Instigator / Pro
6
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3445

There is only 1 god.

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...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

Rules:

Pro: Has to defend the monotheist position

Con: Has to defend a polytheist/henotheist position. Con can be a polytheist, henotheist, pluralist, or something similar.

both:

* do not commit these fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* Follow website TOS
* The rules will apply equally to both pro and cons.

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:

I think that starting in Round 1 Con took a large advantage just because of how little Pro actually included in their first round. Pro proposed three different arguments but only really explained the first one in any detail to give the argument some weight, thus making it so that Con was easily able to respond to these arguments in his first round. Con effectively makes an argument against the application of Occam's Razor and shows that Pro's 2nd argument makes a leap from 'could' to 'is'. I think that Con's argument against Pro's paradox is also effective, though its main effectiveness comes in creating a semantic difference between the monotheist 'God' and polytheist 'gods' which is useful for a later argument.

Because Pro did not go into enough detail on the arguments in Round 1 it allowed Con to not only be able to mount an effective Round 1 rebuttal, but also to pose an issue for monotheism in the Problem of Evil. This set the pacing for the entire rest of the debate and made it so that Pro, instead of Con, had an uphill battle in the remaining rounds.

In Round 2 Pro accepts the definition of 'god' used by Con in Round 1, but then proceeds to equivocate the two (using a god from mythology that Con never mentioned) in an ontological argument to try and show polytheism is illogical. Pro uses the rest of the 2nd round to Gish Gallop a response to the Problem of Evil while calling the usage of this argument an appeal to emotions. This really made Pro fall even further behind, and Con took advantage of that. Con rightly points out that the entire first half of Pro's Round 2 does not address Con's arguments and then proceeds to show that the criticism of the Problem of Evil as an appeal to emotion does not work. While Con does not dismantle the various theodicies, considering they were brought up in a Gish Gallop this does not seem to be a mark against him.

Pro's attempt to move ahead in the 2nd round just did not succeed. The only saving grace Pro had at this time was that Con did not make an extensive Round 2, thus Pro should still have some ability to pull ahead if they do everything perfectly in Round 3. Sadly, this last opportunity was not capitalized on. I think that Con could have easily finished this by arguing that by the definition of 'god' that Pro had just accepted in the beginning of Round 2 that Pro had conceded the debate by saying that "Even more evil proves that Satan exists" (as Satan seems to fit the definition). Con, however, did not capitalize on this opportunity.

Pro's Round 3 really did not expand on anything, and, considering Con was in the lead so far, this pretty much sealed the debate. Con does respond to the theodicies to an extent in this round, as Pro did bring them up again, but by this time none of Pro's arguments for monotheism were really left standing. By the 3rd round it seemed to have shifted to debating whether Con's argument against monotheism worked and Pro did not manage to make a convincing case.

This ends with Con winning the points for arguments.

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:

Obvious setup flaw in not forcing con to assume a religious stance. This debate needed a scope limiter (such as "Assuming any deity exists outside of mythology, there is most likely only one.")

I found pro's opening to be an enjoyable read, but he's against a good debater, so it was of course going to be immediately and effectively Kritiked by the suggestion that no god is necessary and thus no god is more likely. Con then goes on to leverage the problem of suffering to dispute that if there is a god, it is more likely multiple to explain the sad state of the world.

From there pro gets lost in the weeds, talking about types of gods and Thor specifically (I agree with con's defense that he didn't argue Thor). ... And ending the round with this: "Even more evil proves that Satan exists." I literally facepalmed. Conceding a god named Satan exists, while also arguing a god named God exists, suggests a henotheist rather than monotheist world. Even not caught by con, this is a huge blunder.

Con basically repeats some of his points.

Pro accused con of ad hominems. He does show why he made the point, but it doesn't really challenge con's logic which did not rely upon Thor or the Easter Bunny.

As for the 4 theodicies, this is Gish Gallop terretory, and pro is lagging too far behind already.

Sources:
Largely awarding this due to con openly challenging a source. He otherwise came in ahead with a variety of good sources such as Scientific America, to support polytheism as more likely if any gods exist; but really, what got me to pay attention to sources was engaging with the opponents source as not properly tied into the debate.