Instigator / Pro
0
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#533

god is real

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...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

No information

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

Con did very well in this debate, and it was Con's conciseness that made it easy to see Pro's case refuted. Though Con was being slightly mean by saying "I stand here annihilating Pro in just 3 paragraphs-worth of debating" Con is correct, because in the three paragraphs Con made the case that nothing is real. Con simply had to point out that evolution could be false and the bible could be correct about things and demons and creationism could all be true and it would not show any realness in God so Con uses a K that nothing is real and this is left untouched by Pro. It is a silly argument, but I view this as a dropped K that successfully negates the resolution that God is real. If nothing is real, (untouched by Pro) then god is not real...I'm sold. Pro should make more relevant arguments and make them much much shorter for everyone to read. Con was cocky, but concise.

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

I consider pro to have the burden of proof here.

Importantly, for pro to meet this initial burden to me as a voter, pro must provide me some facts and/or argument that shows that Gods existence is necessary. So let’s move on to argument.

1.) Evolution can’t explain X.

If I assume this is true, it doesn’t mean God is real.

2.) The Bible says some things about that can be validated today.

If I accept this premise on its face, it doesn’t mean God is real.

The examples given, in my view are terrible.

2.a) Even If the Bible said the guy ate well, I don’t feel this shows God exists

2.b) Even If the Bible says honey is healthy, I don’t feel this shows God exists.

2.c) Even If the Bible says stress causes illness, I don’t feel this shows God exists.

2.d) Pro correlates “hauntings”, with the rich people. This is hugely tenuous, as it requires me to accept hauntings are real, and to accept pros facts on their face.

2.e) Even If the Bible says you should drink while pregnant, I don’t feel this shows God exists.

3.) Even if everything Pro said was true about giants, I don’t feel this shows God exists. Most of this argument seems fairly tenuous, and along the ilk of conspiracy theory where pro seeks to explain facts, not justify the resolution.

4.) Pro asserts that there must be thought for life to happen. Pro provides no meaningful justification for why he feels this is true. In my view pro has to offer a more detailed explanation for me to consider this as valid.

So at best, pro offers only the most tenuous of arguments, without supporting facts, and primarily asserted. I can assume everything he said were true and it doesn’t logically follow that God is real.

As in my opinion the BoP falls to pro here, the absence of pro establishing his burden is that con wins.

Con:

Cons only made two attempts at an argument. The first was to point that proving evolution false does not show God exists. The second was a fairly tenuous Kritik, in my view a pre fiat Kritik has to be pretty solid in order to win, and this one was fairly lax - but pro doesn’t bother to refute it.

All told con gets arguments here as a result - even though he appeared to do everything he could to lose this debate.

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

Simply put, BoP.

Pro's case offered 5 key areas.
1, that random evolution is false, which was countered by con with the vague possibility of aliens (I.e., any one particular god is not required). The defense tried to be entertaining with talk of Jedi and lightbulb-fish, but the idea that there's an originator fails to imply the particular one required for the resolution (pro, I am not trying to be mean, but rather help you improve).
2, that the bible has wisdom.
3, haunted houses (this was supposed to support #2, not sure how... or how it supports the resolution for that matter).
4, sex/monsters being featured in many mythologies to include the bible and conspiracy theories.
5, gingers are soulless!

Con focused his efforts on a counter case instead of pure refutation, that case being a very annoying K to the topic (PRO: You don't need to prove existence exists, but you'll see this K a lot in debating, so study the logical fallacies related so you can counter it concisely). ... Despite the heading, con made a well-reasoned point that if some god created everything but resides outside our reality, then said god is not real as we understand it (this point should have been addressed by con!).

IMAGES: Images cannot be displayed inside debates here. If it's important, give a link; just be selective as no one wants 20 windows open for one debate.
SOURCES: I really want to give this to pro for effort. However, crossing into source spam to say there's a lot of them, doesn't make any of them utilized to support the case beyond a bandwagon appeal. If I could give 1 point for sources instead of 2, pro could get this.
CONDUCT: Plagiarism forgiven this time, due to high probability of pro being the original author of the copied works (next time cite yourself... or at least clean them up a little, refine the copies on your harddrive).
NOTE 1: yeah, read the debate before realizing it's the argument only standard.
NOTE 2: Some judging standards would insist pro has won, due to con dropping such matters as gingers being soulless ('pro won a greater number of contentions'). Firstly, the connection to the resolution was too unclear to me for this to be valid evidence; secondly, I care more if the resolution is adequately supported/countered or not.
ADVICE: Next time do a simple logic map on each premise, and only share them in a debate where they directly support the conclusion. Any one of them could be its own debate, so that might be a good place to practice.