The Kalam Cosmetological Argument
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
To be fair, I left the response in the comments BEFORE you accepted xD
Leave your Votes!!!!!!!!!
why must you betray me?
You should really attempt to engage the subject matter. it doesn't really matter what he names his argument because he has reasons listed that you're not engaging with
It wasn't hard to guess.
Nah, SirAnonymous did. I just told him how to respond :)
Lol you called the semantics argument right on
It affects percentage and your total number of won/lost debates, but not your rating.
If the debate isn't rated, will and win/loss be recorded in my statistics? I know my rating for the leaderboard wouldn't change, but what about my win percentage?
LOL ok
LOL ok
lol. I'm mostly joking, but that Razor is a really solid response
Thanks
You're welcome for telling you how to handle Seldiora's inevitable semantics argument
too late.
AKA "Respond to what I meant, not what I said you turd."
And that's when the handy-dandy Grice's razor comes into play:
"As a principle of parsimony, conversational implications are to be preferred over semantic context for linguistic explanations."
You might want to edit the debate title before some smart alec accepts the debate and tries to make you argue against the Kalam Cosmetological Argument instead of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I made one, I was going to make you the automatic opponent, but I wanted to give you time to prepare, if you need to.