming he is a troll. Debating him can be frustrating at times given the tactics he uses on some topics, and getting him to agree on basic premises for the sake of discussion can be difficult as well, but he can be very interesting to talk to if those pitfalls can be avoided.

Side: No he's not

It's a sad fact but you really do get religious crackpots like that. I think that he most likely isn't a troll but just is really not a nice person.

Side: No he's not
4 points

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.
2 points

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.
1 point

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.
1 point

+1

Side: Yes he is a troll.
1 point

Agh! Just like an atheist to start saying I'm a troll once proven wrong or pushed to justify beliefs... Its sad really. Stop being arrogant and open your mind.

Side: No he's not
1 point

Well then, lets see what the community has to say then :D. I don't mind making you look like an idiot in front of the entire CD community.

Side: Yes he is a troll.
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

CD is filled with atheists. You're looking for justification for your belief from people who are already biased against me. Thats just like an (new) atheist: only seeks after justification for one's own belief, nothing outside.

And, on the contrary, you're, in reality, making yourself look like a fool. If this debate were metaphorically a real life fight, you would be dead right now.

Side: No he's not
1 point

pushed to justify beliefs

I want to have a contest with you. I want to see who is more or less willing and prepared to justify their beliefs when pushed.

I created this debate and will proceed in good faith

Side: No he's not
1 point

Stop flaming...

Side: No he's not

Who here hasn't been called a troll here? Now if you're a member of an atheists' church then of course you're except from being a troll. All you have to do is a view that is not an atheistic view and you get called a troll here.

Side: No he's not
thousandin1(1933) Clarified
4 points

So you say, and yet the general opinion on here seems to be that lolzors isn't a troll. Imagine that!

It's not that theists are trolls and atheists aren't trolls. I wouldn't call Srom a troll either, for that matter, even if I disagree with him.

On the other hand, a number of trolls do seem to select a religious persona of some sort- probably because there is a sizeable atheist community here to troll. You yourself, as well as FromWithin, are examples of these. You know exactly why you're called a troll- you take poor reasoning, convenient lies, and twisted interpretations to a level far beyond obvious and well into obnoxious- nut instead of addressing that, you frame it as a theists vs atheists thing- just like you do with every other issue under this persona. You'd do a better job trolling if you were a little more subtle about it, honestly.

There are trolls portraying an atheist persona as well, but they're far less common. 'Horus' was one particularly nasty anti-theist troll, I believe he was one of prodigee's personas, but don't have conformation there.

Side: Yes he is a troll.
Thewayitis(4071) Clarified
1 point

And just look at all the atheists that have already up-voted you. The trolls are clearly those that are pseudo-intellects, not the intellects.

Side: Yes he is a troll.