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

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:

More than 50% forfeit

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:

Argument: Pro round 1 argument was absurd because it completely depends on an old and discounted argument that since God is omnipotent and omniscient, He must use the full strength of His power 100% of the time. We don't, and we are made in His image, and, at our best, wholly in His image. Yet, many times, we are able to express sufficient power and intellect/morality without expressing our full potential of them. Why should God. Con's round 2 argument was a much more reasoned argument, representing the only true debate exchange in the debate. Point to Con

Sourcing: Pro's primary source was Con's. Con had fewer, but more pertinent sources. Point to Con

S&G: Tie

Conduct: Con has fully forfeited the debate with 2/3 of the debate. The debate goes to Pro as a result.

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:

Forfeiture.

I really dislike pro's R1, and want to basically discount it from the debate; the problem is con choosing to wait an extra round to reply and then missing the next round after, reduced this to effectively a single round debate. The harm done to the debate, is overshadowing the debate itself, so I am just awarding conduct for this disruption (as much as any other choice would be valid).

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:

CONDUCT - I know Con forfeited two rounds, but Pro's behavior was totally unsportsmanlike. Opening R1 by taking something his opponent said in another debate was sophomoric and a borderline ad hominem attack. It does not matter what a debater has said outside of the debate they are participating in. Additionally, Pro's writing is rude, to put it mildly.

ARGUMENTS - Because Con didn't participate much, many of Pro's points were left unchallenged. For example, Pro convinced me that his definition of omnipotence should be favored over the version Con proposed. Had Con offered a rebuttal, I might have been brought back around to Con's side. But that didn't happen. Same story with Pro's examples of logical contradictions. Perhaps Con could have solved or rebutted them, but without any attempt, the arguments stand in Pro's favor.

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:

2/3 rounds forfeited. That's a full Forfeit per the guidelines. "Full Forfeit - a debate in which a debater (or both debaters) have forfeited all or all but one of their rounds"