Instigator / Pro
42
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2559

If the Christian God was Put on Trial, it would be Justified to Judge Him Guilty of Crimes

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
0
Better sources
12
4
Better legibility
6
5
Better conduct
6
3

After 6 votes and with 30 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
12
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

Let's assume that the Christian God and all the stories written about him were true. I am saying, based on the events occurred, he can be judged guilty of our crimes we have set for humans. This is a fair trial set in the US with jury and judge. Also assume that the idea that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent are all up to question and debatable. We are only judging the events themselves, not the claims made about God's sinless nature.

I am saying it is justified to judge him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and attempt to punish (or set limits) according to law.

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:

FF of course.

Additionally, I checked a couple random sections for plagiarism, such as "Never have we punished people with torture for their crimes, much less for eternal. But it is apparent that God punishes mere inaction. The Bible has stated." and "Throughout the bible, he has indeed saved many people, but he fails to display the same level of mercy in real life events" which brought up no search results.

Heck, plagiarism is so frowned upon I glanced in the comment section as well for any analysis pointing to it, while I see links, I don't know what inside them I'm supposed to look at. There should be something specific that is plagiarized for such a strong alligation.

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:

FF. Too bad considering PRO's argument was quite beatable

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:

Con forfeited 2/3 rounds and then put the argument at a point where his opponent cannot properly respond. That is poor conduct. More than plagiarism, considering I see Pro using a rightful exercise of citing sources.

Con had no sources. Sources to Pro.

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 points: Not distictively to Con as he forfeited two rounds; neither to Pro for his alleged plagiarism. Tie

Arguments & Sources: Regardless, Pro presented something that went unchallenged. To Pro.

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:

Con forfeited twice and Pro plagiarized half of his R2. I won't award conduct points to either side. Pro does make some arguments that, as best as I can tell, were not plagiarized. Con made no response to any arguments, so arguments to Pro.

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:

Full Forfeit

Regardless of RMM's last-second objection, no arguments were provided to validly deconstruct Pro's reasoning.