Instigator / Pro
23
1500
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Topic
#4577
There are no gods.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
DavidAZ
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1500
rating
8
debates
68.75%
won
Description
After a previous debate I've had that was..... Disappointing, me and DavidAZ have decided to have our own debate on the subject of gods. The burden of proof will be:
Pro: Must prove that no gods exist.
Con: Must prove that gods do exist.
My beginning points will likely remain the points I used last time.
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 had a complete forfeit. At least Con said something.
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:
Con was the only one to say something so I have no choice but to pick him for conduct.
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:
Forfeiture.
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:
Well, at least one side didnt completely forfeit.
Hello everyone,
I'm new to this logic thing however I believe there is something wrong in this debate such as,
- "My beginning ... last time." However, the one who mentioned this didn't reference their points so I believe that viewers like us or voters don't know what're the points this talk about, really appreciate if it was referenced.
- Since in the first round both forfeited and according to argument #4 I think that nobody knows who has the burden of proof. So as per S1 which explains well or S2 the burden of proof lies in the one making the claim since within my knowledge there wasn't any logical proof that god exist, for example all the cosmological arguments (S3) have been proven invalid so I guess the burden of proof is in the one making the claim and in this case as mentioned in the description it's with con.
Basically I'm just saying pro can't argue the topic since it's in an unknown or unknowable state. So it can't be used as a true and valid statement. So if this goes on pro wins by default I guess.
Please let me know if I got it wrong but I thought debates are supposed to be useful to the ones interested in those topics.
Also looking forward to the debate on this interesting topic. Thank you.
S1: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
S2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
S3: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument