Religion is Valid From God's Perspective
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Forfeiture for conduct.
I got to say, a line like this should never be in the final round: "He has called me nonreligious and not capable of defining God- that's because I simply didn’t yet."
Anyway, con showed that by pro's own definitions, it would be a contradiction for God to then have faith in the unknown (when nothing is unknown to God); not to mention, con leveraged the perspective on God being unknowable. Pro's points on the other hand, felt like he was doing proselytism in the form of Argumentum ad tl;dr, instead of trying to prove the resolution in question.
This debate would have been much improved with a detailed description to clarify what pro was trying to prove, and the limits to who is allowed to accept it which he seemed to weight on inside the debate after con had already accepted.
Arg: PRO uses faith which has a lack of reliable facts to support it, One example is "He is God because he said so and he is", and so on and so on. CON, being the master debater he is already, had used viable logic that is literal facts, while PRO used things that cannot be possibly proven.
Source: PRO is the only one who used an actual source.
Conduct: PRO Forfeited