Instigator / Pro
29
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#1983

God of the Bible is not omnipotent

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
6
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
5
3
Better conduct
4
1

After 5 votes and with 13 points ahead, the winner is...

User_2006
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
16
1432
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Description

No information

-->
@Barney

Yes, I believe I did err in my identification of participants. I will re-cast a vote.

-->
@fauxlaw

The vote stated "Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro" but assigned all the points to con, which strikes me as a clear accident. ... If I'm mistaken, please recast it as is (or refined in any way you want), and a different moderator will handle the requested review of it.

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, subjective competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions).
This is one of those exceptions... Generally this is enacted for simple mistakes when the outcome is a foregone conclusion (such as for concessions and Full Forfeitures, but the voter mistakenly voted for the wrong side)
**************************************************

fauxlaw
4 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Argument: Con's single round of argument [round 2] offered more reasoning than Con's three rounds, combined, which amounted to taunting Con rather than offering positive argument on the subject. Point to Con.
Sources: Pro's sourcing was primarily citing Con's citations, with the exception of citing a definition, which Con also did. However, only Con had a exterior source relative to her argument. Point to Con.
S&G: Pro: "Been it for 2 rounds already" not only bad grammar, but wrong as, to that point, Con had offered but one round. Point to Con
Conduct: Con taunted Pro during all three rounds, without really offering any argument as a proponent. Point to Con.
But for the fact that Con forfeited two rounds, when all that would have been necessary to save her one good argument would have been to extend her argument in round three based on an excellent 2nd round argument. Con wins by protocol, but all points to Pro.

-->
@Barney

Don't make me blush

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Thank you for casting such a great vote on this debate.

-->
@Singularity

Insulting what voters you attract, is about the worst way to try to get them to refine their votes. Next time I suggest just asking for further feedback on debate content.

-->
@User_2006

Round 1: "I will sit by and see you destroying yourself."
Round 2: "I will go on full power even though my opponent didn't say a thing. Expect my opponent's answer. Been it for 2 rounds already."

Taunting. That's why Conduct to Pro, who said nothing of this nature against you.

-->
@fauxlaw

Why conduct to Pro?

-->
@Singularity

You failed to refute most of my points because you have failed to be present at the last round. That's a full forfeit for ya.

-->
@Singularity

I can only vote based on the rules. The rule is clear.

Calling me a dumbass does not change the rules. All you had to do was say.. my position stands. You gambled with the rules and you lost.

-->
@CaptainSceptic

Judge based on the arguments presented dumb ass

that is honestly retarded. If I knock down all your arguments in a single post and provide stronger arguments it would be stupid to award my opponent the win

The fact that your opponents position is a double negative (arguing AGAINST God being NOT omnipotent) and that your first round is a repost of something they said previously that disagrees with the opponents double negative (making it a triple negative) with the implication that you disagree with your opponents statement (making it a quadruple negative) makes the whole thing a bit harder to follow than it should be.

"God of the bible is omnipotent" with yourself as con would have been much much better.

-->
@Singularity

If you only have one round written, then it would mean that you have a FF, meaning that I will still win.

Seriously keep falling asleep when it is time to post my argument wtf. Oh well. I only need one round to win this

I actually like this approach.

I don't think that it is fair to use one of their debates as evidence against another. I debate both sides all the time.

I just did. The bible is Gods case file and creation his evidence. Again, i recommend you do a philosophical debate about omnipotence. With religion you will just get a headache.

-->
@Melcharaz

I understand how christianity works, but you can't prove God's existence without adding water into it.

Bible is direct evidence. If you wanted to debate it non religiously, you should have used philosophy, not religion

-->
@Melcharaz

If you want to accept the debate, go for it. However it is very dangerous to use that statement since you can't justify it yourself or use any direct evidence.

-->
@User_2006

Revelation 19:6 6And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.