Instigator / Pro
18
1485
rating
91
debates
46.15%
won
Topic
#1104

The Ontological Argument is Sound

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
15
Better sources
8
10
Better legibility
4
5
Better conduct
0
5

After 5 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
35
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

INTRO

The ontological argument for God's existence has fascinated me for quite some time. For the uninitiated, the modal argument goes like this:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

=== Definitions ==

Ontological argument: See above

Sound: An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the conclusion follows

-- STRUCTURE --

1. Opening
2. Rebuttals
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals/Close

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
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 resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is on Pro; Con's BOP lies in proving Pro wrong. Con may make original arguments if he wants to.
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)
11. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.

Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✔ ✗ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:Per PRO's setup- . Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.

PRO violated the prohibition vs. FF's, therefore automatic loss.

Args to CON per CON's recommendation. Conduct to Con for forfeits

-->
@David

1 day left

-->
@Ramshutu

The BOP is on Pro; Con's BOP lies in proving Pro wrong. Con may make original arguments if he wants to.

-->
@Ramshutu

Yeah I basically have full burden, and no I don't have an issue with that.

-->
@David

Hey virt, as you have assumed full burden, and I’m basically refuting your position, would you have an issue with me referring directly to some of your points in the opening round to make this more of an orderly back and forth?