The Ontological Argument is Sound
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
Pro FF the majority of the round! That's POOR conduct!!!
RFD in comments
Forfeit
Rule 1 in the Description says 'No Forfeits'.
Rule 11 states: "11. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss."
R3 and R4 forfeited by Pro while Con didn't forfeit.
50% forfeiture, and rule violation with the stipulated punishment of it meriting a loss. Further this rule being executed as such was brought up as a debate argument and left unchallenged when there was opportunity to challenge it. ... I would not be comfortable doing this for any single infraction of the rules (particular K had that occurred, as it's such a varied thing), but repeated ones, and dropping every single point, there's no likely recovery from that.
...
Advice: Got to say it, the resolution likely confused validness with soundness. Proving that MGB indeed exists is an impossible BoP, but one to which pro insisted on taking the full weight.
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
1 day left
The BOP is on Pro; Con's BOP lies in proving Pro wrong. Con may make original arguments if he wants to.
Yeah I basically have full burden, and no I don't have an issue with that.
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?