Actually scratch that, looks like I no longer have to option to delete and recast. Guess it doesn't really matter at this point since CON's victory was pretty much cemented by the most recent vote.
I'll recast my vote without the conduct deduction. I still don't think you did a very good job with your refutations/responses, but I don't want my vote to be deleted forcefully for being improper. Maybe I just don't understand how "conduct" is interpreted on this site.
There was a considerable objection, the analogy of Adam and Eve is enough to rebut your primary argument, and no I don't remember you really interacting with CON's case at all. You quibbled a bit here and there, but nothing substantial was offered and as a result, I think the prize has to go to the contender.
The way the debate was set up makes it so both sides have a BOP, and an obligation to at least try to rebuff whatever their opponent has to offer. It didn't have to be comprehensive or as extensive as what CON had composed, but I would have liked to see much, much more from PRO in that regard. You don't get to tell someone they need to prove something and then hole yourself up in your little one-point argument when they do, without addressing anything they raised. The rules were clear and I don't think PRO followed them, so I'm docking conduct.
Grammar correction for my vote, near the end of the last paragraph: " who barely interacted with CON's case and didn't provide a cogent defense of his own"
I changed my mind after R1 and decided to move forward with the argument, even though my condition had not been met. There were still some points I wanted to make. As for the latter quote, that wasn't meant as a concession, but I get why it might come across that way. What I was trying to say was: "What I've communicated thus far is sufficient; everything else my opponent has stated has either already been addressed or is not important enough to respond to."
I'm not saying you charged God, I'm saying PRO did, which is why I'm holding him to such a high standard and why his dramatic failure was pointed out time and time again. Several others had already asked for clarification, and PRO had refused to alter his definitions. The external critiques weren't influencing him at all so I went in with an internal one. Maybe this discussion has taught him that loading a debate in your favor is simply not welcome here. If his behavior changes in the future he can earn my respect back, but as of right now he is simply not deserving of it.
If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of. Needless to say, that's a grave allegation and should therefore be substantiated to the fullest extent that this formatting allows. I don't see this as just some fun intellectual exercise where I try to make a defense against completely biased charges. From my perspective, this is a chance to guide a person who is obviously lost, both theologically and philosophically. That was my initial goal, and while I admit it failed, it wasn't for a lack of trying on my part. PRO cared little about the subject matter, and frankly, I just don't tolerate the kind of flippancy that he displayed. I'm obligated to fight against it, even in the context of an online argument.
Usually, when one side decides to deviate from a traditional definition they must shoulder the extra burden of explaining why - you don't just get to assert your rehashed terminology, you need to defend it; this is a common decorum. Well, he didn't. Not so much as a finger was lifted by him to support the objectionable concepts he provided. And the disturbing part is that he knew he wouldn't be able to defend it, so he prohibited any litigation. This is the kind of arrogance I was talking about, but I had no idea it would be as pervasive as it was. You seem to think I should have known this debate was going to be fruitless beforehand as if I'm some sort of psychic who can read the minds of my rivals. That isn't realistic, obviously. I stated probably around three or four times that the whole reason I entered into this was to see if I could change the nature of the debate from the inside. This is a very important topic and it deserves to be discussed, but the discussion isn't going to be productive or useful if one side has stacked the courts in his favor. In a normal interaction, PRO would use the accepted definitions and present his evidence accordingly. Then I would counter that as best I could. I was hopeful that I could shift the doomed trajectory of this conversation, and it would have worked had my opponent complied.
The reason I accepted this debate is that I think your redefinition of murder is wildly inappropriate, not because God hasn't killed people in the past. If we were to follow the rules you've put in place, without deviation, a productive exchange of ideas would be impossible, as you've already rigged the setup in your favor. That's why I'm going to ignore some of your rules, and why if you continue insisting that I comply with them you'll have admitted that you don't actually believe in the contention you're arguing for.
What CON neglects to mention is that most other proposed models (oscillatory or fluctuating, etc...) invoke theoretical physics that have either been debunked already or are well on their way; it almost goes without saying that many of them don't comport with the data we have now and, in some cases, actually fail to solve the problem. The oscillation model, for instance, would have to run on a limited supply of energy that would increase with each big-bang (meaning that if you run the clock back far enough, you eventually get to a singularity with no energy preceding it). So it doesn't solve the issue, but only pushes it back a few generations.
On a broader scale, none of the models escape the philosophical problems with infinite regress. The things these models would require us to believe (both scientifically and philosophically) are far-fetched and just downright untenable, especially once you get into the nitty-gritty details of it.
Keep in mind that in some places, I accidentally said "CON" instead of "PRO". It's pretty clear where those places are, so just make sure you substitute "PRO" in when the context allows it.
PRO has also misappropriated the verse he posted about Christianity being a race. It seems perfectly obvious to me that that verse is using "race" in an informal, colloquial (almost poetic) sense that has nothing to do with skin color.
I think PRO is conflating the words "race" and "ideologies" here, as "race" is typically used to refer to different kinds of ethnicity rather than different worldviews. CON's usage of "interracial marriage" in this debate seems to be referring to marriage between individuals who do not share the same skin color. That being said, the bible does indeed discourage differing ideologues from marrying each other, and rightly so. Marrying someone with a worldview that fundamentally contradicts yours is a recipe for needless strife and hardship. However, difference in perspective is not the same thing as difference in skin color, the latter of which is not condemned anywhere in the bible. Of course, that's CON's contention to defend, so I'll leave him to it.
This should be interesting. I'm expecting PRO to utilize something along the lines of the argument presented in Thompson's "In Defense of Abortion" paper
I've been thinking about it a lot over the past few days and I think that there are just too many holes, as well as some misapplications of the CP. This debate facilitated some interesting discussions between me and some others, and some of the things they mentioned led me to think of other things that my argument simply could not stand up against.
And yes, according to the source I posted, only A and O statements can be contraposed. "I lack belief in the existence of God" is neither an A, nor an O statement. Another thing that I was struggling with was the fact that when we negate a term in logic, typically we aren't talking about the non-existence of that thing. So for instance, when I say "all non-mammals are non-dogs", I'm not using "non-mammal" to denote the non-existence of mammals, but rather that which are not mammals. Similarly, when we contrapose "i lack belief in God" and get "Non-God is my belief", we should not infer that "non-God" is being used to denote the non-existence of God, but rather that which is not God. So the contraposition of the initial statement does not imply a belief in the non-existence of God, but rather belief in that which is not God. In other words, if the atheist is believing in something, he is not believing in God.
I don't concede the debate's resolution. I still think that atheists have a burden of proof. But the support I gave for that contention has become, in my eyes, untenable.
I concede this debate to my opponent. I no longer find the arguments I posed to be tenable. There are just too many holes and absurdities that I've come to realize the argument cannot escape.
You did great, especially for someone who hasn't considered this question that deeply before. Most people that I argue about this with end up fulminating and calling me an idiot. I'm thankful that you and I were able to have a graceful discussion. Thanks again for participating!
Aside from everything I've already outlined, I don't believe that "I find a lack of fun in stamp collecting" results in an absurd contrapostive. Since stamp collecting decreases the average amount of fun that you're having, it must also be true that refraining from stamp collecting results in the increase in the average amount of fun you're having. In my opinion, there's nothing inherently contradictory or absurd about this.
But as I've stated, this is simply irrelevant. Even if his statement resulted in an absurdity, that would not affect my statement. That I why I chose not to include this point in my rebuttal.
I suppose I would agree with you there. What I meant was that all beliefs accept certain propositions as true, not that all beliefs adhere to true propositions. Thanks for pointing that out!
Actually scratch that, looks like I no longer have to option to delete and recast. Guess it doesn't really matter at this point since CON's victory was pretty much cemented by the most recent vote.
I'll recast my vote without the conduct deduction. I still don't think you did a very good job with your refutations/responses, but I don't want my vote to be deleted forcefully for being improper. Maybe I just don't understand how "conduct" is interpreted on this site.
There was a considerable objection, the analogy of Adam and Eve is enough to rebut your primary argument, and no I don't remember you really interacting with CON's case at all. You quibbled a bit here and there, but nothing substantial was offered and as a result, I think the prize has to go to the contender.
The way the debate was set up makes it so both sides have a BOP, and an obligation to at least try to rebuff whatever their opponent has to offer. It didn't have to be comprehensive or as extensive as what CON had composed, but I would have liked to see much, much more from PRO in that regard. You don't get to tell someone they need to prove something and then hole yourself up in your little one-point argument when they do, without addressing anything they raised. The rules were clear and I don't think PRO followed them, so I'm docking conduct.
Grammar correction for my vote, near the end of the last paragraph: " who barely interacted with CON's case and didn't provide a cogent defense of his own"
I changed my mind after R1 and decided to move forward with the argument, even though my condition had not been met. There were still some points I wanted to make. As for the latter quote, that wasn't meant as a concession, but I get why it might come across that way. What I was trying to say was: "What I've communicated thus far is sufficient; everything else my opponent has stated has either already been addressed or is not important enough to respond to."
That actually made me laugh
I'm not saying you charged God, I'm saying PRO did, which is why I'm holding him to such a high standard and why his dramatic failure was pointed out time and time again. Several others had already asked for clarification, and PRO had refused to alter his definitions. The external critiques weren't influencing him at all so I went in with an internal one. Maybe this discussion has taught him that loading a debate in your favor is simply not welcome here. If his behavior changes in the future he can earn my respect back, but as of right now he is simply not deserving of it.
If you're going to be charging the God I worship with murder, you better have some damn good arguments. This debate challenge is tantamount to walking up to God and accusing him of one of the most deplorable acts you can think of. Needless to say, that's a grave allegation and should therefore be substantiated to the fullest extent that this formatting allows. I don't see this as just some fun intellectual exercise where I try to make a defense against completely biased charges. From my perspective, this is a chance to guide a person who is obviously lost, both theologically and philosophically. That was my initial goal, and while I admit it failed, it wasn't for a lack of trying on my part. PRO cared little about the subject matter, and frankly, I just don't tolerate the kind of flippancy that he displayed. I'm obligated to fight against it, even in the context of an online argument.
Usually, when one side decides to deviate from a traditional definition they must shoulder the extra burden of explaining why - you don't just get to assert your rehashed terminology, you need to defend it; this is a common decorum. Well, he didn't. Not so much as a finger was lifted by him to support the objectionable concepts he provided. And the disturbing part is that he knew he wouldn't be able to defend it, so he prohibited any litigation. This is the kind of arrogance I was talking about, but I had no idea it would be as pervasive as it was. You seem to think I should have known this debate was going to be fruitless beforehand as if I'm some sort of psychic who can read the minds of my rivals. That isn't realistic, obviously. I stated probably around three or four times that the whole reason I entered into this was to see if I could change the nature of the debate from the inside. This is a very important topic and it deserves to be discussed, but the discussion isn't going to be productive or useful if one side has stacked the courts in his favor. In a normal interaction, PRO would use the accepted definitions and present his evidence accordingly. Then I would counter that as best I could. I was hopeful that I could shift the doomed trajectory of this conversation, and it would have worked had my opponent complied.
So be it.
The reason I accepted this debate is that I think your redefinition of murder is wildly inappropriate, not because God hasn't killed people in the past. If we were to follow the rules you've put in place, without deviation, a productive exchange of ideas would be impossible, as you've already rigged the setup in your favor. That's why I'm going to ignore some of your rules, and why if you continue insisting that I comply with them you'll have admitted that you don't actually believe in the contention you're arguing for.
I don't plan on complying with the "no kritiks" rule for this one. Dock points if you wish.
It's about time we clash again, don't you think? ;)
This is the worst quality debate I have ever seen. Literally no effort was put into this, on either side.
Forfeit? Really?
I want to keep tabs on this one.
What CON neglects to mention is that most other proposed models (oscillatory or fluctuating, etc...) invoke theoretical physics that have either been debunked already or are well on their way; it almost goes without saying that many of them don't comport with the data we have now and, in some cases, actually fail to solve the problem. The oscillation model, for instance, would have to run on a limited supply of energy that would increase with each big-bang (meaning that if you run the clock back far enough, you eventually get to a singularity with no energy preceding it). So it doesn't solve the issue, but only pushes it back a few generations.
On a broader scale, none of the models escape the philosophical problems with infinite regress. The things these models would require us to believe (both scientifically and philosophically) are far-fetched and just downright untenable, especially once you get into the nitty-gritty details of it.
I can't help but feeling a bit surprised at having lost this debate.
Keep in mind that in some places, I accidentally said "CON" instead of "PRO". It's pretty clear where those places are, so just make sure you substitute "PRO" in when the context allows it.
You're cutting it close there, bud
I think I'll try to tackle this one.
PRO has also misappropriated the verse he posted about Christianity being a race. It seems perfectly obvious to me that that verse is using "race" in an informal, colloquial (almost poetic) sense that has nothing to do with skin color.
I think PRO is conflating the words "race" and "ideologies" here, as "race" is typically used to refer to different kinds of ethnicity rather than different worldviews. CON's usage of "interracial marriage" in this debate seems to be referring to marriage between individuals who do not share the same skin color. That being said, the bible does indeed discourage differing ideologues from marrying each other, and rightly so. Marrying someone with a worldview that fundamentally contradicts yours is a recipe for needless strife and hardship. However, difference in perspective is not the same thing as difference in skin color, the latter of which is not condemned anywhere in the bible. Of course, that's CON's contention to defend, so I'll leave him to it.
This should be interesting. I'm expecting PRO to utilize something along the lines of the argument presented in Thompson's "In Defense of Abortion" paper
I'll probably revisit this debate resolution at some point in the future and come at it with revised arguments.
Alright, I'll keep that in mind. I'm not used to debating to win haha
I've been thinking about it a lot over the past few days and I think that there are just too many holes, as well as some misapplications of the CP. This debate facilitated some interesting discussions between me and some others, and some of the things they mentioned led me to think of other things that my argument simply could not stand up against.
And yes, according to the source I posted, only A and O statements can be contraposed. "I lack belief in the existence of God" is neither an A, nor an O statement. Another thing that I was struggling with was the fact that when we negate a term in logic, typically we aren't talking about the non-existence of that thing. So for instance, when I say "all non-mammals are non-dogs", I'm not using "non-mammal" to denote the non-existence of mammals, but rather that which are not mammals. Similarly, when we contrapose "i lack belief in God" and get "Non-God is my belief", we should not infer that "non-God" is being used to denote the non-existence of God, but rather that which is not God. So the contraposition of the initial statement does not imply a belief in the non-existence of God, but rather belief in that which is not God. In other words, if the atheist is believing in something, he is not believing in God.
I don't concede the debate's resolution. I still think that atheists have a burden of proof. But the support I gave for that contention has become, in my eyes, untenable.
I concede this debate to my opponent. I no longer find the arguments I posed to be tenable. There are just too many holes and absurdities that I've come to realize the argument cannot escape.
You did great, especially for someone who hasn't considered this question that deeply before. Most people that I argue about this with end up fulminating and calling me an idiot. I'm thankful that you and I were able to have a graceful discussion. Thanks again for participating!
Thanks again to my opponent. We had a great debate! Glad I got to participate.
Don't worry about the time. Quality is better than speed!
Aside from everything I've already outlined, I don't believe that "I find a lack of fun in stamp collecting" results in an absurd contrapostive. Since stamp collecting decreases the average amount of fun that you're having, it must also be true that refraining from stamp collecting results in the increase in the average amount of fun you're having. In my opinion, there's nothing inherently contradictory or absurd about this.
But as I've stated, this is simply irrelevant. Even if his statement resulted in an absurdity, that would not affect my statement. That I why I chose not to include this point in my rebuttal.
Thanks! I'm really enjoying myself. Debating is a passion of mine
I lack belief (~P) in the Existence of God (Q)
Please note that P and Q are just placeholders- you can switch them out with other letters if you want.
"You are utterly wrong in every way, but I'm not gonna bother pointing out why."
Classic memes, bud
I suppose I would agree with you there. What I meant was that all beliefs accept certain propositions as true, not that all beliefs adhere to true propositions. Thanks for pointing that out!
Thanks, I'll be sure to take a look
Whoops, I didn't mean to set the character limit that high. I'm new to this site.
Atheists have a burden to fulfill in proving that all the gods they lack belief in do not exist.