The negation of "God most likely exists" is not "God most likely doesn't exist". It's "God does not likely exist". It's not that I misinterpreted the debate, it's that you failed to understand the burden of proof.
I am confused though, you decided to respond to some of my arguments and then conceded at the end, so you're giving up? And if so, why? Even if I did not take the position you intended, do you not believe you can substantiate yours? That's quite an admission if so.
What do you mean which god? I don't recall eluding to any specific one.
If you're talking about the debate in general, that's the point. Theism includes every single one, so any conversation about one says nothing about my attitude towards another.
We’re not in agreement. A lack of belief is by definition, not a belief.
And no, it’s not a ying-yang. Good either exists or he does not exist, that’s it, there’s no other options. So the actuality of the situation is ying-yang. Theism and atheism address belief, which is a completely different thing.
You pretend you're not arguing semantics right now while labeling this debate a "subjective competition", a term the site used to convey the idea behind rap battles, poetry slams, etc. and pretend this is my claim because I referred to it as a subjective debate even though I explained a dozen times already means it's philosophical. You're not being serious, you're just trying to save face.
You are the one who acknowledges that Con failed to address my case and who had made clear that the main reason for your vote is that you found my arguments personally unconvincing. That is antithetical to the rules on this site, the rules to judging debates in any formal setting, and frankly common sense. Ask anyone who knows what they're talking about and they would tell you the same.
Philosophical debates are subjective. This was a philosophical debate.
Rap battles are subjective. This was not a rap battle.
The DART rules you are semantically trying to apply to this debate were intended for rap battles, not philosophical debates.
Why is this so difficult for you? What is so difficult about understanding why we would judge a philosophical debate differently than a rap battle? What is so complicated about this that explaining it inn your view amounts to subterfuge? What is wrong with you?
I'm not saying the character count would be unfair, I'm pointing out that you can't object to your opponents case *and* uphold your own against their criticisms without splitting the round in half for each. So if your case took 10,000 characters and the rebuttal to it took 10,000 characters you only get 5,000 characters for each.
I've stopped reading quite a few debates because of this and just never voted. It's too much info that's not being flushed out properly, and expanding to a 4 or 5 round debate makes it easy to long to do so.
You can have your opinion on that, that's fine. I just find it far less interesting, clear, and productive.
Oromagi acknowledges that Con did not address my case and that his vote against me was mostly because he personally found my argument unconvincing. That's as clear an example of a biased vote there is.
If the BoP was fully mine then Con had no responsibility to present an argument at all. Ironically, this was the whole point of me challenging him. He kept whining about atheists never making their own case so I put together a challenge where he was the one who gets to be the one throwing stones.
I don't see why anyone would find the whole "R1 is not for rebuttals" layout preferable. If Pro makes a case and Con refutes that case, the debate at the end is far more clear to judge. Does the case stand? Yes or No?
When both sides present opposite cases space becomes a serious issue because now each side has half of a round to address an entire round, but also the judges now have to weigh the arguments against each other which is far more subjective.
There's nothing wrong with the Con presenting a counter argument, but a whole case just muddies the debate and leads to each side talking past each other.
Do you understand the difference between a philosophical debate and a rap battle? Yes or No?
This isn't subterfuge, it's quite simple.
Both are considered subjective, but the difference is profound and unmistakeable. You know this. To lump them together as if they are the same thing is disingenuous at best.
You want me to answer yes or no because as long as you ignore that difference either will make your argument. No means I was wrong, making this debate objective which justifies using dictionary definitions (even though this debate was about what the word "should" mean). Yes means we get to pretend there's no difference so your vote is legitimate because the rules page used the same word I did.
It's as clear an example of sematic bullshit one could contrive.
I've given you legitimate reasons as to why we don't according to whether we find ourselves personally convinced, showed you where the rules support that notion, explained what the burden of proof is and how it factors... And all you have is this semantic BS.
If you are no longer interested in a real conversation just say so.
"Are you taking back the part about this being a subjective debate or are your disagreeing with DART rules about how to handle subjective debates?"
Neither.
There is nothing about the DART rules that contradicts anything I've said. In fact it only affirms it. The rules are not intended to be a class on how to cast votes, it's just giving you the basics. Take not of the following excerpt:
"To be clear: pre-existing bias for or against either side, must never be a decisive factor in any point allotment."
They don't go into any further detail on how to ensure this, that's where this conversation and everything I've said comes in. Again, according to your own posts you do not believe Con adaquately refuted my case but you voted against me in large part anyway because you personally found my case unconvincing. That is the definition of personal bias in voting.
Let me repeat again; I WASN'T DEBATING YOU. If I was, I would have done a much better job of defending my case because I would have had the opportunity to hear your concerns first hand and address them directly and in depth. I wasn't given that opportunity because Con decided to make his own case and focus on that instead despite it's irrelevance to the resolution.
And as far as this whole subjective debate thing... Have you never heard of a philosophical debate before? Do you really think the rules on how you judge the participants change because the resolution is not fact based?
Ok, I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you stop being serious, presumably because you know where this is going.
The answer is yes, you give credit for the argument if it's ignored. It's called a concession, and it's one of the most basic rules of judging debates.
It's not about whether you buy the argument, it's about whether it was properly refuted.
And to your other point, the burden of proof is not about who has to do a better job of convincing you, it's about which side has the responsibility to make a positive case. Con, not having the burden can if he so chooses, do nothing but sit back and throw stones at my arguments. I didn't have that luxery. That's the difference.
"That's why it's called a burden. If you don't think it's your job to convince me the voter that you're right, then I am unlikely to find your argument persuasive, am I?"
If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?
I agree with the statement that dictionaries are reasonably objective sources for defining words. This debate wasn't about what the definition of atheism *is*, it was about how the word *should be* defined. Why do I need to keep going back to this?
And no, a resolution regarding a subjective nature does not change the responsibility of the voters. You are still obligated to vote based on how the arguments in the debate measure against each other, and how each side did in refuting the others argument.
There will always be some level of subjectivity in every vote, that is inevitable. But to claim that my failure to convince you to change your position on the topic means you are justified in voting for my opponent is just plain wrong.
"If you will notice, the AoB thing you ignored wasn't about the default as much as it was about how the stronger a Theist is, the stronger their belief in the existence of the relevant god(s) and deity/ies of their theological outlook and that conversely what atheism has is a weak-to-strong element as well with pure agnostics in the middle."
There was nothing like this mentioned in the debate. All Con did was quote the 7 levels of belief. If he didn't argue it I have no responsibility to refute it. You are injecting your own case into the debate.
"You did not offer an alternative default, instead you said in your Round 1 already that you admit there is a default that isn't atheist but you see no practical use in not pooling them together with the pure neutrals. - You actually conceded the debate in Round 1 under your practical usage stuff because you were saying you wanted to make it so that atheists and pure neutral people could be pooled together."
I never in any way, shape, or form argued that there is a default that "isn't atheist". The entire point of the practical use argument is to explain why it is useless to *seperate* these individuals into two separate camps, which is what the Con position entails. That is not anything remotely resembling a concession.
That point*combined* with the fact that the definition of logically incoherent was my case - that if a definition is incoherent and serves no purpose we should learn to think about what it's pointing to differently so that it gives us a coherent and useful understanding of the issue. Con did not even attempt to address this, he just ignored the entire idea. Based on your RFD, you did as well.
"strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)"
3RU7AL already laid it out perfectly. I just want to point out that if this is the argument against my case I was more than prepared to go into detail on why it matters and how this affirms the resolution. CON NEVER ADDRESSED ANY OF THIS.
"Con did not ignore the arguments you made at all. It was you who ignored Con's arguments at a significant point where you wipe away one of Con's strongest angles with 'make your own arguments'."
Based on your RFD, the argument you are referring to was the wokeupbug point in AoB.
To say I ignored Con's argument there is ridiculous, he never made one. He provided a link to someone else making the argument, vaguely (and I mean vaguely) described what his point was, and then quoted his 7 levels of belief system.
That's not an argument. There is a character limit for a reason. If Con is not willing to use his space to quote the actual premises and logically connect them to the conclusion then I have no burden to address it.
"And what Con argued is that the default is agnostic, not atheist. My vote is justified." - "Thank you for your argument and input, Pro never said that though and therefore it cannot factor into my vote"
Yes, I absolutely did. I went through as agnosticism and why it's not a middle ground between theism and atheism in detail. Did you read it?
And even if you did and don't accept it, Con never refuted it so my argument would stand if you're actually judging fairly.
"False. It was your job to convince me you are right. As the initiator of this debate, it was your burden to substantiate that only the broad definition of Atheism should apply"
No, it isn't.
First of all, just step back and think about what you're saying... Almost no one ever changes their mind after reading one debate. So if it's the job of the instigator to convince the voters of their position, then the winner will almost always be determined by who the voters began the debate agreeing with. That defeats the whole point of judging the debate, you might as well not bother reading it and just vote.
But to go deeper, the reason it can't be my burden to prove to you that I'm right it's because I'm not debating you. Every judge will have different concerns, I can't possibly know what they all are or address them all. I have limited space, so my only option is to address the arguments made by my opponent.
Con pretty much ignored every argument I made, and you acknowledged this. If he ignored them then how am I supposed to uphold them against your objections? I can't, because I had to spend my space working with what Con have me to work with. To hold that against me is absurd.
A debate is a contest between the *two* participants. The job of the judges is to determine which of the participants did better at upholding their side of the debate. In other words your judging or performance, not where you ended up at the end.
"No, it's not and if you think it is then we have identified why you lost this debate. Should does not indicate subjectivity. Should is used in conjunction with a predicate to indicate an instruction or policy recommendation. If you are adding correctly, 2 + 2 should always equal 4"
Origami, I've read many of your posts and have come to respect you as a DART member, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say.
If one is adding correctly 2+2... It's not that it should equal 4, it does equal 4. Objectively. Period. The word "should" has no place in this sentence.
In some cases, I can argue that "should" can *also* be used to express an objective statement, but the usage of the word is not tied to the objectivity of the statement, it's tied to the lack of confidence in the speaker. "354 x 21 should equal 7,434" doesn't mean sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. It means "I'm not 100% sure".
That is a completely different context from the resolution. We're not talking about math. We're talking about how a word should be defined. And DEFINITIONS ARE NECESSARILY SUBJECTIVE. Why? Because every word ever uttered in human history was made up by a person, and definitions change over time based on how society chooses to use them. That's literally the definition of subjective.
So to apply that usage towards the resolution is absurd. Drop this point.
"What I want to know is if your plan succeeds and ATHEISM is redefined as the same "lack of belief" as AGNOSTICISM, then what word will you apply to people who actively disbelieve in any deity? You are going to need a new word for that but you fail to offer any suggestions"
First of all, I never offered any suggestions because that's not relavant to the resolution.
Second, it's not a redefinition. Nearly every dictionary includes lack of belief as one of it's definitions of atheism. I pointed this out and provided an example in the debate. I could have provided many more but didn't because Con never challenged it, he just ignored it as if the point was never made. If he didn't challenge it then the point stands regardless of whether you accept it. That's how debates work.
Third, agnosticism does not mean lack of belief. Agnosticism addresses knowledge. I explained this in detail in the debate. Did you read it?
Lastly, of you really want a word to address an active belief in the non-existence of any dieties, there is already a term widely used for this: strong atheist.
That contrasts with weak atheist, who holds no active belief. Notice the commonality in both of these terms; they both contain the word "atheist".
But of course I addressed this too: there is absolutely no reason to even address the difference between these two as they are *functionally indistinguishable* from each other. So why you think it's incumbent on me or anyone else to provide a new term for it is beyond me.
"Then it was a mistake to refrain from saying so until the very end of the second round"
I didn't wait until the end of the second round, I said so in the description before the debate began. That's literally what the word "should" means. How do you objectively determine what something should be? That's nonsensical.
"If this debate is really subjective, then CON still wins since my feelings tend against subverting well established meaning and commonplace understandings."
That's not how debates are judged. It's not my job to convince you that I'm right, it's my job to make arguments that my opponent failed to refute. I did, because not only did he not refute them, he barely even addressed them.
"In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries"
No, it's not. Dictionaries tell you how words *are* defined, this debate is about how atheism *should* be defined.
There is a proposition: "a god exists". You either believe it or you do not believe it.
A person who has no belief on whether there is or is not a god, does not believe the proposition.
A person who actively believes there are no gods, does not believe the proposition.
So since both do not believe the proposition, they both by definition, lack belief in the proposition.
The resolution is that both of these individuals should be considered atheists. And if they should, then the active belief on the non-existence of a god becomes irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist because the commonality between both is that they lack belief.
So when I say atheism is "simply" a lack of belief, I am saying that lack of belief is the *only qualifier* to determine whether someone meets the definition. The additional qualifier of proclaiming no gods exist is irrelevant.
What is the point of this disagreement on essentially vs mostly vs exclusively?
I just explained why it doesn't matter how many atheists believe there is no god, if the commonality amongst all atheists is a lack of belief then that would make it the definition.
"Double_R, did you intend your use of the word "merely" in the expanded debate resolution to be a synonym for "exclusively" or "only" (OR) did you intend your use of the word "merely" to mean "basically, generally, mainly, mostly, predominantly, primarily" ?"
Exclusively. Generally, or mostly would make no sense because words are defined by their commonality so it doesn't matter how many atheists believe there is no god. If the commonality among *all* atheists is that they all lack belief in a god, then that would be the *one* qualifier that determines whether someone is an atheist. Believing there is no god is just going a step further but that's not required in order for the definition to apply.
According to the Con position, someone who says "I actively believe every god concept I've ever considered doesn't exist, but there may be some god out there I've never thought about" is not an atheist. That's absurd.
"PRO's retreats by calling the debate "subjective" halfway through the debate and immediately following his assertion of reasoned argument."
It wasn't a retreat, it was literally the entire point of the debate. The question of how a word *should* be defined is one that is not answered by looking at history and dictionaries. It is clearly an attempt to challenge the conventional wisdom, so sources citing the conventional wisdom are irrelevant and useless.
"Language, on a colloquial level, is inherently tied to societal communication. If society, at large, understand a word to mean X then using that word to mean Y creates confusion"
It's a great point, one which I was more than prepared to address if Con had chosen to make it. He didn't.
I didn’t vote in the primaries but if I did I would have voted for Biden. Every poll for years showed that he did better than anyone else against Trump, and that’s all I really cared about. I think the dementia stuff is silly - anyone can be made to look like an idiot when you slice apart hundreds of hours of video - but even if that were the case it pales in comparison to a second Trump term.
“Nope, once the definition is changed you want me to say nothing of it. That is what it boils done to.”
The definition wasn’t changed, it was laid out in the description *before* you accepted the debate.
“ A lack of belief in God means that you have to fill the supernatural gap with…”
This is literally redefining basic English. A lack of X simply means that X is not present. It does not mean Y, or Z, or A, or… or… or…
If we were talking about a true dichotomy then you would be correct. But your argument is a false dichotomy because you incorrectly define theism/atheism as answers to god’s existence rather than descriptions of one’s position on the issue.
1. Good either exists or he does not exist. There is no middle ground.
This is not a disputable claim, it’s the third law of logic. Please Google it if you need to.
2. Point number one is a statement in regards to the actual answer to the question of whether a god exists. Theism and atheism do not address the actual answer, they a address the subject of belief. In other words, it addresses one’s *mindset* towards that proposition.
3. Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can for example be an agnostic atheist. Theism/atheism address belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism address knowledge, specifically whether one’s position on whether god’s existence is knowable.
People try to redefine what an agnostic is all the time, and so dictionaries had to take that into account, but that’s why we again go back to the definitions laid out at the start of the debate.
I’d like to respond to your claims below but before I do, can we agree on the basics here first?
“ Again, the Senate can’t vote on something and say it’s constitutional. The action itself has to follow the Constitution, which it did not. Belknap couldn’t be impeached nor convicted because he had resigned. Senators who voted to reject the very power they could’ve had shows far more precedent”
Does the senate set precedent or not? You keep trying to have it both ways; you’re using the senate’s actions when you agree with them to claim it validates your argument, but when you don’t agree with their actions you claim it means nothing.
If the senate can validate your argument it can also invalidate your argument. There’s no way around that.
Again, they held a vote on whether it was constitutional and they upheld it. They then proceeded to hold the trial. That means *if* we accept the idea that senate precedent is a valid contention here, it goes against your argument. The fact that they did not convict him according to the intentionally high standards of conviction is irrelevant, as are the reasons why the minority voted against conviction. Conviction is a different vote.
“Harris presiding over Trump would definitely be a conflict of interest lol. I don’t see how you can deny that.”
Because that is categorically different from what framers were talking about. A conflict of interest here is not when one politician doesn’t like another or when there is some sort of personal loyalty involved. If that were the case then literally every single Senator voting on conviction would have a conflict of interest. The framers were talking about a person presiding over a trial where they themselves had something personal to gain out of it. I know you understand that difference.
“ I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief”
Are you really being serious?
Please explain the difference between “a lack of belief” and “only a lack of belief”.
“ So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?”
Yes.
God either exists or he does not exist. There is no other option.
Belief does not work the same way. There are longer just two possibilities, there are three: you can either believe God exists, believe god does not exist, or remain undecided on what to believe. The latter is a middle ground which does not exist within the actual answer to the question.
One who remains undecided does not have to fill the “gap” with anything. They can simply recognize that they have no rational way to explain existence and leave it at that.
What is so difficult about that? Why MUST people commit themselves to answering this question in your view?
BTW it’s not that I’m ignoring the rest of your posts, it’s because I am here going back and forth with you as a judge in this debate and being that I cast the deciding vote against you I feel like that should be the focus here. I would love to address the rest but it’s not relevant to my vote and I just don’t have the time to go point by point right now. I would gladly discuss these other points at a later time when I have more time to spare.
The threshold is 2/3rds for *conviction*. The question of whether one is guilty as charged is an entirely separate question from whether the trial itself is constitutional. To the latter, a separate vote was held and did in fact meet the standards to say it was constitutional.
It’ll never cease to amaze me how you continue to use an example where congress voted that a trial was constitutional and held the trial as precedent that the trial was unconstitutional.
There is no conflict of interest with Harris presiding. Trump was not the sitting president so a conviction would have changed nothing for her. If Biden were tried that would be a different story because she would then be in position to be elevated to the presidency. That’s why the Chief Justice is required to preside, and it didn’t apply to this case.
Reach out to me if you want to do it. Like I said, I’m going to be away for about a month with little to no activity here so I’ll probably be back regularly on the site by around mid April
“ I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate”
You can’t refute the terms and conditions agreed to before the debate.
“ He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods.”
Like I eluded to in my RFD and below, once the definition of atheism established in the terms of the debate is accepted, all of these arguments become moot. Pro doesn’t have to explain morality because there is nothing about a lack of belief in a god that would burden one to do so.
I understand that you vehemently disagree with the definition, but you’re allowing your personal opinion of what the definition should be cloud your entire perception of the problem I’m pointing out to you. Accept just for one second, just for the sake of argument that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief… what is Pro’s burden in this debate?
“By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation.”
You are again confusing atheists with atheism. I can show you countless examples of Christians using Christianity to justify all kinds of irrational and horrible things. That doesn’t make those things part of Christianity.
If you’re interested, I wouldn’t mind doing a debate on the definition of atheism. I would defend the lack of belief definition and take full BoP. Would have to be next month though, about to all but disappear for a few weeks.
The definition is in the description of the debate under general terms. It defines “Christianity”, “more reasonable”, and then “atheism”. The definition provided is “A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods”. I don’t know what background conversation you guys may have had, but that’s all the judges have to go by so you need to read it carefully before accepting the debate.
That turned out to be crucial here because it determined what Pro is supposed to be defending in this debate, which was not a world view but rather a rejection of one very specific claim - “god exists”.
It really is that simple, I can see you vehemently disagree with that definition of atheism, but that’s the definition according to this debate.
Here’s a crazy idea, if we’re going to continue going back and forth about this debate, then instead of “I would have won anyway”, we actually talk about the merits of the arguments? You still arguing that senate precedent makes your case when they agree with you but can be thrown in the trash when they don’t? Still ignoring my point about Robert’s not presiding because the entire point of the Chief Justice’s presence is to avoid a conflict of interest for the VP?
That’s because you seem to be focusing more on your interpretation of my motives than the point I am making.
I already explained that Ragnar’s vote was not based on complete information because my link was broken, which was the site’s error. That’s not on him, it just calls into question whether that might have made a difference in his vote.
One’s willingness to “debate the debate” and/or express their disagreement with an RFD is not an insinuation that others acted in any nefarious or irresponsible way. It just means I disagree with it and here is why. Again, it’s a debate site, that’s what we’re supposed to be here for.
“Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?”
Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims.
I understand your frustration in feeling like you were duped into a shared BoP debate only to be left having to prove your worldview while your opponent just gets to swat it down and not make any claims himself. The single biggest mistake you made was accepting the terms of the debate which clearly define atheism as a lack of belief. Once that happens the only thing Pro has to demonstrate is the reasonableness of not accepting god as defined.
As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once “lack of belief” is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot.
It’s always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it’s on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.
“ Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.”
That’s just not true. One does not have to accept the claim “god does not exist” in order to not accept the claim “god exists”. They can instead just say “I don’t know if there’s a god”.
Even if one accepts other claims such as materialism, that doesn’t make materialism, atheism. That just makes one an atheist who *also* accepts materialism.
I don’t have time to respond to the rest. If there’s anything in particular you want a response on let me know.
This is a debate site. Expressing my opinion is what it’s for, so if you offer your opinion and I find it to be nonsense, I’m going to respond. That doesn’t mean I’m begging the entire site to jump in and “settle the score”.
You mad that I’m cheating on you?
The negation of "God most likely exists" is not "God most likely doesn't exist". It's "God does not likely exist". It's not that I misinterpreted the debate, it's that you failed to understand the burden of proof.
I am confused though, you decided to respond to some of my arguments and then conceded at the end, so you're giving up? And if so, why? Even if I did not take the position you intended, do you not believe you can substantiate yours? That's quite an admission if so.
“Actually, in my opinion, Atheists know there is no God.”
“Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.”
Which one is it?
Either way, feel free to read through and cast a vote lol
What do you mean which god? I don't recall eluding to any specific one.
If you're talking about the debate in general, that's the point. Theism includes every single one, so any conversation about one says nothing about my attitude towards another.
We’re not in agreement. A lack of belief is by definition, not a belief.
And no, it’s not a ying-yang. Good either exists or he does not exist, that’s it, there’s no other options. So the actuality of the situation is ying-yang. Theism and atheism address belief, which is a completely different thing.
This is just getting stupid.
You pretend you're not arguing semantics right now while labeling this debate a "subjective competition", a term the site used to convey the idea behind rap battles, poetry slams, etc. and pretend this is my claim because I referred to it as a subjective debate even though I explained a dozen times already means it's philosophical. You're not being serious, you're just trying to save face.
You are the one who acknowledges that Con failed to address my case and who had made clear that the main reason for your vote is that you found my arguments personally unconvincing. That is antithetical to the rules on this site, the rules to judging debates in any formal setting, and frankly common sense. Ask anyone who knows what they're talking about and they would tell you the same.
Philosophical debates are subjective. This was a philosophical debate.
Rap battles are subjective. This was not a rap battle.
The DART rules you are semantically trying to apply to this debate were intended for rap battles, not philosophical debates.
Why is this so difficult for you? What is so difficult about understanding why we would judge a philosophical debate differently than a rap battle? What is so complicated about this that explaining it inn your view amounts to subterfuge? What is wrong with you?
I'm not saying the character count would be unfair, I'm pointing out that you can't object to your opponents case *and* uphold your own against their criticisms without splitting the round in half for each. So if your case took 10,000 characters and the rebuttal to it took 10,000 characters you only get 5,000 characters for each.
I've stopped reading quite a few debates because of this and just never voted. It's too much info that's not being flushed out properly, and expanding to a 4 or 5 round debate makes it easy to long to do so.
You can have your opinion on that, that's fine. I just find it far less interesting, clear, and productive.
Oromagi acknowledges that Con did not address my case and that his vote against me was mostly because he personally found my argument unconvincing. That's as clear an example of a biased vote there is.
If the BoP was fully mine then Con had no responsibility to present an argument at all. Ironically, this was the whole point of me challenging him. He kept whining about atheists never making their own case so I put together a challenge where he was the one who gets to be the one throwing stones.
I don't see why anyone would find the whole "R1 is not for rebuttals" layout preferable. If Pro makes a case and Con refutes that case, the debate at the end is far more clear to judge. Does the case stand? Yes or No?
When both sides present opposite cases space becomes a serious issue because now each side has half of a round to address an entire round, but also the judges now have to weigh the arguments against each other which is far more subjective.
There's nothing wrong with the Con presenting a counter argument, but a whole case just muddies the debate and leads to each side talking past each other.
Do you understand the difference between a philosophical debate and a rap battle? Yes or No?
This isn't subterfuge, it's quite simple.
Both are considered subjective, but the difference is profound and unmistakeable. You know this. To lump them together as if they are the same thing is disingenuous at best.
You want me to answer yes or no because as long as you ignore that difference either will make your argument. No means I was wrong, making this debate objective which justifies using dictionary definitions (even though this debate was about what the word "should" mean). Yes means we get to pretend there's no difference so your vote is legitimate because the rules page used the same word I did.
It's as clear an example of sematic bullshit one could contrive.
I've given you legitimate reasons as to why we don't according to whether we find ourselves personally convinced, showed you where the rules support that notion, explained what the burden of proof is and how it factors... And all you have is this semantic BS.
If you are no longer interested in a real conversation just say so.
This is what I mean when I say you're not being serious. Your entire point here is just semantics to an absurd degree.
You're literally categorizing the philosophical debate we just had along with rap battles, poetry slams, and talent shows. Wow.
"Are you taking back the part about this being a subjective debate or are your disagreeing with DART rules about how to handle subjective debates?"
Neither.
There is nothing about the DART rules that contradicts anything I've said. In fact it only affirms it. The rules are not intended to be a class on how to cast votes, it's just giving you the basics. Take not of the following excerpt:
"To be clear: pre-existing bias for or against either side, must never be a decisive factor in any point allotment."
They don't go into any further detail on how to ensure this, that's where this conversation and everything I've said comes in. Again, according to your own posts you do not believe Con adaquately refuted my case but you voted against me in large part anyway because you personally found my case unconvincing. That is the definition of personal bias in voting.
Let me repeat again; I WASN'T DEBATING YOU. If I was, I would have done a much better job of defending my case because I would have had the opportunity to hear your concerns first hand and address them directly and in depth. I wasn't given that opportunity because Con decided to make his own case and focus on that instead despite it's irrelevance to the resolution.
And as far as this whole subjective debate thing... Have you never heard of a philosophical debate before? Do you really think the rules on how you judge the participants change because the resolution is not fact based?
Ok, I see we've reached the part of the conversation where you stop being serious, presumably because you know where this is going.
The answer is yes, you give credit for the argument if it's ignored. It's called a concession, and it's one of the most basic rules of judging debates.
It's not about whether you buy the argument, it's about whether it was properly refuted.
And to your other point, the burden of proof is not about who has to do a better job of convincing you, it's about which side has the responsibility to make a positive case. Con, not having the burden can if he so chooses, do nothing but sit back and throw stones at my arguments. I didn't have that luxery. That's the difference.
"That's why it's called a burden. If you don't think it's your job to convince me the voter that you're right, then I am unlikely to find your argument persuasive, am I?"
If Pro makes an argument that you do not accept but Con ignores it, do you give Pro credit for the argument?
My bad, Oromagi.
I agree with the statement that dictionaries are reasonably objective sources for defining words. This debate wasn't about what the definition of atheism *is*, it was about how the word *should be* defined. Why do I need to keep going back to this?
And no, a resolution regarding a subjective nature does not change the responsibility of the voters. You are still obligated to vote based on how the arguments in the debate measure against each other, and how each side did in refuting the others argument.
There will always be some level of subjectivity in every vote, that is inevitable. But to claim that my failure to convince you to change your position on the topic means you are justified in voting for my opponent is just plain wrong.
"If you will notice, the AoB thing you ignored wasn't about the default as much as it was about how the stronger a Theist is, the stronger their belief in the existence of the relevant god(s) and deity/ies of their theological outlook and that conversely what atheism has is a weak-to-strong element as well with pure agnostics in the middle."
There was nothing like this mentioned in the debate. All Con did was quote the 7 levels of belief. If he didn't argue it I have no responsibility to refute it. You are injecting your own case into the debate.
"You did not offer an alternative default, instead you said in your Round 1 already that you admit there is a default that isn't atheist but you see no practical use in not pooling them together with the pure neutrals. - You actually conceded the debate in Round 1 under your practical usage stuff because you were saying you wanted to make it so that atheists and pure neutral people could be pooled together."
I never in any way, shape, or form argued that there is a default that "isn't atheist". The entire point of the practical use argument is to explain why it is useless to *seperate* these individuals into two separate camps, which is what the Con position entails. That is not anything remotely resembling a concession.
That point*combined* with the fact that the definition of logically incoherent was my case - that if a definition is incoherent and serves no purpose we should learn to think about what it's pointing to differently so that it gives us a coherent and useful understanding of the issue. Con did not even attempt to address this, he just ignored the entire idea. Based on your RFD, you did as well.
"strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)
strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)"
3RU7AL already laid it out perfectly. I just want to point out that if this is the argument against my case I was more than prepared to go into detail on why it matters and how this affirms the resolution. CON NEVER ADDRESSED ANY OF THIS.
"Con did not ignore the arguments you made at all. It was you who ignored Con's arguments at a significant point where you wipe away one of Con's strongest angles with 'make your own arguments'."
Based on your RFD, the argument you are referring to was the wokeupbug point in AoB.
To say I ignored Con's argument there is ridiculous, he never made one. He provided a link to someone else making the argument, vaguely (and I mean vaguely) described what his point was, and then quoted his 7 levels of belief system.
That's not an argument. There is a character limit for a reason. If Con is not willing to use his space to quote the actual premises and logically connect them to the conclusion then I have no burden to address it.
"And what Con argued is that the default is agnostic, not atheist. My vote is justified." - "Thank you for your argument and input, Pro never said that though and therefore it cannot factor into my vote"
Yes, I absolutely did. I went through as agnosticism and why it's not a middle ground between theism and atheism in detail. Did you read it?
And even if you did and don't accept it, Con never refuted it so my argument would stand if you're actually judging fairly.
"False. It was your job to convince me you are right. As the initiator of this debate, it was your burden to substantiate that only the broad definition of Atheism should apply"
No, it isn't.
First of all, just step back and think about what you're saying... Almost no one ever changes their mind after reading one debate. So if it's the job of the instigator to convince the voters of their position, then the winner will almost always be determined by who the voters began the debate agreeing with. That defeats the whole point of judging the debate, you might as well not bother reading it and just vote.
But to go deeper, the reason it can't be my burden to prove to you that I'm right it's because I'm not debating you. Every judge will have different concerns, I can't possibly know what they all are or address them all. I have limited space, so my only option is to address the arguments made by my opponent.
Con pretty much ignored every argument I made, and you acknowledged this. If he ignored them then how am I supposed to uphold them against your objections? I can't, because I had to spend my space working with what Con have me to work with. To hold that against me is absurd.
A debate is a contest between the *two* participants. The job of the judges is to determine which of the participants did better at upholding their side of the debate. In other words your judging or performance, not where you ended up at the end.
"No, it's not and if you think it is then we have identified why you lost this debate. Should does not indicate subjectivity. Should is used in conjunction with a predicate to indicate an instruction or policy recommendation. If you are adding correctly, 2 + 2 should always equal 4"
Origami, I've read many of your posts and have come to respect you as a DART member, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say.
If one is adding correctly 2+2... It's not that it should equal 4, it does equal 4. Objectively. Period. The word "should" has no place in this sentence.
In some cases, I can argue that "should" can *also* be used to express an objective statement, but the usage of the word is not tied to the objectivity of the statement, it's tied to the lack of confidence in the speaker. "354 x 21 should equal 7,434" doesn't mean sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. It means "I'm not 100% sure".
That is a completely different context from the resolution. We're not talking about math. We're talking about how a word should be defined. And DEFINITIONS ARE NECESSARILY SUBJECTIVE. Why? Because every word ever uttered in human history was made up by a person, and definitions change over time based on how society chooses to use them. That's literally the definition of subjective.
So to apply that usage towards the resolution is absurd. Drop this point.
"What I want to know is if your plan succeeds and ATHEISM is redefined as the same "lack of belief" as AGNOSTICISM, then what word will you apply to people who actively disbelieve in any deity? You are going to need a new word for that but you fail to offer any suggestions"
First of all, I never offered any suggestions because that's not relavant to the resolution.
Second, it's not a redefinition. Nearly every dictionary includes lack of belief as one of it's definitions of atheism. I pointed this out and provided an example in the debate. I could have provided many more but didn't because Con never challenged it, he just ignored it as if the point was never made. If he didn't challenge it then the point stands regardless of whether you accept it. That's how debates work.
Third, agnosticism does not mean lack of belief. Agnosticism addresses knowledge. I explained this in detail in the debate. Did you read it?
Lastly, of you really want a word to address an active belief in the non-existence of any dieties, there is already a term widely used for this: strong atheist.
That contrasts with weak atheist, who holds no active belief. Notice the commonality in both of these terms; they both contain the word "atheist".
But of course I addressed this too: there is absolutely no reason to even address the difference between these two as they are *functionally indistinguishable* from each other. So why you think it's incumbent on me or anyone else to provide a new term for it is beyond me.
"Then it was a mistake to refrain from saying so until the very end of the second round"
I didn't wait until the end of the second round, I said so in the description before the debate began. That's literally what the word "should" means. How do you objectively determine what something should be? That's nonsensical.
"If this debate is really subjective, then CON still wins since my feelings tend against subverting well established meaning and commonplace understandings."
That's not how debates are judged. It's not my job to convince you that I'm right, it's my job to make arguments that my opponent failed to refute. I did, because not only did he not refute them, he barely even addressed them.
"In fact, that is the explicit purpose and value of dictionaries"
No, it's not. Dictionaries tell you how words *are* defined, this debate is about how atheism *should* be defined.
There is a proposition: "a god exists". You either believe it or you do not believe it.
A person who has no belief on whether there is or is not a god, does not believe the proposition.
A person who actively believes there are no gods, does not believe the proposition.
So since both do not believe the proposition, they both by definition, lack belief in the proposition.
The resolution is that both of these individuals should be considered atheists. And if they should, then the active belief on the non-existence of a god becomes irrelevant to whether someone is an atheist because the commonality between both is that they lack belief.
So when I say atheism is "simply" a lack of belief, I am saying that lack of belief is the *only qualifier* to determine whether someone meets the definition. The additional qualifier of proclaiming no gods exist is irrelevant.
What is the point of this disagreement on essentially vs mostly vs exclusively?
I just explained why it doesn't matter how many atheists believe there is no god, if the commonality amongst all atheists is a lack of belief then that would make it the definition.
"Double_R, did you intend your use of the word "merely" in the expanded debate resolution to be a synonym for "exclusively" or "only" (OR) did you intend your use of the word "merely" to mean "basically, generally, mainly, mostly, predominantly, primarily" ?"
Exclusively. Generally, or mostly would make no sense because words are defined by their commonality so it doesn't matter how many atheists believe there is no god. If the commonality among *all* atheists is that they all lack belief in a god, then that would be the *one* qualifier that determines whether someone is an atheist. Believing there is no god is just going a step further but that's not required in order for the definition to apply.
According to the Con position, someone who says "I actively believe every god concept I've ever considered doesn't exist, but there may be some god out there I've never thought about" is not an atheist. That's absurd.
"PRO's retreats by calling the debate "subjective" halfway through the debate and immediately following his assertion of reasoned argument."
It wasn't a retreat, it was literally the entire point of the debate. The question of how a word *should* be defined is one that is not answered by looking at history and dictionaries. It is clearly an attempt to challenge the conventional wisdom, so sources citing the conventional wisdom are irrelevant and useless.
I get the point, I don't think it holds any water towards negating the resolution. I could explain why but actual my opponent never went there.
Don't you think it's a bit of a conflict of interest to vote in a debate where you were counseling one of the participants?
"Language, on a colloquial level, is inherently tied to societal communication. If society, at large, understand a word to mean X then using that word to mean Y creates confusion"
It's a great point, one which I was more than prepared to address if Con had chosen to make it. He didn't.
"American Atheists demonstrate it has all kinds of beliefs and opinions about God, and they do deny God"
Which one?
Addressed that in the debate. Curious to know if you read it.
Just asking, input should wait till the last argument is posted.
It's literally defined as a belief.
Taking it to the last minute?
I didn’t vote in the primaries but if I did I would have voted for Biden. Every poll for years showed that he did better than anyone else against Trump, and that’s all I really cared about. I think the dementia stuff is silly - anyone can be made to look like an idiot when you slice apart hundreds of hours of video - but even if that were the case it pales in comparison to a second Trump term.
It’s really not, but I look forward to hearing more about your criticisms of the resolution after the debate.
Why criticize the debate as semantic when no argument has even been made?
“Nope, once the definition is changed you want me to say nothing of it. That is what it boils done to.”
The definition wasn’t changed, it was laid out in the description *before* you accepted the debate.
“ A lack of belief in God means that you have to fill the supernatural gap with…”
This is literally redefining basic English. A lack of X simply means that X is not present. It does not mean Y, or Z, or A, or… or… or…
If we were talking about a true dichotomy then you would be correct. But your argument is a false dichotomy because you incorrectly define theism/atheism as answers to god’s existence rather than descriptions of one’s position on the issue.
A few basics here that need to be addressed;
1. Good either exists or he does not exist. There is no middle ground.
This is not a disputable claim, it’s the third law of logic. Please Google it if you need to.
2. Point number one is a statement in regards to the actual answer to the question of whether a god exists. Theism and atheism do not address the actual answer, they a address the subject of belief. In other words, it addresses one’s *mindset* towards that proposition.
3. Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. One can for example be an agnostic atheist. Theism/atheism address belief. Gnosticism/agnosticism address knowledge, specifically whether one’s position on whether god’s existence is knowable.
People try to redefine what an agnostic is all the time, and so dictionaries had to take that into account, but that’s why we again go back to the definitions laid out at the start of the debate.
I’d like to respond to your claims below but before I do, can we agree on the basics here first?
“ Again, the Senate can’t vote on something and say it’s constitutional. The action itself has to follow the Constitution, which it did not. Belknap couldn’t be impeached nor convicted because he had resigned. Senators who voted to reject the very power they could’ve had shows far more precedent”
Does the senate set precedent or not? You keep trying to have it both ways; you’re using the senate’s actions when you agree with them to claim it validates your argument, but when you don’t agree with their actions you claim it means nothing.
If the senate can validate your argument it can also invalidate your argument. There’s no way around that.
Again, they held a vote on whether it was constitutional and they upheld it. They then proceeded to hold the trial. That means *if* we accept the idea that senate precedent is a valid contention here, it goes against your argument. The fact that they did not convict him according to the intentionally high standards of conviction is irrelevant, as are the reasons why the minority voted against conviction. Conviction is a different vote.
“Harris presiding over Trump would definitely be a conflict of interest lol. I don’t see how you can deny that.”
Because that is categorically different from what framers were talking about. A conflict of interest here is not when one politician doesn’t like another or when there is some sort of personal loyalty involved. If that were the case then literally every single Senator voting on conviction would have a conflict of interest. The framers were talking about a person presiding over a trial where they themselves had something personal to gain out of it. I know you understand that difference.
“ I had a right to respond and dispute his claim, significantly when he changed it from a lack of belief to "only" a lack of belief”
Are you really being serious?
Please explain the difference between “a lack of belief” and “only a lack of belief”.
“ So, lack of belief or denial of God or gods leaves you with a naturalistic system of BELIEF as the answer, or your mind and perhaps an illusion. Would you disagree?”
Yes.
God either exists or he does not exist. There is no other option.
Belief does not work the same way. There are longer just two possibilities, there are three: you can either believe God exists, believe god does not exist, or remain undecided on what to believe. The latter is a middle ground which does not exist within the actual answer to the question.
One who remains undecided does not have to fill the “gap” with anything. They can simply recognize that they have no rational way to explain existence and leave it at that.
What is so difficult about that? Why MUST people commit themselves to answering this question in your view?
BTW it’s not that I’m ignoring the rest of your posts, it’s because I am here going back and forth with you as a judge in this debate and being that I cast the deciding vote against you I feel like that should be the focus here. I would love to address the rest but it’s not relevant to my vote and I just don’t have the time to go point by point right now. I would gladly discuss these other points at a later time when I have more time to spare.
The threshold is 2/3rds for *conviction*. The question of whether one is guilty as charged is an entirely separate question from whether the trial itself is constitutional. To the latter, a separate vote was held and did in fact meet the standards to say it was constitutional.
It’ll never cease to amaze me how you continue to use an example where congress voted that a trial was constitutional and held the trial as precedent that the trial was unconstitutional.
There is no conflict of interest with Harris presiding. Trump was not the sitting president so a conviction would have changed nothing for her. If Biden were tried that would be a different story because she would then be in position to be elevated to the presidency. That’s why the Chief Justice is required to preside, and it didn’t apply to this case.
Reach out to me if you want to do it. Like I said, I’m going to be away for about a month with little to no activity here so I’ll probably be back regularly on the site by around mid April
“ I refuted that ONLY throughout the whole debate”
You can’t refute the terms and conditions agreed to before the debate.
“ He avoids making sense of these questions while representing the atheistic position of lack of belief in God or gods.”
Like I eluded to in my RFD and below, once the definition of atheism established in the terms of the debate is accepted, all of these arguments become moot. Pro doesn’t have to explain morality because there is nothing about a lack of belief in a god that would burden one to do so.
I understand that you vehemently disagree with the definition, but you’re allowing your personal opinion of what the definition should be cloud your entire perception of the problem I’m pointing out to you. Accept just for one second, just for the sake of argument that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief… what is Pro’s burden in this debate?
“By denying God or gods, they fill the gap with other explanations or else they are complete dummies. So they have beliefs that do not look to God or gods as an explanation.”
You are again confusing atheists with atheism. I can show you countless examples of Christians using Christianity to justify all kinds of irrational and horrible things. That doesn’t make those things part of Christianity.
If you’re interested, I wouldn’t mind doing a debate on the definition of atheism. I would defend the lack of belief definition and take full BoP. Would have to be next month though, about to all but disappear for a few weeks.
The definition is in the description of the debate under general terms. It defines “Christianity”, “more reasonable”, and then “atheism”. The definition provided is “A lack of belief in the existence of God or Gods”. I don’t know what background conversation you guys may have had, but that’s all the judges have to go by so you need to read it carefully before accepting the debate.
That turned out to be crucial here because it determined what Pro is supposed to be defending in this debate, which was not a world view but rather a rejection of one very specific claim - “god exists”.
It really is that simple, I can see you vehemently disagree with that definition of atheism, but that’s the definition according to this debate.
Here’s a crazy idea, if we’re going to continue going back and forth about this debate, then instead of “I would have won anyway”, we actually talk about the merits of the arguments? You still arguing that senate precedent makes your case when they agree with you but can be thrown in the trash when they don’t? Still ignoring my point about Robert’s not presiding because the entire point of the Chief Justice’s presence is to avoid a conflict of interest for the VP?
That’s because you seem to be focusing more on your interpretation of my motives than the point I am making.
I already explained that Ragnar’s vote was not based on complete information because my link was broken, which was the site’s error. That’s not on him, it just calls into question whether that might have made a difference in his vote.
One’s willingness to “debate the debate” and/or express their disagreement with an RFD is not an insinuation that others acted in any nefarious or irresponsible way. It just means I disagree with it and here is why. Again, it’s a debate site, that’s what we’re supposed to be here for.
Forgot to tag you…
“Again, after Pro continually argued atheism is not a belief (i.e., no position except a lack of belief in God or gods), he argued for a position. Does that make sense? How is that most reasonable?”
Pro never argued in favor of any particular worldview. Every argument he made was in refutation of theistic claims.
I understand your frustration in feeling like you were duped into a shared BoP debate only to be left having to prove your worldview while your opponent just gets to swat it down and not make any claims himself. The single biggest mistake you made was accepting the terms of the debate which clearly define atheism as a lack of belief. Once that happens the only thing Pro has to demonstrate is the reasonableness of not accepting god as defined.
As I strive to be objective in this debate and I see that perhaps the single biggest contention in this debate centers around the definition of atheism, the only thing I can do is see what the rules state and apply it. And once “lack of belief” is established, that renders nearly half of your case moot.
It’s always a shame when good debates go off on two different pages, but it’s on the participants to know the rules they agreed to and engage within them.
“ Again, it proves atheism is a worldview. Pro has filled his lack of belief in God with many other beliefs. Once he jettisoned God or gods, he was forced to look upon existence in a naturalistic framework.”
That’s just not true. One does not have to accept the claim “god does not exist” in order to not accept the claim “god exists”. They can instead just say “I don’t know if there’s a god”.
Even if one accepts other claims such as materialism, that doesn’t make materialism, atheism. That just makes one an atheist who *also* accepts materialism.
I don’t have time to respond to the rest. If there’s anything in particular you want a response on let me know.
This is a debate site. Expressing my opinion is what it’s for, so if you offer your opinion and I find it to be nonsense, I’m going to respond. That doesn’t mean I’m begging the entire site to jump in and “settle the score”.