Instigator / Con
7
1777
rating
79
debates
76.58%
won
Topic
#3019

The Biblical God acts fairly

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Benjamin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
4
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

Literally playing the devil's advocate.

BoP is shared.

-->
@fauxlaw

You did well; it was a close one

-->
@Benjamin

Congratulations for winning the debate. Well done.

-->
@whiteflame

Thank you for voting. We really appreciate your effort.

-->
@Lemming

Same here. I tried reading it, but I couldn't grasp the points that the 2 of you brought up. Sad, as this was a truly good debate, but I find myself unable to be interested in voting. Sorry fauxlaw and Benjamin.

I just find it difficult to follow along the debate, to check points Pro or Con clearly and remember, I also disagree with both of you on a number of your interpretations and arguments of the Bible, but 'also oddly am an atheist not 'much interested in the subject of religion.

Tried to read a few times, just can't get into it.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Nevets
@Intelligence_06
@gugigor

This debate is running out very quickly. It would be highly appreciated if you took a minute to vote, such that this debate doesn't end as a no-vote tie.

-->
@fauxlaw

One way or another, I’ll get one up, just may not feel comfortable with it.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame

I'll not comment either way - inappropriate, but I know Benjamin would agree, we hope you and others find a means to vote.

I've read through it, and honestly, I'm still not sure what to think by the end. I agree with Ragnar that not defining the BoP of the two sides off the bat and examining what is necessary for each side to win the debate makes the whole thing more difficult to judge. I'll need to chew it over awhile and see if I can come to some kind of decision.

The description needs more depth. Seriously, a debate like this could come down to definitions, so making them a point of contention leads to needless confusion. Similarly making BoP declarations after the start, is risky, as they are likewise open to contention when not pre-agreed.

---

Con says humans should not be judged due to their limited information, but God should be due to his unlimited information. … Fair enough (pun intended).

Arguments start with God sending people to hell. Good use of limited crime vs unlimited consequence. He then declares that adultery equals hell (I expect pro to counter with better context, but in my haste I did not spot it). It moves on to Jesus cautioning against calling people fools, and him having actually done just that. He then plays the other side, that maybe everyone does deserve hell, arguing that it would then be wrong to not send people there. Then a touch of comedy with God sinning against Jesus.

Pro focuses on humanity, and how we should judge humans instead of God. Explains that God does things not as punishments, for he will only punish later, at some unknown time. Then moves on to point out that since the bible says God is righteous, therefore God is righteous (obviously as this is the only source of information on God, it can’t be dismissed out of hand as con argued in his opening).

---

Sorry to say it, but this is not holding my attention, and I have so much more to do with my limited time this weekend (just started a new job, so I'll be voting a lot less in general).

-->
@fauxlaw
@Benjamin

No promises, but I will try.

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@Fruit_Inspector
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable

If any of you want to vote it would be highly appreciated.

Vote bump

-->
@Sum1hugme

You have no idea what influences voters. Comments shouldn't, but that does not mean they don't. Best to stay clear of the possibility. After all, it's a debate in which I am a participant. Go corrupt your own.

-->
@fauxlaw

They won't influence the voters any more than other votes would.

-->
@fauxlaw

Voters shouldn't factor in the comments anyways

-->
@Sum1hugme
@Benjamin

Your conversation prior to end of voting is not appropriate in this venue because of its potential to influence voters. Keep it in PM.

-->
@Benjamin

Your round 3 was your strongest, although your analogies appealed more to intuition than anything else. I think you could've curbed his main offensive by clarifying that "knowing consequences for certain is indistinguishable from intending those consequences." So the whole "trial hasn't happened yet" is irrelevant because god has already intended the outcome of that trial by virtue of knowing the outcome he is going to produce beforehand.

-->
@Sum1hugme

What do you think of this debate? (not necessarily asking for a vote, I am most interested in your thoughts)

-->
@adambeauvsais

Completely understandable given your current debate on a similar subject. Good luck to you on that one. As this one may be complete through voting before yours ends, I may be able to vote on it.

-->
@fauxlaw
@Benjamin

I will not vote on this debate because I don't want to be biased good luck

-->
@fauxlaw

Thank you. I can say the same to you.

-->
@Benjamin

Thank you for your four full rounds of debate. I will be entering my 4th round soon, working on it now, with a first draft complete. I appreciate your attention to this debate with serious arguments offering good challenges. Well done.

-->
@Benjamin

Thanks, Much appreciated. Didn't mean to sound like I was complaining.

-->
@fauxlaw

My comment was a complement to your writing skill.

Actually, I have one. The PhD, that is, in English Lit. And in that process of education, I took a couple of classes examining the Bible strictly as a piece of literature; a different perspective. Sorry, can't help what I bring to the table.

-->
@fauxlaw

6 days isn't enough. I would need a PhD in English literature to properly comprehend your argument. Well, the dictionary must be sufficient for now.

-->
@fauxlaw

Thanks. I wanted to break with tradition and make a debate on this topic without repeating the simple mantra of "genocides, wars etc", and focus on some more important issues. From a Christian perspective, only the eternal judgement of God should matter.

-->
@Benjamin

Just wanted to break with tradition [by making comment during a debate] to tell you that this one is very enjoyable. You're making some challenging points [of course, I disagree, but I remember that you are playing devil's advocate]. Hope you're having fun, too.

-->
@adambeauvsais

Thank you

-->
@adambeauvsais

Thank you

-->
@fauxlaw
@Benjamin

good luck both of you

-->
@Benjamin

I do look forward to a lively, but friendly debate. Good luck to you, too. Though you do not imply, other than by the Resolution, that our scriptural sources are to be biblical, even though there are other religion's holy writ, I commit to avoiding other scriptural references.

-->
@fauxlaw

Good luck. This is the first time we go head to head in an official debate. I guess I'll need the dictionary to properly understand your arguments.