Instigator / Pro
16
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic

There is a soul

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
15
Sources points
8
10
Spelling and grammar points
4
5
Conduct points
1
4

With 5 votes and 18 points ahead, the winner is ...

Jeff_Goldblum
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
34
1610
rating
10
debates
85.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Convincing argument - I believe Con has the more convincing argument, by default. It is hard to debate in favour of a Lion not having a soul, and a soul being exclusive to a body builder that can lift cars.

Reliable sources - Pro provided more sources than Con. However by default, i would assume any source that validates a Lion having no soul, but a car jacking body-builder having one, must be an unreliable source, and so i feel in this unique situation, Cons own opinion is equal to that of being the greater source, than any of the sources provided by Pro

spelling and grammar - both appeared to be highly literate

better conduct - I am actually going to give Pro a little tick here. You cannot argue against someone arguing for "love" and i feel, whilst ever so minor, the Cons final statement at the end of the debate where he "interprets" the motives, or reasons for his opponents forfeiting, just gave a remote air of over assurance

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

ARGs to CON: PRO's argument was essentially a string of non-sequitur. Between the cats having babies and men lifting cars, PRO asserts that the power of love is proof of soul without any kind of evidence.

Conduct to CON for forfeit

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Argument: Pro never defined "soul," specifically, but related it to the ability to love. In addition, Pro wandered into an area of demonstrating, if not love, then the ability to adopt another father's litter in animals, which is a diversion from the debate subject. It was left to Con, which was not challenged by Pro, to define the germane terms in the debate. Points to Con.

Sources: Pro had sources, but none spoke to the direct debate subject. Con had no sources. Tie

S&G: Pro: lack of spacing: true.It, heard.It
slang: by like several...
spell: heard [should be herd]. Points to Con

Conduct: Pro: Forfeit debate. Point to Con

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

50% FF

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Basically a BoP failure. The big issue is pro disputing that a soul can be quantified (or was he claiming that each member of different religions have a wholly different type of soul?). Con on the other hand refuted that the evidence offered (someone lifts something heavy, and cats) is evidence for some unknown soul by explaining it in terms other than a soul; which left the evidence equally us having a soul to be as valid as claiming our souls are our skeletons.

Pro could have won a debate about love being fundamental in humans.

Conduct for forfeiture.

Sources tied due to them not advancing the case.