Instigator / Pro
21
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#972

The Bible never says the Earth is flat

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
6
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
0

After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Dr.Franklin
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1467
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Description

BrotherDThomas thinks the earth is flat because Jesus said so, which is WRONG

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

Con "sentenced" Pro to hell many times, called him satanic, and had many other insults. It was extremely distracting. It literally made it so I couldn't follow the arguments so I'm not even voting based on that.

"Furthermore, your debate title will come back and bite you in your Satanic ass"

" There will be no insidious pseudo-christian anachronistic spin doctoring, decoder rings, or crystal balls used in this debate to fallaciously try in vain to deviate from what"'

"Not known to the bible ignorant Dr. Franklin at this time"

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:

So, the arguments are technical arguments based primarily on interpretation and translations of particular words.

The examples cited are the four corners of the globe, some basic references to turning the world upside down, a tree being visible, and the earth being a circle.

The four corners point is explained by pro through translation issues - and dropped by con who mostly just dismissed the point with a generic argument about speculation.

Some are dealt with by the example being a dream.

The final was the definition of circle potentially being a sphere. While con made a tentative attempt to argue this had a different translations pros case was pretty evidence that it could mean encompass.

Con did not present any clear and unambiguous example where the earth was flat - and largely drops pros entire case.

The rest of cons case was primarily ranting, that didn’t appear particular connected to the resolution or pros argument.

Arguments to con.

Conduct.
“Furthermore, your debate title will come back and bite you in your Satanic ass”

“DR. FRANKLIN, LET US BEGIN YOUR DEVIL SPEAK  BLOODBATH:”

“Not known to the bible ignorant Dr. Franklin at this time”

“GET IT? MAYBE?”

“DO YOU NEED A 1ST GRADER TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU?

“HELLO, ANYBODY HOME TODAY DR. FRANKLIN?!  OBVIOUSLY NOT!”

Cons language and disrespect is frequent, repeated and odious throughout : the above was only a couple of examples from only the first two rounds.

Pro gets a bit tetchy at points which is understandable given the onslaught of insults and belittling - but never comes close to matching cons level of toxicity and disrespect.

As a result, cons clearly deserves the conduct penalty. Conduct to pro.

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
Con repeatedly insulted Pro and called him Satanic. Here are a few examples:

Satanic Dr. Franklin, What is truly sad in your Satanic position...
After laughing at your minion of Satan pathetic
BUT, because of you being a minion of Satan, you are using your latest Satan Decoder Ring to erroneously rewrite that these millions of Christians were wrong in reading said passages as literally directly shown! This is laughter at its finest, and at your expense upon Judgment Day!
Dr. Franklin, I want you to burn this very simple syllogism into your feeble Satanic brain when I address your stupidity and ignorance of the Christian faith, understood Satan incarnate?!

This conduct was excessive, frequent, and repeatedly distracted me from the arguments that con was presenting. In contrast, Pro held himself up very well and overall had better conduct.

Suggestion for both of you: Please write your arguments in a word document and use better formatting. Wall of text and walls of quotes are difficult to read. I had a very difficult time in following your arguments. In the future, I recommend doing something like this:

C1: The Bible says....

C2: It also says...

Conclusion

You don't need to fully quote each other to respond to the arguments. Ragnar made a nice guide that I recommend you read: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt

That being said, I have to leave arguments as a tie. There were too many walls of text, too many unneeded quoting, too many unneeded bold and underlined text that made the arguments impossible to follow. Thus arguments are tied.