Instigator / Pro
10
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1197

Life is created by God

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
1
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 3 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Ramshutu

I just saw Virtuoso thanking RM during that time. Thought you would thank him as well but guess not.

I don't consider myself obnoxious but it doesn't matter what I think since you are the one making the claim from your perspective not mine.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Yes actually; I’m also going to thank him in the basis that he agrees with me that you’re a fairly annoying and toxic individual. It’s nice that you managed to give me a whole four hours - of which I have barely been online - to come up with a sufficient method of thanking RM. Can you please try not to be so obnoxious? At least for a little longer than 5 hours?

-->
@Ramshutu

Are you going to thank RM?

-->
@David

in all seriousness while I like you less than I used to, you still would thwart bsh1 as head mod in all respects. You at least apologise at times like this and show appreciation to me even in the heat of me berating you on pm and in public.

You have every single element of being a worthy head mod but the only thing I dislike is the very fact that you willingly submit
to bsh1 for no reason at all and definitely no benefit to the website whatsoever.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu

Sorry for dropping the ball here. This happened while I was AFK. @RM - thanks so much for CB'ing!

-->
@VirenTheLegend

That vote is completely invalid: please read the voting guidelines. You also require 100 forum posts, or 3 debates in order to vote.

-->
@Barney

No.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

To suggest you start a debate on a topic for which you clearly feel impassioned.

-->
@Barney

What was the intention behind you entering this conversation?

Ramshutu made it clear he doesn't want to talk yet you do.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

If you are this opposed to the conduct of someone stating what they believe BoP to be inside a debate, you should probably start a debate on the topic.

While not a winning argument, a good piece of evidence for you would actually be found in my site guide for DDO: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.pn6obigpxbnb

That said, my guide for this site outright advises use of foreshadowing in that manner. For a quick and entertaining example of it being well used by someone other than Ram: https://www.debateart.com/debates/949/morals-cannot-exist-without-god (granted I had someone create a lengthy forum topic to complain that they think the guy who forfeited secretly won that debate...).

-->
@Ramshutu

I am sorry you don't understand simple things and are unable to show reasonable counters of mine to be wrong.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Good lord, stop talking. I’m sorry you don’t understand the purpose of stating the burden and resolution in a debate, I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the difference between objective and subjective in my AMA; and I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the definition of an unmoderated debate, when I gave your opponent conduct in a conceded debate.

But Good lord, your inability to understand or accept any explanation no matter how slowly and carefully explained, nor how many times makes you borderline insufferable. So please; stop. The most useful thing you can bring to a conversation
When your question has been answered about 6 times - is silence.

-->
@Ramshutu

Can't prove your point. Ask the person you are supposed to be proving your claim to provide evidence ("Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history."). Ramshutu logic and also appeal to the crowd while you are at it ("Anyone else interested").

Your answer was not better than mine.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

This is not a debate, I’m not interested in finding links to the win percentage debate, or my AMA, or your objections on other debates. You seem to get worked up about some nonsense: then won’t listen to the answer. As you’ve done it again here.

Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history. That kinda speaks for itself. Now please stop objecting to meaningless trivialities that you don’t seem to understand.

-->
@Ramshutu

Objected to pointless nonsense?
You accused me of something yet can't put in the effort of proving it.
Not my fault you can't support your claim.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

This is the third time you’ve objected to pointless nonsense with me. I’m not going to go back and forth when you’re clearly not listening to anything being said. If I need peanuts picked out of poop, I know who to call.

-->
@Ramshutu

From my perspective you gave up without providing evidence for your claim and not being able to show my side was not better.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Given that you seem not to even understand what’s being discussed, I’m not going to respond to your name calling.

-->
@Ramshutu

It is even better to avoid confusion or debate about things that are specific to the debate itself instead of arguing about assumptions or lack thereof in the debate.

"I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point"

Now I know you have lost your mind. Do I need to provide a single occurrence or do you know how laughable this claims is?

I hope in the next comment you are not as delusional here.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I think I represented what you said pretty well; it’s always good to explicitly state your understanding of the resolution and burden up front; you confusing this for demanding a particular burden; or confusing the resolution itself with about whether God exists.

I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point; but this is a reasonable thing that I would encourage everyone to do, regardless of how much you appear to misunderstand the necessity and Intention.

-->
@Ramshutu

What a weird way of stating my position. It is almost like you are intentionally misrepresenting me.

What I wanted was for you to make sure your question as in who had what burden was fulfilled. This debate was about if God exists or not. For the most part it was fulfilled but you decided to state a question you could've asked before accepting. There is no real reason why you didn't do it instead of incompetence (I can't really think of a different answer. Your response because it is debating is lackluster because why didn't you talk about the assumptions of this debate). This debate is an easy win. Have you seen his past debates? You could've just stayed on topic yet you wanted to also argue about the burden. This was entirely useless and preventable. I hope you understand that but doubt it.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I think you need to google what a debate is; Because you seem to be arguing that explicitly laying out your understanding of the burden for voters and the opponent for the intent of agreement or contestation is a bad thing.

-->
@Ramshutu

The resolution implied was "Life is created by God". You instead chose to spend some characters on changing or setting the assumptions. Instead of simply asking who is doing what outside the debate you instead challenged it in the debate.

There was topic but you chose to challenge the assumptions.

I said demand because if he didn't accept he would have to argue against an assumption while also the resolution.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I’m not demanding the instigator follow it. I’m stating what I believe the burden of proof to be so it can be challenged and argued.

You know, because it’s a debate, where people argue, and disagree and challenge each other’s positions.

-->
@Ramshutu

How about a better way:

Instead of stating it in the debate and demanding the instigator to agree with it. Why not simply agree on it outside the debate?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You should always state you understanding of the burden and the resolution in the first round, so that if your opponent t disagrees; they can contest it at the start - and you don’t go 5 rounds both assuming that the other is arguing a different resolution or to a different burden of proof. That way of there is disagreement, it can be challenged.

-->
@Barney

I really appreciate the vote; these take some time!

-->
@Ramshutu

Why didn't you ask who had which burden instead of stating your position and pretty much demanding the instigator to follow it?

-->
@Ramshutu
@crossed

---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
X made Y. Made Y is the key claim, with X being presumed (a K would be valid, but they’re pretty annoying and usually unnecessary)

Gist:
About 8000 characters more than the argument warranted.

1. Evolution v. Creation: Con
Pro opens with “we just popped into existence” and scientists who imply otherwise glued some bones together.
Con counters with the theory of gene mutation, which intuitively explains why different people from different parts of the world look different (“When two groups of the same species become geographically separated: these organisms acquire random changes independently”), and of course why we’re not suffering from worse inbreeding (granted the creation theory would prevent any mutation, so inbreeding would not be a problem if it’s true).
Pro dismisses it as “illogical,” because we don’t massively mutate spontaneously like the X-Men (he mentioned fairy tales, rather than specifically Marvel Comics). Plus some mention of different bear species, which with the evidence unchallenged actually supports mutation rather than creation.

-->
@Ramshutu
@crossed

---RFD (2 of 3)---
2. Numbers AKA “List or coincidences”
Pro offers a bunch of numbers within a number system based on observations of these things, and concludes that God must have done it. Con counters that it’s an argument from ignorance. If it was proven that some cosmic being created the sun, it would not prove creation of life by the same being. So, this section is irrelevant to the resolution.

Regarding animals, pro makes the case for God spontaneously created each variant to be perfect for its environment. Pro counters that it lacks optimization on form for each area (maintaining a constant number of legs on all mammals, the same useless hip bones inside whales, etc.); and if no shared ancestry due to spontaneous creation the leg count would be random on each species of mammal (honestly, it’d look pretty cool were that the case..., Pokémon or other anime monsters, instead of extreme but dull variants of the same form we see today).

3. Drugs/Herbs
Carbon-based organisms are successful with carbon-based food sources... This doesn’t prove anything. Nor does not all living things being adapted for our consumption prove that God (or “mother nature”) reaches down each time to lay a curse on what would otherwise be healthy.

This area is just too each to take seriously.

-->
@Ramshutu
@crossed

---RFD (3 of 3)---
4. God did it
Basically a weak repeat of the evolution claim, which has already been addressed.

5. Unintelligent Design
Pretty much just a reminder that the design sucks at supporting life, making it a fluke anything lived long enough to adapt (and usually pretty poorly, such as us not being able to drink most of the available water, while depending on water to live), while reminding us that it is the result of adaption rather than perfectly suited creation down to limb counts that would be randomized if the creatures were unrelated due to spontaneous creation...

---

Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This pretty heavily goes to con, particularly as BoP is pro trying to prove the status quo wrong, which needs significant reason for it to be rejected.

Sources:
I don’t want to go to the trouble of looking through all the various sources, but I do need to call con out on the “Real Science Radio” religious racist propaganda site. The page in question insists repeatedly that God is a ginormous Caucasian Male Human (or at least the disembodied hand of one), which anyone familiar with the bible knows to be BS. Seriously, use better sources.

S&G: con
Was already leaning con due to organization and not all bolding any paragraphs... However basic rules about capitalization and punctuation were ignored by pro, repeatedly pulling me out of the argument. Examples from just the first paragraph, “female. the” “tracing. since” “Lucy. instead” “parts. seriously” “human. instead”

Con on the other hand was perfectly legible, even adding necessary organization to pro’s points (could have been better, as they were over expanded and each given their own number away from the initial numbering system...).

Conduct:
I find the repeated calling everyone morons distasteful, but it was technically a source which did this (to which pro repeatedly quoted in rapid succession), so giving a pass due to it being somewhat borderline.

-->
@crossed

I hope you don't think I am a bit rude in the precious comment, because I don't think I am either.

-->
@crossed

Hey! Some people are so arrogant! Just think of themselves like Aristotle! Like they are the centre of the whole universe! The solar system is just one out of many others! God has nothing to do with Earth, as far as we are concerned!

I should have set the time limit longer then 3 days. That was not fair of me. I only did 3 days because a week was to long for me to wait