When Will the Theory of God Go Away? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









When Will the Theory of God Go Away?

Debate Information

Man has (or at least, intelligent men have) debated the origins of life since time immemorial and, unless one has been out of the galaxy for the past one hundred years, one would (should) know that evolution by natural selection has been irrefutably proven. 

Sure, theories do pop up now and again but none has ever succeeded in coming anywhere near challenging what we now know to be the indisputable truth except for one that seems to linger longer than a flatulent odor in an elevator.....that being, the theory of God. Well, strictly speaking it is not actually a theory since there is no viable reasoning nor evidence to initiate a theory in the first place.
So, the question is, when will we see the end of such a primitive, ill-founded superstitious myth?
John_C_87ntombimguli23456789
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    but where did the universe come from? There is a computer game in wher you have a world and evolution takes place, just like earth. i am sure you are talking about the gods of the earth, but absence of them, does not preclude a creator. The universe is only huge due to our perspective of it and we simply can only understand it from our point of view. we are like a cell inside a huge tree and the tree is our universe. in all actually, we have no way of knowing if our universe ws created by science or even how the universe came into being from notthing. we have theories is all. for all we know, we may be inside a living organism, who in return is simply one organism among many. we may be phisical manifstations of thought form, for instance, our thoughts crate an invisible field that produces physical properies we can not see. we may be in a huge role game.  the point is, we do not know that there is something out there that crafted the universe. however, if there is, then it probably has been created for the creators benefit rather than for us. life in the universe may be a simple side effect. Yes i know it all sounds far fetched, but in absence of something, we have nothing. if there were no creator(s) as i outlined, then science is stuck with two choices, either the universe actually originated from absolute nothing; or ti has always existed in some form or other, which would mean that there never was a point where it did not exist/. something always, forever, or something from nothing. @Swolliw
    Blastcat
  • @Swolliw

    Which theory?

    God is only the category of all religions.
    God is the only religion.
    God is only word.

    God as a numerical axiom is not a theory it is a fact. Simply because math can not be learned does not make it unreal. Only the fabrication of an answer by the use of scientific tests presents mathematics as a fixed equation. These are not real equations because the answers are fixed into position at the end of a series of numbers by a process that is not mathematical itself. It is the process of assigning the result which is desired.
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    but where did the universe come from?

    The intellectually honest answer is “I don’t know” which is fine the problem is we have billions of deluded individuals telling us they do know yet have not one shred of evidence to support their claims 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    The closestin which scientific evidence based upon math, is that the universe began because of quantum fluctuations,  however,  where and how thesefluctuations began are not specified. @Dee
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    So, @Dee is correct... We don't know is the only intellectually honest answer...

    And also, there are different mathematical models regarding the nature of our universe, it could be cyclic (Penrose CCC model), could be eternal (M-Theory) amongst others... They don't necessarily imply quantum fluctuations as "cause"... 
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Suppose you are a Bedouin, walking in a barren desert. Then suddenly you see a Jeep, just standing there. Knowing nothing about the modern civilization, you do not know what to make of it. But, after playing around with it, you figure out that it can move at faster speeds than anything you have ever seen. You find it so weird and alien that you immediately think: "Some super-intelligent supernatural entity must have created such a weird piece".
    Then one day you come across a modern city, with a Jeep factory in it. You are given a tour over the factory, and the guide shows you everything, how every single part of a Jeep is made. And you realize, "Aha, so it all is just basic human technology! Much like I milk my camel and nutritional liquid comes out, same way these guys arrange pieces of metal and rubber in a way that produces this marvelous technology".

    Now imagine that you are the same Bedouin, walking in a barren desert. You come across a large mountain and think, "Okay, this definitely must have been created by some supernatural being. Humans certainly cannot assemble a huge structure like this".
    Then one day you come across a modern city, with a university in it. You are given a tour over the department of geology, and the guide explains some basic facts of geology to you. The guide shows you an exhibit explaining how mountains form and evolve. You think, "Aha! So it is not human-made, but neither is it made by some supernatural deity. It is just a product of the laws of physics - same laws that allowed those Jeep folks to produce their cars".

    This is the trick human brains play with their owners: when they come across something that they do not understand on a very fundamental level, they are inclined to attribute it to "higher powers", to something intelligent that is far beyond their level of existence. Yet in the end it always happens to be a fairly trivial thing that can be explained by laws of physics and does not need any "divine" intervention.

    There is no reason to assume that the Universe as a whole is different. The fact that we have not yet discovered the laws that caused the Universe to be what it is simply implies that we need to keep looking and learning. It would be a caveman's mistake to jump to the supernatural talk purely out of our current ignorance.
    Most likely, when those laws are discovered, our successors will look back and think, "Wow, those guys were really primitive. How could they not figure out something as basic as this?" In their eyes, explaining the emergence of the Universe through creation by a supernatural being will be as bizarre as explaining rain as "the sun god crying".
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    and there is the flux.  many scientists say it is silly to think of what may have happened before the big bang, simply because time and space happened with the big bang. so what they are saying is that nothing existed before it. plA Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing | by The Physics arXiv Blog | The Physics arXiv Blog | Mediumease read the following and tell me where i am mistaken, for i am at loss to understand. They say it is due to qunatam fluxtations, but fail to say where and hoow these fluctations existed before time and space.    @MayCaesar
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    The closestin which scientific evidence based upon math, is that the universe began because of quantum fluctuations,  however,  where and how thesefluctuations began are not specified.


    I don’t buy that who decides what is “closet” ? What does that even mean seeing as we don’t know? 
    I agree with what @plaffelvohen states …..  “They don't necessarily imply quantum fluctuations as "cause” 
    Blastcat
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Yes, keyword "COULD"... We can't test it, therefore we don't know... 
    DeeBlastcat
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    agrred, as well the idea of cyclic is something we can not test. however, aghain you still have two choices, either all began from nothing, it all existed forever( cyyckic fals with in this as wel) and even if there was  some vast alien race outside of time and space who created the universe for puposes unknow, they too would have to either been forever, or come from nothing@Plaffelvohfen
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    and there is the flux.  many scientists say it is silly to think of what may have happened before the big bang, simply because time and space happened with the big bang. so what they are saying is that nothing existed before it. plA Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing | by The Physics arXiv Blog | The Physics arXiv Blog | Mediumease read the following and tell me where i am mistaken, for i am at loss to understand. They say it is due to qunatam fluxtations, but fail to say where and hoow these fluctations existed before time and space.    @MayCaesar
    No, not at all. This is a profound mistake. What they are saying is not that nothing existed before it, but that the very term "before" is meaningless.

    Whenever physicists talk about events "outside" of the Universe, they talk about them in a very abstract sense. The quantum fluctuations they talk about are not fluctuations that happen in some spacetime, but, rather, fluctuations that happen in a very abstract space which humans can never interact with. It is more of a philosophy than physics, at this point, as the physicists talk about entities which cannot be measured in any meaningful way - however, they can simplify the mathematical language used to describe the related events.

    The space in which those fluctuations take place does not have time, does not have "space" (so to speak), does not have matter or energy. It just has some mathematical structure. It is not something you can visualize in any meaningful way.
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    assuming tyhat they can exist outside of time and space, as to the point that they can create the universe, then they also had to exist either forever or been created; un less they created themselves.. @MayCaesar
    Blastcat
  • maxx said:
    The closestin which scientific evidence based upon math, is that the universe began because of quantum fluctuations,  however,  where and how thesefluctuations began are not specified. @Dee
    Or, math just describes the universe as an area of space. The basic question is simply how did a vast area come into existence. There is no scientific connection to the universe mathematical use of fixed equations ties math and science together in most cases.
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    well, it is only "vast"  due to our perspective of it.@John_C_87
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    What does "forever" mean for the abstract space with no time in it? You are still thinking about everything as a consequence of events in time, yet where there is no time, there is no consequence of events.
    PlaffelvohfenBlastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    time and space are basically the same. how can a separate "space" exist outside of it for these fluctations to exist?@MayCaesar
  • maxx said:
    well, it is only "vast"  due to our perspective of it.@John_C_87
    You are being redundant max it is vast mathematically so we perceive it as vast.
    Blastcat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Well, that is why we say that that space is extremely abstract: it is not something you can visualize or think about in common terms. You can describe it with mathematics, and it is in that mathematical framework that we talk about "fluctuations".

    These fluctuations are not like ripples on the surface of an ocean. They are not like anything you can imagine. And they are merely a theoretical entity that allows for a convenient description of certain things.

    A lot of things in theoretical physics are like this. You cannot "visualize" the Ricci tensor, but you can use it in your calculations for convenience. You could also avoid using it and describe everything in "visualizable" terms, but then your description will be extremely complicated mathematically, and you will not be able to calculate much.
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    true, and i have read that the universe exists because of two things, gravity, and quantum particles. still, these things can only exist in theory outside of what we deem time and space. i know i do not have the math to follow it, still we are looking at somethin g always existing, or something from nothing.@MayCaesar
    Blastcat
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    What is north of the north pole? 
    DeeBlastcat
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    south.  but one can not turn and say that about nothing@Plaffelvohfen
    Blastcat
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2769 Pts   -  
    @maxx

    Sorry, wrong answer... South is at the south of the north pole, I'm asking what is north of it...
    Dee
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • KhasimAmeduKhasimAmedu 127 Pts   -  
    Likely not, if this theory of God is entirely conceptual and has no framework in reality, then what makes it seem as if it will suddenly turn off? The word "theory" is an inadequate description when referring to God, it's something much bigger. Nonetheless, I disagree when you assert that there is no evidence thus it can't even be considered a theory. The entirety of medieval philosophy had one primary intellectual component: finding evidence for the existence of God. This is why a majority of the evidences used today, originated from Medieval thinkers such as Augustine, Anselm, Abelard, Aquinas and so on. If there was a whole period of philosophy primarily focused on the evidence for God, then it's invalid to say there is no evidence from a historical standpoint. Atheists have an obligation to define 'evidence' and state their conditions. 
    Blastcat
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    ok,  depends on where youare at.  on earth, you can say nothing, but that does not stop the contination of something elsewhere.  however, the earth is within the universe.  where does the universe come from?@Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @maxx
    but where did the universe come from?

    Good question. We know how it got here and there is certainly no evidence of any "intervention" or "creation". Remember that science is not a thing, it is simply the description we give to natural behavior. The simulation idea has been bandied around for some time but still the answer to the question is still "nobody knows".

    We will find out however the answer will come from a panel of expert scientists who have done exhaustive and accurate research, not from a bunch of air-headed theologians or philosophers.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    This is the trick human brains play with their owners: when they come across something that they do not understand on a very fundamental level

    I think you are talking on too much a general level there.

    It may be the case for naive, gullible, nit-witted id-iots who will fall for anything in a desperate attempt at filling in the gaps. However it certainly does not apply to critical-thinking, reasoned, sane atheists such as myself.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu
    Nonetheless, I disagree when you assert that there is no evidence....The entirety of medieval philosophy had one primary intellectual component: finding evidence for the existence of God. 

    And yet such evidence has never been found and certainly you did not submit what this so-called evidence is or even so much as state that there is evidence.

    My assertion stands.....there is no evidence whatsoever of any God or any other supernatural presence and anybody who firmly believes otherwise is deluded.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    maxx said:
    true, and i have read that the universe exists because of two things, gravity, and quantum particles. still, these things can only exist in theory outside of what we deem time and space. i know i do not have the math to follow it, still we are looking at somethin g always existing, or something from nothing.@MayCaesar
    We may be looking at something that exists in a very abstract sense. It is not "nothing", but nor is it something tangible, like a car or an apple. Think of it as the Higgs field: it is this abstract thing that gives particles their mass, but it is not something that you can take a photo of, for instance. It is a mathematical construct that helps us perform calculations the products of which agree with the experimental data.

    At the end of the day, is it not all that physics is - a set of abstract models? Have you ever seen an electron, for instance? One could argue that electrons do not exist in the conventional sense, but it is helpful to put them in our models, as then our models work and predict experimental outcomes accurately. It is the same here, just the level of abstraction is much higher.

    Swolliw said:
    @MayCaesar
    This is the trick human brains play with their owners: when they come across something that they do not understand on a very fundamental level

    I think you are talking on too much a general level there.

    It may be the case for naive, gullible, nit-witted id-iots who will fall for anything in a desperate attempt at filling in the gaps. However it certainly does not apply to critical-thinking, reasoned, sane atheists such as myself.

    Two points to make here.

    First, everyone makes logical mistakes of all kinds. The most critical-thinking people often fill the gaps of their knowledge with presumptions that are not supported by evidence. I mentioned in a different thread that I used to suffer from social anxiety severely, which intellectually I understood to be based on fallacious presumptions, but emotionally could not easily reject those presumptions (still have not fully rejected, most likely). But social anxiety is just a very obvious phenomenon, as it seriously, visibly impairs one's life. There are many mistakes people make that in themselves are more subtle, but cumulatively result in incredible errors.

    And second, from my observations, the more people think of their ability to reason, the more gaping blind spots there are in it. The easiest person to be fooled is the one who believes that they cannot be.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    The most critical-thinking people often fill the gaps of their knowledge with presumptions that are not supported by evidence.

    They do not, you are contradicting the definition. Give me one example of a highly critical-thinking person who has ever filled the gaps of his knowledge with presumptions that are not supported by evidence.

    Or did you arrive at that conclusion by making another extremely loose assumption based only on your generalized observation, "everyone makes logical mistakes of all kinds"?....I think so....not a very good argument to say the least, is it?

  • DeeDee 4301 Pts   -  
    @KhasimAmedu

    The word "theory" is an inadequate description when referring to God, it's something much bigger.

    What word would you prefer? What “bigger “ term do you want?

     Nonetheless, I disagree when you assert that there is no evidence thus it can't even be considered a theory.

    If there was “evidence “ maybe you or even 1 of the billions of followers worldwide could produce such?

     The entirety of medieval philosophy had one primary intellectual component: finding evidence for the existence of God. This is why a majority of the evidences used today, originated from Medieval thinkers such as Augustine, Anselm, Abelard, Aquinas and so on. If there was a whole period of philosophy primarily focused on the evidence for God, then it's invalid to say there is no evidence from a historical standpoint.

    Everyone of the so called evidences from time past are still used today they have been utterlly  destroyed because each and everyone has fatal flaws and all fall into the special pleading category 

     Atheists have an obligation to define 'evidence' and state their conditions. 

    This is a game of deflection played by believers as most rational agents know what consists of convincing evidence for most things , not one believer can put forward one shred of convincing evidence for their god if they did that means their god has an explanation and can  no longer be deemed “supernatural “ but natural as the entity is explainable within a natural framework 

    You claim an entity that cannot be seen , heard or touched somehow interacts with its subjects this is delusional no matter what slant you put on it 

    I note also you fled from my recent response to your objection to my statement ( proven) that Islam places women at a level equal to cattle , your silence on such demonstrates clearly you have no adequate counter , I expect the same again on this post
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    no,  it is vast due to our size.  @John_C_87
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    What is north of the north pole? 
    What is magnetic North of the North Pole?


    @maxx
    no,  it is vast due to our size.
    It is vast as it is encompassing holding an area described both large and small.

    Will the theory of God go away?
    It is an accusation of God, not a theory, the basic principle is God is only religious and must be held a theory as it is claimed to be only a publicly shared belief.
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    double talk much :)@John_C_87
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    considering that we do not know how the universe began, there is a 0.000000000001 possibilty of it being created by something.@Swolliw
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @maxx
    double talk much
    I'm not the one who placed in other words two objects that is vast make neither large.
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    i am saying that humans are quite probably not the only life forms out there and there may be life whos is much much larger than us. IF we were in a simulation, then our universe is not large at all, except to us. Think of a cell in a huge tree and let's for the debate purpose, give those cells consciouness. The inside of that huge tree is all the universe they can understand; and to them it is huge; for us humans not huge or vast at all@John_C_87
  • @maxx
    Just pointing out to Swolliw that accusation is not theory, the ongoing accusation is that God must be only a word described as religion as this is the reason it should be denied representation in or on public buildings.

    And Maxx the universe is basically only an area and not the universe, science does not know how area came to existence, science does understand universe came to existence by the use of mathematics predicting infinite. Basic separations are not double talk are they,? Any talk when any area is given without boundary by mathematics is still just an area.
  • An area can be described as infinite. 
  • maxxmaxx 754 Pts   -  
    all i was saying, is the area tha we refer to is vast to us; but may not be vast to other life @John_C_87
  • Argument Topic: When will GOD's theory end?

    Honestly i really do not think that God's theory will end because, he is our creator, he is our saviour and without him the world would be a place filled with hatred,blood,crime and satanism . The bible says and i quote, 'He is,was and is coming '.Besides the universe was created by the lord and he was the one that created mankind starting with Adam for example but because he defied the lords rules , mankind was served with the punishment of death.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @ntombimguli23456789
     he is our saviour and without him the world would be a place filled with hatred,blood,crime and satanism . 

    In which case you have just contradicted your ludicrous assertion that God exists. The world is completely filled with hatred blood crime and satanism. Have you ever bothered to switch your TV channel from "The Good Lord Ministries" to CNN lately and see what actually goes on in this world? 

  • all4acttall4actt 265 Pts   -   edited September 4
    @Swolliw

    I don't re call who said it but it hold true 'Each (scienific) discovery is but one discovery from being disproven'.

    The history of science is constantly moving on from something that was once hailed as conclusive evidence to then turn around and disprove those conclusions.  

    Alot of you go on about their not being any rational in the belief of God or the following of the religions that proclaim him, her or them as the ultimate creator.

    You consistantantly demean people who belive in any thing but science as the ultimate truth and the definitive proof that God does not exist.

    But does it?

    While science has done a lot to disprove some of the ancient conclusions stated in such documents as the bible (not all) it has failed to disprove the existance of a posibility  of a supernatural being(s) or God being the ultimate cause of creation.

    The scientific conclusions that while backed by physicists therories backed by mathamatical equations.  They still remain theories.  "The big bang theory' being the biggest that the majority of you refer to.  Yet even the scientific community refers to it as nothing more than a theory.

    So in from what I can assertain is that you are ridiculing people for believing in something that hasn't been proven  for a belief of a something that hasn't been proven.

    Seen as  these scientific theories  are even by the scientific community claimed  as nothing more than theories does not the unfettered belief in these theories contitute a religion in itself?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1130 Pts   -  
    @all4actt

    So in from what I can assertain is that you are ridiculing people for believing in something that hasn't been proven  for a belief of a something that hasn't been proven.
    I think that if you care to look down for a second, you will notice that you are wearing your Calvin Klein's back to front on the outside of your jeans.
    An assertion made with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence.
    Here's a demeaning statement for you....It is totally ludicrous to expect anyone to disprove something that isn't proven in the first place.
    Now, I know what you are just about to say and all I can suggest is that you take off your Calvins and put them back on the correct way...after washing your jeans.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited September 4
    @all4actt

    I do not understand what you mean by "nothing more than a theory". What more is there for it to be? A theory accurately predicting experimental outcomes is exactly the purpose of the whole scientific method. It is the end goal of science. There is nothing "bigger" than a theory.

    Now, any given natural theory is, by its design, incomplete. It is going to be constantly being expanded and, sometimes, revisited and revamped. But it will still remain a theory. There is nothing else that it needs to be.

    Let us take just that: the Big Bang theory. What do you see as its next stage? When it stops being a theory, what do you see it becoming? What would you call it?
  • all4acttall4actt 265 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    YOU SAID:So, the question is, when will we see the end of such a primitive, ill-founded superstitious myth?

    That is my evidence for my assertion or if you prefer my opion of your beliefs.
  • maxx said:
    all i was saying, is the area tha we refer to is vast to us; but may not be vast to other life @John_C_87
    What other life?
  • all4acttall4actt 265 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    A therory yet to come to a conclusive result.

    There are sciences that are not theories.  Lets take the study of DNA while ever evolving and theories of where it can ultimately lead to.  Originally was all therotical.  With many of the theories becoming conclusive.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -  
    @all4actt

    That is not at all how the word "theory" is used in science. I used to work in Particle Theory for a while, and some of the predictions of that theory agree with the experiment down to 0.00000000000000000000001% precision. How much more conclusive do you want a result to be?

    What you are referring to as "theory" is actually called a "hypothesis" in science. And we never say "the Big Bang hypothesis"; it has ceased being a mere hypothesis many decades ago due to overwhelming support of its predictions by the experimental data.
    BlastcatPlaffelvohfenSwolliw
  • SonofasonSonofason 363 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    Man has (or at least, intelligent men have) debated the origins of life since time immemorial and, unless one has been out of the galaxy for the past one hundred years, one would (should) know that evolution by natural selection has been irrefutably proven. 

    Sure, theories do pop up now and again but none has ever succeeded in coming anywhere near challenging what we now know to be the indisputable truth except for one that seems to linger longer than a flatulent odor in an elevator.....that being, the theory of God. Well, strictly speaking it is not actually a theory since there is no viable reasoning nor evidence to initiate a theory in the first place.
    So, the question is, when will we see the end of such a primitive, ill-founded superstitious myth?
    There will never be an end to the reality of God's existence.  Therefore, there will never be an end to ill-founded superstitious myths about God.
    Blastcat
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch