Instigator / Pro
11
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#2957

Exodus happened

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
9
Better sources
4
6
Better legibility
2
3
Better conduct
2
2

After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...

Nevets
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1557
rating
35
debates
52.86%
won
Description

This is not about whether or not God was involved, but about whether or not the story is true or fiction. Questions about religious themes must be discarded in favour of historical questions. Breaking this theme, for example by criticising the role of God in the story, will lead to a conduct loss -- this is a voting rule.

The expanding resolution can be summed up as so:

"The story of the Israelites leaving Egypt due to miraculous circumstances is not a made-up myth"

Miraculous: extremely unlikely and/or impossible

Myth: a story not based on real events

History: real events

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:

Concession (functionally identical to FF in voting can just spam all points to the conceded-to side).

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:

A frustrating debate by both sides. Well, so be it. It's a concession, and that's always frustrating to encounter, but, so be that. It does settle the argument with a thud. This as a play in 5 acts whose curtain comes down prematurely. Oh, well. On to my RFD:

Argument. Pro states in the Description that this is not about God, and that miracles are part of the Exodus story, but immediately follows with the unlikely occurrence of miracles [?]. In R1, introduces God and miracles, so I.m trying to ignore the statements in Description, and wonder why we are not given scientific reasons why various of the plagues are demonstrated as very possible during a flooding Nile season, as Con develops in the lower frame of R1. But, the lack is an allowance of outside material that is missing anyway from the Pro argument, so, I'll drop it as an issue. No argument is no argument. I concede the point, and Pro's R1 is in shambles. However, Con's R! is not much better. We're introduced to Ahmose I, a Pharaoh a few hundred years before our alleged exodus event, so, why? Don't know. Then we are intriduced to a papyrus, begun, by Con's argument, over a thousand years before Ahmose, written for Khufu, an earlier Pharaoh [and famous for the Great Pyramid on the Giza plateau, but he's out of time, along with his papyrus. Why is he here. Don't know. Then, we are introduced to an Egyptian princess, who is not linked to the alleded exodus, either, so, why is she here? Don't know. Too many don't knows for my book. Both opponents fail R1.
R2: Pro repeats the mantra of the Description [no God,,, miracles, yes/no], then proceeds to regale more God and miracles, summing up at one point that natural catastrophes can occur, but follows by a statement that the Jews can be blamed for them [?], and I wonder just which BoP Pro is attempting to prove. Pro concludes that it's up to us to determine whether Gods exists. Again, God. Having been dismissed in Description, he apparently still has scripted lines, but this audience is looking for his name in the players' list. It seems to be missing according to the handout we received with the tickets. Con's R2 argues that evidence of a migration of Isrelites into Egypt does not prove there was an later exodus. True, but it does not disprove, either, and Con drops that argument in favor of discussion Hyksos and Asiatics wandering about, but neither negates or supplies a link to Israelites, so, what? Further in R2, Con introduces a new character on stage in his Act !!: Jesus and his resurrection? What is the link of that story to Exodus; and even that need not be proven, or disproven in this debate, so why is Jesus on stage, resurrecting, or not, let alone teaching anything? Non sequitur events occurring over a spread of over 3,000 years in two acts. An epic.
Sorry, I can't continue. I've got to leave the play to take a leak, and, maybe while O'm gone, the curtain will mercifully come down.
It did. Without detailing Act III, IV, or V... No, Act III has Pro alleging [no it is history] that a volcano erupting a few hundred years before the exodus caused the plagues. Even a hundred years before strains credibility, so both opponents are telling stories with a clock that looks like one Salvador Dali owns.
Cut to the chase, Pro concedes in Act 4, and all play nice to the end. The end. Tie.

Sources: Neither uses sources to their best advantage. Tie

Legibility: Tie

Conduct: Does a concession automatically earn a tie? No, the Voting Policy stipulates that if a conduct point is awarded to the conceding side when such a vote wold give the win to the conceding side, such a vote could go to moderation. Nope, not going to do that. 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:

Concession.