Instigator / Pro
14
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#734

Lightning Debate Alpha Test. (Topic will be No Gods exist)

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Wrick-It-Ralph
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1495
rating
9
debates
44.44%
won
Description

Alright 5000 words and format will be as quick as possible. My goal is to produce nice mini debates that are easy to vote on.

Round 1A: Opening
Round 1B: Rebuttal of R1A
Round 2A: Rebuttal of R1B
Round 2B: Interrogation (5 Questions only for sake of testing until I know better)
Round 3A: Answering R2B Questions and then interrogation.
Round 3B: Answering R3A Closing.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Congratulations on winning. I think it was a fair outcome.

-->
@Melcharaz

there is tons of material on pascal's wager if you're ever curious, but it's not really a logical argument. It's actually a technique that a specific person invented as a reason to convert to Christianity.

You could say it's logical to an extent, but ultimately making any decision off of it is merely a gamble. So you don't get knowledge out of it, but rather a chance of practicality if you happen to make the right choice.

So you're saying that the god topic is too short for R3 debates? I may be inclined to agree with that.

One thing I do want to avoid is circular rebuttals. I feel like they don't add anything to the argument. That's why I like the question round because it's my way of getting people to rebuttal me without just making the same assertion. So if I say thing X in R1 and you say thing Y in R2 and then I say thing X again in R3, then we've made a circle now (hopefully the R3 would be a counter, rather than a circle, but that's not usually the case). So at this point, the R4 can break the circle by forcing them to rebuttal in the form of a question. This forces both of them to put aside the assertions and answer tough questions honestly. I also think it chills the tension in the debate as well. Of course, people could still dodge and assert things with questions. But no system is perfect.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Not the structure of rebuttals but the debate its self. The existence of Of God almost always in circular logic or disproof of science or recognition of logical fallcy/Ignorance debate.

I never heard of pascal's wager either. I have a hard time weighing arguements on God's existence based on Logic assumption and insertions of knowledge we know. without considering the facts we do not know. You have debated me before on this, i think you understand what i mean.

-->
@Melcharaz

Well if it's logically sound, then what's the problem? I do think links are good at times, but I think they can also saturate a debate. I think instead of just having links always ready at the beginning, we should just pop them in when they are called for. Some debate topics don't end up needing links because the opponents don't say anything that call for it.

-->
@Melcharaz

Duly noted.

I believe you're right on the word limit. It's mostly to prevent filibustering. But I'll probably just go with the normal 10K limit I use which I have almost never seen anybody cap out on.

Is your second critique aimed at the structure of the rebuttals?

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

That being said, i have hard time to vote on debates when its based mostly on assertion without links to back it up. Even if logically sound.

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

While indeed more concise and easier to vote on, i feel part of the depth involved in 5k+ arguments is lost. I'm not saying its bad to have small debates, but i believe that in knowing each other and seeing the depth of reasoning and research reveals the character of the pro and con. The soul of the debate is constrained.

Sometimes going through the ringer helps the pro to understand his subject better and likewise for the con to go deeper in reason and resource against/for it.

-->
@Dustandashes

Thanks for the R5 answer and the good debate as always.

-->
@Dustandashes

I don't care if you do more than five questions, but just keep in mind that I need space to reply so if you over do it, I'll have to not quote your questions directly to make space.

Little tip. You can use some of your questions as rebuttals for my last rebuttal. It helps in case there's something I brought up you wanted to address.

-->
@Dustandashes

I had 3 characters left, lol.

-->
@Dustandashes

Can't wait to see it

Cool I'll mix mine up too

Sorry I don't know why that posted seven times.... Ok cool

-->
@Dustandashes

I'll just mix up my argument a bit, lol.

-->
@Dustandashes

Not at all

-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph

Am I barred from accepting this since we are debating this currently? If so I completely understand.

Please message before accepting if the format is difficult to understand and I will explain it better.