Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Pro would have conceded the entire debate to the other side
Even though this is well weird of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.
With nothing to rebut from Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments
Fix
Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Con would have conceded the entire debate to the other side
Even though this is well a weird way of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.
With nothing to rebut for Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments
Unless you quoted me a key the Bible fails to be clear on whether it is fictional or non-fictional.
Just realized you were talking about my arguments. Well I don't think I will read it but thank you for giving it anyway. Mainly because I can start an argument from your links and then this would be a debate in the comment. Don't really want that to happen.
I don't really care about the topic. Just wanted to see want I can come up with. Even if I accept it I would have to use the military example but I think there are killer points to be made for your side as well.
*I'll change my vote if someone decides to vote every single point in a favor of either side"
The reason why I wasn't so descriptive was because it is based on what I feel and no amount of words can truly tell you how I feel about any song which pretty much goes for anyone. I used cool and not like to say the bare minimum on which direction I am leaning towards. If only I can inject my feeling to someone else.
Round 3,
Virtuoso: Damn Fleetwood Mac. I really only listened to one of their songs but this is cool too. I am not of the live performances given that I don't really liked the audio.
RM: I thought she looked familiar then I searched her up and found Break My Heart. I like that more for some reason but Close My Eyes is cool.
This was close but due to the audio quality RM wins.
I guess things are pretty fucked. Guess they are less fucked because of that person but I am sure people are still being lead poisoned in America.
Link to the places impacted (I am sure I read this before but wasn't too interested in it to remember or something): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thousands-of-u-s-areas-afflicted-with-lead-poisoning-beyond-flints/
Vox have something that I haven't read: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/27/15424050/us-underreports-lead-poisoning-cases-map-community
They have a graph with it too but it only has one for children not treated with lead poisoning. It would've been cool if they had one for Americans personally lead poisoned or something. That can be used to state x% of Americans had this problem but it had to be about children. Good persuasion and I think bad for data.
"there is also a correlation with the reduction of lead in the atmosphere at a time where those in their mid to late twenties were growing up."
Aren't you pretty much fucked if you have lead in your system?
"but if criminals and those most likely to commit murders with weapons have a significant issues acquiring a weapon - more than they did before - I’d agree with you, however, I see no evidence of that being the case."
I was just asking. I haven't seen anything being done about gun acquisition so to see a change in how criminals acquire guns would be something out of the ordinary but like with pretty much anything there would need to be a cause.
That since things are multifaceted one reason for the drop in murder per capita is the amount of guns per capita. That is under the assumption that both numbers are falling.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html
Here it states amount of guns are falling. This wasn't per capita just by households.
Do you agree with this claim?
That generally less guns would mean less can be used for crime.
"To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top."
I am sorry but this was about Jesus' resurrection not if Jesus ever lived. It is one thing to claim that a lot of people saw a tree but it is another thing for a person to see that same tree moving. Sure if people don't decide to change their story it would be reliable but a tree moving is also a scientific one. Does the tree have the properties to move by itself like how can a human being resurrect itself?
"“Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?”"
Find me where Speedrace used this as his argument.
"You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it."
I still find it very offensive given I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed. Getting an extra set of eyes would be necesssary would be blatant if your vote was not sufficient but it is. My problem isn't the framing it is with what you said. You of all people know moderators don't vote on the thing I am complaining to you about.
"You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings"
I did and you didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.
"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."
Please explain this.
"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable)."
Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?
"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials "
Please point to me where Speedrace made that point. Having multiple copies was Speedrace's point.
"You're of course welcome to report the vote."
Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.
Please explain your vote for me. You stated this "Arguments: pro, but not by a high margin" which I don't think is enough for me to improve or understand how I lost.
The only the other thing would be did me making it clear what Speedrace needs to do really makes my argument less convincing?
TRN: "So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?"
Speedrace: Yes, this is how actual historians determine the validity of historical documents. Didn't you read my source? I can provide more if you would like. [1]
This is what he said. I looked through every single point and nothing came close to reliability = amount of documents. Please see my point Round 2 to find out what I was arguing against.
If you can't find it here:
Speedrace: "In comparison, the New Testament FAR outweighs any secular document. The one with the most is Homer’s Iliad with 647 copies. The New Testament has 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These were all written within a few hundred years of the originals. As you can see, we can have very high confidence that the New Testament is reliable."
TRN: So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?
"Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about)."
"I struggle to see any semblance of bad conduct from either side. "
I differ. I also did point it out in the comments if you think they were not bad conduct on either side. Please one at a time if you can as in give me the best example of your complaint in what I said in the comments and hopefully I will address it.
"A debate is meant to be a debate, not a hair-braiding session."
I don't get it. Maybe it is not supposed to be a friendly experience? If that is the case then there shouldn't even be a conduct point to vote on. Given there is one I will vote on it. Ask bsh1 to change it if you feel so strongly about it.
I did tally what I considered bad conduct from each side then as a whole made my decision. Was this wrong or something?
"The problem is so long as they are not calling the arguer themselves pathetic, it's not so much a conduct violation as it is just a glaring weakness in their case."
I differ on that because we don't know who someone is on the inside so what we have to go on is our interpretation of what they have said. Even if I don't take this stance it would still ad-homs since it wasn't addressing the arguments instead calling the argument something.
"One suggestion I'll make is writing RFDs in a word editor, and copy/paste segments in reverse order (the end gets posted first). It makes long RFDs much easier to read."
"And so, when utilizing the rational mind and applying Occam’s Razor, it is absolute madness to believe the blind forces of nature arrived at current conclusions with probabilities of these extremities without a guiding process."
Calling someone absolutely mad is not cordial. This could've easily been removed given your arguments don't require this.
"After discussing with Virtuoso, we agreed upon waiving the next two speeches and resuming as planned. I have had to deal with huge, unanticipated schoolwork as of late and unfortunately couldn’t get a response written."
Given this neither of them did anything in Con's round 2 and Pro's round 3. This is bad conduct by Con because they weren't able to schedule something and it was good conduct by Pro to simply waive the round as well. As we soon see later Con didn't do the same with Pro.
Bad conduct 2 christopher_best
"I am required by the description to agree with the classical theistic God of the four O’s, yet I fail to see the relevance of this requirement in this debate."
Con decided to bring this up 2 rounds after he accepted it by saying this "I am supporting, as per description, “the God of the four O’s.” " If it wasn't clear changing your mind on what you are going to do in a debate is bad conduct.
Bad conduct 3 christopher_best
"I totally forgot about this debate and thus I am waiving the last round. Please vote on teh arguments presented "
Virtuoso forfeited but christopher_best didn't waive as well so basically Pro accepted a waive from Con due to time constraints but Con won't do the same for Pro.
Bad conduct 2 Virtuoso
Bad conduct 4 christopher_best
"but let me cite well-respected atheist Michael Shermer who even acknowledges this: "
This is a supporting argument given in the final round. The problem is that Pro has no chance to respond to new evidence.
Bad conduct 5 christopher_best
"Let me quote Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati:"
Yet again bringing in new evidence that was not given previously. No way for Pro to argue against it.
Bad conduct 6 christopher_best
"Tut tut tut, not so fast!"
I consider this demeaning language to Pro's arguments.
"The Problem of Evil is one of the oldest arguments against the existence of an all-loving deity. Indeed, Epicurus noted: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”"
Not cordial because the point could've been made with less questions while also not simply repeating similar questions over and over again. If you expect Con to answer this it is unfair. If it wasn't supposed to be answered you admit this was persuasive rhetoric aimed to pander to the crowd instead of being informative.
Bad conduct 1 Virtuoso
"I needn’t show that theism is immensely probable, I must only show that the two positions could rationally be considered equal or more in probability. Keep this in mind, judges: if you are not thoroughly convinced that atheism is the only rational explanation, then by default I win the debate. "
Trying to change the burden of proof even though they have accepted it. A better thing would've been to ask Virtuoso to change the format so that both of you are not challenging instead debating the topic at hand before the debate started.
Bad conduct 1 christopher_best
"But once again, “Godditid” is a pathetic answer."
Wasn't needed since Pro can demonstrate it to be the case without the need of name-calling a reduction of an argument.
Virtuoso made the better arguments which can be seen above.
christopher_best was less cordial.
Virtuoso gets the argument point and the conduct point from me.
Con then quotes a question about God reason for creating life to it being about God being tired. Guess a misreading of what was said or something. Then Con decides to counter a point about life being lethal that God is displaying its power without bad intentions. Given that this hinges on the morality question and since Con decided to say whatever God wills is moral in the last round it does fit but doesn’t make it well placed.
Again Con decided to well not show the best of words with essentially saying Pro made no arguments but I did. It wasn’t that bad of a comment nor does it for me make his argument more convincing so I am moving on.
Con quote a comments that I didn’t read. Upon reading it Pro has also been less cordial. Even so if I count how many times either side has been less than cordial Pro will still have the conduct point. Con also said it is impossible for life to exist randomly or in labs. Not developed.
I didn’t understand the last 2 lines before the congratulations so this ends my debate summary. Only talking about the arguments and conduct. Please bsh1, Ramshutu, Virtuoso don’t make me do the others.
Starts off with calling out the argument of ignorance as a strawman and used science not being able to measure it as a justification? I find this not convincing because it is a non-sequitur. The argument of ignorance was used due to the lackluster justification not because science isn’t philosophy.
Con accepts the criticism Pro gave of his source and then gives a quote of an atheist. He then uses the quote to state since consciousness is unknowable God is more probable explanation. This yet again is not explained which require explanation because it isn’t inherent to the argument.
Next my opponent decides to not directly address the critiques brought by Pro. Instead stated a quote then decided to make another argument. This means Pro’s claims went unchallenged while Con twice now brought about new information which could’ve been brought up earlier given 700 characters were left in Con’s round but d decided to bring up supporting arguments in the last round. I find this to be unfair to Pro since he had no chance to rebut it and having space in earlier rounds give no real good justification to do so now.
Con starts off the KCA by being less than cordial. If it wasn’t clear already even though Pro forfeited Round 4 Con has shown more than enough to present his arguments in a less than formal manner. It would be something if Pro did the same but apart from the paragraph of questions nothing else was less than cordial. Again Con decides to say no to Pro’s arguments without explaining it. Simply saying God is not physical doesn’t help like in earlier rounds because for people to understand how God is simply different it would require a comparison or something that helps people understand. I know Con is a theist in this discussion but they need to present in a way where they made a worthwhile effort in explaining their side. I didn’t see that here nor in most earlier arguments.
The second premise in contention 3 was really bad. A rhetorical question was asked. 3 lines saying he would contend but didn’t then finishes it off with Occam’s Razor. The problem of course is that it needed more than we can’t answers these things therefore God. It was also kind of mean to Pro’s position which nudges the conduct point to Pro since the same level of ad-hom was not shown.
Premise 3 in contention 3 was kind of hypocritical given if we consider Pro’s side to be involved with creatio ex nihilo then the theist must also be given when God created something it would have to come from nothing unless Con decides to state God is something. What created that something would be the most likely question asked which I don’t think Con would be accepting. Even if it is accepted that God is timeless and metaphysical it would still have to engage in something out of nothing.
Virutoso Round 4:
Virtuoso forfeited. This would either mean the conduct point is a draw or still barely on Pro’s side.
Instead of actually arguing against the points being made he instead simply rejects an attribute to God. I didn’t find it very convincing because they didn’t really state why it was unfair instead just stated it was.
Next Con decides to argue against contradictions are not contradictions. The argument is not good given what we do see is not contradictions so it is very difficult to make a comparison so Con’s point is weak. I guess Quantum Mechanics could’ve helped.
Next Con decides to make an argument that God changes its mind. I found no reference of that in the earlier rounds so this is based on something Virtuoso didn’t say.
In Premise 4 it kind of goes against the third one. If is not confined by the past, then that would entail or would be fair to state God can change. That could be further leapt on that God can changes its mind. I don’t know what Con was thinking about the false premises since it works against his favor.
Con then decides not to actually address the DNA point Pro made instead simply ignore the faults of bad DNA and simply stated the complexity. It would’ve been something else that to say that was no mistake but that would also be easy to critique given God’s all good nature. In my eyes whatever Con decided it would’ve ended up as either a non-sequitur or going against what God is.
For some reason Con didn’t decide to explain the problem brought about with Cosmology and theism. That being it isn’t contradictory. It was nice he stated it was a false dichotomy but it would’ve improved his point if he demonstrated why. This would be Theism is that God exists. Cosmology is occurring after God or not in the same area. So basically God does not inherently contradict with Cosmology. This is still a really good point made by Con but lacked development.
christopher_best Round 2:
Waived a round. Was agreed upon but Virtuoso did agree upon something he didn’t need to so the conduct point now will go to Virtuoso for accepting to waive instead of reinforcing his points.
Pro also did a good job at showing God goes against the very first premise. If Con does not show the problems with an infinite regress, then this point will also go to Pro.
Good job also showing the less fine-tuned points of the world. Don’t think there is a counter that Con can give since God is supposedly perfect so making an argument it is more fine-tuned than not would be going against what God is a perfect being.
I guess it would less conducive that Pro used Occam’s Razor (a not developed point by Con) to state he is correct so Virtuoso is less likely now to get the conduct point.
Sheesh starts off with the argument of ignorance. Clearly showing the problem with saying science doesn't know therefore God. Guess jumping the gun fallacy already has a name. It is an argument of ignorance. I am still leaving that in. He also clearly lays out the problems with the source. Basically a non-sequitur to Con's position.
Pro then brings up a point that morality is good because it is inherent or because God said so. Good point. I am going to yoink that one. A better argument would be simply stating the is and ought gap but this is more than serviceable given if answered because God said so then it isn't inherent and if answered it is inherent then God is simply parroting something more powerful thus being self-defeating. Great argument. I only hope what I say is what occurs. Pro also brings up which God which is vital in making his side much easier to defend. Now either his opponent has to specify the God leaving himself open to more arguments or doesn't which gives Pro a point not answered. It was also persuasive to use the Bible and the Quran to show the negatives of a specific God and its teachings.
Morality because of evolution. More specifically reproduction? I would've thought a more persuasive argument like without an objective morality we can't be sure on what is right or wrong so basically we can't for sure say killing a pregnant lady or having sex with dead person is wrong would be made. The obvious problem I find is the is and ought gap. If Virtuoso didn't bring this up then the appeal to nature can work because there is no rebuttal to it.
Uses the KCA for theism. Good argument given Pro didn’t lay out a specific God so Con has less to do for it to be a good argument.
Probability therefore God. Basically a lot of ifs were use. A clear counter would be using instances where the world isn't finely tuned. If that does not happen then Con has the better position while also being more persuasive.
christopher_best Round 1:
Didn't really like where he stated he doesn't need to show theism is more probable to win but if more unfair burden is shown guess I am judging more on just arguments.
Great job showing theism is not contradicting science. Given theism is only a belief in God which happens before anything we perceive today so I hope he uses this to show the problems with Virtuoso's third argument later on.
Occam's Razor is used. I can only know if it was used well when I read it in the argument.
Don't know about the strawman given about spontaneous combustion. I guess another point in favor of Virtuoso for conduct given that comment is not warranted. I guess it is comparable to Virtuoso asking a ton of questions but they weren't delivered typically in an unfair manner so I will let that slide.
Consciousness can't be explained through science therefore God exists. Weak argument given science is the best thing we have to observe the natural world. I wouldn't know how to improve the argument since I think it was flawed on arrival. I don't know a better word for it so I will call it jumping the gun fallacy. This is when a person doesn't explain why they have that conclusion instead assume it.
And I saw one sentence answers. If you are not actually bothered to spend the time to present an argument for the following rounds don't bother.
Error
Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Pro would have conceded the entire debate to the other side
Even though this is well weird of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.
With nothing to rebut from Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments
Fix
Meaning if Con accepts Pro's definitions Con would have conceded the entire debate to the other side
Even though this is well a weird way of making an argument as in defining yourself to win, Pro's appeal to authority is better than contradictory arguments.
With nothing to rebut for Pro he had nothing to say to Con apart from giving a response to the one line comments
If you actually don't care about debating, don't bother creating debates. It is that simple.
Thank you, I really appreciate you making a debate that is relevant. Mainly the presidency not Yang which you will soon see in my arguments.
Unless you quoted me a key the Bible fails to be clear on whether it is fictional or non-fictional.
Just realized you were talking about my arguments. Well I don't think I will read it but thank you for giving it anyway. Mainly because I can start an argument from your links and then this would be a debate in the comment. Don't really want that to happen.
Why?
Who would have thought the right deals with purity tests?
If he tells you he is giving an argument to you.
woo
That is not how you vote. Ask Ragnar, Ramshutu or Virtuoso by tagging them.
I don't really care about the topic. Just wanted to see want I can come up with. Even if I accept it I would have to use the military example but I think there are killer points to be made for your side as well.
*I'll change my vote if someone decides to vote every single point in a favor of either side"
The reason why I wasn't so descriptive was because it is based on what I feel and no amount of words can truly tell you how I feel about any song which pretty much goes for anyone. I used cool and not like to say the bare minimum on which direction I am leaning towards. If only I can inject my feeling to someone else.
Round 1,
Virtuoso: The memes
RM: Good song
The meme was not good enough because I liked RM's song more.
Round 2,
Virtuoso: I didn't like it.
RM: cool song. I liked Rather be more.
RM wins if it wasn't clear above.
Round 3,
Virtuoso: Damn Fleetwood Mac. I really only listened to one of their songs but this is cool too. I am not of the live performances given that I don't really liked the audio.
RM: I thought she looked familiar then I searched her up and found Break My Heart. I like that more for some reason but Close My Eyes is cool.
This was close but due to the audio quality RM wins.
Round 4,
Virtuoso: That was cool.
RM: I didn't like the song for some reason.
Virtuoso won.
Round 5,
Virtuoso: I didn't like it for some reason.
RM: I didn't like it either for some reason.
I guess RM because I like his song more than Virtuoso's.
Are you for Brexit if not or so why?
I guess things are pretty fucked. Guess they are less fucked because of that person but I am sure people are still being lead poisoned in America.
Link to the places impacted (I am sure I read this before but wasn't too interested in it to remember or something): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thousands-of-u-s-areas-afflicted-with-lead-poisoning-beyond-flints/
Vox have something that I haven't read: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/4/27/15424050/us-underreports-lead-poisoning-cases-map-community
They have a graph with it too but it only has one for children not treated with lead poisoning. It would've been cool if they had one for Americans personally lead poisoned or something. That can be used to state x% of Americans had this problem but it had to be about children. Good persuasion and I think bad for data.
IPhone bad
Time on site bad
:(
Just checking. You didn't reply to Ragnar. Thought you must've missed it.
"there is also a correlation with the reduction of lead in the atmosphere at a time where those in their mid to late twenties were growing up."
Aren't you pretty much fucked if you have lead in your system?
"but if criminals and those most likely to commit murders with weapons have a significant issues acquiring a weapon - more than they did before - I’d agree with you, however, I see no evidence of that being the case."
I was just asking. I haven't seen anything being done about gun acquisition so to see a change in how criminals acquire guns would be something out of the ordinary but like with pretty much anything there would need to be a cause.
Is there no God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDH3meSPyk
Basically crossed vote.
Would you agree with the correlation?
That since things are multifaceted one reason for the drop in murder per capita is the amount of guns per capita. That is under the assumption that both numbers are falling.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html
Here it states amount of guns are falling. This wasn't per capita just by households.
Do you agree with this claim?
That generally less guns would mean less can be used for crime.
#29
Sorry.
"To me this was not a terribly complex debate. I could have added lots of padded on words to the vote, IMO the debate largely boiled down to the insufficiently refuted historical accounts. The highlights of what each of you said, taken by itself implied which came out on top."
I am sorry but this was about Jesus' resurrection not if Jesus ever lived. It is one thing to claim that a lot of people saw a tree but it is another thing for a person to see that same tree moving. Sure if people don't decide to change their story it would be reliable but a tree moving is also a scientific one. Does the tree have the properties to move by itself like how can a human being resurrect itself?
"“Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?”"
Find me where Speedrace used this as his argument.
"You're imagining slights against you, when none was intended. Getting an extra set of eyes or two to review any vote in question, is to me, never a bad idea. Were the vote called borderline by the moderators, that would be a major strike against it."
I still find it very offensive given I don't remember a time if ever that a moderator removed a vote that was not deemed sufficient that you typed. Getting an extra set of eyes would be necesssary would be blatant if your vote was not sufficient but it is. My problem isn't the framing it is with what you said. You of all people know moderators don't vote on the thing I am complaining to you about.
"You're missing the context of the total rounds (points being separated by headings"
I did and you didn't state what side made the better argument. You just said what both of us said.
"You attempted to flip a source, but stabbed yourself in the foot with it."
Please explain this.
"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reliable)."
Your basically saying I lost this debate because I didn't define the word myself?
"Reliability refers to giving the same result on successive trials "
Please point to me where Speedrace made that point. Having multiple copies was Speedrace's point.
"You're of course welcome to report the vote."
Under the rules of the website your vote is sufficient. You know that already and for you to even say this is condescending either you are implying I am stupid or have a short memory.
Please explain your vote for me. You stated this "Arguments: pro, but not by a high margin" which I don't think is enough for me to improve or understand how I lost.
The only the other thing would be did me making it clear what Speedrace needs to do really makes my argument less convincing?
Sorry if this is too much.
TRN: "So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?"
Speedrace: Yes, this is how actual historians determine the validity of historical documents. Didn't you read my source? I can provide more if you would like. [1]
This is what he said. I looked through every single point and nothing came close to reliability = amount of documents. Please see my point Round 2 to find out what I was arguing against.
If you can't find it here:
Speedrace: "In comparison, the New Testament FAR outweighs any secular document. The one with the most is Homer’s Iliad with 647 copies. The New Testament has 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts. These were all written within a few hundred years of the originals. As you can see, we can have very high confidence that the New Testament is reliable."
TRN: So an amount of something non-sequitur to the reliability conversation is somehow enough to state the Bible is reliable?
"Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?"
That wasn't what he was saying he was saying reliability is met by having a lot of copies.
"Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about)."
I don't agree with this.
"I struggle to see any semblance of bad conduct from either side. "
I differ. I also did point it out in the comments if you think they were not bad conduct on either side. Please one at a time if you can as in give me the best example of your complaint in what I said in the comments and hopefully I will address it.
"A debate is meant to be a debate, not a hair-braiding session."
I don't get it. Maybe it is not supposed to be a friendly experience? If that is the case then there shouldn't even be a conduct point to vote on. Given there is one I will vote on it. Ask bsh1 to change it if you feel so strongly about it.
I did tally what I considered bad conduct from each side then as a whole made my decision. Was this wrong or something?
"The problem is so long as they are not calling the arguer themselves pathetic, it's not so much a conduct violation as it is just a glaring weakness in their case."
I differ on that because we don't know who someone is on the inside so what we have to go on is our interpretation of what they have said. Even if I don't take this stance it would still ad-homs since it wasn't addressing the arguments instead calling the argument something.
"One suggestion I'll make is writing RFDs in a word editor, and copy/paste segments in reverse order (the end gets posted first). It makes long RFDs much easier to read."
Okay I'll do that next time.
How about now?
If it wasn't clear Con was less conducive so Pro gets the conduct point.
"And so, when utilizing the rational mind and applying Occam’s Razor, it is absolute madness to believe the blind forces of nature arrived at current conclusions with probabilities of these extremities without a guiding process."
Calling someone absolutely mad is not cordial. This could've easily been removed given your arguments don't require this.
Bad conduct 8 christopher_best
"After discussing with Virtuoso, we agreed upon waiving the next two speeches and resuming as planned. I have had to deal with huge, unanticipated schoolwork as of late and unfortunately couldn’t get a response written."
Given this neither of them did anything in Con's round 2 and Pro's round 3. This is bad conduct by Con because they weren't able to schedule something and it was good conduct by Pro to simply waive the round as well. As we soon see later Con didn't do the same with Pro.
Bad conduct 2 christopher_best
"I am required by the description to agree with the classical theistic God of the four O’s, yet I fail to see the relevance of this requirement in this debate."
Con decided to bring this up 2 rounds after he accepted it by saying this "I am supporting, as per description, “the God of the four O’s.” " If it wasn't clear changing your mind on what you are going to do in a debate is bad conduct.
Bad conduct 3 christopher_best
"I totally forgot about this debate and thus I am waiving the last round. Please vote on teh arguments presented "
Virtuoso forfeited but christopher_best didn't waive as well so basically Pro accepted a waive from Con due to time constraints but Con won't do the same for Pro.
Bad conduct 2 Virtuoso
Bad conduct 4 christopher_best
"but let me cite well-respected atheist Michael Shermer who even acknowledges this: "
This is a supporting argument given in the final round. The problem is that Pro has no chance to respond to new evidence.
Bad conduct 5 christopher_best
"Let me quote Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati:"
Yet again bringing in new evidence that was not given previously. No way for Pro to argue against it.
Bad conduct 6 christopher_best
"Tut tut tut, not so fast!"
I consider this demeaning language to Pro's arguments.
Bad conduct 7 christopher_best
Conduct since what I said earlier wasn't enough
"The Problem of Evil is one of the oldest arguments against the existence of an all-loving deity. Indeed, Epicurus noted: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”"
Not cordial because the point could've been made with less questions while also not simply repeating similar questions over and over again. If you expect Con to answer this it is unfair. If it wasn't supposed to be answered you admit this was persuasive rhetoric aimed to pander to the crowd instead of being informative.
Bad conduct 1 Virtuoso
"I needn’t show that theism is immensely probable, I must only show that the two positions could rationally be considered equal or more in probability. Keep this in mind, judges: if you are not thoroughly convinced that atheism is the only rational explanation, then by default I win the debate. "
Trying to change the burden of proof even though they have accepted it. A better thing would've been to ask Virtuoso to change the format so that both of you are not challenging instead debating the topic at hand before the debate started.
Bad conduct 1 christopher_best
"But once again, “Godditid” is a pathetic answer."
Wasn't needed since Pro can demonstrate it to be the case without the need of name-calling a reduction of an argument.
Is my vote sufficient?
To summarize:
Virtuoso made the better arguments which can be seen above.
christopher_best was less cordial.
Virtuoso gets the argument point and the conduct point from me.
Con then quotes a question about God reason for creating life to it being about God being tired. Guess a misreading of what was said or something. Then Con decides to counter a point about life being lethal that God is displaying its power without bad intentions. Given that this hinges on the morality question and since Con decided to say whatever God wills is moral in the last round it does fit but doesn’t make it well placed.
Again Con decided to well not show the best of words with essentially saying Pro made no arguments but I did. It wasn’t that bad of a comment nor does it for me make his argument more convincing so I am moving on.
Con quote a comments that I didn’t read. Upon reading it Pro has also been less cordial. Even so if I count how many times either side has been less than cordial Pro will still have the conduct point. Con also said it is impossible for life to exist randomly or in labs. Not developed.
I didn’t understand the last 2 lines before the congratulations so this ends my debate summary. Only talking about the arguments and conduct. Please bsh1, Ramshutu, Virtuoso don’t make me do the others.
christopher_best Round 4:
Starts off with calling out the argument of ignorance as a strawman and used science not being able to measure it as a justification? I find this not convincing because it is a non-sequitur. The argument of ignorance was used due to the lackluster justification not because science isn’t philosophy.
Con accepts the criticism Pro gave of his source and then gives a quote of an atheist. He then uses the quote to state since consciousness is unknowable God is more probable explanation. This yet again is not explained which require explanation because it isn’t inherent to the argument.
Next my opponent decides to not directly address the critiques brought by Pro. Instead stated a quote then decided to make another argument. This means Pro’s claims went unchallenged while Con twice now brought about new information which could’ve been brought up earlier given 700 characters were left in Con’s round but d decided to bring up supporting arguments in the last round. I find this to be unfair to Pro since he had no chance to rebut it and having space in earlier rounds give no real good justification to do so now.
Con starts off the KCA by being less than cordial. If it wasn’t clear already even though Pro forfeited Round 4 Con has shown more than enough to present his arguments in a less than formal manner. It would be something if Pro did the same but apart from the paragraph of questions nothing else was less than cordial. Again Con decides to say no to Pro’s arguments without explaining it. Simply saying God is not physical doesn’t help like in earlier rounds because for people to understand how God is simply different it would require a comparison or something that helps people understand. I know Con is a theist in this discussion but they need to present in a way where they made a worthwhile effort in explaining their side. I didn’t see that here nor in most earlier arguments.
The second premise in contention 3 was really bad. A rhetorical question was asked. 3 lines saying he would contend but didn’t then finishes it off with Occam’s Razor. The problem of course is that it needed more than we can’t answers these things therefore God. It was also kind of mean to Pro’s position which nudges the conduct point to Pro since the same level of ad-hom was not shown.
Premise 3 in contention 3 was kind of hypocritical given if we consider Pro’s side to be involved with creatio ex nihilo then the theist must also be given when God created something it would have to come from nothing unless Con decides to state God is something. What created that something would be the most likely question asked which I don’t think Con would be accepting. Even if it is accepted that God is timeless and metaphysical it would still have to engage in something out of nothing.
Virutoso Round 4:
Virtuoso forfeited. This would either mean the conduct point is a draw or still barely on Pro’s side.
christopher_best Round 3:
Instead of actually arguing against the points being made he instead simply rejects an attribute to God. I didn’t find it very convincing because they didn’t really state why it was unfair instead just stated it was.
Next Con decides to argue against contradictions are not contradictions. The argument is not good given what we do see is not contradictions so it is very difficult to make a comparison so Con’s point is weak. I guess Quantum Mechanics could’ve helped.
Next Con decides to make an argument that God changes its mind. I found no reference of that in the earlier rounds so this is based on something Virtuoso didn’t say.
In Premise 4 it kind of goes against the third one. If is not confined by the past, then that would entail or would be fair to state God can change. That could be further leapt on that God can changes its mind. I don’t know what Con was thinking about the false premises since it works against his favor.
Con then decides not to actually address the DNA point Pro made instead simply ignore the faults of bad DNA and simply stated the complexity. It would’ve been something else that to say that was no mistake but that would also be easy to critique given God’s all good nature. In my eyes whatever Con decided it would’ve ended up as either a non-sequitur or going against what God is.
For some reason Con didn’t decide to explain the problem brought about with Cosmology and theism. That being it isn’t contradictory. It was nice he stated it was a false dichotomy but it would’ve improved his point if he demonstrated why. This would be Theism is that God exists. Cosmology is occurring after God or not in the same area. So basically God does not inherently contradict with Cosmology. This is still a really good point made by Con but lacked development.
christopher_best Round 2:
Waived a round. Was agreed upon but Virtuoso did agree upon something he didn’t need to so the conduct point now will go to Virtuoso for accepting to waive instead of reinforcing his points.
Virtuoso Round 3:
Waived.
Pro also did a good job at showing God goes against the very first premise. If Con does not show the problems with an infinite regress, then this point will also go to Pro.
Good job also showing the less fine-tuned points of the world. Don’t think there is a counter that Con can give since God is supposedly perfect so making an argument it is more fine-tuned than not would be going against what God is a perfect being.
I guess it would less conducive that Pro used Occam’s Razor (a not developed point by Con) to state he is correct so Virtuoso is less likely now to get the conduct point.
Virtuoso Round 2:
Sheesh starts off with the argument of ignorance. Clearly showing the problem with saying science doesn't know therefore God. Guess jumping the gun fallacy already has a name. It is an argument of ignorance. I am still leaving that in. He also clearly lays out the problems with the source. Basically a non-sequitur to Con's position.
Pro then brings up a point that morality is good because it is inherent or because God said so. Good point. I am going to yoink that one. A better argument would be simply stating the is and ought gap but this is more than serviceable given if answered because God said so then it isn't inherent and if answered it is inherent then God is simply parroting something more powerful thus being self-defeating. Great argument. I only hope what I say is what occurs. Pro also brings up which God which is vital in making his side much easier to defend. Now either his opponent has to specify the God leaving himself open to more arguments or doesn't which gives Pro a point not answered. It was also persuasive to use the Bible and the Quran to show the negatives of a specific God and its teachings.
Morality because of evolution. More specifically reproduction? I would've thought a more persuasive argument like without an objective morality we can't be sure on what is right or wrong so basically we can't for sure say killing a pregnant lady or having sex with dead person is wrong would be made. The obvious problem I find is the is and ought gap. If Virtuoso didn't bring this up then the appeal to nature can work because there is no rebuttal to it.
Uses the KCA for theism. Good argument given Pro didn’t lay out a specific God so Con has less to do for it to be a good argument.
Probability therefore God. Basically a lot of ifs were use. A clear counter would be using instances where the world isn't finely tuned. If that does not happen then Con has the better position while also being more persuasive.
christopher_best Round 1:
Didn't really like where he stated he doesn't need to show theism is more probable to win but if more unfair burden is shown guess I am judging more on just arguments.
Great job showing theism is not contradicting science. Given theism is only a belief in God which happens before anything we perceive today so I hope he uses this to show the problems with Virtuoso's third argument later on.
Occam's Razor is used. I can only know if it was used well when I read it in the argument.
Don't know about the strawman given about spontaneous combustion. I guess another point in favor of Virtuoso for conduct given that comment is not warranted. I guess it is comparable to Virtuoso asking a ton of questions but they weren't delivered typically in an unfair manner so I will let that slide.
Consciousness can't be explained through science therefore God exists. Weak argument given science is the best thing we have to observe the natural world. I wouldn't know how to improve the argument since I think it was flawed on arrival. I don't know a better word for it so I will call it jumping the gun fallacy. This is when a person doesn't explain why they have that conclusion instead assume it.