Instigator / Pro
16
1487
rating
31
debates
35.48%
won
Topic
#3536

All negative emotions spring from a separation from God

Status
Finished

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

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

After 4 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
26
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Description

All negative emotions spring from a separation and lack of God.

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:

Last two rounds imply concession

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:

Pro actively dropped out half way through, with statements strongly implying a concession to this precise resolution.

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:

By the topic terms, it is basically clear that if there is proven 1 case of negative emotion unrelated to the separation of God, Con wins. Overall, Con has a stronger argument by proving there to be a lack of connection between negativity and God in any terms, also bringing up that "negative emotions" also indeed do have a purpose that should not be just outright removed. Not only that, Pro appeared to use several points without sufficient backing, including one where he just says that it is his own interpretation, instead of treating all of them like proven facts.

All Pro's R1 and R2 arguments are based on pure rationalization but not critical methods, and this method would be essentially proposing that everything has been caused by a green alien. Don't know why this thing happened? The green little alien did it, don't ask why. That is what Pro's argument sounds like. He has not proven in its core why God exists, and by that, I deem this a non-solid proof.

Instead, Con cited scientific sources on emotions and definitions related to God to show that there is no reason God would be involved, which Pro failed to respond for either of the latter two rounds. Overall, Con wins.

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:

Solid effort, I suggest stipulating the existence of your conception of God for the debate although the issue never came up. The case illustrates a standard of God's from which all negative emotion deviates: a result of deviating faith in the prospect of an immortal soul holds very strong refutation resistance. Pro can argue additionally that human nature entails distance from the divine nature of God based on ontology alone. That God's consciousness observes his creation that is only capable of acting upon moral reasoning, but not moral nature.