Castin

Con's arguments were, at bottom, a rejection of Pro's definitions. And rejecting Pro's definitions violates the terms of the debate.

Rule #1:
"The definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate and both debaters agree, by accepting, that all voters must use these definitions when weighing their vote and that if the voters do not use these definitions, both debaters will publicly request that the mods remove the vote."

Some of Con's arguments (paraphrased; forgive me):

"The sun, being made of matter, could not have created itself. Or life on Earth."
- Pro's definition of God says nothing about creation, so in the context of this debate, being a creator is not a necessary component of godhood.

"The sun is not God and cannot logically be called God."
- The sun actually does meet Pro's definition of God as worded.

"Pro has not proven the sun is God."
- I do believe he doesn't have to. It's not what the debate is about. He just has to make sure the sun meets his provided definition of a god. And it does. From there, all he has to prove is a) the sun exists and b) humans depend on the sun to live. I don't feel that Con really met Pro on either of those points. He spent most of his time arguing that the sun is not God, mostly by trying to bring his own definitions and outside presuppositions into the debate.

So I award arguments to Pro.

Pro's sources -- Oxford Dictionaries, Wikipedia, theplanets.org, Universe Today, National Academy of Sciences, etc -- were sufficient to back up Pro's definition of "god" and to back up the solar properties Pro argued fulfilled said definition of "god" (superhuman, power over nature, power over human life). Weighed against Con's sources in support of his argument, which were nil, I award sources to Pro.

Conduct a tie. Neither side was exactly genteel. Yes, this is another debate from Mag employing sneaky wording and very selective definitions, but on the other hand I feel like this should be fairly clear to anyone who reads the debate description thoroughly. It's all laid out there. Plus other members give warnings. But people still accept the debates without seeming to understand that they will have to compete while handcuffed. I am not without some sympathy. It seems the only real way to escape defeat is to not accept the debate.

This was a debate about analyzing rap, but only Pro analyzed rap. Case closed, imo. Argument points awarded to the only one who made any arguments. Links without explanation are not arguments.

Gave source points to Pro because in addition to Youtube vids he did source a lyrics site and an article on the definition of rap flow.

Conduct to Con, because Pro forfeited two rounds.

It took me a long time to weigh the points of both sides and examine the evidence given, the arguments had many facets and layers of complexity to consider which I wrestled with philosophically. The sources got a bit too technical for my taste. But bravo, a neck and neck race, exhilarating.

Pro produced no evidence whatsoever that YeshuaBought is NKJVPrewrather. Thus Pro's claim fails and the debate goes to Con. Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited the final round.

This was silly.

You both should take a bow on this one as far as I'm concerned. That shit was awesome, boys. Lmao.

All points awarded evenly to both Pro and Con for their mad skills at turning self-insult into poetry.

This was the hardest decision I've ever made in my life.

After some thought, I decided to judge this by how much you guys could alliterate while still delivering a coherent message of some creative skill. I figure it's pretty easy to just machine-gun a bunch of alliterated words out from the dictionary and throw them together. The challenge as I see it is balancing alliteration with meaning.

So I give this to Con even though Pro adhered more strictly to constant alliteration. Meaning and theme seemed less clear with Pro, with less continuity of message from one line to the next. He hops from the Illuminati to bouncing boobs to Jacque Fresco. Like "wet willy wank whacking wenus washing weak wimps" just looks like a bunch of random words thrown together to me. In contrast I thought Con did have nice continuity of message, putting descriptive insults and personal history to poetry. His R2 was pretty amusing.

I considered this a contest of creativity rather than an argument from facts or data, so I found sources N/A. Conduct point goes to Con because Pro forfeited a round. Grammar tied.

I was initially undecided, as I felt one of you was minimizing the significance of the Pope and the other was minimizing the significance of the Bible. My thoughts on the various arguments were:

- I found the examples of progress Con supplied relatively minuscule, with the exception of the Church's turnaround on capital punishment. Con certainly showed that Catholicism is capable of progress by inches, but the inches in question did not stack up to overall compatibility with progressivism in my view.

- Con made a valid point that progressivism is not limited to abortion, gay rights, and capital punishment, and that it and Catholicism do have some overlapping values. Christianity has always concerned itself with humanitarian causes like the poor and ailing, making income equality and healthcare relevant issues.

- I found Pro's assertion that the Bible is the Catholic Church to be possibly his weakest argument. Documents and human-run institutions are not interchangeable. No human institution is static, even if its document is.

What ultimately swayed me was Con's argument that interpretive differences are the only way to distinguish one denomination from another, so interpretation must be treated with recognized legitimacy -- and imo Con showed that the *current* Pope's interpretation of Christianity is arguably compatible with progressivism.

I've given sourcing a tie, as I consider the Pope, the Bible, and Catechism to all be valid sources on the subject of Roman Catholicism. That is, when judging an institution, it is valid to look at its founding document, its leadership, and its doctrine/policy.

Pro's sources ranged from weak to disreputable. Pro pushed weaker arguments and claims. Pro failed to convincingly undermine Con's sources. It is unsound to suggest that because the FDA is capable of fault, pseudoscientific misconception should be given free reign. Pro resorted to needless personal attacks.

"I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem." -- Hitchens

Con consistently cited more credible and authoritative sources, Con's arguments and scientific information were consistently more on point, Con did not call anyone a Janus-faced wanker. Full points.