Instigator / Pro
28
1761
rating
31
debates
95.16%
won
Topic
#3144

Resolved: The God of the Christian bible likely does not exist.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
4
Better legibility
4
2
Better conduct
4
0

After 4 votes and with 22 points ahead, the winner is...

Bones
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
6
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description

INTERPRETED RESOLUTION: The God of the Christian bible does not exist.

DEFINITIONS:

God - The omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being described in the Christian Bible.
Likely - to have a high probability of occurring/being true.
Exist - have objective reality or being

RULES:

1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Definitions are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
4. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
5. A breach of rules 1-5 should result in a 1 point penalty.
6. No Kritiks.
7. Fauxlaw cannot participate
8. A breach in rules 6-8 should result an instant loss.

-->
@fauxlaw

"Reported Votes: RationalMadman, sigmaphil, Intelligence_06"

Wow really? Come on. Here's some pepper for your salt.

https://giphy.com/gifs/fire-spicy-flames-Fei3bkqnqXRCiVGUwL

-->
@BrotherDThomas

You're welcome to your opinions, but this is part of the standard for voting on this site.

-->
@whiteflame

.
white flame,

Subjectively, I disagree with your updated information pertaining to my situation that you have Brought forth. Subjectively once again, and allowing me in being facetious, there're too many rules in the debates, equivalent to if it is Monday, and you are not wearing a blue T-shirt between 3:15 and 4-20pm, you cannot pose a question to your opponent about Jesus being a serial killer, etc., etc., etc.

As my biography shows, Jesus has set an example for me to act the way He did in His Temple scenario as shown in John 2: 13-17, where in no uncertain terms, Jesus acted towards the money-changers in His Father's Temple by making a whip of chords to beat them, and to remove them post haste as He shouted at them “GET THESE OUT OF HERE! STOP TURNING MY FATHERS HOUSE INTO A MARKET! This is the manly Jesus, where ironically He would be on my side relating to my posts, praise!

-->
@BrotherDThomas

I didn't say that I didn't understand your reasoning. I said that your reasoning clearly brought in your own opinions and neglected to address any specific arguments from Pro, which is a requirement for posting votes based on arguments on this site. Being explicit about your praise for his overall argument doesn't mean that the target of that praise, the specific points he made that you viewed as valid, were clear.

-->
@whiteflame

.
whiteflame,

YOUR INSIDIOUS QUOTES:

1. "The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content"

What part of my post #28 didn't you understand?

2. "The vote contains no analysis of Pro's argument aside from vague praise,"

When I stated that Bones literally “owned” the Bible runaway FAUXLAW within the forum, with his logical deductions and facts against FAUXLAW’S continued Bible stupidity and ignorance, especially in the Religion Forum, and in the debate, is in FACT analysis of "Bones" ability to own same, AND of which is NOT "vague praise" but in turn is EXPLICIT praise!

3. ".... and the voter provides no reasoning for sources or conduct apart from personal disagreement and frustration."

It is not hard to disagree to the obvious, whereas "bones" undisputed facts and expertise in debating outright owned FAUXLAW to the topic at hand, and there was no "frustration" whatsoever in coming to this simple conclusion, period!

Your False Equivalency Fallacy is duly noted, besides, "Bones" didn't need my vote to win in the first place as adamantly shown, 21 -6, OUCH!

.

-->
@RationalMadman
@sigmaphil
@Intelligence_06

**************************************************
>Reported Votes: RationalMadman, sigmaphil, Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6:0, points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: See Voting Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:

A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested, though all of these votes meet the basic standard for voting on this basis.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: BrotherDThomas // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6:0, points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "I VOTE PRO, hands down!

The total Bible inept FAUXLAW, as I have shown ad infinitum within this forum, struck out when he accepts that Christians have "Free Will," which if FAUXLAW actually "read" his bible, WE DO NOT have Free Will! This alone strikes out FAUXLAW, along with his other circular reasoning statements and coming up with more lame excuses to run, where the rules were set, but he refused to follow them.

Unfortunately for the pseudo-christian crowd, of which FAUXLAW represents bar none, PRO came forth with some very astute propositions that make me question my faith of being the only TRUE Christian upon this esteemed forum.

In closing, and as literally shown, FAUXLAW was present in the debate, but he was just along for the ride and thinking to himself, "Why did I debate Bones, remind me to never do this again to save what modicum of face I have left upon this forum!""
>Reason for Mod Action:

The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content. The vote contains no analysis of Pro's argument aside from vague praise, and his analysis of Con's argument is restricted to providing his own response to a point Con made and chiding him personally. Neither of these are sufficient analysis to warrant a vote for arguments, and the voter provides no reasoning for sources or conduct apart from personal disagreement and frustration.

-->
@RationalMadman

Thanks for the vote. In what way do you think the rule is cowardly? I have recently already had a 4 round 30 000 character debate with him so I wasn't up for more rounds with the same person.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

"Barring the fact that FAUXLAW didn’t follow Rule 7 and therefore was an instant loss to him, and leaving this notion upon the wayside, nonetheless, Bones literally “owned” the Bible runaway FAUXLAW with his logical deductions and facts against FAUXLAW’S continued Bible stupidity and ignorance, bar none!"

Couldn't have said it better than myself.

-->
@Bones

.
Barring the fact that FAUXLAW didn’t follow Rule 7 and therefore was an instant loss to him, and leaving this notion upon the wayside, nonetheless, Bones literally “owned” the Bible runaway FAUXLAW with his logical deductions and facts against FAUXLAW’S continued Bible stupidity and ignorance, bar none!

-->
@Bones

Well I'm glad that a very structural and wise debater approved me of my kritiking. Thanks for the compliment.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Well I'm glad the kritik master himself approved of my anti-kritiking. Thanks for the vote.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

Thanks for the vote. I appreciate it.

https://tenor.com/view/take-your-l-skeleton-dance-fortnite-lose-gif-16185075

***

Regarding the report of #17... This comment requires no action. Please report only CoC infringements. There is no rule on DART against impolite comments.

***

-->
@fauxlaw

Funny how ur bio states, and I kid you not.

“Fauxlaw is the title of my recent book”

As it has naught to do with this debate, I will explain partially - for everyone's information to avoid self-promotion & trying to remain aligned with DA policy - that there is a specific reason why I insist that any reference to me, on this site, is completely in lowercase and lowercase only. I have explained this before more fully long ago, in Forum, and, in fact, it's in my profile, which I expect exists for the purpose of members to get to know one another, and regret having to repeat it.Thank you, Ragnar, for your input.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

FYI, fauxlaw only recognizes being called fauxlaw, without any variant in capitalization (all caps, or even first letter caps).

It's a distinction similar to the oxford comma. Not a big thing, but still meaningful.

-->
@Bones

Bones,

I don't know where this debate truly stands at this time with you and the ever so dumbfounded RUNAWAY of the Bible FAUXLAW, but be rest assured that when FAUXLAW is easily put into a corner with an aluminum pointed hat on AGAIN by a member regarding his ineptness of his Christian faith, he will use child-like lame excuses to RUN from discussion like he did with me to "try" and save face from his Bible stupidity as shown below in his own inept quotes:

"The flies are buzzing again."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5956-why-do-theists-have-lower-iqs?page=2&post_number=40

"Still flies."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5956-why-do-theists-have-lower-iqs?page=3&post_number=54

"Blah, blah, blah. lf you draw your gun, shoot it, don’t just bore us talking about it"
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5918-contradiction-contradiction-contradiction?page=2&post_number=30

"What? You want me to load your 44 for you? Sorry, that's on you, entirely. You're the one imposing limitations. You do it. All you need is a mirror.
!. Look in mirror 2. Load 3. Lock 4. Shoot [at the mirror] That was easy, yeah?"
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5918-contradiction-contradiction-contradiction?page=3&post_number=55

"What a bloody waste of cyberspace."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5918-contradiction-contradiction-contradiction?page=3&post_number=68

'Wee' who? You and the pocket mouse? 
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5893-why-did-jesus-have-to-die-to-forgive-our-sins?page=2&post_number=42

Membership: what's my runaway count again? I must be running a lot. Glad I'm in shape.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5893-why-did-jesus-have-to-die-to-forgive-our-sins?page=2&post_number=44

"This must be number 50-something. keep counting. You need more pocket mice toes... not to mention more hot air for the wish balloon."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5877-any-thoughts-on-salixes?page=4&post_number=81

"poundmethomas' welcome mat went flying long ago when the pounder first slipped on it. Been slipping ever since, mat or no mat."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5599-no-show?page=2&post_number=35

"That is not yet enough hot air to keep your wish balloon filled. Keep blowing."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5849-the-problem-of-suffering?page=4&post_number=98

"This is a discussion? Looks like more pounding to me. Sorry for the book."
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5849-the-problem-of-suffering?page=6&post_number=126

FAUXLAW remains an embarrassment to the Christian faith and this forum by being so Bible ignorant and stupid, as I and others have explicitly and easily shown, and this is notwithstanding that FAUXLAW is a Moron, excuse me, I mean a Mormon!!! LOL!

.

-->
@BrotherDThomas

Brother, I think your beloved introduction for Fauxlaw, "FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum as explicitly shown, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts to him by me, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times," can be greatly supported by this situation in the comment section.

Congratulations to fauxlaw, who has struck out, and is, therefore, out of competition in Comments during this debate; his preferred condition, in any event. I'll take my two quocs and head for the ranch.

-->
@fauxlaw

STRIKE 1:
Fauxlaw"selective adherence"
...............^
Should be "Selective" not "selective" thus ur adherence to my incorrect use of grammar is nullified. Clearly if you are unable to spell, you are in no position to tell others how to do so.

STRIKE 2:

Fauxlaw commits a Tu quoque fallacy.

The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the following template.

p1. Person A claims that statement X is true.
p2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
c1. Therefore, X is false.

And specifically in this situation

p1. BONES claims that it is grammatically correct to start a sentence with a capital letter.
p2. FAUXLAW asserts that BONES has used slang and thus is inconsistent with the truth claim that capital letters start a sentence.
c1. Therefore, starting a sentence with a capital letter is incorrect.

selective adherence to grammar rules negates argument. "ur" is not grammatical, either, so, the matter may be stuffed. move on.

-->
@fauxlaw

Regardless of what ur name is, the word fauxlaw was at the start of the sentence and thus requires a capital letter.

-->
@fauxlaw
@Bones

Just an outside commenter here:

Perhaps to avoid the waste of what could be a good debate, you could choose a single aspect of the philosophical basis for the existence of a deity. Was there maybe a single point from the last debate that would be worth delving deeper into?

Personally, I think it is difficult to try to cover multiple arguments in a single debate on such a massive topic as this one. I also think choosing a single topic helps readers follow along and maintain interest. But that is just my opinion so do with it what you will.

Before this debate begins, having heard official commentary by Ragnar, and making a final preliminary comment, the name is fauxlaw [lowercase], Con, or opponent. All others, such as "punk," cross the conduct line by a polite request. Fair warning.

-->
@Barney

Actually, ignore my last comment, I'll go through with this. I needa teach this punk a lesson.

-->
@Barney

Is it possible to delete this debate? I don’t feel like getting repeatedly ignored and straw manned by my opponent, who I know will do exactly that.

-->
@Bones

Already feels like this debate will shift focus to the rules in the description > the actual topic.

"A debate may have special rules specified within the description. These are not strictly enforced by moderation, but a voter may choose to abide. If a voter is choosing to and there was a challenge to said rules within the debate, some analysis of that challenge is highly suggested."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#further-notes

-->
@Barney

In this situation, do you think that 1) the rules of my description have been broken and 2) that the rules written in my description hold enough power so that they must be acted upon by voters? If yes, I’ll claim my free W.

Yes, but I didn’t make the name Fauxlaw capital because it’s your name, I made it capital because it was the first letter of the sentence. Moreover this is clearly a Kritik, as my intentions are clear. My win right off the bat .

Pro’s rule #7 stipulates: “Fauxlaw cannot participate.” Should Pro attempt my removal by Mod, let me assure: I am not that member. That member does not exist. I depend on exact representation. My membership profile clearly indicates I am “fauxlaw," and I therefore claim admissibility. Pro knows I am sticky with details. They're important, and ought to be recognized.

We can make an infinite amount of gods and religions, but somehow, this one is more likely than every other one.

-->
@MisterChris

I can make it 20 k and increase the time for debating if you want.

I would be more interested if I didn't know I'd have to slog through 30k characters worth each round... Make it more like 15k and I may bite

-->
@coal
@Tradesecret
@Dr.Franklin
@MisterChris
@Fruit_Inspector

Just pinging random religious people. Any of you interested?