Lewis' Trilemma

I'm not one much for games. Both of us know what you're doing. I really dislike the period where you put on you Vulcan obtuseness and pretend you are innocent. You're mod. There is no recourse. There is no need for the sham.

Although Mopac was identified as the Contender, he took the pro side of the argument. You took the negative side. Thus, you were Con and Mopac was Pro.

"Regardless if my errors were fewer you should not have awarded me that point."

I should not have?

I gave you a point because you had fewer errors.

Regardless if my errors were fewer you should not have awarded me that point.

"Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points was borderline, but we will default to considering it sufficient. S&G is insufficiently explained. There are two reasons why it's not enough to say Grammarly suggested that Con had better S&G. First, Grammarly looks at every single grammatical mistake, but S&G points should only be awarded when grammatical errors reach the point where the readability of debaters is severely impaired. Second, the voter is required to specifically reference text from the debate from both sides proving grammatical errors, and explain why one side's readability was worse than the other. The voter may properly revote by sufficiently justifying the S/G points they awarded or by choosing not to award those points."

***

So, you want me to subtract the point I awarded to Con? Fine!

Grammarly lists spelling and grammar, plus a number of other issues I did not include. On the issue of spelling and grammar alone, Con had fewer errors, but that could have been because he supplied half the argument that Pro did. There was just that much less to make mistakes over.

I would disagree that both votes were more thorough in dealing with the arguments than Ram's vote, though Ethang's certainly was more thorough in that regard. Length =/= thoroughness. But that's not the issue. The voter must sufficiently warrant EACH point they award, and therein lies the problem. Had all votes only awarded argument points, they all would have passed muster--but they didn't, and failed to justify the other points they award sufficiently. Both voters may revote--and it was clearly explained HOW they could revote sufficiently so that they could do so if they wished. If voters have questions about those explanations, they are free to ask me questions. In either case, the fix is easy.

Each vote is evaluated for sufficiency in isolation from the other votes in play. PGA's vote was evaluated on Oct. 21, but there was some question as to whether his argument points were sufficient and Tej and I both became pretty busy, hence the delayed notice and removal. So, moderation knew his vote would be taken down more than a week ago (before Ethang's vote). The delayed notices are also due in part to moderation being slightly behind on reports due to Tej's temporary absence, which has made prompt notices difficult. And, also, Ethang's vote was only reported today.

According to Mike, the revote option will come back in a few minutes. Not sure how long it takes, though. But you should 100% be able to revote, and I gave clear advice on how to do that in a way which would pass moderation standards. Explain why you found the poor conduct excessive, or simply choose not to award conduct points.

Wow I honestly am a bit shocked that two voted were removed less than half a day before the voting period ended. One of these votes was removed for awarding a S&G vote to con, but will end up giving con a tie instead of an L. And both were far more thorough and well-referenced than ramshutu's vote, which still stands.

If both votes were allowed to stand, the 'wrong' points on each cancelled each out anyway, with the mathematical lead between debaters being the exact same as if they were resubmitted without the votes in error. Literally the only practical result of this is that Virt gets a tie instead of an lose. You'd think that the naked appearance of corruption would be something that moderation would look to avoid...

I haven't tried to revote. Bsh1 would make the effort a waste anyway. Take your win dude, that perk comes with being #2 (or is it #3 ?) in the cabal.

I’m surprised that you can’t revote if your vote is removed. I think that’s something that should be done.

You should be able to revote if you want and just post arguments.

Yeah Virt, you would think I should be able to.

I feel like I should have pushed harder in the debate.

Perhaps. I have seen you better.

You should be able to revote if you want and just post arguments.

I feel like I should have pushed harder in the debate.

The last time I voted, it was deleted because I did not mention every point. Bsh1 would only find some other reason. Or get one of his lackies to break the tie/win. Swag/PGA/Ethan. This has been a good debate. But you are ether part of the cabal, or you are not. No fence-sitting.

To award conduct points, the misconduct must be "excessively rude" or profane.

Really? What if there was no misconduct but just that one debater was better?

It is not clear from the RFD how or why the voter regards the misconduct as excessive, though he notes that it occurred.

Lol. It's OK bsh1. Filed. At least there is a mod on record disagreeing. Now who will you get to break the tie?

Feel free to re vote without the conduct point if you wish

Thank you sir.

For the record I think the conduct point was sufficient.

You can recast your vote in a way which makes it sufficient. I explained how to do that in my notice to you. Namely, I said that the voter "may properly revote either by not awarding conduct or by addressing the insufficiency in the justification of the awarded conduct points." Your arguments were sufficient, but the justification of conduct points was not, as I explained.

Now cue one of the clique to come and break the tie. Pitiful.

PGA's RFD, Part 3:

What evidence does Con have to support the accuracy? He never gave any.
While it is true that other points could be added to the trilemma the one Con chose also falls into the problem of soundness and validity, which Con failed to establish. Pro, on the other hand, did establish that these early believers looked upon Jesus as Lord. I give the edge to Pro.

PGA's RFD, Part 2:

How did Con lay into the credibility of Jesus? Did he lay into the credibility of the disciples/apostles? Not really. He used innuendo to suggest that they made this person - Jesus - into a legend. But what actual historic evidence does he have to back the claim? He presented none, just asserted 'legend.' What we have available to us he never touched. Con never presented any early evidence that refutes the biblical accounts and he never shows how they were turned into legend? Lewis bases his trilemma on the Jesus of Scripture. Pro also based his argument on Scripture. These disciples claimed they were eyewitnesses to His three and a half years of ministry, His death, and His resurrection. Pro laid out a number of Scriptures that identified Jesus as Lord. They did not think He was a liar or lunatic. In fact, early church history records many of them dying for what - a lie? A lunatic? No, they spread the news of the Lord at the risk of excruciating deaths, in some cases. We have no evidence at all that they recanted Him as Lord.
Furthermore, Con agreed to debate the Trilemma,
"This debate asks us to look at the Lewis' Trilemma argument as defined in the description of this debate."
"Any other outside arguments for Jesus' divinity will be ignored. For pro to win this debate he must prove that this argument is sound."
Con then brings a fourth element into the discussion based on the soundness and validity of the trilemma premises:
"There is, however, a fourth choice: Jesus was a legend. The argument centers around the assumption that the Gospel's accurately record Jesus' teachings and that the miracles he allegedly performed are historical facts. Unless pro proves those things, pro cannot win this debate."

PGA's RFD, Part 1:

Regarding spelling and grammar, I used Grammarly to judge between the two debaters on the merits of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Pro had the better, but he also wrote far less than Pro. Pro also used a lot of KJV archaic language. I still give the edge to Con.
Pro used a reliable source when he quoted from early church fathers. Con used more sources (two) and one was reliable and one was biased, IMO. Therefore, I give them a tie.
I found their conduct equally cordial.
Now to the arguments themselves. I found that Pro provided more of an argument. Con just repeated his legend argument over and over again as if it was the knockout punch, but Con did not give any credible argument that this was the case, that these eyewitnesses embellished the character of Christ into legend. I don't know of any such argument from early history. Lewis based his argument on the historic manuscripts.
What Pro said in his third round still stands, IMO:
"What is really the issue here? Is whether or not you believe Jesus is who he says he is. If you do not believe Jesus is who he says he is, you are calling him a liar or a lunatic."

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PGA2.0 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments, 1 point to Con for S/G

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points was borderline, but we will default to considering it sufficient. S&G is insufficiently explained. There are two reasons why it's not enough to say Grammarly suggested that Con had better S&G. First, Grammarly looks at every single grammatical mistake, but S&G points should only be awarded when grammatical errors reach the point where the readability of debaters is severely impaired. Second, the voter is required to specifically reference text from the debate from both sides proving grammatical errors, and explain why one side's readability was worse than the other. The voter may properly revote by sufficiently justifying the S/G points they awarded or by choosing not to award those points.
************************************************************************

Ethang's RFD, Part 2:

“…as Scripture states: God is not a man that He should lie, nor a mortal that He should change His mind.”
But the same scripture he uses here for validation, says that Jesus was not merely/only a man. This objection fails because he is contradicted by the scripture he uses for validation, and his unwarranted assumption that Jesus is only a man.
The charge that Jesus lied is obviously not supported. In his first quoted scripture in supported of his claim that Jesus lied, Con himself records Jesus as saying, ” “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in a synagogue and in the Temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you Question me?”
Con said Jesus purposefully veiled his teachings, but that is not equal to lying, even if it were true. And he gives no reason for us to believe Jesus was in any way dishonest in his speech. Someone not understanding Jesus is not the same as Jesus being deliberately mysterious. Con gives us no

Ethang's RFD, Part 1:

On Arguments:
Con’s point that Jesus being legend was a fourth choice was not logical. Even if Jesus was legend, that would not disturb the logic of Him being either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic within the legend. Pro’s definition of legend was helpful, we saw that legend can be “regarded as historical although not verifiable".
Con even said, “It's important to note that this (Lord, Lair, Lunatic) is the only argument this debate is centered around. Any other outside arguments for Jesus' divinity will be ignored.” I would then expect that any other outside arguments AGAINST Jesus' divinity should likewise be ignored.” Otherwise the criteria become unfair to Pro.
Pro satisfied me that Jesus must logically be one of the 3 options regardless of whether the story is considered legend or not.

Con states, “Any man who claims to be God can be dismissed as a liar without any further examinations of his claims or miracles that he does or does not perform….”
But then bases his dismissal on scripture;