Total votes: 4
This was a fantastic debate which both participants deserve credit for, it’s shame that only one side could win but that’s just how it works.
The resolution being debated here is that Atheism is on balance more reasonable than Christianity. Each participant lead their argument with 4 different points to substantiate their position, so my first step is to sort through each participant’s arguments to determine which if any should be awarded.
Pros 4 arguments consisted of the AKCA, gratuitous evil, the anti-ontological, and Occam's Razor. My biggest critique of Pro is that I felt his Occam’s Razor argument had by far the most potential to uphold the resolution but he essentially abandoned it. Since the debate is focused on the concept of “reasonable”, there would have been no clearer way to make that case convincingly than to focus on the foundations of how we go about reasoning, which is what OR addresses. Also while I find the AKCA and anti-ontological arguments interesting I don’t think that the case was made well enough to be considered satisfied beyond my own biases.
On the other hand, the gratuitous evil argument in my estimation stands. Pro did a good job of explaining that if God is omni-benevolent there would be *no* evil, but Con accepted in the debate that God *uses* evil to achieve good. The only reason an all good God would need to use evil to achieve good is if he were not in control of his circumstances, but God in this debate is being defined as all powerful, so this exception is a clear contradiction of logic. Point to Pro.
Cons 4 arguments consisted of the LUQ, biblical evidence, morality, and logic. With regards to the LUQ I think con argued his views well but this became one of the biggest contentions in the debate… what is atheism? Both sides in my view spent way too much time on this point. As a judge my first actions to settle such a dispute is to look at the definitions at the start of the debate where it clearly defines atheism as “a lack of belief”. If Con wanted to argue against the definition of atheism he should not have accepted the debate as it was constructed, so I see no other option than to give Pro this section because this undercuts a significant portion of Con’s arguments in this debate. With regards to the other three points, both sides argued their positions well so I consider each of these neutral.
One other thing that stood out to me is that Pro consistently quoted philosophers expressing various ideas and concepts to which Con responded by attacking the bias of said philosophers. This is a clear way to lose an argument. The person being quoted is irrelevant to the point being made. Con should have engaged in the point, doing otherwise comes off as a red herring.
Because of these points I’d have to give the edge to Pro. Sources to Pro due to that last point. I did feel that Con’s arguments were laid out in a format that was easier to follow and keep track of, so I gave him credit for spelling and grammar.
Last point, I would like to apologize to both participants in advance of I missed anything here. It’s one of the problems with such long debates, I almost didn’t bother because of how long it took me to get to a point where I felt comfortable with my verdict but powered through because I felt my time was earned. I recommend shortening the debate next time, it might help get more views and votes.
Forfeit aside, this was not a very strong debate. Pro's argument was essentially that 9/11 was not an inside job because Popular Mechanics said so. And while PM is a reputable magazine who did some great work investigating the claims, it's just not enough. I think any combination of more references, pointing to the fact that after all these years there is still no coherent alternative narrative, and philosophical points addressing how we prove a negative could have all helped the case. With 10,000 characters to work with, there was no shortage of space.
Con's case however wasn't any more complete. All he provided were a few attempts to refute the science Pro pointed to, and claims of an incomplete investigation. This does not even lead us in the direction of a conspiracy, let alone connect the dots. Since Pro's case at least gets us there, Pro wins arguments.
Conduct to Pro for the forfeit.
Pro failed to define the terms of the debate. What crimes, and committed at what level does it take to establish that white people are terrorists? Pro’s argument consisted of anecdotes which he never tied to an overall argument, and statistics which Con turned on him by pointing out that percentages are how we determine who is more likely to commit a crime. Despite Con asking multiple times “what is terrorism?”, Pro never offered a response to advance his case. Pro seemed to rely on the readers to just “get it”, but that’s not how debate works.
Conduct to Con, Pro repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and insinuations. One example was when Pro stated “Here's how Illogical my opponent is...”. Pro must focus on his opponents arguments, not his opponent. Pro should also refrain from insulting his opponents arguments, if the readers agree with his point nothing further needs to be said.
Sources to Con for not only providing sources but turning his opponents sources against him. Some of Pro’s sources were also questionable at best, providing examples what a politician says is never a great way to prove a point.
Full forfeit, all points awarded.
Cons argument was very well stated from defining the terms in Pro’s absence, laying out the groundwork and tying it together.