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 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro FF the majority of the round! That's POOR conduct!!!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

RFD in comments

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Forfeit

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.