The Kalam Cosmetological Argument
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 10 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
I, Jarrett_Ludolph will be holding the CON position, the view that the argument is unsuccessful, while my opponent, PRO, will be taking the view that the argument is successful. Even though there are other arguments for the exist of God, this debate will only cover the Kalam.
I look forward to a lively debate!
I want to give pro a kudos point for being so entertaining on a topic that is very often dull, but such is not allowed. All I can do is leave conduct tied.
The best pro does in support of the resolution, is an empty assertion without showing it as better: "they should be able to do what they want to beautify the skin, hair or their nails according to religious belief"
Whereas con makes a case for why the KCA is flawed if trying to point to God, and even without that requires expansion beyond the initial syllogism.
Regarding the K: It felt like special pleading, instead of a valid criticism. My rap/rape debate was mentioned (https://www.debate.org/debates/should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/), but there con gives a simple defense of context (further supported by the description), and further I see no sign of pro trying to point out the error prior to accepting. As for the Ormagi/Origami issue, the strength of the arguments for one context over another can be varied leading to different results.
This was pretty clearcut.
We never see a proper refutation of Grice's Razor from PRO.
PRO's attempted refutation with the difference between "rap" and "rape" not only doesn't refute the core idea of addressing what is meant, not said, but it also ignores the fact there is literally no such thing as a "Kalam Cosmetological Argument" whereas there IS rap and also rape.
CON didn't even have to point it out. It was pretty obvious why such a refutation didn't apply, at least from my standpoint. From there, PRO just tried to use red herrings to cop out.
Con presented arguments about the KCA and why the universe can be explained naturalistically. Pro, expecting an easy win because of the slight typo in the resolve, ignored the subject matter and engaged not a single argument. The overall lack of energy in Pro's responses also compels me to give conduct to Con.
In conclusion, Con wins in my book, by virtue of having no arguments contested, and actually trying to have a discussion.