The Bible has proven the existence of God
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Evidence and confirmation of God's existence shall be given, using the Bible as the main source.
Rules:
1. One forfeit is the loss of a conduct point. Two forfeits are an auto-loss.
2. Sources, evidence, and arguments can only be used INSIDE the rounds.
3. The BOP means that Pro must demonstrate that the bible proves God's existence, and Con has to refute it.
Pro had a clever Kritik, but it was too poorly executed.
Lines like this "The Bible, the Bible, the Bible, the Bible." cost pro's case the credibility it desperately needed.
Con was able to show that pro's case was dependent not upon the bible proving God, but rather reaffirming to someone who already believes; and pro seemed to double down on this not understanding why it was a problem.
That pro believes he won the debate because the topic is the bible, does not actually make it a victory. There are various biblical commentaries which could have explained how pieces of it are proof, but instead we had a few random passages that say things like we can listen to God as proof of God...
From the description: "Evidence and confirmation of God's existence shall be given, using the Bible as the main source."
This confirms the need for scriptures which support the resolution.
Then using evidence that people hear the word of God as the proof, is only proof if there are follow up to people hearing that; as opposed to reading it.
To the atheists in your closed mindedness so called voters, judges, think you're operating in complete truth , you want proof for God from the Bible, it's not on your terms.
Your standards work for what they call a science book.
You actually have to leave atheism and much of the secular world. Those claiming that evidence converting them to belief, it's in contradiction to what religion is .
I wanted to make a debate "Heroes dont have small dicks" with heroes being defined as people who dont have small dicks.
But then I was like, naah. Too much tautology for me.
nvm. You have purposefully defined God as something inherently contradictory in the outer description. I see what you did there.
Then click accept.
Your time’s almost up.
CON has no BoP? Why bother lol
Define "existence" or I will crush you on the basis that you didn't define it in the description. You have 24 hours.
Ah Ah Ah.......naughty naughty. Almost got me there for a second.
; D
As a Christian, I was considering accepting the debate as Con, until I saw that you had already taken that position. I predict that you will either get a bad debater who thinks that the Pro side is somehow defensible, or a good debater trying to run a trick argument to get around your arguments.
Seconded
This is a trap ;)