Instigator / Con
2
1592
rating
14
debates
78.57%
won
Topic
#1059

The Rationality of Faith

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
2
0

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

bsh1
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Description

--Overview--

This debate will last 4 rounds, with 3 days for each debater to post for each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debater for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. You must have an ELO of 1,505 to accept, and I would prefer someone who has completed at least one debate on the site as an opponent. I am taking the Con position.

--Topic--

The most rational response to the question of god's existence is to have faith.

--Definitions--

Rational - in accordance with reason and logic
God - an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being who is the source of all creation
Faith - belief in God

--Rules--

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate as posted links (not embedded)
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation or rejection of any of these rules or of any of the description's set-up (including definitions), merits a loss

--Structure--

R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary

With that said bsh1 needs to drop his no forfeit rule. If somebody has better arguments than you, using one less round than that punishment is too harsh it is also a judgement that should strictly belong to the judges. If I decide to judge this debate I will disregard the rule vut it is unlikely I vote on it

My argument would have been that it is more rational to believe because the benefits of believeing outweigh the benefits of not believing.

good debate

good debate

-->
@bsh1

Yeah I wish I could have given you a better challenge, but school and work got in my way. One of the folks in my department left so I had to fill in for them plus work overtime in other departments

-->
@David

That is why I almost always post arguments in the first 24 hours I have to post them. I did take the chance to remind you, and, esp. after you were short on time the first round, I find it extremely disappointing that you were not more conscious of the clock. I mean, it is what it is...but still.

Edit: Vote Con.

-->
@bsh1

Sorry I completely lost track of time .

-->
@David

You have 9+10 (or 21) minutes to post.

-->
@David

You've got about 15hrs left to post.

-->
@bsh1

I’ll have my arguments posted later tonight

-->
@David

You’ve only got 18hrs or so left...

interesting debate

I've only done one debate on this Site, though I've done a fair number over the years on DDO. My ELO was never very good, and the one debate that I did here I lost, so doubtlessly mine won't meet that standard. However, I think I could make some rather unusual arguments, if you were to let me accept.
My style is casual dialogue to reach a common understanding, so debating per se is not my forte. That might come across as rather undisciplined of me, and it is. But I *can* debate formally. Maybe you want a debate with somebody considerably better than me here but you could also do this topic with me elsewhere on the side?

-->
@David

Take note, he's pulling a MAR, the definition insists on the being having omnibenevolence... Careful...

-->
@bsh1

I'm very tempted to accept this debate.

-->
@bsh1

All the more reason to like it. >;)

-->
@semperfortis

I'll send you a challenge.

-->
@RationalMadman

Prop/Opp is very APDA- or Parliamentary-style. More British than American.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Instigator and Contender refer to "person who started the debate" and "person who accepted the debate" respectively.

Pro and Con refer to "person who is for the topic" and "person who is against the topic" respectively.

I am BOTH the Instigator and Con.

I'm interested in accepting -- although my rating is only 1500. If you're willing to lower the rating I'll happily accept.

-->
@GuitarSlinger
@K_Michael

Correct, it means "Conradictor" or "side of Contradiction"

Pro is side of Proposition.

I prefer the terms Prop/Opp and if I built a debate website would use this as it's not yet copyrighted or used by any debate site as is.

-->
@K_Michael

Thanks. I like to have things "dumbed down" for me. lol. Wish we'd just good ol' fashined terms like "For" and "Against".

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Con doesn't stand for Contender, but it means "The One Opposed to the Title Claim"
Contender is actually the one who accepts the debate, while bsh1 is the Instigator.

-->
@bsh1

In your debate description, you say whoever accepts the debate is taking the Contender role. But then in your overview it says YOU are taking the Con position.

A few questions:

1) Are you arguing for or against "The most rational response to the question of god's existence is to have faith."?
2) how are going to define these terms: "omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent "