Instigator / Pro
49
1395
rating
12
debates
4.17%
won
Topic
#1230

The Moon is Designed

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
21
30
Better sources
18
20
Better legibility
10
10
Better conduct
0
10

After 10 votes and with 21 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
70
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description

The Moon is designed by an intelligent creator.

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% forfeit is bad conduct.

I could read the debate but I don't want to in order to give the other votes.

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:

Conduct to con for the forfeits.

I believe the Burden of proof is on pro here.

Eclipses: pro argues that eclipses and scale of the moon are perfect. Given the definition con does well to point out that if the goal were total eclipses, that the design falls far short - and could be greatly improved.

Fine tuned stability: pro argues that the axial stability of the moon is fine tuned; con points out the details are near impossible to know as we are dealing with a sample size of 1 and the details are all speculative.

The number 273: pro doesn’t know why God uses the number, but he does: con points out all the examples that are not 273, and argues that if God existed, is there any reason to believe that he would
Calculate in miles, and count in base 10 rather than in natural Constants and numbers.

Archaetypes. Pros argument here is hard to disentangle here, pro makes a series of claims that appear to be an appeal to numbers. Pro doesn’t really define what they are talking about, and it’s not particularly clear how pros argument supports their position.

At the core basis, Pros entire argument seems unwarranted and poorly justified, relying on mostly assertion that there are a number of coincidences; con did well to show both how nebulous these claims were, and how empty the larger thesis pro presents.

As a result of this, arguments go to con too.

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’s points were almost unconnected from debate subject for the most part - lacked proper justification. Also, 50% 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:

1/2 FF

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:

What pink said!

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 half of the debate, 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:

50% 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:

Pro, this will help: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

Interpreting the resolution:
The moon is not a naturally occurring object.

Gist:
I hate to say BoP, but pro never attempted to prove anything, merely point out that the moon is pretty neat.

1. Stability
Pro concedes this point (yes, them saying they would if they could not find a counter argument, and then forfeiting, I am giving them the benefit of doubt to their stated intentions).

2. Eclipses
That we can calculate when they’ll occur was pretty meaningless, and pro missed con’s counter that if eclipses were the goal they would be aligned so much better.

3. 237
Pro offered coincidence as proof, con explained that it’s not coincidence with sources, and pro said “I don’t know why.” ... The next point was just the logic of this one repeated.

---

Arguments:
See above review of key points.

Sources:
Was not going to award this, but con found con using faulty numbers, which was verified within the links. This happened before contentions 3 and 4, which were both based on numbers, causing them to not be able to be taken seriously. Another example was the Waltham source, which itself disagreed with pro’s case for using it as evidence (as con identified with quotations from it).

Conduct:
Two rounds of forfeiture.

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:

Janesix didn't quit this debate because she was wrong. She quit the debate because she realised how much of a coward one can be to win this debate as Con. All they need to do is say 'yeah but what if it isn't' over and over again and they win.

I encourage her to find truth and not always argue for it. Let the sheep be sheep sometimes, Jane, find truth and heal within yourself. :)

50% forfeit by Pro, this is a conduct loss and this vote highlights the true depiction of the debate in my eyes regarding arguments. Both sides used sources well. I can go into why I don't think Con deserves Arguments or Sources in the comments section with a vote mod if need be.

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:

1/2 forfiet, neither side convicned me