A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 6 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
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
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.
“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) Productive2) Is actually difficult to achieve, thereby granting you a better feeling once completedHonestly, 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.”
“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/
“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.”
“The opponent leveraged several personal attacks against me, in this section”
“. 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”
“6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“a system of religious beliefs and ritual” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
“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.”
Let's examine what he wrote, so that we can determine whether it has merit.
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.
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.
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).