Instigator / Pro
14
1517
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#1551

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (+Conceptual Analysis) 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
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

MadMallow
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1523
rating
10
debates
50.0%
won
Description

No information

-->
@MisterChris

Yeah I agree

-->
@Pinkfreud08

A lot of reports are made to waste moderator time unfortunately, I tend to just default to not removing tied votes.

-->
@MisterChris

lol someone reporting a tied vote tho

-->
@Pinkfreud08

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Pinkfreud08 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:0; Tied.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for >=50% forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
Further reading: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
**************************************************

-->
@MadMallow

Such numbers are an ideal reference point. You can even embed the links into them without it costing characters.

Generally in online debating there isn't a benefit to using MLA or any other academic standard.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for this. If I may ask, do you mean that we should be putting numbers like [1][2] as references?

I will not be voting after-all. I R1 ended up losing me... Here is the start of my review (I hope it gives insight to voter frames of mind for future debates), but it's not going to be finished:

---

1. Part 1
A main syllogism, designed to lead into a secondary analysis to conclude things about said cause.

2. Part 2
Grim Reapers: It’s as good an analogy as any for showing a finite amount of time.

Heat death: Again, a nice showing that infinite years do not exist (not sure the point of this, as the big bang model replaced the static universe model a long time ago).

expansion of the universe: This shows there was no need for the previous two premises. I am very unclear as to where the leap in logic to personal agent came from; and yes, I see that it was done with a couple false dichotomies, but not why it would be necessary.

3. Part 3
References should be referenced in the debate proper. I’m actually cool with a further reading section, but it contributes nothing to weighting arguments and sources, and when mixed with sources causes confusion which forces me to reject them from consideration.

4. KCA is contradictory
A good use of invalidity to reject soundness, via rewriting the KCA.

5. KCA commits Equivocation Fallacy
I don’t quite find this justified, but looking forward to pro’s response...

6. KCA commits Circular Reasoning
Confusing opening to this, as it shows a flaw but not one of circular reasoning. (it was in this section I stopped)

---

-->
@Barney

Its hard to vote when sleepy. The arguments are long and winding. lol

-->
@MadMallow
@PressF4Respect

I'll try to vote on this. I just read another on the same topic as a warm up; but am now a bit sleepy.

-->
@MadMallow

Or even an argument that I'm an Asian man, will pass every test of validity, but will still need a little proof of soundness beyond just being valid.

FYI, I haven't even skimmed this yet, so I don't know if your opponent used lack of proof of soundness or not as an argument.

-->
@Barney

Yeah. If I understood correctly, in proving validity, you dont have to defend the truth of the premises. So, you may have a valid argument with false premises. Like say, all men are asian, im a man, im asian. Its valid but not sound because not all men are asian.

-->
@MadMallow
@PressF4Respect

I might get around to this one. However, I do need to say that proving soundless is a lot harder than proving validity.

-->
@MadMallow
@PressF4Respect

Absinthe talkin

-->
@PaulVerliane

Must be some cosmic stuff god was eating then.

-->
@PaulVerliane

You sir, are a genius

sometimes shit just happens man like that time i got massive diareah from to much absinthe and buffalo wings man stuff was coming out both ends
i bet thats how a universe begins god gets the trotts
well that was easy to solve

-->
@MadMallow

Addendum to round 1 argument:
My third point is actually arguing that KCA begs the question. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning, but I just wanted to state that to avoid any confusion

-->
@MadMallow

Thank you so much