Atheism towards The One True God is foolish and/or ignorant
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 8 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
The existence of God is irrefutable, and denial of the monotheistic God is self defeating.
Con position is expected to argue the position of the atheist.
Conduct outweighs all of CONs arguments due to conceding round 1 and clear rudeness throughout the rounds
Pro definitely had better conduct. Con engaged in constant ad hominem attacks. Also, given the definitions that Pro worked with, which Con did not challenge, it is hard to argue that COn had better arguments. Since Con also forfeited, Pro gets the vote for conduct.
In short: Pro's case is very weak, but con wished to attack pro instead of challenging the case.
Pro's case is one of semantics, that if you define the world as God, than to be atheist world be to reject the very concept of reality... About the only flaw con caught in that is the cherry picked definition, but could find no counterpoint to it, nor the existence of any other definition (a single good one for atheist would have been better than his entire case). He rather built a case around other things that he would like to apply the same definition toward, which would not actually invalidate pro's case.
Conduct: Forfeiture and pointless insults. Con event went so far as to make claims about pro's hygiene ("dorito crumbs"). I wish I could penalize this twice.
Sources: Leaning pro for sure, but I do not award them for such light things as the dictionary.
Con points out that Pros' definitions are simply statements made by people (including the dictionary definition) and that these statements (definition included) do not alone make something True. Pro does not address this rebuttal and simply restates his argument. However, Pro maintained better composure and additional gets conduct points for Con's forfeit.
If it weren't for Con's use of ad hominem attacks, he'd have gotten all my votes. Pro seems to think he can prove an argument by making claims. He therefore has no understanding of how debate works. He quoted some "scholars" who likewise made claims without any proof or even evidence to back them up, and expected Con to somehow swallow it as evidence/proof. To put it simply: Pro has no case, his arguments were fallacious at best, and he was utterly obliterated in this debate by the first round. The fact that he got so many votes says a lot about the bias inherent in the voters of this site. Notice how I gave Pro the conduct vote, even though I completely disagree with him. That's because I'm an honest voter.
Pro made claims and didn't prove them. Con called him out on it, and Pro didn't refute Con's arguments. Con wins.
Pro provided a source by citing the dictionary, but Con never provided any sources. Con claims he has thousands of reasons not to believe in God, but based on the very small sample of reasons he provided, I can only assume that all of those reasons boil down to him being personally offended by the historical accounts of events surrounding the ancient Israelites. By the end of the debate he was just ranting about "retards" and "butt sex" with no obvious purpose, which was poor conduct.
Conduct to pro due to forfeit.
Pros main argument was to define God into existence, con needed to attack this definition directly. While he came close by arguing that you can’t arbitrarily say God is Truth - but due to the definition Pro chose, it is not Arbitrary. Therefore cons counter was ineffective - without inherently demonstrating the issue with pros definition, pros argument stands and thus pro wins on arguments.
Con never offered an alternative definition for God that could be sourced. The issue with this debate is that Pro defines God as truth itself and Con just says 'no it isn't just the truth because you say it is' but the dictionary that Pro used wasn't his/her own words so... Con loses by default.
Yes you are right, It was a pretty bad vote and it was stupid of me to vote. Is there a way to cancel it? if so I would like it to be done. It was the first time I ever voted on this site and I was more curious to see if it had any voting extra verifications, so I skimmed through the debate and made a pretty poor quality RFD. It still doesn't excuse my actions.
Your vote is nothing short of disgusting in terms of quality of RFD, do not criticize someone you fallaciously voted against. You didn't even read the debate.
Mopac,you are currently losing the debate, admit it and carry on don't whine about it.
I don't think half of these voters read the debate.
These people who are voting for con might as well be saying a tree is a rock because they are not respecting what the dictionary says
The bible contradicts it's self a lot.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Con (arguments), 2 points to Pro (sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically says "the truth is the truth." Con refutes by saying there has to be evidence and you can say that about anything. Pro has no evidence, but simply states his religious beliefs. However, Pro used bible verses as sources.
[*Reason for removal*] While the vote on argument points is (barely) sufficient, sources are insufficiently explained. The voter needs to reference specific sources, explain why those sources were important to the case of one side, and compare the reliability of that side's sources to those of the other side's. It is not enough to merely say that one side *had* sources.
==================================================================
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to Pro for arguments and sources
>Reason for Decision: Con never offered an alternative definition for God that could be sourced. The issue with this debate is that Pro defines God as truth itself and Con just says 'no it isn't just the truth because you say it is' but the dictionary that Pro used wasn't his/her own words so... Con loses by default.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter sufficiently explains the argument points by surveying the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, assessing their strength, and weighing them in order to reach a verdict. To award sources points when one side does not cite sources, the voter must "at least establish the relevance of the other side's sources." The voter does this. Therefore, there is no cause for vote removal.
************************************************************************
Oops. Sorry.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dsjpk5 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1 point for Conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con forfeited a round.
>Reason for Mod Action: In order for a voter to award conduct points solely for a forfeit, then, per the site voting policy, "the voter must also explain arguments, unless the debate is forfeited by half or more of its rounds."
************************************************************************