Ultimately a concession, but before that it was frustratingly unclear. This feels a little bit like the warm up ponderings we get in our heads before a debate starts.
1. Opposing Views
It really should not have been pro who brought up “cognitive dissonance,” but once it was mentioned con should have capitalized on it (potentially making a whole point of contention around it)... For con this only really got under way in R2 with the mention of contradicting belief systems introduced by monotheism.
2. Death and Taxes
Pro executed a decent Epistemological argument, that faith leads to death, and in death His Name Is Robert Paulson (this is a Fight Club refence pro did not actually make; he also did not mention taxes, but I suspect that old saying is what he based this K on). Con attempts to dismiss that as not an argument, and claim it included the common Christian torture dungeon threat (which it did not). ... Con then uses short term untruths (he likely should have focused on the destruction factor, that if that’s what’s waiting for us, which we can’t know to be wrong, then in death we will not know anything to include if we were right or wrong).
Regarding the No K rule... Honestly, I’m conflicted if I would call pro’s argument a K or not given that knowledge was the subject of the debate (I kind of think of K’s as out of left field, and this was very much the type of argument to be expected on this topic). Then again, one definition for K I am toying with is arguments which avoid the other person’s argument, so...
This is what pro conceded on in the end (not that they were wrong, but that their case failed to wholly address this part of the resolution).
See above review of key points.
Given for concession.
If doing this again...
Advice to Con:
I would make this argument on two fronts. First religion (front load that popular modern religions contradict each other; such as only 10,000 Mormons get into heaven). Second would be government, as 2+2 should equal 4, but 1984 taught us that in politics it can equal a different number every day if you have faith in the party. The second front is important to make things easy for judges, as grounds the debate in knowable truths. On both, focus on the paths of faith leading to more untruths. ... Also never be afraid to Google a term someone uses.
Advice to Pro:
Before your final sentence concession, I was conflicted as to who won (I would have reread the debate as it was short). I hate ever telling someone not to concede (as way more people should), but don’t make it your first instinct, you’ve got a lot of potential to become a strong debater.
For your arguments, work on expanding things out more.
On this more references to where we could go (IDK, the great bubblegum forest?). Big thing on the current argument would be the time of false beliefs, we might live a hundred years on Earth, but if there’s an afterlife, it can be assumed an average of a million years there knowing truth (against eternity there’s reincarnation which might be fast, and annihilation would be 0 time knowing truth).
My argument, while I believe was technically correct, didn't actually address, nor refute, pro's argument.
To an extent, I agree with you. It is a trap debate for a theist to accept. However, as an agnostic, I have some points to bring up that I don't believe a theist would, which work around what the OP has stipulated in the description.
Should you find that acceptable, I would ask to change the character limit to 15,000 per round.
Would you be alright with accepting an agnostic to debate with? Of course, I don't hold this position you wish to argue against(nor would I hold the position you're arguing for), but I could certainly offer a different perspective for the position you want to argue against. While I don't believe in this position, I am willing to argue for it, and I don't believe a theist would bring up similar arguments, at least I've not seen any from one that I've pondered over.
Too favorable for con
I might take this if no-one else does.