Instigator / Pro
6
1512
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#489

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

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
6
0

After 6 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Analgesic.Spectre
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con forfeit.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
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.