Instigator / Pro
6
1569
rating
12
debates
66.67%
won
Topic

Religion is Valid From God's Perspective

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
6
Sources points
4
2
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
0
2

With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...

RationalMadman
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
12
1615
rating
365
debates
65.21%
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:

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.

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:

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