Instigator / Pro
48
1508
rating
4
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#73

Atheism towards The One True God is foolish and/or ignorant

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
18
9
Better sources
14
12
Better legibility
8
8
Better conduct
8
1

After 8 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...

Mopac
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
30
1266
rating
119
debates
15.97%
won
Description

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct outweighs all of CONs arguments due to conceding round 1 and clear rudeness throughout the rounds

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.