Instigator / Pro
0
1483
rating
327
debates
40.21%
won
Topic
#443

Being agnostic is more logical than being atheist

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

It's more logical or only logical to be neutral on the stance for the existence of a deity/deities. Whether one exists or not, It hasn't been proven either way.

What's your take?

"Disclaimer: Please, When accepting the challenge, You accept the premise, Subject, Topic as is. If there's any contention with the words, Definitions or disagreement with context, Please send a message first. The debate rounds are not meant to put your contentions or disputes about the topic in.

I see that we fail to understand. We may not admit to it but it may take a while to realize how things actually are setup.

-->
@Mall

Thanks for the debate. Now that voting has ended, feel free to ask me anything you like. I'm happy to discuss the topic, and/or debates in general.

-->
@Barney

Ikr. In proper voting that forfeiture would have lost him the conduct point.

-->
@Raltar

That awkward moment when someone is like "I may not agree with you most of the time..." and you can't remember ever having a serious argument with them.

Anyway I've seen bish's thoughts on the subject. I just do not agree. Conduct and sources matter, even independently of arguments -- someone could make amazing arguments but have crappy sources and deplorable debate conduct. Even spelling and grammar should count, if you wall of text your arguments you should be docked for being an offense to my eyeballs.

-->
@Castin
@Raltar

I prefer categorized voting as well.

And I just realized the irony of this debate. Pro's stance that forfeiture doesn't mean anything, has validity within the select winner system.

This may be the first time I've ever agreed with Castin on anything. Take note, those ignorant "winner selection" votes were bsh1's idea, because he doesn't like people getting points for sources and the other categories. He thinks you should only win based on arguments... unless there is a technicality, in which case he will complain for two weeks straight about how it's appropriate to win on a technicality.

Was gonna give this a read-through and vote, then saw it's one of those "just pick the winner" debates. Want to abstain in protest of those things. Boo! Hiss! Castin enjoys being able to award separate points for separate categories of merit!

-->
@Ramshutu

Thanks for the vote, and I really like your one sentence summary of this debate: "On balance, here, the argument falls down to pro saying there is no evidence, so no sides should be taken - con says that there is evidence, so the middle ground is logically invalid."

Yes I can.

-->
@Mall

Can you provide a definition for the word "theist" and the word "god?"

Thank you for your comment.

-->
@Mall

It's a false dichotomy, you should change the resolution.