Instigator / Pro
14
1518
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Topic
#1422

It is possible for the Christian God to exist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...

OoDart
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

It is possible for the Christian God to exist.

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:

Advice:
Pro, pretty good job. I do suggest resolutions which imply some degree of probability, but by pulling things back to the resolution rather than side tangents you won this debate.
Con, don't worry so much about line by line rebuttals to whatever someone else says, come up with an attack on the resolution itself. ... Don't get me wrong, still address the theme of someone else's case, but even when they have BoP there is nothing to stop you from introducing your own contentions. As an example, you could argue that possible things can be assigned some probability (there's various calculations for aliens as an example), and there is no basis for God having a probability (maybe even stack it and say the probability of God not existing =0.99999... to infinity, which in turn equals 1, leaving no possibility of God existing).

Arguments:
1. Many complex planets, solar systems, and galaxies in our universe
Doubtful, but possible.
Con's counter about aliens, really hurt his case. Were the debate about aliens possibly existing, saying their existence hasn't been proven would not counter the possibility.

2. The laws of science are universal
This could have been leveraged against the possibility of something violating those at a whim, instead con pointed out it hasn't been proven, which does not address the possibility as per the resolution...

3. DNA
Completely unsure how this is supposed to relate to God.

Conduct:
When asking voters to weight conduct, ensure yours is the preferable side...
"Please voters review this as a forfeit by my opponent or unwilling to give rebuttals so essentially the same thing just the same thing."
A forfeiture would give the conduct point, asking for this due to not liking the concise defense style of using the resolution, is very poor conduct. Much better to just adapt and make a better case (or explain the error in their reasoning, and extend points if they're proven topical). This is worse for the amount within that "forfeit" to which con then went on to reply. ... Con, you would not want people to consider your R4 forfeited, when you truly gave nothing to respond to within it. The end result of the waived round was not quite a final round blitzcreig, but it entered that dangerous conduct area.
Going on to Kritik the debate as unfair, would have been a valid tactic in R1 (E.G., 'mere possibility is meaningless, thus this debate is a truism troll debate, and I should win for possibly being the true uncaused cause which caused all others...'), but late in the game it felt like special pleading.

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 argument wouldn't be compelling in empirically proving God's existence, but does explain how it is 'possible'. Con's rebuttal would have been effective if the resolution were different, but the resolution questions the 'possibility' of a Christian deity existing; not the deity existing in actuality. Since it is the 'possibility' that is in question, Con would have been required to demonstrate that it is meta physically impossible for the Christian God to exist. The only part in Con's rebuttal that remotely touches on the 'possibility' of the Christian God would be that Creatio ex Nihilio (CEN) has never been observed (since if CEN is impossible then it would be impossible for the Christian God to exist). However, Con failed to demonstrate that CEN is an impossibility; at face value just because something hasn't been observed does not mean it is impossible. For example, aliens are metaphysically possible, yet have never been observed. Hence, at best, Con depicts the existence of the Christian God to be unlikely, but this is not enough for him to win the debate.