Instigator / Pro
20
1576
rating
12
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#386

God Exists And Humans Depend On God To Live

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
8
6
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
2
4

After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
20
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

*Rules*

1. The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote.

2. All votes *must* have thorough, serious reasons for voting and both debaters agree, by accepting this debate, to publicly ask the mods to remove those votes, after the debate, if the votes are not serious or thorough.

3. By accepting this debate, both debaters and the voters (and maybe one day I can say the moderators too) agree that any vote that is dishonest (defined below) about what occurred in the debate will be requested publicly by both debaters, after the debate, to be removed by the mods.

Dishonest votes include:

a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.

b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.

c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.

d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.

e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.

f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.

g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.

4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest (see above) or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.

5. Death23, ethang5, and any of their related accounts may not vote on or participate in this debate because of the dishonesty section of the rules.
--------

*Full Resolution*

God exists and humans depend on god to live.

Pro
Has the BoP, 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to AFFIRM that god exists and humans depend on god to live; Pro should also refute Con.

Con
Has 4 rounds, 10K characters per round, and 3 days per post to NEGATE that god exists and humans dpend on god to live; Con should also refute Pro.
--------

*Definitions*

god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god

superhuman - above or beyond what is human; having a higher nature or greater powers than humans have.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/superhuman

existence - something that exists.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/existence

exists - has objective reality or being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/exist

humans - members of the Homo Sapiens species; human beings belonging to the genus Homo.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/homo_sapiens

depend on - rely on.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/depend

live - remain alive.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/live
--------

May the better argument win!

-->
@nmvarco

What the fuck does this have to do with rating?
I'm arguing a point in a debate and someone can either take the opposition to it or not.

" it's just that its sad to see this site turn into DDO because of people like you."

People like me?
Intelligent people who are good at debating?
Do tell me what "people like me" are like.

-->
@MagicAintReal
@RationalMadman

RationalMadman doesn't have a grudge, it's just that its sad to see this site turn into DDO because of people like you. What does a rating matter anyway? You will win this debate, hands down; why even create it if you know you will win?

There's nothing to expose, I will be arguing EXACTLY what i defined.
Just keep bumping the debate with your "exposing" nonsense.
It's nonsense.

Existing in a specific form is the verb being, sorry for the mixup. It's not just existing. Either way you're lying.

Just know I've exposed you. End of story. If a noob stills grabs this so be it. I will do all in my rule abiding powers to stop you, that's all I promise.

No, oxford defines being as an existence and they define an existence as something that exists.
I was told to show both by one of the people in the comments, so I did.
It's totally possible to disprove.
Accept and see if you can.

The definition of the verb being is existing. The definition of the noun being is something that exists. This means that you are defining the noun as the verb to make it impossible to disprove.

To anyone who accepts this debate, I will 100% include in my 1st round these two definitions, so as to make it quite clear.

god - a superhuman being worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god

being - existence.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being

In fact one can consider this right here, post #34 as part of the definitions.

He will not put it in his first Round. He is a chronic liar with shameless debate tactics.

-->
@drafterman

Point taken, I will put it in my 1st round.

I acknowledge that. I'm simply stating that the definition you laid out isn't the definition in the link. You made a substitution which is not called out which means someone may accept the debate on false pretenses. It's deceptive. You should spell it out explicitly: e.g.:

god - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god

being - existence
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being

-->
@drafterman

See below.
And yes I'm prepared to explain everything in the debate.

Look, whoever accepts, accepts the definitions laid out. If they don't like the definitions, then this debate is not for them.

-->
@MagicAintReal

It is misleading to make that substitution without explicitly stating it in the acceptance conditions of the debate. If you are going to write out a definition then link to it, the written out definition should be taken from that link verbatim.

"Being" has 3 definitions (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being) and you have not established that #1 is the appropriate substitution as opposed to any of the others (#3, for example). Is this something you're prepared to explain in the debate, or is it an expectation that whoever accepts this debate accepts this implicit substitution?

-->
@drafterman

It's #2 on the link.
Oxford dictionaries also defines being as an existence.

I didn't find the cited definition of god in the provided link.

Damn you and your inability to be trapped with semantics

-->
@Wylted

see below

No, they are not living, they are animations, sir.
Look. Humans depend on god to stay alive as living beings.

Are Mario and Luigi alive?

-->
@Wylted

Alive as opposed to dead.

-->
@MagicAintReal

Can you expand on your definition of alive? Like are rocks alive? Are the Mario and Luigi from that game alive? I need to know this information to know if the debate is for me.

Also, unlike some people, I have confidence that whoever accepts can win.
So, let's get to goddin'.

Wait, how did I mess with the conifer debate...it's about organismic superiority.
Anyway bump and bump and bump.

There is no warning necessary, but while we're at it...
It's time to get bumpin' bumpin'.

WARNING
He lies as proven by my call-out on his Conifer debate and just look at his technique in the Sun rising debate.

DO NOT ACCEPT, you CAN NOT WIN. I am the only person supreme enough to beat him at his own game and I know when it's possible/plausible. I did so but voters struggled to grasp what I did so it is absolutely risky to do even when as amazing at debating as me, I tell you explicitly this particular debate (unlike the one I was vs him) has no reverse-troll technique. You have no superior semantic alteration to counter him with. He will call all luck as evidence of said definition of God. Read it, all random events and coincidental occurrences are proof of this kind of God. As a Pagan myself, I know how my fellow Pagans abuse semantics to prove nature is god itself, this is faulty Paganism and is what Pro is going to use. I know, already, his technique inside out.

It's actually not. No semantics will be used. But by all means keep bumping.

WARNING
He defined God as being a superhuman existence, the word 'existence' in the definition is how he is also going to abuse semantics to win.

Goddy god god god

See how your life depends on god.

Ok, are you done with the grudge yet, I'm really not that bad, what's your hang up man?

You do not deserve your wins.

Trying, yes.

And yet I am doing it.

Though not directed at anyone, there's nothing to expose about me.
Enjoy trying.

I will expose you and soon others will catch on and expose you even when I'm not around to post.

Debaters like you are a parasite to real debating. You get good winrate from terrible debating.

-->
@David

hahaha per the image...that's me, moving the goalposts.

This is not directed toward anyone, despite its direct relevance, but the idea of some psychological dependence being a proof for god in this debate is incorrect.
All is there in the definitions; if you don't like the definitions or the rules, then don't accept.

-->
@MagicAintReal

https://archive-media-1.nyafuu.org/vp/image/1522/20/1522201804169.jpg

He defined God as being a superhuman existence, the word 'existence' in the definition is how he is also going to abuse semantics to win.

He will argue that God exists as a concept central to human civilisations throughout history to today and that the 'reliance/dependence' is a psychological and sociological one.

Do not accept this.