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

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:

I'm awarding the convincing arguments for this round to pro for the following reasons.

1. Con Does not address the scientific implications of a past-eternal universe as it relates to thermodynamics or unsolvable paradoxes.
2. Con's argument that abstractions exist in a concrete sense because of electric activity in the brain is unconvincing when pro points out that the electric neural "code" that represents an abstraction is not the same as that abstraction actually existing in a concrete sense.
3. Pro was on shaky ground with the argument about time being necessary for a personal agent to choose to create the universe. But instead of pressing the attack and breaking down a major argument, con forfeits the last round leaving pro's argument standing.
4. pro's Modus Tollens approach to the issue of a timeless being was powerful and as I said before, con started to make progress against the argument but stopped short leaving this powerful argument standing.

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:

Tough one, but I'd say after considering both sides I deem this a tie.

Both had good arguments and conduct for the most part however neither stood out above the other