The Contenders

• Feb. 27, 2006 - Fire vs. Water

So, how many healthy peanut butter cookies have you eaten? 

 

Believe it or not, in the past, debate was often used as a form of entertainment.  In rural towns, people would come from miles around to the town church or school to enter into lively discussion on a given topic.  Young and old alike were invited to offer arguments.  To keep the evening fun, the debates were usually over a harmless topic and not political or religious in nature.  The topic wouldn't be revealed by the judges until everyone was seated.  This way, noone could be prepared before hand, or try to bribe the judges. 

 

Maybe this is one reason, among thousands, society today is breaking down, in minds and relationships.  When's the last time your community got together for a fun evening of lively, regulated discussion over nothing? 

 

Today there are debate clubs in high schools and colleges, but they are not only contending for the topic, they are also contending for their school.  When debates were just a social gathering the only thing to contend for was the topic.  One side may win, but everyone went home with a sense of community and knowing they had done their best.  There were no trophies, prizes or positons awarded.  It was pure entertainment.  Imagine that!

 

Let's get down to business...

 

Old Business:

 

- If you are new to this blog, please read the rules, found in the links section of the sidebar.

 

New Business:

 

- I need for a member to volunteer to determine the winning side for this debate.  The member can not leave an argument for either side and must make their decison based on the facts presented, not the side they favor!

 

- Be sure to check out the new link in the sidebar for truthtree.com.  It is an outstanding webpage about the description of good debate. 

 

The Debate

 

Which is the most destructive:  Fire or Water?

 

Let's get ready to debate!

 

 

 

Post A Comment!

• Feb. 28, 2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by nsremom
The answer is most definately Fire.

Hebrews 12: 28/29
Therefore, since we are receiving a kindgom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our "God is a consuming fire."

This verse is referencing Deuteronomy 4: 23/24

Be careful not to forget the covenant of the Lord your God that he made with you; do not make for yourselves an idol in the form of anything the Lord your God has forbidden. For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

Take only these two verses. Do not add the many, many verses that refer to the awesome power and strength of FIRE....and the point is made.

There is nothing more powerful then God. No force, no creation, nothing. God himself used this created thing to reference himself. He wanted to show our tiny brains his awesome power and might. I believe he used FIRE to illustrate just how powerful he is. Destructive is a subjective word, but Powerful is one I'm willing to use when making my point.

He even came as a 'burning' bush to Moses. He wanted to be represented in the physical realm and he chose fire. Why? I believe it's due to it's strength and awesome destructive properties.

Fire is used in scriptures about Hell. In Jude we are told to snatch others from 'the fire' and save them.

So, even though there can be arguments made for water, they are weak if compared to the arguments for FIRE. For what argument can one have against God who came as FIRE and is referred to as such?? There is no argument against that.

Permanent Link

• Feb. 28, 2006 - Water

Posted by homy711
There's no doubt that fire is destructive. But, which is MORE destructive?

God also uses fire to 'burn away the dross' from us. Proverbs 25:4 says, "Take away the dross from the silver, And there comes out a vessel for the smith." We sometimes go through fiery trials in order to burn off the dross; to purify us. And He used water to destroy what he created - the earth as it was. There must have been much destruction if people used to be able to live for hundreds of years.

In light of natural disasters- the wildfires that happened over the past couple of months, and, of course, Hurricane Katrina, which ultimately caused the flooding in New Orleans- I think that the flooding caused more devastation than the wildfires.

If a house burns down, it can be rebuilt. When a field is burned, new and better grass grows back. Sure, a flooded house can be rebuilt, but there may be more issues to have to deal with, as whether or not it can be cleaned up. The condition of the ground could also be a factor, not to mention mold.



Permanent Link

• Mar. 1, 2006 - Fire

Posted by DreweLlyn
I've cleaned up after several floods, and while it is tremendously messy, certain things are salvagable i.e. dishes, canned goods, furniture, and even the home itself if things are cleaned in a timely and correct manner. (My home church has been flooded at least 3 times and is still standing and being used.)

Fire destroys or ruins everything it touches. (If a home has experienced a fire and something is salvagable, it's because it wasn't touched by the actual fire.)

Fire steralizes, killing germs, whereas plain water doesn't.
Permanent Link

• Mar. 1, 2006 - I Vote For Water!

Posted by Eyebright
I have chosen to argue for the side of water. Here is my reason and examples:

What is the most destructive force, Fire or Water?

Water is the mosr destructive force because, water can quench fire, but fire can not quench water!

Example:

Have you ever seen an area where fire had drastically changed the surface of the earth? Obviously burning forests down changes the the landscape, but I mean the ground itself. Water is capable of gouging huge trenches and holes in the earth(such as the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon). Can Fire beat that?
Permanent Link

• Mar. 1, 2006 - Untitled Comment

Posted by mamaduso
Fire is most destructive. Nothing can live in fire or survive it. Lots of things can live in and survive in water.
Susan
Permanent Link

• Mar. 2, 2006 - Fire

Posted by Kristal
After going having had a house fire I believe it is more destructive. Fire if even small the sut it produces is damagaing!! Alot of times it can not be removed. Also fire produces heat wich can do damage to things that are not even in the same room as the fire. And no matter how small the fire was the thing to caught fire as to be replaced weither its just a few boards or sheetrock or even re-seeding ect. Also just being to close to fire you can be burned by it. And the smoke it produces is also damaging weather you inhale it or it just gets into some material. I know after our house fire we coudn't get the smell of the smoke out of some of my clothing or my dresser wood.
Oh the most important one is God sends his enimies to where? H*!! and that is nothing but a burning fire.


Water is damageing but with just a little water you can mop up and no damage, a little more you can get the shop vac out and suck it up, no damage. It takes quite a bit of water and for it to be there awhile before it does some damage.
Permanent Link

• Mar. 5, 2006 - One more plug for Water

Posted by homy711
An earthquake in the ocean caused a tsunami. That tsunami wiped out a big portion of the island. It didn't only destroy the buildings, but wiped away the land; they can't rebuild there.Furthermore, water causes landslides when the rain is excessive.

Permanent Link

About Me

This is a safe and fun debate blog based on Jude 3-4 and Acts 17:11

JudeThree Links

Home
View my profile
Archives
Email Me

Links

The Rules
It's Debatable
Truthtree.com

Members

creativehsmom
KarenW
DreweLlyn
bensrib
JavaMama
mamaduso
Lazycreek
homy711
sagerats
Eyebright
Momof5littlewomen
Kristal
grace4gayle

ronandjess
Homeschooling6
telmar
humpty
Kekoa
sajolley

Stats

Entry 15 of 18
Last Page | Next Page