Instigator / Pro
27
1443
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Topic
#949

Morals Cannot Exist Without God.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
18
Better sources
12
12
Better legibility
6
6
Better conduct
0
6

After 6 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...

Barney
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
9,984
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
42
1810
rating
49
debates
100.0%
won
Description

Format of debate:
Opening statement for me
Opening statement for you
Rebuttal for me on your opening statement
Rebuttal for you on my opening statement
Rebuttal for me on your rebuttal
Rebuttal for you on my rebuttal
Closing statement for me
Closing statement for you
(Information is not be crossed between debate rounds and NO NEW INFORMATION in the closing statements).
Would love to debate an athiest/agnostic! :)

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 forfeited most of the rounds. Conduct to con.

Pro doesn’t really offer an argument. Con offers the key point that evolution can be responsible for morality. While short, this is the starting point of the argument, and beyond this pro didn’t offer an argument: so cons points stand unrefuted - thus arguments must go to con too.

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:

ARGS:

CON for arguments. Half concession in the last rounds causes his case to go uncontested and his points to be extended when the time came, where I take full validation of the points and lean

CON for Conduct: Forfeit is bad conduct

CON for Sources: In the arguments used, which I will take a count for, multiple meaningful sources were used to counter PROs point. If both argumetn were extended by the odds of the debate, CON would still take sources. Since effort is put in and he took the time to put in sources, I will give sources

Are you happy?

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:

I would like to start off by thanking both opponents for this debate

POOR CONDUCT:

Con forfeited the majority of the rounds that's poor conduct!

All other points tied, both had relatively good spelling and conduct.

Arguments wise, Pro didn't attempt to make a logical argument at all and instead made lots of generalized statements, a prime example of this was when they said,

" Your opening statement doesn't make much sense. "

And,

" You as well as everyone else may believe what John Smith did was wrong. But without a Super-Naturla All-Knowing God, then there is no way you can PROVE murder is wrong. "

In the end, I was left confused about what the justification was.

And a statement that had no citation which was,

" Your argument for FSM become invalid because the US doesn't recognize Pastafarians as a religion. "

Because of this, I must award conduct and arguments to Con since he actually made a logical argument.

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 ff half 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:

Con forfeited half the rounds

Neither side arguments convinced me.

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 forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds