Instigator / Pro
6
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#2706

Atheism and theism are both reliant on faith

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
2
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
8,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Description

Islam is a theistic religion
Buddhism is an atheistic religion

Atheism and theism constantly compete,

I want to prove that under no circumstances can any of them claim superiority if they are distilled from their respective world views

8 000 characters

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:

Since the Initiator did not offer his definitions in the Description, which otherwise would have made them available to potential opponents to negotiate prior to the start of the debate, they become appropriately subject to rebuttal by Pro’s opponent, which is exactly what occurred in R1, and continued through the balance of the rounds. This debate became little more than a back-and-forth of definitions, thereby spoiling what could have been an interesting debate. It wasn’t.

Argument: Pro’s definitions listed in R1 were apparently developed as points pf argument since no sourcing was offered to sustain them as stated. Con took up the challenge as debate points offering sourced definitions. In R2, Con states: “My opponent’s argument rests on re-defining already well defined terms.” Pro ‘rebuts’ in R3: “First, I want to say that I agree with Con’s definitions…” thereby defeating his own argument relative to definitions. As the debate centered on definitions, this voter determines that Con wins the argument criteria on that pro admission, alone. However, Pro reverses his own argument in R1 by first stating: “…theism and atheism, if not specified by using the appropriate name, are not a part of a religion.” That’s debatable, but I do not judge on that statement, alone, but by what follows [again, by pro, R1] “…religions exist based on an impersonal ultimate reality.” In this statement, Pro does not use an ‘appropriate” religious name, such as Catholic, or protestant, or Judaism, or Islam, but is generic, but then offers in his definitions, “Theism; ‘The idea that the ultimate reality is personal,” but, again, considers theism in a generic sense. This is a contradictory argument, and thus fails. I need go no further; Con wins the argument criteria simply by his rebuttal of definitions.

Sources: Pro offers no sourcing for his argument points by his own attempt to convince by logical argument. This is a valid option to sourcing scholastic citation, but, as the above reversal describes, Pro does not present a consistent logic to his argument. Further, by agreement to Con’s definitions, which are sourced, Con wins the source criteria.

S&G: Both opponents offer intelligible arguments. Tie

Conduct: Both opponents offered good conduct to one another. Tie.

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:

Topicality - that is the hurdle that must be overcome by both debaters whenever there are competing definitions of a word at play. Con explains, and receives no valid rebuttal, about why their definitions are accurate and Pros are not. Add on the fact that Pro admitted to making up their own definitions in order to make the debate feasible and we start to see the giant cracks in Pros argument. They are dependent on their definitions.... which are admittedly made up to support their position. Con points out, rightly so, that if an argument is invalidated by the proper definitions, that means the argument is not correct, at least in its current form. Furthermore, Con fulfills their burden with a simple definition which Pro fails to address coherently.

Essentially Pro had to prove that both atheism and theism are contingent on faith, or that faith was the *only* way to get to either conclusion. That's what "reliant" means. Con pointed out that Pro never completed their bop, though obviously not in the same words, the argument that Pro attempts does no work in convincing me of the resolution, even if I were to buy some of the more arbuable definitions, there are lots that Con completely demolished, like faith and how it was necessarily religious.

Con wins by a lot I'd say.