Total votes: 59
Full forfeit.
Argument Point for Con. Reasons below.
Pro's key argument was that abortions before 5 months were acceptable because the fetus would feel no pain and by the definition of Pro's worldview, the fetus would not yet be a life. All argument going forwards stem from this.
Pro also talks about cases of Rape and pregnancies out of the mother's control and justifies them for different reasons. I was disappointed here that Pro did not specify if this applied to abortions after 5 months, but there seemed to be strong implications that his was the case, so I took this as a given because pro left me no choice to by not specifying.
This seemed, to me, to be a tactic to sneak in later term abortions under a weaker condition while using the seemingly stronger 5 month condition to bolster it.
Pro also argued that parents were not responsible not accountable for their sexual behaviors. I feel like pro waved this off rather axiomatically, only using a couple of non analogous examples which were flimsy at best. The false analogies failed to account for the fact that, in the case of abortion. A parent is imposing their will on the human life of the baby, while in Pro's examples, there were simply people risking their own personal safety. This is why I was forced to reject this argument.
Con handles Pros arguments routinely. Taking down the rape argument with Ben Shapiros famous 99% line, which is as convincing as it is true. Con rightly points out that Pros standard does not have proper justification and that there was good reason to believe that fetuses under 5 months are living even if they don't feel pain.
Con correctly states that it is quite possible and practical for one to manage their sexual habits in a responsible way that was also personally beneficial. Even going as far as to give specific pillars by which to make this assessment. The completeness of this particular point made it a strong sell for me and with the arguments I mention. Con successfully sweeps the rug out of all of Pros points categorically and renders his argument useless.
Both sides fought for ground later on. But nothing said impacted my initial assessment of the key points.
I gave Con the conduct point because Pro was being unnecessarily rude even in the opening argument when unprovoked.
Pro repeatedly implies that the negations of his points were logically inferior and would use language to imply this.
Specifically, there was one point where Pro said that making arguments against sexual freedom were and I quote "ignorant." I found the overall tone of this argument to be excessive and a big turn off in the debate.
All other points tied.
I'm awarding the argument point to Pro. Here are my reasons.
It was made very clear in the title that this debate was meant to be from a biblical perspective, so I will judge the argument accordingly.
Pro citied many biblical verse to support the claim of fatalism, These verses contained many instances of god imposing on will and demonstrated that God, does in fact know the future and can impose on us to achieve it.
Pro also put the verses into context towards the end of his opening, but I would have liked a more robust argument in general. Still, pro still meets the burden by rightly stating that god knows if we're going to hell. This was really the key point and this was support by pros sources. Even if everything else pro said was wrong, this fact wins the argument point.
Con argued in bad faith and did not make arguments that align with the bible. I am not against using logic in this case. However, the logic must assume that the bible is true because that is the premise of this debate.
Con creates a false dichotomy by saying that free will and fatalism cannot exist simultaneously. Since we are judging from the bible, the bible makes it clear this is possible because while god can see into the future, god IMPOSES on people's will, which Pro pointed out. In order to impose on a will, one must have a free will to be imposed on.
Con states god cannot know the future. this is an argument in bad faith. Con was not using the bible as context for this argument because the bible states this is clearly possible
Con argues that free will must exist in the bible, but this is only a good argument based on the false dichotomy that Con created.
Arguments in subsequent rounds were short and did little to add to the argument.
Ultimately, I Gave the point to Pro because Pro provide sufficient proof for me to believe beyond reasonable doubt. Speaking strictly in a biblical context. Con's loses the point because the only biblical argument made was for free will and this did not rebut Pro.
Con provided no sources and was lacking to the point of needing them. Pro provided robust sources. For example:
Ephesians 1:4-13
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he[a] predestined us for adoption to sonship[b] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he[c] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
11 In him we were also chosen,[d] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,
Footnotes:
Ephesians 1:5 Or sight in love. 5 He
Ephesians 1:5 The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture.
Ephesians 1:9 Or us with all wisdom and understanding. 9 And he
Ephesians 1:11 Or were made heirs
I used NIV version here just so people know.
This source clearly references free will in the beginning and at the same time says that you are "sealed" which if you read the context, means that god has already chosen your fate.
I award conduct point to Pro because of Con's excessive conduct violation. Con took the debate on bad faith knowing that the topic required an assumption of the bible. This essentially ruined Pro's debate and was not the reason that Pro started it. This misconduct was so bad that it brought the debate to a screeching halt in round 2 and I think it is in the nature of good conduct to accept the topic in order for both side to have fun in the debate.
Grammar and spelling tied.
BoP(shared)
Pro committed a goal tending fallacy by adding a fallacious contingency to the BoP. Specifically the 12 year ultimatum. This forced Con to prove a slippery slope fallacy to win the debate which does not fall in line with the nature of BoP that is already set forth in a structured debate. These types of contingencies should always be avoided. Furthermore, political debates about government vs government carry an extra burden. Practically speaking, there must always be a government in power, so in this case, it was not wrong for Con to ask for a light comparison of socialism and other viable economic systems. BoP should be on the merit of the arguments and not and arbitrary and fallacious contingency.
Pro:
Pillar one: Private failure.
Pro made it clear that there are definitely companies taking advantage of the government and hurting the environment. My problem is that Pro did not make any effort to debunked the idea that other companies could also help the problem. Pro eventually posited a remedy for this thought, saying that technology can come from anywhere, the economy wasn't the only factor, etc. But con refuted all of this (More on con later)
Pillar two: Government failure.
Pro cited specific examples to prove this with ease. My problem is that Con showed that there is no logical connectivity between these two pillars even though they're both true in their own right. I cannot accept the conclusion since I do not accept the premises. The conclusion cannot follow in an argument with invalid structure.
Con:
1. What is being equipped to deal with CC?
More about establishing a definition than a point itself. Still, Pro agreed with this and the point is succinct and tautologous
2. How is Capitalism sufficiently equipped to deal with CC?
Con's fatal blow. Con rightly points out that government and economy are not mutually exclusive which is what tears con's premises apart. Pro tried to get around this by appealing to current behaviors, but did nothing to refute this point practically or logically. Furthermore, Con rightly pointed out there are companies that do help the environment and pointed out times when it would also be financially beneficial. These were the two big sticking points and further arguments did not change the status of this. Con also rightly points out that other forms of government haven't done any better. Even though pro was not happy with this argument, the fact is, that it was relevant and it was a good point to be made and Pro should have addressed it at least to a little more than what was done in this debate.
All other points are tied.
Con's material was all over the place in the beginning and killed it in the end. Pro started off strong but lost me when he committed blasphemy by invoking Zeus. By street rules, that makes him a NARC and loses him "mad cred". Both of them are way better at rapping than me.
Wasn't even close. Didn't do full points cause my opinion isn't worth that many points in this case.
Argument points.
Pro:
1. Only material is observable
Pro use sound strong inductive reasoning (everything ever observed is material) to reach a probabilistic conclusion. This meets the Burden of Proof
2. Only material is necessary
Pro did not meet the burden of proof here because pro did not address how abstracts could be material or unnecessary in all cases
3. Only material is sensical
Same problem as the last statement. Pro did not explain how abstracts how abstracts could be material or arbitrary in all cases.
4. Only material is tangible
This is basically the same as the first argument, except it address the sensory aspect of observation. So it also meets the BOP
5. Only the material exist.
Pro's argument is true by definition here. Although, it's a tad redundant since anything that exists is necessarily material. This is a tautology.
Con:
Con did not use proper structure in any of the syllogisms, so they are all invalid. I'm going off of the actual rules for categorical syllogism.
Major Premise (MP): Proving things in a non-physical way can still be valid proof.
Minor Premise (mP): Material things can be proven to exist by physical means only.
Conclusion (and also Contention so the symbol will be 'C' as my Conclusions will be my actual Contentions/Points of argumentation)...
C1: The proof for the non-materialistic is both able to be and highly likely to be non-physical and is entirely capable of being valid in spite of being such.
Here, Con did not follow the rule of even distribution nor did Con use the proper wording for the arguments themselves. A properly distributed argument with valid language looks like this.
1. All A's are B's
2. Some B's are C's
C. Therefore, some A's are C's
Furthermore, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. This is why the distribution is necessary, to gain logical connectivity. Since all of Con's subsequent premises rely on the first conclusion and also commit the same error in structure by not using the even distribution, Con's entire set of syllogisms and subsequent arguments defending them are also invalid. This was Can's entire argument.
After weighing both arguments, I find that Pro has met the BoP of proving that materialism is true. Con was not able to meet the BoP on the contrary nor was Con able to point out any flaws in Pro's arguments.
Sources.
So according to the rules of voting, I have to provide at least one source, and also describe their net impact on both side and then compare them.
Pro's sources were centered around defining things in order to show the truth of the claim. In particular, Pro sourced a Wiki on Empirical Evidence which help to demonstrate the nature of what is and is not observable and what can and can't be evidenced. This was a key point in the debate. So this source was specifically useful. Overall, I would say that pros sources had a net positive impact and no particular source was unreliable.
Con's sources were a couple of definitions, a guide to syllogisms, and an article about a study. The definitions were helpful for clearing up terms in the debate. The guide to syllogisms was accurate. The article about the study in particular was a dubious source that merely quoted data from a study without showing the methodology. I think this source hurt Con a bit in terms of credibility. Con also claimed that this source helped to demonstrate the metaphysical by saying that it proved "sensory". But the study never mentions anything about the metaphysical at all.
Overall. Pro ends up with the better sources because Con's sources ended up being a net loss due to the study.
Spelling and Grammar.
Both sides formatted their arguments in a way that was easy to read. Neither side made any noticeable error and all definitions were well understood. I call tie on this.
Conduct.
Neither side was rude.
Rules say I can award conduct on a single forfeit if argument points were award or an explanation was posed for not awarding. Since Pro forfeit the crucial final round and all other things were equal, I award conduct to Con
Good debate. I hope this was a better vote
All things being equal. Pro simply fell short of the BOP Pro's argument was essentially the Kalam Cosmological Argument with the additional premise that the "uncaused cause" is a god. This assertion is not support by the kalam alone. Pro needed to provide additional evidence to show the correlation. Furthermore, Pro was not able to justify the premise that god was justified to fall into a different category apart form literally all of known reality. Without this proof, Pro's argument essentially landed on a special pleading fallacy and bled to death.
Both debaters were polite and vigorous in their arguments. Fun to read.
Pro gets conduct for having more rounds filled in. Otherwise, it would have been even. Both debaters were perfectly polite. Pro made arguments that were technically true but turned out to ultimately be non sequiturs. Con categorically rebutted Pro's claims using proper skepticism and did not jump off the ledge onto a positive claim, so no BOP was need on Con's part. Both sides did well and Con ultimately had the more defensible position and played the situation properly to it's logical conclusion.