Points: 6

A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 6 votes the winner is ...
Analgesic.Spectre
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Points: 0
Description
--Overview--
This is a debate open to everyone. Voting is open to all except the following people: imabench, coal (YYW), Zeichen and SamStevens. This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. I am taking the Pro position.
--Topic--
A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Good luck to my future opponent.
Round 1
Published:
Thank you, Wylted, for accepting this debate. I look forward to an exciting and engaging debate.


Affirmative Case:

A fine-tuned universe cannot be evidence for a creator god, because said argument is internally contradictory. Let us explore these contradictions.

Definitions:

Omnipotent: “one who has unlimited power or authority” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent).

Omniscient: “possessed of universal or complete knowledge” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omniscient).

Fine-tuned universe: “The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe).


Premise:

1) There is no such thing as something being so complicated that it had to be designed. That is not what design is, and that is not how intelligence works. Intelligent design needs to be as reasonably simple as it can be, or else it's not a product of understanding.

If something is unnecessarily complex, then it is not a product of understanding. If something is as simple as it can be, then it is a product of understanding. Therefore, complexity has an inverse relationship with intelligence, in that intelligence attempts to make things simpler.


Argument 1: Fine-tuning necessitates a lack of omnipotence or lack of intelligence

The argument that the universe is finely-tuned is based on the idea that god doesn't have any control over some aspects of our physical reality. The verb to “tune” means that there are standards that are external to the operator, and the only use for such a word is in situations in which the operator has limited control (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tune).

For example, if your violin produced every sound that you wanted, without any adjustment, you would never have to tune it. Stating that you need to tune your violin concedes that it can be out of tune, moreover, that you don't have complete control over it.

Tuning cannot, by definition, take place when obstables to a goal do not exist – when an action doesn't need to be performed. There cannot be adjustments if no adjustments were necessary, and unnecessary adjustments cannot qualify for the definition of “tuning” because a casual relationship has to exist in order for an adjustment to “cause” correctness.

Strangely, an omniscient, omnipotent creator god is meant to be the author of what is possible and required. God cannot have to adjust the universe, in order to cause harmony to exist within its boundaries, if god is omnipotent and omniscient. If an omnipotent god is fine-tuning the universe, it's because god wasn't omniscient (or sufficiently knowledgable) to get it right the first time (i.e. not omniscient). If an omniscient god is fine-tuning the universe, that's because god is restricted (i.e. not omnipotent).

Due to this contradiction, a fine-tuned universe can never be evidence for an omniscient and omnipotent god.


Argument 2: Omniscience and Omnipotence cannot be demonstrated simultaneously

The only way to test for omniscience (or knowledge) is to limit said person/thing to the rules of a test. If adherence to rules is forgone, then we cannot determine the intelligence of actions, because neither the goal or obstacles are known. If there were no rules to chess, then we cannot tell the difference between intelligent moves and blunders. Thus, testing intelligence necessitates restriction.

However, omnipotence necessitates a lack of restrictions. Thus, if a god is limited whilst demonstrating omniscience, then said god is no longer omnipotent. Conversely, if a god is unrestricted with omnipotence, said god can no longer demonstrate omniscience, because demonstration of knowledge requires limitations.

To put it simply:

Demonstrations of omnipotence require the absence of limitations.

Demonstrations of omniscience require the presence of limitations.

Therefore, a fine-tuned universe cannot be evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent god.


Argument 3: The 'creator' tag is also internally inconsistent with the other terms

If god cannot play the universe out of tune, then god has no creative license, and thus god is not the creator.

If god can play the universe out of tune, it means he is either not ominpotent (because he has to tune it), or he is not omniscient (because he is not sufficiently knowledgable to not have to tune it).

Therefore, the creator tag cannot be used with both the tags of omnipotent and omniscient, simultaneously. Since an omnipotent, omniscient creator god cannot be proven through a single example (e.g. fine-tuned universe), then such a god cannot be proved through the existence of a fine-tuned universe, thus affirming the resolution.


Conclusions

As demonstrated, fine-tuning necessitates a lack of omnipotence or lack of intelligence – it cannot have both.

Also shown is that omniscience and omnipotence cannot be demonstrated at the same time.

Finally, I have shown that the creator tag cannot be consistent with both omnipotence and omniscient.

In all instances, the resolution is affirmed.

Published:
I appreciate pro debating me. She is honestly my favorite debater, and very underrated. She deserves to have been in the DDO hall of fame more than a lot of the other people who ended up there. I will try my best to win but I consider this debate a tribute to her greatness. I guess you can say, I love Anal.

With that said, I’m disappointed in the topic analgesic has chosen to debate. The topic of the debate is intellectual masturbation, with no positive real world consequences, no matter who wins. Well that is, if it is debated in the way it was intended to be debated.

Debate should have Purpose:

It is important that debates have a purpose, that they have real world consequences. If debates have no purpose, why participate. If debates have no purpose other than victory, they are nothing more than a game. Here is what one great woman has to say about purposeless games.

“I mean, could you not find something better to do than play a game that takes hours or days to complete, of which generates nothing of serious value? What do you produce by playing this game? Could not your mental energy be directed better into something that is:

1) Productive

2) Is actually difficult to achieve, thereby granting you a better feeling once completed

Honestly, Mafia (debate) is nothing more than a time-sink for people who have boring lives. ………..Just think of all the possibilities life have to offer (e.g. travelling, learning a trade/skill, reading to learn etc.), and then realise the embarrassment of camping behind a computer to try and win a game of no consequence.”

Cassie, you beautiful creature. Is winning a game of no consequence really what you want to accomplish here? https://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/58492/

I think if you are not a hypocrite, you will just forfeit, but I don’t see that happening because like I have told you in past PMs, you do have one trait I especially admire. Unfortunately though are biggest strengths are frequently also our biggest weaknesses. You’ll fight me hard in this battle. Your biggest strength/weakness is your unrelenting passion to win. You are too much of a coward to be done letting your strength be a weakness, and will press on.

Read further to determine why debate when made to be a pointless game should be rejected.

“nothing of real value produced by participating/finishing a (debate). The results are ultimately pointless, and all the work done in between amounts to nothing more than text.”

“Whilst you may not be able to adopt every homeless child in the world right now, (debating) will not (seriously) help you reach that goal. Big dreams usually take small, incremental steps. For example, writing 80, 000 words for a novel will not be done in a day. First, it requires learning how to write. This could require reading articles, books and the like, which could total a week, yet you still would not be at your goal. Investing small increments into these big dreams can greatly reward you in the end. Mafia only distracts from your dreams.” https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Mafia-is-a-waste-of-time/1/comments/25/

Please stop this instance. Please walk away from this debate and pursue your dreams. My opponent wishes to be a housewife who takes care of her family, she would be better off taking sex workshops to be a better wife, learning how to cook, reading up on how to get a wine stain out of the carpet. Debating this subject is a waste of time for her and those reading.

Role of judges and debaters

The following argument is heavily inspired by an argument I read by a user named kbub years back. Some of the stuff written is lifted word for word, other things have been edited to fit this debate. She deserves all the credit for the following argument. https://www.debate.org/debates/My-Opponent-Will-Lose-This-Debate/4/

The Role of the Ballot is how a voter should evaluate a debate. My opponent seems to take for granted that debate is a "game," wherein debaters follow a set of rules and then "win" or "lose," regardless of consequences outside this round.

If debate is all a game--if debate has no consequences outside of the debate round--then my opponent would be absolutely right that the debate resolution should be followed with no question. However, if debate were all a game, I would be playing pool instead.

In fact, debate can be far more than a game. Debate is an opportunity for us to seriously consider important issues in the world. Debate, rather than being a contest, is a way for us to re-evaluate the way we think. However, the point of a debate is not to most effectively follow a set of rules and strategies, or even to adhere strictly to the resolution, but actually to effect real change. The people on this debate site, especially my experienced opponent, may become policy-makers or voters, and many already are. This debate site is not a bubble--the way we debate has a real effect on the world. Making that real change is what debate is all about.

Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better. If you are to judge me the winner now, you will in fact be part of an advocacy--an advocacy of making debate about effecting real change, and not meaningless points.

I am not content with the way the debate has been framed here, or in general. By challenging the way we debate through a debate, I am allowing us to re-conseptualize rules.

Were people to assume the authority of rules, I would not have the freedom to be on this website. Were it not for individuals challenging the way we think and the rules society makes, no change would actually occur. My advocacy will to bring real change by rethinking the role of the ballot and the debater and rules (even if it is an implied rule to stay on topic).

Anal Violation

How has analgesic violated the principle that debates should have purpose? Maybe you could argue that the intellectual masturbation she displayed in round one had purpose for her. I doubt it, it is her dream to be a housewife, I think she could use the same mental energy to learn how to sew clothes so she can save her future husband money since she likely won’t contribute to the household financially. Or she could use the same mental energy to learn how to pick up women, so her husband doesn’t get bored by having just a single hole to fuck repeatedly until the end of his days. Plus if she does manage to bring a few more females into the future relationship it would help her cut down how many domestic duties she has, so she can enjoy a kinda housewife retirement at some point.

The debate has no purpose because ultimately belief in God is a matter of faith and the fine tuned argument does more to defend that faith than it does to actually recruit new believers. Most people join religions because they are in a vulnerable position and they are seeking, belonging, less ambiguity in life, a meaning, family and for many other reasons. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/265-who-joins-cults-and-why

Some people join because they have a religious experience, like a near death experience or seeing the virgin Mary statue their grandmother has, cry. What you rarely and possibly never hear of is somebody becoming religious because the fine tuned argument really spoke to them, nor do people leave religions because of people like my opponent mocking the fine tuning argument. Believers who do end up thinking the fine tuning argument is bullshit, will still believe in God after they have accepted it as bullshit, because they have faith and their belief was not formed as a result of some argument for fine tuning. Ultimately my opponent’s arguments are pointless. They won’t make the world better, nor will they convince a single person God is just for pretend.

Conclusion-

Just to sum up where we are. I have proven that debates should not be pointless, using my opponent’s own words. I have explained why judges should vote for who the winner is based on how much their arguments have a positive impact on the world. I give debate meaning so readers gain something, and I discourage doing useless stuff as it negatively affects the quality of life. I have shown how my opponent’s arguments have no effect on the real world and so are a waste of time. First I encourage my opponent to give me the win, so she is not a hypocrite. Second I encourage the voters to acknowledge my win and praise my creativity so it encourages more meaningful debates in the future. More debates that have a positive impact on the world as opposed to the no impact alternative my opponent attempted this debate.



Round 2
Published:
Thank you, Wylted, for the response. I appreciate the kind words said about me in his prelude, too.

Unfortunately, the opponent has infringed upon several rules of this debate, and since transgression of rules in this debate merits a loss, the opponent should receive a loss. Nevertheless, I will address each transgression of the rules in this debate, as they occur.


Generic Rebuttal


Counter argument to: Debate should have Purpose

Kritik infringment: The opponent has decided to run a Kritik, in this section, by questioning the underlying assumptions of the resolution. Moreover, the opponent alleges that the resolution has “no purpose other than victory,” and thus it should not be debated. This line of argument infringes upon rule number 6, and thus should merit my opponent a loss. This argument here is sufficient to win me the debate.

False equivalence of Mafia and debating: If this brazen transgression is not something you agree with, for whatever reason, then please consider the false equivalence the opponent has levied. The opponent cites arguments from pieces I have written before (both from outside this debate: (https://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/58492/) (https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Mafia-is-a-waste-of-time/1/comments/25/).

However, they are both on the topic of the forum game 'Mafia', and not on the topic of debate. The opponent attempts to substantiate this claim by arguing that, because both of these activities are “games”, therefore neither are of consequence. The issue with this is that Mafia and debating are not equivalent, because debating is the representation of real world information (Mafia is not), and thus in debating, a person is not only learning about the world (when preparing for a debate), but receiving feedback on understanding during (opponent's arguments) and after the debate (voting). Thus, the debate does have purpose in me learning about the world.

Charge of hypocrisy: If the above is still not sufficient to persuade you, then please consider that even if I were hypocritical with my words (from outside the debate in comparison to inside the debate), it would have no bearing on this debate. It is entirely possible that:

(1) I am a hypocrite outside of this debate
(2) My arguments are correct inside the debate

Hence, hypocrisy is not an argument which can negate the resolution.

Purpose of helping people: If you have somehow not been convinced by any of the above arguments, then I argue that debate does have the purpose of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten through debate, people will begin to not believe in it. Since people currently do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god fine-tuning the universe (http://www.finetuneduniverse.com/) (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/), there is still purpose in arguing its validity, in order to help people believe the right things. Hence, this debate has purpose, in that it has the potential to help people.


Counter argument to: Role of judges and debaters

Kritik infringement: Again, the opponent engages in a Kritik by questioning the underlying assumptions in which this debate took place. Again, due to rule number 6 of this debate, this should merit a loss for my opponent.

Real world change: Please see my counter argument “Purpose of helping people”.

Role of judges: Again, the opponent is Kritiking this resolution by arguing assumptions of the resolution, in that upholding/negation of the resolution should not determine the winner of this debate, but rather what should determine the winner of this debate is whether this debate has real world impact. Again, this transgresses rule number 6, and thus should merit a loss for the opponent.


Counter argument to: Anal Violation

Kritik infringement: Again, the opponent engages in a Kritik by questioning the underlying assumptions in which this debate took place (e.g. “The debate has no purpose because ultimately belief in God is a matter of faith...” Again, due to rule number 6 of this debate, this should merit a loss for my opponent.

Uncivil comments: The opponent leveraged several personal attacks against me, in this section:

(1) “I doubt it, it is her dream to be a housewife, I think she could use the same mental energy to learn how to sew clothes so she can save her future husband money since she likely won’t contribute to the household financially.

(2) “Or she could use the same mental energy to learn how to pick up women, so her husband doesn’t get bored by having just a single hole to fuck repeatedly until the end of his days.

These personal attacks violate rule number 4 of this debate, in that they clearly do not “maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere,” and thus merit a loss for the opponent.

Furthermore, tying into the opponent's Kritik stating that this debate having no purpose, I wish to inform the opponent that, upon inspection) I do not have “a single hole [in which to enjoy],” rather I have three. Hence, this debate has further been purposeful by educating the opponent on the number of holes I have which can be enjoyed.

Non Sequitur: If you do not agree that my opponent has lost the debate for violating the rules several times already, then consider the leap in logic the opponent espouses here. The opponent makes the leap in logic that (1) people believe fine-tuning is the result of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, therefore (2) all these people are involved with a cult. My opponent has not sunstantiated this leap in logic, and thus it remains a non sequitur which should not gain traction in this debate.


Conclusion

The opponent should automatically lose this debate because of breaching the rules of the debate. Moreover, my opponent leveraged a Kritik throughout all of his arguments, and engaged in uncivil conduct (personal attacks) in the 'Anal Violation' subtopic of this debate.

Even if Kritiks and uncivil conduct were allowed, the opponent's argument should not withstand the counter arguments I levied in this round.

Hence, either way, the resolution still remains affirmed.

Published:
Framework

In R1 I argued that judges have a greater purpose. A nice summary of it can be quoted here;

“Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better. If you are to judge me the winner now, you will in fact be part of an advocacy--an advocacy of making debate about effecting real change, and not meaningless points.”

This was dropped by pro. The fact debates should have purpose was dropped by pro. I argued that judges should ignore her rules and vote for whose argument had a better impact on the world and pro has dropped the argument.

She has dropped my argument that the rules should be disregarded, and she has dropped my argument that the resolution should be disregarded. This means that the voter is obligated to accept these dropped points, that in the voter’s mind they should acknowledge that debates should be meaningful, that the resolution is not as important as the meaning we create in the lives of those reading the debate, and those judging it. Let us discuss the potential rule violations now. I think the rules should be disregarded here, but if not. Did I violate them? Let’s examine.

Anal Destruction

“I wish to inform the opponent that, upon inspection) I do not have “a single hole [in which to enjoy],” rather I have three. Hence, this debate has further been purposeful by educating the opponent on the number of holes I have which can be enjoyed.”

The only way letting me know that, has meaningful purpose is if I one day will get the pleasure of using that knowledge. Although I am not an anal guy, so I would likely only use 2 out of those 3 holes. I will concede that my opponent has provided meaningful knowledge if I can get some sort of acceptable assurance she will let me use 2 of those 3 holes. 2 of my choosing, otherwise the knowledge is meaningless to me.

“The opponent leveraged several personal attacks against me, in this section”

I don’t consider anything I said to be an insult. There is nothing inherently wrong about Not contributing financially to a household or seducing women. The  problem with defining what good decorum is, that we originate from different parts of the world and have much different upbringings, the rule is completely subjective, and I would argue unfair if the audience does not have the same cultural background and no understanding of what each person should consider good decorum. I grew up without running water or electricity, eating only enough to survive, my opponent as far as I know did not, nor did she grow up in the southern part of the United states, she grew up in Australia. It is unfair to apply standards to me that are completely subjective, especially since I come from a different cultural background than most of the judges and my opponent. There is just no way to objectively determine what good decorum is.

Kritik

I consulted with a few experienced debaters before making the argument, because it is a unique argument I have never thought of making. They assured me that it was not technically a “Kritik” and that I was arguing “theory”. I looked at several guides online prior to making the argument to make sure I followed standard procedures when arguing theory. Plus I want to share a few things with the judges in case they do consider “theory” to be a kritik.

Observe the following rule;

“. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate”

Pro does offer a definition for “kritik”, right in the very rules. Observe the next rule;

“6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)”

In this sentence she defines kritik as something that challenges an assumption made in the resolution. Yet I have not. I have made an argument that really has more to do with the lack of meaning in the debate itself than I have about any assumption in the resolution. I have not challenged a single assumption in the resolution, which is what needs to occur before I meet my opponent’s definition of “kritik”.

Most Meaningful

My opponent has not challenged me on whether debates should have meaning. Judges must accept that they should. My opponent has not challenged me on whether judges should vote on whose arguments gave the most positive benefits for society, so judges should judge according to those standards.

My opponent doesn’t win because she shows the debate has meaning by informing me of how many holes she is willing to present me with. She must prove that allowing me to know that has more meaning than what I am arguing, more positive impact. I give the standard in R1 when I state the following;

“Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better”


Impact Analysis

My arguments are help change the culture on the site, if judges reward debaters who are having the best impact on the world through their arguments, soon we will all be competing during the course over who can improve the world the most. This is  superior to winning a meaningless game.

My opponent argues she is changing the world with the following statement;

“If you have somehow not been convinced by any of the above arguments, then I argue that debate does have the purpose of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten through debate, people will begin to not believe in it. Since people currently do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god fine-tuning the universe (http://www.finetuneduniverse.com/) (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/), there is still purpose in arguing its validity, in order to help people believe the right things. Hence, this debate has purpose, in that it has the potential to help people.”

I have already disproven that it matters in R1 because even if a person changes their mind on fine tuning, they will not change their mind about God, so their day to day worship practices and ethical belief systems will stay in tact, not altering anything that they do. I showed people believe in God for reasons not pertaining to logic with the following argument in R1;

“he debate has no purpose because ultimately belief in God is a matter of faith and the fine tuned argument does more to defend that faith than it does to actually recruit new believers. Most people join religions because they are in a vulnerable position and they are seeking, belonging, less ambiguity in life, a meaning, family and for many other reasons.”

Pro focused too much on the word cult in the source, because she says;

“people believe fine-tuning is the result of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, therefore (2) all these people are involved with a cult. My opponent has not sunstantiated this leap in logic, and thus it remains a non sequitur which should not gain traction in this debate.”

Neither is true. I said they believe in God for the reasons listed in my self quote. Nor did I say all theists are involved with a cult. The definition of cult is as follows;

“a system of religious beliefs and ritual” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

Typically theistic people follow a system of beliefs and ritual. Even if we take the word cult to mean the more nefarious things people often associate with it, surely people will have the same sorts of reasons for joining, pro does not deny this.

My opponent hasn’t addressed my argument that people who believe in God will not stop believing in God merely because the fine tuning argument fails. She actually seems to agree but finds value in another thing;

“I argue that debate does have the purpose of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten through debate, people will begin to not believe in it.”

I ask my opponent, Why does it matter? Why should we give a shit if fine tuning is a bullshit argument for an omniscient omnipotent creator God? Ultimately I argued knowing this, has no effect on the real world, my opponent hasn’t denied it. So why is it valuable for people to think fine tuning is a bullshit argument for the specific God that my opponent wants to argue against?

I suggest a theory. My opponent values knowing the truth. She values having not just a lot of knowledge, but correct knowledge. Perhaps she has no ideal why she values it. The problem is she hasn’t examined whether it is useful. I’d argue that the truth is unknowable. We can’t even know if we are in a computer simulation just feeding us electrical impulses like the matrix or if we are  in an elaborate dream. There is no value in truth, because truth is unknowable.

Truth can be dangerous. An ugly person will benefit more from thinking they are attractive than they will by knowing they are ugly. The first ugly person may be cheerful and flirty with more prospective partners, this will not only increase their happiness level and make the world better for themselves but it will make the world better for the person who  is just attracted to that ugly person for whatever reason. The second ugly person could easily let that belief cause them to be a depressed recluse, afraid to talk to prospective partners, making themselves unhappy as well as making another person unhappy by perhaps never showing up on their radar, never having the opportunity for true love.

Martin Luther argued that more people should know the truth, be able to read the bible for themselves. His declaration brought about the reformation and a holy war that caused a death toll in the 6 figures. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lutheranism

pro should  know not to value the truth. Several people have been banned on this site attempting to expose her identity, so she must know the value of “the truth” is overrated. What is more important than truth is the positive effect your words have on society.



Round 3
Published:
Thank you Wylted for the response.

Let's examine what he wrote, so that we can determine whether it has merit.


Generic Rebuttal

My resolution affirming argument is untouched

My round 1 argument, of which affirmed the resolution, has at no stage been contested in this debate. Thus, if you think the resolution should be debated (I know, it's shocking to expect a debate to do that), then it is as clear as day that the resolution remains affirmed.


Kritik Infringement

This is the most important contention of the debate, because if the opponent does not win this, he immediately loses the debate.

My opponent's argument is still a Kritik: Ignoring his obvious appeals to authority (which logically fallacious), the opponent changes his line of argument, now arguing that his style of argument does not fall under the category of Kritik, but rather “theory”. Previously, he argued (In Round 1 under “Role of judges and debaters”) that the rules did not matter, insofar as changing society only comes about through challenging rules.

Indeed, as the opponent agrees: the rules specified against making arguments which would be “challenging assumptions in the resolution”. However, an assumption in the resolution is that the resolution should be debated, elsewise no one would bother creating resolutions.

The opponent attempts to obfuscate his Kritik by engaging in irrelevant semantics, of which are of no consequence. Whether “challenging assumptions in the resolution” is labelled a “Kritik” or “theory” does not change the fact that the opponent challenged assumptions in the resoluton, which was the definition of rules outside the debate (rule number 6), and since breaking the rules merits a loss (rule number 10), this constitutes a loss for the Con side.

Ad Absurdium: If you don't agree that the opponent has already lost, if we are to take Wylted's notion of rules not applying to debates, then there can be no generally accepted ways of debating, because it boils down to the subjective interpretation of the debater. Thus, trolling, insults, using the comments section for references or to extend character count, blackmail, death threats, doxxing etc. all become viable methods of debate, due to allowing “progress” and “freedom” (the opponent's words), and thus all common understanding on acceptable debate conduct is completely disregarded.

Thus, rather than arguing the resolution of the debate, the debate is far more susceptible to all the above problems, thus making the resolution of any debate far less likely to be debated, and thus severely hindering productive discussion on the resolution. All this due to the opponent deciding that this debate isn't meaningful, which is, again, a subjective interpretation.

What should be preferred is an inter-subjective agreement on rules prior to debate, thereby allowing for productive debate on all resolutions, provided rules are prior supplied. This is precisely what I implemented in my debate structure in this debate, and this is why it should be preferred over the opponent's subjective interpreation method.

Self-defeating: It is the opponent's claim that in debating me, he hopes to help me stop “wasting my time” (Round 1 “Debate should have Purpose”). However, he also claims that I'll “fight [him] hard in this battle,” that I am “too much of a coward to be done letting your strength be a weakness, and will press on”.

This renders the opponent's arguments self-defeating, because as he attempts to argue against me in a debate he considers to have no purpose, one where he told me to forfeit in the first round, he continues to engage me in a debate that he considers to have no purpose, knowing precisely that this will happen.

If the opponent was truly interested in helping me not “waste my time”, he would stop responding, because this would allow me to stop, too. Hence, by continuing this debate, the opponent is implictly conceding that this debate isn't wasting my time, thus contradicting his own argument/Kritik.


Counter argument to: Framework

Self-defeating: We do not have to delve far into the content of the opponent's arguments, before we find more contradiction. In this section, the opponent demands that you “ignore [Pro's] rules”, and then follow his rules, which contradicts the opponent's argument of allowing “freedom” and challenging rules (Round 1 “Role of judges and debaters”). If his rules were to be implemented, by his own arguments, they should be ignored, because they restrict freedom and need to be challenged.

Thus, as will become a recurring theme, the opponent's arguments contradict each other. In this instance, the opponent has accidentally created an infinite-loop, through his arguments, in which we are never to escape continual rejection of established rules, in the name of freedom and changing society.

Therefore, it would be wiser to not base the vadlity of challenging rules based on their restriction of freedom and ability to change society, and instead judge the merit of said rules. Since I advocate for the latter, please see my third paragraph in “Ad Absurdium” for defence of my advocation.

A note: Furthermore, just to be clear, all allegedly dropped arguments are either re-addressed in this counter argument, or else addressed under “Ad Absurdium” (an argument I made in this round).


Counter argument to: Anal Destruction

Cultural relativity is a terrifying excuse: The opponent attempts to excuse his uncivil comments by arguing that they would not considered uncivil in the southern part of the United States. By using that principle, witch burnings in modern Kenya should not be considered uncivil, because that is “completely subjective” and we are not from Kenya. Stoning women to death for being raped in Pakistan should not be considered “inherently wrong”, because that is a different “cultural background”. Unless the opponent would like remain ambivalent to witch burning and honor killing, I suggest he uses a better metric than cultural relativity to excuse his uncivil conduct.

Reiteration of rule violation: To reiterate my counter arguments in the second round (under “Counter argument to: Anal Violation”), these are the uncivil comments:

(1) “I doubt it, it is her dream to be a housewife, I think she could use the same mental energy to learn how to sew clothes so she can save her future husband money since she likely won’t contribute to the household financially.

(2) “Or she could use the same mental energy to learn how to pick up women, so her husband doesn’t get bored by having just a single hole to fuck repeatedly until the end of his days.

Comment number 1 has the implication that I won't be intellectually/physically able to contribute, which is a personal slur against me.

Comment number 2 suggests that women are to be picked up to be used as disposable goods. It further suggests that I would be too boring sexually for my husband.

Finally, I posit that both comments were non-essential to the debate, hence further affirming their uncivil nature.

Since these were uncivil comments, and maintaining “a civil atmosphere” is the fourth rule of this debate, and because violations of any of the rules merits a loss (rule 10), Con should immediately lose the debate.


Counter argument to: Most Meaningful

Please see my “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, of which was argued this round.


Counter argument to: Impact Analysis

Poor conception: I reject the opponent's “changing the world” conception. As seen in “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, it is not internally consistent. Thus, the opponent's attempt to change “the culture of the site” is self-defeating, and therefore should not be considered an effective argument. A preferable model in which to judge debates is offered under “Ad Absurdium”, of which is my argument found earlier in this round.

Real world impact: If you do not accept the explanation for the rejection above, then please consider the usefulness of this debate with me. As I showed previously, people do believe that an omniscient, omnipotent creator god can be proven through fine-tuning. Since approximately 1/3 of the world “is considered to be Christian” (https://www.thoughtco.com/christianity-statistics-7005330), and because religion can be an important part of their lives, surely they would want to justify their belief with non-contradictory arguments. How strong is faith if it is untested?

Furthermore, I personally would like to know if there is indeed fault in the resolution of this debate. By not arguing the resolution, the opponent is preventing me from determining whether the argument is acceptable for proving God, thus potentially altering my life for the worse (I could miss an opportunity to embrace a great argument, or I could miss an opportunity to avoid a bad argument). Seeing as I once did not believe the resolution (when I was 14), debating the resolution has been proven to have real world impact.

Finally, there is a difference between knowing the truth and espousing the truth, because the opponent argues that knowing the truth is not worth it. Sometimes, not saying what you know can avoid the pitfalls of knowing the truth. Hence, the opponent's argument here does not alter the value in knowing the truth, especially when you run the risk of burning in hell or believing in God falsely your entire life.

Unless the opponent wants to argue that believing in God has no effect on one's life, then it appears self-evident that it should be a resolution for debate, because it has real world impact.


Dropped arguments

Below are a list of dropped arguments by the opponent:

False equivalence of Mafia and debating (since dropped, it stands that I never argued that debating was a waste of time).

Charge of hypocrisy (since dropped, it stands that even if my actions were different to what I advocate for inside the debate, this should have no bearing on the debate).



Forfeited
Round 4
Published:
Unfortunately, the opponent was unable to post an argument last round. I have a forfeit clause in the rules (#1, then #10), which should mean that Con automatically loses the debate. In any case, I hope we can agree that a round forfeit is a serious offence.

As for the debate, it should be noted that the resolution was never touched by the opponent, hence if you think the resolution should have been debated, I should win automatically.

Con also managed to run a Kritik (which is against the rules), and also personally insult me (again, this is against the rules). So, not only has Con forfeited a round, but he also broke the rules in two other categories.

Even if nothing above is sufficiently convincing for you, I still addressed Con's arguments.

Rather than repeating myself any more in this final round, my 3rd round argument is the best summary of why I should win the debate.

Please keep in mind that if Wylted comes back, I cannot address any of his counter-arguments.

Nonetheless, thank you Wylted for the debate. I hope anyone reading this found it enjoyable :)
Forfeited
Added:
--> @eXclusua
Thank you for your comment. Here is my responses to your arguments:
Argument 1: If God isn't perfect, then proving God's existence becomes impossible, because you couldn't distinguish intention from creation of the universe. In other words, if are trying to prove God's existence through the creation of the universe, how do we know what's a mistake and what isn't? Thus, saying that God isn't perfect couldn't be used as evidence to negate the resolution.
Argument 2: If we're unable to perceive God's omniscience and omnipotence, then we're unable to use it as evidence of his existence.
If God chooses not to take action with his qualities, then again, we cannot use anything as evidence of his existence.
Instigator
#66
Added:
--> @Bifolkal
Thank you for voting :)
Instigator
#65
Added:
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
While I agree that an intelligent designer (or entity, as it were), would attempt to find the most simplistic modalities by which to create and run our universe, I disagree that our universe being complex is evidence against an intelligent designer. This may simply be an inevitable consequence of the evolution of conditions originally made by a creator - just like winding up a toy car and then letting it take off. I find your premise very interesting and thought-out, but ultimately flawed.
Argument 1: I think your argument is that there are things that need to be re-tuned in the universe, and the fact that they aren't already properly tuned is evidence that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer because he's omniscient and omnipotent - and would therefore be able to create a universe that didn't need re-tuning. My contention is that God isn't perfect, and did not create the universe as such the first time around. Or, by giving free will to humans and possibly the universe as well (see "argument 2"), he created an inevitable chaotic quality to the universe.
Argument 2: I believe Omniscience and Omnipotence can be demonstrated in ways we may not be able to perceive, for example perhaps holding together the laws by which our universe operates - i.e., physics. However, assuming this isn't true, I can tell you that an entity such as God could possess both qualities but simply choose not to take action with them. It's said God endowed humans with free will - the freedom to make choices that govern their lives, and more importantly not interfering with the consequences of said choices. If free will is applied not just to humans, but to the universe as well, then God could still be omniscient and omnipotent without using these qualities to affect the universe he created.
I really enjoyed this debate, I hope you keep posting!
#64
Added:
Thank you, Ragnar, for you effort in voting :)
Instigator
#63
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Wow, 47.41%!!!!
Dude, I have a win-ratio of well over 90% on DDO. You clearly don't know who you're talking to. But it's okay. Not everyone could beat a front-page Debate Leaderboard debater like me.
Instigator
#62
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
"tbh I really don't care about win percentage" -- Nice coping mechanism. By the look of it, it looks like you debate to lose.
Instigator
#61
Added:
Yeah. If you look at my percentage of my entire 8+ year debate history, I have about a 47.41% win rate, which is about average especially considering my early debates were total shit
#60
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
That just shows how flawed the Elo system is here.
Instigator
#59
Added:
tbh I really don't care about win percentage
#58
Added:
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
Rofl. Given that I'm now no. 6 on the leaderboard...
#57
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
It looks like your sub-50% win-ratio is recovering, so I'd hate to cause you further embarrassment.
Instigator
#56
Added:
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
Not a problem. I'd gladly take this debate sometime soon if you wanna redo it.
#55
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
Thank you for the concise vote, Virtuoso : >
Instigator
#54
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thank you, Ramshutu, for taking the time to create a thorough vote :)
Instigator
#53
Added:
--> @Wylted
1-3
Instigator
#52
#6
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con forfeit.
#5
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con was attempting to put up a decent case, but started to veer into ad hominem attacks and then Con forfeited 2 rounds leaving Pro's case basically untouched AND the rules explicitly state that forfeiture warrants a loss AND Pro even pointed this out last round. So, the forfeits mean dropped arguments and a loss for Con.
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Forfeiture, and no challenge to pro's case (claiming someone should shut up and not make a case at all, isn't the same as challenging it).
...
Con's tactic (he should have challenged a debate on that topic, not made this off topic rant):
Con skipped half the debate rounds in what I'm guessing is a protest against intellectual elitism? What he did post was strictly off topic. I would by no means call it a K to the topic, because even those are related to the topic. This felt more like asking people to vote for him, because they like him more or that they hold some grudge against her from activity on another site.
Mafia is a waste of time:
I do thank con for the reminder of such a good debate.
This debate is a waste of time:
Like my old vote... "I'd say it's a waste of time (which isn't to say that's not people's right to waste their time how they see fit)."
Voting Standards:
When con agreed to debate the topic, he did so under a specific framework. Such includes the inability to be penalized a conduct point. Such includes that we the judges would weight the arguments in question under the precise resolution defined. You don't like the resolution, request it be changed prior to acceptance.
Some of the lines about how judges should vote for whom appealed to their their bleeding heart more (AKA, just vote your bias!), seemed highly inspired by notable intellectual rejects who trade votes instead of winning debates by merit (not to say winning the old fashioned way, given that fellatio was sometimes on offer for favorable votes... To be clear, I am highlighting the problem of the slope his argument is on, to my knowledge con has never been associated with those who are outright opposed to judicial integrity).
God:
Within the confines of this debate, pro proved that God (as defined) is a self contradicting concept. I wish her luck in finding an opponent to actually debate this with.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Two forfeits plus nothing but ad homs from con. All dropped arguments are considered concessions by me. Since con forfeited two rounds he essentially dropped pro's entire arguments and conceded them. Rule one of the debate is no forfeits. Victory to pro.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
1.) Con offers no argument whatsoever against the resolution, at all of any kind.
Pro wins on the resolution.
2.) Con clearly offered a Kritik argument that challenged an implicit assumption of the resolution. Haggling over whether this is a theory argument, or Kritik clearly goes to pro as pros main points are un-refuted. This together with exceptionally poor conduct that has no place in a debate (that pro highlighted in round 2), forfeits, etc are clearly also rule violations.
Pro wins on the grounds of the rules.
3.) is debate just a game.
I will consider any argument for debates, even ones like this which are so far left field, it’s travelled once around the earth to arrive at right-field. Cons argument are essentially that I should not consider any debate that doesn’t have some positive real world impact. If I were to weigh cons argument by the very merits he asks me to - then It is not clear why his debate approach in this single debate here should change the world.
The only argument for why this should be what debate is for, is that it’s not a game - and we know it’s not a game because pro is not playing pool - together with other similar assertions presented without justification.
This is wholly unwarranted claim is the basis for this kritik and pro gives me no good reason to believe it. Why would Con be playing pool if debate was a game?
As a result, I can’t really consider anything that comes after as warranted.
Pro again wins.
4.) who has more real world impact.
Even if I overlook points 1-3, and vote on clear impact to the real world, con offers a substantial number of points in addition to this real world impact argument. I agree with pro that these are wasting pros time - something con argued is a negative impact.
Con also offers no framework for how the content of this nonsense has any impact on the real world: it mainly boils down to asserting that this resolution will change no ones mind either way - something pro addresses.
Pro pointing out that this weird anarchic thread of argument is detrimental debate is compelling, as is the idea that pro argues that honing debate arguments and position is beneficial clearly seems more reasonable.
As a result, even voting based on cons argued voting lens means I am compelled to vote for pro too.
5.) The rules
I’m willing to accept harms from rules, and reject rules as presented rather than argued by fiat.
I will actually grant cons argument that there is some notional inherent harm in accepting the kritik portion of the argument, and that he shouldn’t be marked down on that particular rule violation - as this was not directly addressed by pro.
However, for the remainder of the rule violations con offers no argument for harm for the rules, and gives me no clear reason to reject them. So these must stand - which means I must accept those rule violations.
This goes pros way too.
6.) Pro argues the resolution has been affirmed
- and says if I think the resolution should be debated, I should consider it affirmed. As I do generally feel the resolution is the most important point of the debate, id agree with pro here too.
Conclusion: there is no lens or analysis that I could warrant awarding this to con. While the approach was ballsy from con - the sloppy, and petulant way he argued let him down, the appearance of trolling undermines his position in the very lens he argued to judge him by, so I have to say this is an easy vote for pro.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con attacked the character of Pro and took it a little stranger than Ad Hominem, he relied on the 'appeal to hypocrisy' fallacy.
=======
CREDIT TO: https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/appeal-to-hypocrisy/
The Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Conclusion: Therefore X is false.
=======
So, what Con failed to do in this debate is explain why, if Pro has stated elsewhere that activities online that have barely any real-life impact waste life that therefore those activities should result in us concluding that the resolution in false. Pro is entitled to be a hypocrite, Pro is entitled to not only play devil's advocate but break their moral code or life prioritising system in order to engage in the arena of debate. It is not our place as 'judges' to judge their moral integrity when we officially vote (that's for outside of the arena) but rather to judge if Pro represented the resolution well or Con tore at it well enough in a debate of this format.
What I am left with is Con completely offering 0 arguments against the resolution but instead Con defeated their own case, because Wylted is wasting his own life as are voters under the system of life priorities that Con is advocating (on behalf of Pro in the past on the Forums).
Pro explained how an omnipotent being, even if it is omniscient, is invalid to be tested for omniscience as it could not only fool any test but the very idea that we could test the being with components within the reality that it totally controls and has created is ludicrous.
Con offered 0 refutations to this, one would be that the ability to test omniscience is not absence of untested omniscience and to Kritik the Kritik back onto Pro and push harder with the rest of the case to impress and convince voters that the resolution is false due to others factors while leaving that as a stale-mate counter-Kritik'd angle. Con didn't do so, thus the Kritk alone won Pro the debate.
Pro also Kritiks that evidence of complexity of design necessitates a creator, to this Con offered 0 refutation.
Con lost the debate and forfeited the last 2 Rounds. Con tried voter intimidation against me (which is a CoC violation on 2 counts due to how he encouraged his opponent to join in with it as well) in the comments but because he's Wylted, the mods won't do anything about it and I feel bad for him so I'll let it be.