Instigator / Con
25
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Topic
#166

God is identical to 'truth' itself. God is not just true, but actually truth itself. {Mopac = Pro | RM = Con}

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
9
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
0
5

After 5 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
25
1508
rating
4
debates
62.5%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro's claim is self-evident. Con's arguments seem to be irrelevant and aimed towards a straw-man definition of God rather than accepting a common (and reputable) definition.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro gets the conduct point for the forfeit. I'm voting con because Pro had the entire BOP and I was unswayed by his arguments. This was a back and forth semantic debate that I honestly had a hard time following and didn't see resolved. Pro's main argument is that God is the ultimate reality, having always existed, and thus is truth. The main counterpoint is that "God is in line with truth, which itself isn't God."

One of the biggest issues I saw with the debate is that the words 'truth' and 'being true' isn't defined until round 2. The definition of truth is "(being) in accordance with fact or reality." and truth is defined as "in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.

Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life..."

Pro doesn't challenge this definition and so these are the definitions I am going with in judging this debate. Pro loses the argument by trying to define God as true and not challenging these definitions. To win this debate, pro really needed to challenge the actual definitions of the words and explain why his definition is better.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con actually cited. Pro did not. However, Con forfeited without apology in the debate or in the comments.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

It is difficult to say who was actually right in this debate, since even the original claim and counter claim was rather subjective. What I can say was that Con definitely argued more poorly overall, forfeiting one round and opening their statements with the claim that a female god sung them a song by possessing a random person.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Arguments to con: so the primary crux of pros argument is to chose a particular set of definitions that define God into existence his entire argument throughout all rounds are variations of this - which he did successfully. This is generally a poor argument, that can only really be attacked with an argument based on definitions. Now, cons approach was novel, though semantic: to separate the truth of God from God itself - using the definition of Truth to show God cannot be truth. Unfortunately as pro relied totally on definitions he hoisted himself by his own petard in this respect, the argument from definition con made undermining the premise pro made, leaving no other real argument. As Pro did not rebut this definition argument - and con added sufficient doubt to mean pro did not sufficiently show their burden of proof.

Sources to con: pro used no sources, specifically with both the dictation art and philosophy of truth, con used his sources to seal up his Truth argument: the referencing here was perfect to hammer home the definition of Truth argument con made, and ended up being an important aspect to undermine pros burden of proof.