Does God exist ? Which religion is the truth ?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
We do not want offending people; we are here to discuss and nothing but to discuss
The debate is Does God exist ? Which religion is the truth ? Pro has BOP but just provides feelings. Pro capitalizes a number of words for no reason and leaves out a word. Spelling and Grammar to Con. CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit
Not much discussion for a 10kc debate. Both sides lazy.
PRO say God must exist because Abrahamic religion says so.
CON says he's seen no evidence for god.
BoP on PRO and it can't be said PRO tried to present any proof. Therefore ARGs to the skeptic
CONDUCT ot PRO for CON's forfeit
I am not sure if I should consider this 50% F a FF especially since how lackluster it is.
Pro's title is not possible. "Which religion is the truth?" is just not a discussion question with 2 distinctive sides. Pro's BoP is impossible to uphold.
FF .
Given the recently released photos from the super telescopes...it is clear things can come from nothing (which truly isn't nothing), per se, as there are certainly some things out there resulting in the vast number of stars, suns, planets and wonderous galaxies.
How is the second part of the debate topic assuming Con is atheist? Con can simply argue their own religion they believe if they truly think its the most truthful one.
"Which religion is truth"
The first part of the topic statement assumes that the opposing faction is atheist, so either the second part should be dropped or this claim is unprovable or unfalsifiable, which is unfit for a topic. Just a suggestion, dropping the second part of the topic would arguably make a better topic.