Morals Cannot Exist Without God.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 6 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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! :)
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.
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?
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.
Pro ff half the rounds
Con forfeited half the rounds
Neither side arguments convinced me.
Pro forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds
I know the FSM is a weird one, given that he relies so much less on comedy...
In all seriousness, when my faith in God peaks (I alternate between atheism and Catholicism) is when I look to the FSM the most. If we forget that we don't have the answers and thinking we do is silly, we're doing it wrong.
FSM lol
I got challenged to a weird informal continuation of this (I've already dropped out, but you might enjoy the counters to my case): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAthiest // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: Pro forfeited rounds.
You cannot PROVE that murder is wrong, because morals are subjective and you can’t prove an opinion.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter is not eligable to vote. A voter must have 2 completes non troll and non forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments in order to vote.
That being said. The vote would also have been removed were it not the case as arguments and S&G are insufficiently explained.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award S/G points, the voter must (1) give specific examples of S/G errors, (2) explain how these errors were excessive, and (3) compare each debaters' S/G.
************************************************************************
Also thanks for voting multiple times.
Thanks for voting... multiple times apparently.
Not a complaint, but for future votes I suggest naming one source (the video introduction to the FSM, or the overview of consequentialism for example) to appease your fan-club.
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Pinkfreud08 // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
*******************************************************************
Good luck to both debators.
"explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's. "
whats l-sep thing?
also if the sources he made fully contested the points that PRO made just because he has no proof vs the some proof he had that is validated, I would give points. He took time to find countless articles in the debate only to be 1/2 FF
Ofc it was RM that gets my vote removed :). ill republish
The RFD was already posted below
**PROs responses are rushed and have some/little evidence countered by Ragnar's thorough points that elaborately counter the argument, that go uncontested to the end of the round, there causing me to vote in favor of Rangar**
**Sources go PRO, due to in the argument itself, evidence supports the side and gives validation and proof vs PROs**
There was a poitn about conduct, but forgot to copy it. The conduct was definitely sufficient (somewhere along the lines of "pro ff'd 2 rounds") something like that.
Okay. I haven't read it, but I will once you post the RFD.
Hence why I removed the vote. I still stand by my view that the argument point is borderline enough to let it stand.
This is not an FF, so all points needed to be justified.
I reexamined it myself and felt it should be removed. Bsh you can correct me if I'm wrong. I posted the RFD din the posts below
OK I had a chat with bsh on this. Since this isn't FF, arguments and source points still need to be explained. The argument point I think is borderline enough to let it stand, but the source point is not. Therefore, I will remove the vote.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
I can always review moderation decisions, but generally I trust Virt's judgement. I'll reexamine it, but don't hold your breath.
What makes this case borderline is the fact that pro forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds. In any other case, this would have been removed.
**PROs responses are rushed and have some/little evidence countered by Ragnar's thorough points that elaborately counter the argument, that go uncontested to the end of the round, there causing me to vote in favor of Rangar**
In debates, all dropped points are considered to be conceded. By the virtue of forfeiting the last two rounds, it is basically a concession.
**Sources go PRO, due to in the argument itself, evidence supports the side and gives validation and proof vs PROs**
This is the tricky point. This is where it would definitely be removed, but given the circumstances of the debate, i'm inclined to let it stand.
please can I have a second opinion on supadudz's vote?
how was it borderline?
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: SupaDudz // Mod Action: Not Removed
RFD: The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: {Pinkfreud08// Mod Action: Removed
Points awarded: Tie
RFD: 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, neither convinced me and both had relatively good spelling and conduct.
Reason for mod action: To justify a no-points awarded vote, the voter must offer some reason specific to the debate itself which explains why they were unable to award points. Because this RFD could've been C/P'd to any debate on the site, it is not sufficiently context-specific.
The voter should review the COC here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
The voter should also review this: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346?page=1&post_number=4
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
Vote Reported: Dr.Franklin // Mod Action: Not Removed
Reason for mod action: The debater forfeited more than 1/2 the rounds. This vote is not moderated.
*******************************************************************
You've got four hours. I left holes in my case to make at least claim I. winnable for you... Not so much for II., all hail the FSM!