Earth’s Age is More than 100,000 Years Old

Perhaps if more of it actually factored into your argument, but you spent so much time away from the actual point of hand - trying really hard to have a "gotcha" with Pro's rules. Perhaps if you focused on a more in-depth kritik? Then that kind of stuff would be excusable.

I still have some hard learning work to do.

Well, then I see. You're right.

"In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate...""

Take: "distracted from the topical debate" as my essential point here

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Bugsy460 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0:4, 4 points to CON
>Reason for Decision: See Comments
>Reason for Mod Action:

There are two problems with this vote that should be resolved.

First, the voter needs to go into depth on why the conduct point was assigned.

All we get is an affirmation of what CON has stated in debate, but we must get more for the conduct point to be warranted:

"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."

In sum, the voter must demonstrate that what PRO did warranted "a penalty for excessive abuse, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate..."

Next, we need more analysis on the contentions throughout the debate.

"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
1. Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
2. Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
3. Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."

While the voter sums up a singular argument from CON, he needs to go through in more detail to show why PRO's arguments and refutations of CON's argument ultimately don't hold up in his view.

I asked the other mods on the Discord for feedback, and I got one response essentially reflecting the same view:

"It seems insufficient to me. He doesn’t really cover Pro’s arguments in explaining why he awarded arguments, instead just accepting Con’s arguments without addressing all the counters given by Pro, relying on the statement that “philosophical and historical evidence” support its veracity, a statement which should require some engagement with arguments from both sides. The conduct point is also explained oddly, with the voter chiding Pro for trying to push BoP onto his opponent and engaging in pre-rebuttal."

Do you think that one reason is why you lost the conduct point - its the amount of effort you put into trying to show that your opponent broke his own rules in your first round - each argument being semantic almost entirely - I'm sorry but no - you were penalized for unsportmanlike behavior - especially considering you BROKE quite a few of the rules - the resolution was meant to be scientific, and you turned it into the precise thing the resolution was not supposed to be knowing that - I could have listed far more reasons for your conduct, but that is all I need.

This is all, assuming your right about the latter point btw, which you aren't. The two contentions were entirely separate - it is far more likely you are connecting them for the sake of saving face - which I find even more unsportmanlike

I strongly disagree. Tha statment "Earth cannot speak, geology does" is NOT semantics, but a real argument. It was meant to be coupled with my argument that science cannot determine the start of the universe. But hey, regardless of what semantics you think I used, the conduct point is not justified. If you think I lost, then you can rather give the sources point.

That is one of the most semantic things i have literally ever seen, "Science cannot speak"... stop - you know you're wrong here

Firstly, I never admit anything.

"
""Con tries to bat away my figurative speech by interpreting it as if Earth is literally speaking""
I showed why SCIENCE, not EARTH, says that earth is 4.3 billion years old. Science cannot speak either, so I don't know how PRO can make this accusation.
"

I am not really attempting to use semantics, I am trying to expose the fallacy of equating current scientific methods to "Earth says", while geology is the actual factor and speaker, not the Earth itself. The Earth is not saying that it is old, because YEC also would create an Earth as we see it today, just not through evolution.

Secondly, what does one expect when going into a debate where the rules are literally forbidding every type of argument I could make except the one I made?
I showed why PRO's rules were unreasonable, and that not even PRO could keep them. Not all of my arguments in this regard need to be true and to give PRO the conduct point simply because he made me object to such a humongous list of rules is not in the spirit of the conduct point. Please remove it, I have never even heard of such a conduct violation as "semantics" -- that is a part of the arguments point.

Semantically trying to argue that your opponent broke his own rules while essentially admitting that your arguments are semantic are the definition of unsportsmanlike

I'll admit my last round isn't as strong as it could've been. I lost a bit of motivation lol

Thank you for voting!

However, you must revote and remove the conduct vote.

Voting Policy:
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate. Common examples are repeatedly using personal attacks instead of arguments, committing plagiarism or otherwise cheating. Invalid if: Both sides had similar types and/or magnitude of misbehavior, or it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic. Further, a conduct penalty is not warranted for mere dislike of the topical contentions or weak argumentation.
"

I understand if my accusations of breaking own rules were annoying, but they are not a sound basis for such a vote.

I understand. You do what you see as right.

Not really the type of topic that at least one of you wants me voting on. I've got a pretty hard bias on this one.

The reason the Bible being unspecific isn't enough for me to vote in favor of pro is because the fact that most believers believe that means there's an implicit value. That coupled with the fact there's a huge doubt in what science says to the existence of time,I can vote for the Bible.

hahahhaha

Just imagine the nemesis lists of someone like Seldoria or Rationalmadman.

yes, if you win you get to be on Nemesis list. Though I will probably redo this topic.

Why are you calling your "nemesis's" to vote?

Also, if I win, do I get to be on your "nemesis" list?

There is a VERY clear way to figure out what the Bible says about the age of the Earth: the genealogies. So my argument holds. He also doesn't mention how I proved that the naturalistic worldview is self-contradictory anyways.

come one come all, vote if you can, only two days left

but I argued that Bible doesn't state Earth's age very explicitly, and that Con doesn't come up with any evidence, rather assuming that the bible just says the earth is younger than 100,000 years old...

Thank you for voting

RFD
So the first thing I look at in the debate is the question of all of the rules Pro sets up and if they are self violated and so forth. I actually really vibed with the arguments made by Con that Pro was using kritiks and semantics and that should be an immediate loss, but that was dropped for an argument created in the second round that Pro was being generally shitty in how he forced Con to be on a higher pedestal of BOP and that Pro prempts a bunch of Bible answers but then says no Bible. I buy that for conduct. For the argumentation, however, Con is winning on the framing in the sense that I have to look at the Bible validity question and ask if it's true or not. Based on philosophical and historical evidence, it is. Therefore, the Bible saying it's 10,000 years old is literal and supremely true. I also have enough of a doubt on the validity of science to make it easier, but that isn't really necessary for this debate.

Comments for Pro
Be careful trying to redefine yourself from your description. I know you made a typo and it happens, but that is a semantic argument, 100%. Also, make sure you don't drop really important framing arguments, for example, when Con says the BOP is all on you. If he hadn't of also dropped it, that means you have to prove everything, which makes the debate that much harder. Lastly, make sure your on the same level as your opponent. You do really good analysis of the line by line of science, but when the validity of science is questioned, you have to justify that with some empiricist philosophy, not just extend your "facts" as untouched.

Comments for Con
Don't drop really good meta-debate arguments. Your argument about Pro having the entire BOP was dropped by Pro, meaning a basic extension would be an automatic restructuring of my vote in your favor. Also, your argumentation that Pro used kritiks and semantics are automatic wins across the board if you prove them, really hit hard on those, especially the semantic one since the answer Pro used was "I used semantics for good, so it's ok". Next, Pro challenging the Bible's credibility isn't a kritik, especially since it wasn't a rule, just a preempt. A kritik would be more along the lines of "the Bible is an ultimate source, so true or not it's an unfair and non educational tool to debate with" or "the Bible justifies queerphobic violence and debaters who use it should be dropped for that reason". One of those is more a meta-debate kritik while the other is a political kritik, but that proves the point. Lastly, a really good religious argument to use as a really good shield to answers is the Leap of Faith by Kierkegaard, which just says that even if it seems like a bad idea, all will be answered if you accept it.

Really good debate and a really tough decision. If y'all have any questions, either use the comments or DM me.

I know, I just can't control myself with the wise cracks sometimes

also... " he is still learning the ropes of debating"

I've actually had more than 500 debates overall on different websites ... granted, opponents forfeited a lot of them, but I also experimented a lot. Despite my username, I have as much losses as wins overall XD

13 more non spam posts to make a vote. Just giving this a bump so maybe somebody else can vote prior to mine going up

Okay God was first cause and Jesus was resurrected . Great. You should have probably focused on YEC though.

""
You never argued that Matthew mark like and John considered God the divine author of the bible, and you had an opportunity in round 2 to provide evidence for that and refused.
""

Exactly -- the purpose of the debate was YEC vs Naturalism, not YEC vs OEC.

I properly debunked naturalism. Just because there is a slight chance of OEC doesn't remove the absolute undermination of naturalism that I did.

And that God is the necessary first cause, and that Jesus was resurrected.

Pro did not accept the bible. Just the gospels and just that the gospels supported the fact a person performed magic and actually existed and was worshipped.

He didn't prove the conservation of energy. He proved geologic evidence, radiological testing and evolution .

You never argued thatatthew mark like and John considered God the divine author of the bible, and you had opportunity in round 2 to provide evidence for that and refused.

You'll never improve as a debater if you ignore the advice of voters and continue to think you won a debate that you not only lost, but lost extremely convincingly. It wasn't a particularly hard debate to win either either considering he is still learning the ropes of debating

Well, I presented solid evidence for it in round two -- exactly when PRO argued that the Bible could support an OEC

Also, the fact that PRO accepted the Bible, just attacked theology, proves that I didn't need to connect Jesus and YEC.

Well, I presented solid evidence for it in round two -- exactly when PRO argued that the Bible could support an OEC

Also, the fact that PRO accepted the Bible, just attacked theology, proves that I didn't need to connect Jesus and YEC.

The new testament treats God as the divine author of the entire Bible. Again, disallowed. Furthermore, why do you not apply that same logic to PRO. Yes, he showed that the earth looks old but never proved that the conservation of energy proves that it IS old.

If I remember time not existing was not brought up until round 3 when it was too late for new arguments. Plus it was a bare assertion anyway and ai did accept some of your bare assertions in my analysis because they went unchallenged or because pro conceded.

Wrong we assumed YEC was the default position of the bible. Christianity can exist independently of the bible. All that is required for you to be a christian is John 3:16. That verse does not include believing in the entirety of the bible

That kind of appeal to division (like mentioning OEC) is not fair game. That's why PRO disallowed quantum mechanics arguments.

I also showed some sources that prove time doesn't exist - which PRO never rebutted. Those alone should win me the debate -- except if we assume that time exists for science and that God's existence and Jesus miracles prove YEC.

Again, we had as a basic assumption that YEC is the position of Christianity. And I proved Christianity and disproved naturalism.

You cannot give PRO the point of the argument simply because I could not post 2-3 verses from the Bible to complete my argument.

How would proving God is real or that Christianity is true, prove that the entirety of the bible is true? I think you could have proven it, particularly since in round 2 pro stated he was inviting you to use bible quotes and prior to that he accepted the gospels as a valid source of historical events.

Tell me specifically how you connected Jesus to young earth creationism? How would the gospels of Mark Mathew like and John prove that Genesis is correct? More important how did you show that matthew mark like and john's eyewitness accounts of Jesus prove any of the old testament beyond the fact a magician can perform "miracles" and factually existed?

""
The first law of thermodynamics asserts that energy must be conserved [britannica.com]. This means that energy cannot be created or destroyed - only switch from one form to another. So without a first cause, the universe is infinite in time in both directions - and both before the Big Bang and after the heath death is the universe filled with nothing but endless entropy. But God is the first cause, he is omnipotent, and he can create energy from nothing. He is the necessary creator of the universe as the cosmological argument proves. Science cannot provide a first cause, because science does not allow an immaterial force to create energy. The Big Bang Theory does not provide a sufficient explanation that is not God. The Big Bang was not random but highly fine-tuned to the power of 10^10^50-100 => for EVERY cosmological constant [source]. Thus, the Big Bang would still require God to happen.

THUS ==> Science is NOT the final authority with regards to WHEN the universe starts and stops -- GOD IS.

Now, the question still remains: why did God create the world 10.000 years ago rather than 14 billion years ago?

But is there any difference at all? In fact, no. There is no difference between a universe that was created 10.000 years ago and a universe created 14 billion years ago. Both universes have popped into existence with no cause but God. If PRO can think that the BIG BANG created the universe, then he asserts as a truth that a first cause exists. But in doing so, he also admits this fact: that it is arbitrary which moment the universe pops into existence. And since God created the universe, an act science cannot explain, then GOD knows when that happened. And God tells us that it happened 10.000 years ago. Since science cannot operate beyond that initial creation, only God knows the correct answer to when the earth was created.

""

This was in my first post -- it clearly proves that only God knows when the universe was created. The only objection at all PRO raised was a theological one, but that was not allowed. Since PRO never debunked this simple logical evidence ^ I clearly won.

Even in my first argument, I prove that God must have created the universe and that only a theological dispute (disallowed) could destroy YEC.

Thus, it's not correct that I did not connect Jesus and YEC.

""
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
""
This is what the voting policy states as necessary for giving the point of the argument. Yes, if we assumed naturalism then PRO would easily win. But I completely undermined Naturalism and proved Christiantiy. Therefore, my set of arguments far outweigh his.

PRO's argument:
-- the earth looks old

CON's argument:
-- any world would look old, science cannot decide the age of the earth
-- naturalism is internally contradictory
-- only God could create the universe, and the universe is created, so God created the universe
-- God himself says he created the universe 10.000 years ago

I have no clue how the single argument from PRO should win him the point of the arguments. Yes, I wasted some space and his structure was nicer (because of his unfair rules), but I completely undermined his argument and proved why Christianity is correct and Naturalism incorrect. You literally stated that I lost because I did not connect Jesus and YEC. But I couldn't -- the Bible was disallowed. It is common knowledge:

"For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious."

My argument that the Bible is the word of God was never rebutted. Thus, I won. I completely undermined the entire worldview that PRO's argument relies on, and proved why the worldview that supports YEC is correct. You cannot vote PRO simply because of my structure - there is no structure point. I actually showed multiple times why God, whom I proved to exist and talk to humans, would know when the universe was created but science would not.

Essentially, giving the argument point to PRO would be against the rules, my arguments CLEARLY outweigh his.

The only way that PRO made a better case than me was by having a more reliable source, science.

Thus, You cannot possibly give PRO the argument point, you must give him the sources point and me the argument point.

Again I am not qualified to give a vote yet, but there is my RFD and I will add the vote when I am qualified

RFD part 1

Description

I consider an RFD, not only an analysis of a debate, but also an opportunity to educate debaters. So, you’ll see mostly analysis below, but some education as well. Part 1 of this RFD is about the debate description, which is more an education than a portion of the debate analysis. The following quote in particular is what I am going to discuss.

“Burden of proof is shared. No quantum physics arguments allowed. No trolling. No semantic arguments. No kritiks”

The instigator of the debate does not determine who holds the burden of proof. It is entirely inappropriate and I would argue worthy of a conduct violation for even attempting to do it. Though I won’t award conduct points here. In this case, the instigator of the debate is correct, the burden is shared. However if the instigator was incorrect than he would either be taking on too much of the burden or too little.
Denying semantic arguments is bad because semantics is literally how we understand what is being said. In fact if a debate is done properly, both people should be arguing semantics prior to engaging in the debate, so that way they know if they even really disagree. Since that is usually not a practical thing to do, than we need to allow semantics within the arena of the debate it self.
Kritiks are something pointless to even ban. If a judge is tabula rasa as they should be, than it is impossible to prevent them anyway, putting the rule in place seems to be something that would merely confuse inexperienced judges into thinking they are not allowed to award wins to a kritik.
Attempting to disallow quantum physics arguments is also inappropriate for the same reasons as disallowing kritiks.

I am writing this while reading it, so please excuse the lack of structure, but my time is limited.

Round 1 pro

semantics

It’s good that pro makes a preemptive strike by discussing his spelling mistake in the description, but ultimately it isn’t that important and he wastes too much space on it. I suggest in the future, just dedicating one sentence to it and moving on. If con is a terrible enough debater to bring up an argument depending on that misspelling, than just smile, point to your semantics rule and then make the same argument you wasted space on in this round. I know I pointed out how bad it was mentioning a semantic rule before, but in this particular and very rare situation, as a judge I would apply it, because of my disdain for abusing spelling errors by debaters.

geology
Pro uses what he calls Geology arguments, pointing to the accumulation of snow over a period of over 100,000 years or rock accumulation of over 100,000 years and even the estimated age of a volcano according to estimates of how long it would take to grow to a specific height. In the future I would suggest picking one of those examples and using it. This is a gish gallop of sorts and it would be impossible for your opponent to tear down each piece of evidence one by one, because it is quicker to say something like “A study says fact A” than it is to carefully pull apart a study and discuss it’s methodological flaws. If your opponent calls you in this Gish gallop, I would just erase all of your points for the unfairness. As long as he picked one of your examples and tore it apart. This is my second reading of the debate though, and it doesn’t look like he will do so.

RFD part 2

radiological testing

I like the radiometric testing argument. It is focused on one method of testing to show the age of the Earth. However it still borders on a bare assertion, because it lacks a defense of why we should trust it. I think this is part of a problem with kids these days a blind trust in what is perceived as established “science” without a realization that science in general as a method rejects appeals to authority or appeals to conventional or so called established wisdom. Actually discuss the science behind radiological testing next time, to strengthen your case.

Evolution
This by far is pros best argument, he points out that evolution would require a new animal a day to be evolved into in order for the Earth to be less than 100,000 years old and for I don’t like the use of the supreme court. Their rulings have little to do with deciding whether creationism is real or not, and is more about whether parents can force schools to include creationism. Also the appeal to authority pointing out 97% of scientists agree with evolution is not even remotely convincing. Appeals to authority usually aren’t. Experts thought lead was okay to put in make-up, they thought smoking was healthy and they thought you can cure women of mental illness by giving them orgasms. The opinion of experts is considerably less important than the reasons behind those opinions.

Questions
I don’t understand why there are questions at the end of the round. They seem irrelevant. However I am going to assume it is some strategic thing to get con to waste words and character space on things that won’t advance the debate. If it is a strategic thing to place those questions, than I appreciate the gamesmanship by pro, if not than he wasted space for seemingly no reason.

Con round 1

burden of proof
This is annoying. Con is wasting time randomly declaring that pro has the burden of proof. If he laid out a good argument to defend that position, I would accept it, but he merely wastes time bitching the other rules that pro made (which I plan to ignore) are unfair so that means pro should accept burden of proof. I believe burden of proof is shared, but am mostly tabula rasa so can still change my mind if con makes an argument better than “The rules are unfair, so fuck it give pro BOP”. I don’t buy it. Some advice for the future con. Don’t waste so much time giving a shit about burden of proof. After the debate is said and done, BOP really only matters if impacts are precisely even. This only happens in debates where every round is forfeited by both sides. BOP is not very important.

He ends the BOP section by claiming that in order for pro to win the debate he must erase all doubt of the earth being less than 100,000 years old. This is a ridiculous standard and impossible for pro to do. Pro only needs to show the Earth is most likely over 100,000 years old to win the debate, unless con provides a good argument for that not to be the case. Spoiler alert, con doesn’t he just makes a bare assertion here.

RFD part 3
Pro breaks the rules
Con spends a lot of time explaining that pro broke his own rules. For example the semantics rule. Technically con is correct that pro broke the semantics rule. He is incorrect on the kritiks rule. However there is two issues with this. I don’t care about pro’s rules is the first. However the biggest problem is that he doesn’t argue how pro should be punished. This is where I could be convinced to dock pro a conduct point, but the argument is never made. Perhaps it will be in a later round.
Unfounded claims
con says that pro makes several unfounded claims, and yet makes many himself. Con’s hidden premise is that YEC should be disproven by pro, but this is incorrect. Con actually needs to make an argument for YEC.
I don’t even know what con is doing here. Con mentions Noah’s ark being small for example. It is irrelevant as to whether the Earth is over 100,000 years or not and ultimately a waste of time to explain the size of the Ark. Some of the unfounded claims he says pro made, don’t even matter in the context of determining how old the Earth is. For example pro said God was not an expert. Who cares? It is an unfounded claim, but I am not accepting God as an expert unless Con makes a good argument for why God is one, and proves God that God has stated the age of the Earth.
We are now about to enter the section titled rebuttals for con. However Con has not made any positive argumentation. He has not provided any evidence that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. This means he is entirely leaning on the fact that the burden of proof is on pro. The two problems are that, the burden of proof is actually evenly split here. The other problem is that, if even a single piece of pro’s evidence stands unrefuted, no matter how small than pro wins.

Rebuttals
Con instead of disputing the geological evidence pro gives instead chooses to somehow randomly interpret his words in a literal way they clearly weren’t interpreted to be.

For example pro says
“the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old”
Here is what con mysteriously gets out of it
“He claims "the earth says", but then attributes the facts to geology.”

This is not even a rebuttal, this is just random complaints that pro did not use the word geology as a substitute for the word earth in that sentence. This is made even more odd by the fact that Geology literally means “Study of the Earth”, so swapping out the words would do nothing to change the meaning.

RFD part 4

Con’s next rebuttal is to hand wave pro’s evidence away by basically saying that his evidence shows that the Earth merely appears to be over 100,000 years old. That’s what evidence does con, it shows us what appears to be the truth. Any evidence con provides also would not be absolute proof to a solipsist type of mindset, it would only look like evidence of what he is saying. I suggest in the future not using “The evidence just makes you look correct” as a rebuttal. It is probably the worst rebuttal I have ever seen.

I want to skip the parts of this debate that have nothing to do with proving or disproving the resolution, but some of con’s statements are just absurd. Con, do you really think the term devil’s advocate is supposed to be taken to literally mean you are advocating on behalf of the devil or are you just trolling? If you do have a tough time with these very very common phrases than please google them in the future, so you can know what 99.99% of the population already know. Which is that devil’s advocate just means you are making an argument you disagree with.

YEC argumentation

In this section con has finally got to the positive argumentation that he should have started the round with. Instead of using a typical syllogism, which has 2 premises and a conclusion he instead provides 3 premises. I am going to be generous here and assume P3 was really meant to say C1.

P1
Con points out that if the bible is true than YEC is correct. However he has apparently been handicapped this debate, so he says he can not use bible verses to prove his point. I am going to accept that the bible says this since pro cannot disprove it, as that would require bible verses to do. Something pro has disallowed.
For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious.

P2
I am going to do what I did with pro. I am going to accept all of con’s arguments as true until they are disproven. Con argues the following evidence proves the bible is true.

1. Anthony Flew was a famous atheist and then became a christian on his deathbed so it must be true
2. Philosophical arguments including cosmological argument and fine tuning
3. There are records that Jesus existed such as the eyewitness accounts in the new testament

I would like to see con spend the entire round on these 2 premises and then just wait on rebuttals if he had no room left. These premises can get him the debate win if he doesn’t waste space on irrelevant crap like the size of Noah’s Ark. Con will be a much better debater once he starts doing what I suggest and taking more control of the debate as opposed to being merely responsive to his opponent.

I’d also like to see him expand on why he thinks the above arguments prove the bible, seeing as how he has backed himself in a corner and need to prove the bible true this debate, as opposed to the much easier arguments of just proving the Earth is younger than what scientists believe.

RFD part 5

Pro round 2

Right off the back pro clarifies that he was okay with bible verses being used and invites con to use them. This is a dangerous invitation since rebuttals in a 3 round debate should be limited to round 2 and pro won’t have the opportunity for most of the types of rebuttals that would be available to him in round 3. The introduction pro offers here, I take issue with his lack of understanding what semantics mean. It is the redefining of words, but getting to a more precise definition. It is irrelevant to the debate though, seeing as how con did not argue how we should punish pro for using semantics. If con makes the argument in round 2, I will revisit this.

Con really gave no rebuttals, so this round we don’t really need any defense of his previous rounds arguments. I am looking for pro to offer rebuttals for con’s positive argumentation for P2.

Pro does a good job of this by addressing the philosophical arguments. He points out that the universe having a beginning does not necessitate that beginning being the tri-omni God. Pro points out that the goldilocks zone for fine tuning is large and so fine tuning would not be needed for our universe to evolve to what it is, and also hints at the problem of evil disproving a fine tuning without directly stating it, pointing out brain parasites etc. Pro spends more time addressing Con’s philosophical arguments than he has to. I would have just pointed out they were bare assertions and not spent too much time on them myself.

Pro seems to concede that Jesus was a historical figure who actually performed miracles. However he points out that Jesus performing miracles and existing has very little to do with how old the Earth is. I agree with pro here. Con really needed to show how the fact Jesus existed makes the entirety of the bible true if he wanted this premise to mean anything.
Pro refuses to address the fact that Anthony Flew claimed to believe in God when on his deathbed and barely coherent, and surrounded by family who would be put at ease believing he would go to heaven. Con’s Anthony Flew argument stands.

The rest of pro’s arguments is pointing out con ignored some irrelevant questions. I don’t care Again if this is another strategic attempt by pro to distract con than good on him, if not than it is a waste of time. Either way it is boring and irrelevant to voters, especially when the questions have nothing to do with the resolution.