Instigator / Pro
0
1480
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#976

The Christian God is Fake... Prove Me Wrong... I dare you.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
2

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

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

No information

-->
@MisterChris

Thanks lol

-->
@Speedrace

Good job on this one, schooled him easy.

-->
@Caleb

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Caleb // Mod action: [Removed]

>Points Awarded: 1 point to con

>Reason for Decision: Pro did not make a convincing argument and all the "facts" he stated he did not back up with references. He made accusations about biblical truths such as Cain marrying a dinosaur obviously without looking into the bible. Pro then forfeited his last round securing victory for Con. Con was collected and professional and nicely laid out his arguments. He clearly deserves the victory.

>Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.

Finally, "To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
************************************************************************

-->
@sigmaphil

I'll go ahead and challenge you to the abortion one, don't challenge me to the pets in heaven one because I'm not sure what my opinion is on it yet because I haven't studied anything on it

-->
@sigmaphil

Bare in mind, my vote here was very tryhard (as said, it was an experiment), so don't model your future votes on it...

The big flaw to your vote is not naming any key argument lines (you would not even need to name them all, but just make it easy for mods to verify you read the debate).

-->
@Speedrace

How about you start the Abortion debate and I'll challenge and I'll start the Pets in Heaven debate and you challenge? Or we can at least try. :-D

-->
@Barney

From your vote, you mentioned, "Pro offered no real case of his own, and made slightly amusing remarks instead of countering con's case." This was my main reason for my vote against Pro, so I'm wondering why it was not considered a weighted vote? At any rate I will try to do better.

-->
@Barney

Thanks dude, hopefully you'll get to grade an actual good one sometime lol

-->
@sigmaphil

I'm actually pro-choice and I've been trying to do a debate with a Christian over whether the Bible permits abortion or not, would you want to do that?

About the pets, I don't think they will, but I've done absolutely no research on that subject, that's really interesting! And I'm not familiar with the Annihilationist view

-->
@Speedrace

I have numerous religious topics I am doing in self-study that could result in some interesting debate topics. For instance, one study is heaven and the question is will our pets be with us in Paradise? Another is Hell. I no longer believe in the Traditionalist view of Eternal Conscious Torment. I am leaning toward an Annihilationist view. On the political realm, I am a string advocate for Pro-Life on Abortion, which is tied to when does life begin. I just need to nail one down and think through - come up with my arguments and support.

-->
@sigmaphil

Have you seen anything you want to debate?

-->
@Ramshutu

Thank you. I am looking forward to being more involved.

-->
@sigmaphil

Hi Sigmaphil,

We don’t have a list of “example votes”, it’s possible that would be a good idea.

One of the best voters on this site is Ragnar, one of his recent votes is here: https://www.debateart.com/debates/975?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1

We also have a thread dedicated to resources and links especially for new members - one of them is a general voting
Guide which is fairly current.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346

-->
@Ramshutu

Is there somewhere I can get an example of accepted (valid) vote...I mean if I did meet the criteria of 2 completes non-troll and non-forfeit debates, or 100 forum comments. I ask this because I read the arguments and used points 1, 2, and 3 to formulate my vote. Am I supposed to elaborate in the comments of the vote signified by point 1 through 3? Please explain. Thanks.

-->
@sigmaphil

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sigmaphil // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: win to con.

>Reason for Decision: My reason for my vote is clear. Con's position was thoroughly researched and defended with facts and theories supported by logic. Pro's arguments were defended with innuendo and pompous opinionated rhetoric devoid of facts.

>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.

To award a win, 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.

************************************************************************

-->
@sigmaphil

Thanks!

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Thanks, and yeah I might have to do this with someone else

-->
@Speedrace

I liked your cumulative case for God, your opponent's response, on the other hand, was somewhat disappointing and shows that he may not have read through your arguments but merely glanced over them.

-->
@Speedrace

It wasn't a diss... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHH!!!

-->
@Timewarps_1

Was that supposed to be a diss? If so, I debate in real life too. OOOOOOOHHHH

-->
@Speedrace

They weren't on this website. They were in real life. OOOOOOOHHHHHH!

-->
@Timewarps_1

Can you link the debates you did?

-->
@Timewarps_1

Challenge accepted! :)

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Interesting enough? :D

-->
@Timewarps_1

Patience, grasshopper

-->
@Speedrace

So, are we gonna debate, or...?

-->
@Timewarps_1

lol

-->
@Speedrace

YES I WILL BECOME A GOD! IT WILL BE AWESOME! And then I'm gonna prove that god doesn't exist!......................................................................................................Oh wait... Crap.

-->
@PsychometricBrain

Alrighty dude, I gotchu

-->
@Timewarps_1

You're gonna turn into god to prove he doesn't exist? XD

-->
@Speedrace

I might vote on this one, seems interesting and I feel like you've got a good shot at winning it, make it interesting ;)

-->
@Skye2468

Inductive arguments that show that it's unlikely that the Christian God exists would be sufficient. The debate title could be translated to mean "It is more likely than not that the Christian God does not exist (i.e. is fake)" as both debaters share the BoP (although you could even argue that the BoP is entirely on Con due to the wording of the resolution). There is no need for Pro to prove that God is logically impossible.

-->
@Skye2468

Dude. Haha! I don't need to be god to prove that god isn't real. Keep watching the debate, and you'll realize that god isn't real! There is a ton of evidence, so don't go telling me that I need to be god. Because If I have to I will.

-->
@Timewarps_1

I would like to see you prove yourself right, because you would have to be all knowing to know this. You would have to be God to know He doesn't exist.

lol this is a hardcore dare