Instigator / Pro
6
1512
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#489
A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
6
0
After 6 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Analgesic.Spectre
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description
--Overview--
This is a debate open to everyone. Voting is open to all except the following people: imabench, coal (YYW), Zeichen and SamStevens. This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available for each round. Voting will last for 1 month. I am taking the Pro position.
--Topic--
A fine-tuned universe is not evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god
--Rules--
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
--Structure--
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
Good luck to my future opponent.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you, Wylted, for accepting this debate. I look forward to an exciting and engaging debate.
Affirmative Case:
A fine-tuned
universe cannot be evidence for a creator god, because said argument
is internally contradictory. Let us explore these contradictions.
Definitions:
Omnipotent: “one
who has unlimited power or authority” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent).
Omniscient:
“possessed
of universal or complete knowledge” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omniscient).
Fine-tuned
universe:
“The fine-tuned
Universe is
the proposition that the conditions that allow life in
the Universe can
occur only when certain universal dimensionless
physical constants lie
within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several
fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe
would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and
development of matter,
astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is
understood”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe).
Premise:
1) There is no
such thing as something being so complicated that it had to be
designed. That is not what design is, and that is not how
intelligence works. Intelligent design needs to be as reasonably
simple as it can be, or else it's not a product of understanding.
If something is
unnecessarily complex, then it is not a product of understanding. If
something is as simple as it can be, then it is a product of
understanding. Therefore, complexity has an inverse relationship with
intelligence, in that intelligence attempts to make things simpler.
Argument
1: Fine-tuning necessitates a lack of omnipotence or lack of
intelligence
The argument that
the universe is finely-tuned is based on the idea that god doesn't
have any control over some aspects of our physical reality. The verb
to “tune” means that there are standards that are external to the
operator, and the only use for such a word is in situations in which
the operator has limited control
(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tune).
For example, if your
violin produced every sound that you wanted, without any adjustment,
you would never have to tune it. Stating that you need to tune your
violin concedes that it can be out of tune, moreover, that you don't
have complete control over it.
Tuning cannot, by
definition, take place when obstables to a goal do not exist – when
an action doesn't need to be performed. There cannot be adjustments
if no adjustments were necessary, and unnecessary adjustments cannot
qualify for the definition of “tuning” because a casual
relationship has to exist in order for an adjustment to “cause”
correctness.
Strangely, an
omniscient, omnipotent creator god is meant to be the author of what
is possible and required. God cannot have to adjust the universe, in
order to cause harmony to exist within its boundaries, if god is
omnipotent and omniscient. If an omnipotent god is fine-tuning the
universe, it's because god wasn't omniscient (or sufficiently
knowledgable) to get it right the first time (i.e. not omniscient).
If an omniscient god is fine-tuning the universe, that's because god
is restricted (i.e. not omnipotent).
Due to this
contradiction, a fine-tuned universe can never be evidence for an
omniscient and omnipotent god.
Argument
2: Omniscience and Omnipotence cannot be demonstrated simultaneously
The
only way to test for omniscience (or knowledge) is to limit said
person/thing to the rules of a test. If adherence to rules is
forgone, then we cannot determine the intelligence of actions,
because neither the goal or obstacles are known. If there were no
rules to chess, then we cannot tell the difference between
intelligent moves and blunders. Thus, testing intelligence
necessitates restriction.
However,
omnipotence necessitates a lack of restrictions. Thus, if a god is
limited whilst demonstrating omniscience, then said god
is no longer omnipotent. Conversely, if a god is unrestricted with
omnipotence, said god can no longer demonstrate
omniscience, because demonstration
of knowledge requires limitations.
To
put it simply:
Demonstrations
of omnipotence require the absence of limitations.
Demonstrations
of omniscience require the presence of limitations.
Therefore,
a fine-tuned universe cannot be evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent
god.
Argument
3: The 'creator' tag is also internally inconsistent with the other
terms
If god cannot play
the universe out of tune, then god has no creative license, and thus
god is not the creator.
If god can play the
universe out of tune, it means he is either not ominpotent (because
he has to tune it), or he is not omniscient (because he is not
sufficiently knowledgable to not have to tune it).
Therefore, the
creator tag cannot be used with both the tags of omnipotent and
omniscient, simultaneously. Since an omnipotent, omniscient creator god cannot be proven through a single example (e.g. fine-tuned universe), then such a god cannot be proved through the existence of a fine-tuned universe, thus affirming the resolution.
Conclusions
As demonstrated,
fine-tuning necessitates a lack of omnipotence or lack of
intelligence – it cannot have both.
Also shown is that
omniscience and omnipotence cannot be demonstrated at the same time.
Finally, I have
shown that the creator tag cannot be consistent with both omnipotence
and omniscient.
In all instances, the resolution is affirmed.
Con
#2
I appreciate pro debating me. She is honestly my favorite debater, and very underrated. She deserves to have been in the DDO hall of fame more than a lot of the other people who ended up there. I will try my best to win but I consider this debate a tribute to her greatness. I guess you can say, I love Anal.
With that said, I’m disappointed in the topic analgesic has chosen to debate. The topic of the debate is intellectual masturbation, with no positive real world consequences, no matter who wins. Well that is, if it is debated in the way it was intended to be debated.
Debate should have Purpose:
It is important that debates have a purpose, that they have real world consequences. If debates have no purpose, why participate. If debates have no purpose other than victory, they are nothing more than a game. Here is what one great woman has to say about purposeless games.
“I mean, could you not find something better to do than play a game that takes hours or days to complete, of which generates nothing of serious value? What do you produce by playing this game? Could not your mental energy be directed better into something that is:1) Productive2) Is actually difficult to achieve, thereby granting you a better feeling once completedHonestly, Mafia (debate) is nothing more than a time-sink for people who have boring lives. ………..Just think of all the possibilities life have to offer (e.g. travelling, learning a trade/skill, reading to learn etc.), and then realise the embarrassment of camping behind a computer to try and win a game of no consequence.”
“nothing of real value produced by participating/finishing a (debate). The results are ultimately pointless, and all the work done in between amounts to nothing more than text.”
“Whilst you may not be able to adopt every homeless child in the world right now, (debating) will not (seriously) help you reach that goal. Big dreams usually take small, incremental steps. For example, writing 80, 000 words for a novel will not be done in a day. First, it requires learning how to write. This could require reading articles, books and the like, which could total a week, yet you still would not be at your goal. Investing small increments into these big dreams can greatly reward you in the end. Mafia only distracts from your dreams.” https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Mafia-is-a-waste-of-time/1/comments/25/
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you, Wylted,
for the response. I appreciate the kind words said about me in his
prelude, too.
Unfortunately, the
opponent has infringed upon several rules of this debate, and since
transgression of rules in this debate merits a loss, the opponent
should receive a loss. Nevertheless, I will address each
transgression of the rules in this debate, as they occur.
Generic
Rebuttal
Counter argument to: Debate
should have Purpose
Kritik
infringment: The opponent has decided to run a Kritik, in this
section, by questioning the underlying assumptions of the resolution.
Moreover, the opponent alleges that the resolution has “no
purpose other than victory,” and thus it should not be debated.
This line of argument infringes upon rule number 6, and thus should
merit my opponent a loss. This argument here is sufficient to win me
the debate.
False equivalence
of Mafia and debating: If this brazen transgression is not
something you agree with, for whatever reason, then please consider
the false equivalence the opponent has levied. The opponent cites
arguments from pieces I have written before (both from outside this
debate: (https://www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/58492/)
(https://www.debate.org/debates/On-balance-Mafia-is-a-waste-of-time/1/comments/25/).
However, they are
both on the topic of the forum game 'Mafia', and not on the topic of
debate. The opponent attempts to substantiate this claim by arguing
that, because both of these activities are “games”, therefore
neither are of consequence. The issue with this is that Mafia and
debating are not equivalent, because debating is the representation
of real world information (Mafia is not), and thus in debating, a
person is not only learning about the world (when preparing for a
debate), but receiving feedback on understanding during (opponent's
arguments) and after the debate (voting). Thus, the debate does have
purpose in me learning about the world.
Charge of
hypocrisy: If the above is still not sufficient to persuade you,
then please consider that even if I were hypocritical with my words
(from outside the debate in comparison to inside the debate), it
would have no bearing on this debate. It is entirely possible that:
(1) I am a hypocrite
outside of this debate
(2) My arguments are
correct inside the debate
Hence, hypocrisy is
not an argument which can negate the resolution.
Purpose of
helping people: If you have somehow not been convinced by any of
the above arguments, then I argue that debate does have the purpose
of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten
through debate, people will begin to not believe in it. Since people
currently do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god
fine-tuning the universe (http://www.finetuneduniverse.com/)
(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/),
there is still purpose in arguing its validity, in order to help
people believe the right things. Hence, this debate has purpose, in
that it has the potential to help people.
Counter
argument to: Role of judges and debaters
Kritik
infringement: Again, the opponent engages in a Kritik by
questioning the underlying assumptions in which this debate took
place. Again, due to rule number 6 of this debate, this should merit
a loss for my opponent.
Real world
change: Please see my counter argument “Purpose of helping
people”.
Role of judges:
Again, the opponent is Kritiking this resolution by arguing
assumptions of the resolution, in that upholding/negation of the
resolution should not determine the winner of this debate, but rather
what should determine the winner of this debate is whether this
debate has real world impact. Again, this transgresses rule number 6,
and thus should merit a loss for the opponent.
Counter
argument to: Anal Violation
Kritik
infringement: Again, the opponent engages in a Kritik by
questioning the underlying assumptions in which this debate took
place (e.g. “The debate has no purpose because ultimately belief
in God is a matter of faith...” Again, due to rule number 6 of
this debate, this should merit a loss for my opponent.
Uncivil comments: The opponent leveraged several
personal attacks against me, in this section:
(1) “I
doubt it, it is her dream to be a housewife, I think she could use
the same mental energy to learn how to sew clothes so she can save
her future husband money since
she likely won’t contribute to the household financially.”
(2) “Or
she could use the same mental energy to learn
how to pick up women, so her husband doesn’t get bored by having
just a single hole to fuck repeatedly until the end of his days.”
These personal
attacks violate rule number 4 of this debate, in that they clearly do
not “maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere,” and thus merit a
loss for the opponent.
Furthermore, tying
into the opponent's Kritik stating that this debate having no
purpose, I wish to inform the opponent that, upon inspection) I do
not have “a single hole [in which to enjoy],” rather I have
three. Hence, this debate has further been purposeful by educating
the opponent on the number of holes I have which can be enjoyed.
Non Sequitur:
If you do not agree that my opponent has lost the debate for
violating the rules several times already, then consider the leap in
logic the opponent espouses here. The opponent makes the leap in
logic that (1) people believe fine-tuning is the result of an
omniscient, omnipotent creator god, therefore (2) all these people
are involved with a cult. My opponent has not sunstantiated this leap
in logic, and thus it remains a non sequitur which should not gain
traction in this debate.
Conclusion
The opponent should
automatically lose this debate because of breaching the rules of the
debate. Moreover, my opponent leveraged a Kritik throughout all of
his arguments, and engaged in uncivil conduct (personal attacks) in
the 'Anal Violation' subtopic of this debate.
Even if Kritiks and
uncivil conduct were allowed, the opponent's argument should not
withstand the counter arguments I levied in this round.
Hence, either way,
the resolution still remains affirmed.
Con
#4
Framework
In R1 I argued that judges have a greater purpose. A nice summary of it can be quoted here;
“Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better. If you are to judge me the winner now, you will in fact be part of an advocacy--an advocacy of making debate about effecting real change, and not meaningless points.”
This was dropped by pro. The fact debates should have purpose was dropped by pro. I argued that judges should ignore her rules and vote for whose argument had a better impact on the world and pro has dropped the argument.
She has dropped my argument that the rules should be disregarded, and she has dropped my argument that the resolution should be disregarded. This means that the voter is obligated to accept these dropped points, that in the voter’s mind they should acknowledge that debates should be meaningful, that the resolution is not as important as the meaning we create in the lives of those reading the debate, and those judging it. Let us discuss the potential rule violations now. I think the rules should be disregarded here, but if not. Did I violate them? Let’s examine.
Anal Destruction
“I wish to inform the opponent that, upon inspection) I do not have “a single hole [in which to enjoy],” rather I have three. Hence, this debate has further been purposeful by educating the opponent on the number of holes I have which can be enjoyed.”
The only way letting me know that, has meaningful purpose is if I one day will get the pleasure of using that knowledge. Although I am not an anal guy, so I would likely only use 2 out of those 3 holes. I will concede that my opponent has provided meaningful knowledge if I can get some sort of acceptable assurance she will let me use 2 of those 3 holes. 2 of my choosing, otherwise the knowledge is meaningless to me.
“The opponent leveraged several personal attacks against me, in this section”
I don’t consider anything I said to be an insult. There is nothing inherently wrong about Not contributing financially to a household or seducing women. The problem with defining what good decorum is, that we originate from different parts of the world and have much different upbringings, the rule is completely subjective, and I would argue unfair if the audience does not have the same cultural background and no understanding of what each person should consider good decorum. I grew up without running water or electricity, eating only enough to survive, my opponent as far as I know did not, nor did she grow up in the southern part of the United states, she grew up in Australia. It is unfair to apply standards to me that are completely subjective, especially since I come from a different cultural background than most of the judges and my opponent. There is just no way to objectively determine what good decorum is.
Kritik
I consulted with a few experienced debaters before making the argument, because it is a unique argument I have never thought of making. They assured me that it was not technically a “Kritik” and that I was arguing “theory”. I looked at several guides online prior to making the argument to make sure I followed standard procedures when arguing theory. Plus I want to share a few things with the judges in case they do consider “theory” to be a kritik.
Observe the following rule;
“. For undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate, as well as the definitions brought forth in the debate”
Pro does offer a definition for “kritik”, right in the very rules. Observe the next rule;
“6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)”
“Therefore, the role of the ballot should be to judge the winner as one who most effectively changes the world for the better”
“If you have somehow not been convinced by any of the above arguments, then I argue that debate does have the purpose of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten through debate, people will begin to not believe in it. Since people currently do believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator god fine-tuning the universe (http://www.finetuneduniverse.com/) (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/), there is still purpose in arguing its validity, in order to help people believe the right things. Hence, this debate has purpose, in that it has the potential to help people.”
“he debate has no purpose because ultimately belief in God is a matter of faith and the fine tuned argument does more to defend that faith than it does to actually recruit new believers. Most people join religions because they are in a vulnerable position and they are seeking, belonging, less ambiguity in life, a meaning, family and for many other reasons.”
“people believe fine-tuning is the result of an omniscient, omnipotent creator god, therefore (2) all these people are involved with a cult. My opponent has not sunstantiated this leap in logic, and thus it remains a non sequitur which should not gain traction in this debate.”
“a system of religious beliefs and ritual” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
“I argue that debate does have the purpose of eradicating poor arguments. If an argument is continually beaten through debate, people will begin to not believe in it.”
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thank you Wylted for the
response.
Let's examine what he wrote, so that we can determine whether it has merit.
Generic
Rebuttal
My resolution affirming argument is untouched
My round 1 argument, of which affirmed the resolution, has at no stage been contested in this debate. Thus, if you think the resolution should be debated (I know, it's shocking to expect a debate to do that), then it is as clear as day that the resolution remains affirmed.
Kritik Infringement
This is the most important contention of the debate, because if the opponent does not win this, he immediately loses the debate.
My opponent's argument is still a Kritik: Ignoring his obvious appeals to authority (which logically fallacious), the opponent changes his line of argument, now arguing that his style of argument does not fall under the category of Kritik, but rather “theory”. Previously, he argued (In Round 1 under “Role of judges and debaters”) that the rules did not matter, insofar as changing society only comes about through challenging rules.
Indeed, as the opponent agrees: the rules specified against making arguments which would be “challenging assumptions in the resolution”. However, an assumption in the resolution is that the resolution should be debated, elsewise no one would bother creating resolutions.
The opponent attempts to obfuscate his Kritik by engaging in irrelevant semantics, of which are of no consequence. Whether “challenging assumptions in the resolution” is labelled a “Kritik” or “theory” does not change the fact that the opponent challenged assumptions in the resoluton, which was the definition of rules outside the debate (rule number 6), and since breaking the rules merits a loss (rule number 10), this constitutes a loss for the Con side.
Ad Absurdium: If you don't agree that the opponent has already lost, if we are to take Wylted's notion of rules not applying to debates, then there can be no generally accepted ways of debating, because it boils down to the subjective interpretation of the debater. Thus, trolling, insults, using the comments section for references or to extend character count, blackmail, death threats, doxxing etc. all become viable methods of debate, due to allowing “progress” and “freedom” (the opponent's words), and thus all common understanding on acceptable debate conduct is completely disregarded.
Thus, rather than arguing the resolution of the debate, the debate is far more susceptible to all the above problems, thus making the resolution of any debate far less likely to be debated, and thus severely hindering productive discussion on the resolution. All this due to the opponent deciding that this debate isn't meaningful, which is, again, a subjective interpretation.
What should be preferred is an inter-subjective agreement on rules prior to debate, thereby allowing for productive debate on all resolutions, provided rules are prior supplied. This is precisely what I implemented in my debate structure in this debate, and this is why it should be preferred over the opponent's subjective interpreation method.
Self-defeating: It is the opponent's claim that in debating me, he hopes to help me stop “wasting my time” (Round 1 “Debate should have Purpose”). However, he also claims that I'll “fight [him] hard in this battle,” that I am “too much of a coward to be done letting your strength be a weakness, and will press on”.
This renders the opponent's arguments self-defeating, because as he attempts to argue against me in a debate he considers to have no purpose, one where he told me to forfeit in the first round, he continues to engage me in a debate that he considers to have no purpose, knowing precisely that this will happen.
If the opponent was truly interested in helping me not “waste my time”, he would stop responding, because this would allow me to stop, too. Hence, by continuing this debate, the opponent is implictly conceding that this debate isn't wasting my time, thus contradicting his own argument/Kritik.
Counter argument to: Framework
Self-defeating: We do not have to delve far into the content of the opponent's arguments, before we find more contradiction. In this section, the opponent demands that you “ignore [Pro's] rules”, and then follow his rules, which contradicts the opponent's argument of allowing “freedom” and challenging rules (Round 1 “Role of judges and debaters”). If his rules were to be implemented, by his own arguments, they should be ignored, because they restrict freedom and need to be challenged.
Thus, as will become a recurring theme, the opponent's arguments contradict each other. In this instance, the opponent has accidentally created an infinite-loop, through his arguments, in which we are never to escape continual rejection of established rules, in the name of freedom and changing society.
Therefore, it would be wiser to not base the vadlity of challenging rules based on their restriction of freedom and ability to change society, and instead judge the merit of said rules. Since I advocate for the latter, please see my third paragraph in “Ad Absurdium” for defence of my advocation.
A note: Furthermore, just to be clear, all allegedly dropped arguments are either re-addressed in this counter argument, or else addressed under “Ad Absurdium” (an argument I made in this round).
Counter argument to: Anal Destruction
Cultural relativity is a terrifying excuse: The opponent attempts to excuse his uncivil comments by arguing that they would not considered uncivil in the southern part of the United States. By using that principle, witch burnings in modern Kenya should not be considered uncivil, because that is “completely subjective” and we are not from Kenya. Stoning women to death for being raped in Pakistan should not be considered “inherently wrong”, because that is a different “cultural background”. Unless the opponent would like remain ambivalent to witch burning and honor killing, I suggest he uses a better metric than cultural relativity to excuse his uncivil conduct.
Reiteration of rule violation: To reiterate my counter arguments in the second round (under “Counter argument to: Anal Violation”), these are the uncivil comments:
(1) “I doubt it, it is her dream to be a housewife, I think she could use the same mental energy to learn how to sew clothes so she can save her future husband money since she likely won’t contribute to the household financially.”
(2) “Or she could use the same mental energy to learn how to pick up women, so her husband doesn’t get bored by having just a single hole to fuck repeatedly until the end of his days.”
Comment number 1 has the implication that I won't be intellectually/physically able to contribute, which is a personal slur against me.
Comment number 2 suggests that women are to be picked up to be used as disposable goods. It further suggests that I would be too boring sexually for my husband.
Finally, I posit that both comments were non-essential to the debate, hence further affirming their uncivil nature.
Since these were uncivil comments, and maintaining “a civil atmosphere” is the fourth rule of this debate, and because violations of any of the rules merits a loss (rule 10), Con should immediately lose the debate.
Counter argument to: Most Meaningful
Please see my “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, of which was argued this round.
Counter argument to: Impact Analysis
Poor conception: I reject the opponent's “changing the world” conception. As seen in “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, it is not internally consistent. Thus, the opponent's attempt to change “the culture of the site” is self-defeating, and therefore should not be considered an effective argument. A preferable model in which to judge debates is offered under “Ad Absurdium”, of which is my argument found earlier in this round.
Real world impact: If you do not accept the explanation for the rejection above, then please consider the usefulness of this debate with me. As I showed previously, people do believe that an omniscient, omnipotent creator god can be proven through fine-tuning. Since approximately 1/3 of the world “is considered to be Christian” (https://www.thoughtco.com/christianity-statistics-7005330), and because religion can be an important part of their lives, surely they would want to justify their belief with non-contradictory arguments. How strong is faith if it is untested?
Furthermore, I personally would like to know if there is indeed fault in the resolution of this debate. By not arguing the resolution, the opponent is preventing me from determining whether the argument is acceptable for proving God, thus potentially altering my life for the worse (I could miss an opportunity to embrace a great argument, or I could miss an opportunity to avoid a bad argument). Seeing as I once did not believe the resolution (when I was 14), debating the resolution has been proven to have real world impact.
Finally, there is a difference between knowing the truth and espousing the truth, because the opponent argues that knowing the truth is not worth it. Sometimes, not saying what you know can avoid the pitfalls of knowing the truth. Hence, the opponent's argument here does not alter the value in knowing the truth, especially when you run the risk of burning in hell or believing in God falsely your entire life.
Unless the opponent wants to argue that believing in God has no effect on one's life, then it appears self-evident that it should be a resolution for debate, because it has real world impact.
Dropped arguments
Below are a list of dropped arguments by the opponent:
False equivalence of Mafia and debating (since dropped, it stands that I never argued that debating was a waste of time).
Charge of hypocrisy (since dropped, it stands that even if my actions were different to what I advocate for inside the debate, this should have no bearing on the debate).
Let's examine what he wrote, so that we can determine whether it has merit.
My resolution affirming argument is untouched
My round 1 argument, of which affirmed the resolution, has at no stage been contested in this debate. Thus, if you think the resolution should be debated (I know, it's shocking to expect a debate to do that), then it is as clear as day that the resolution remains affirmed.
Kritik Infringement
This is the most important contention of the debate, because if the opponent does not win this, he immediately loses the debate.
My opponent's argument is still a Kritik: Ignoring his obvious appeals to authority (which logically fallacious), the opponent changes his line of argument, now arguing that his style of argument does not fall under the category of Kritik, but rather “theory”. Previously, he argued (In Round 1 under “Role of judges and debaters”) that the rules did not matter, insofar as changing society only comes about through challenging rules.
Indeed, as the opponent agrees: the rules specified against making arguments which would be “challenging assumptions in the resolution”. However, an assumption in the resolution is that the resolution should be debated, elsewise no one would bother creating resolutions.
The opponent attempts to obfuscate his Kritik by engaging in irrelevant semantics, of which are of no consequence. Whether “challenging assumptions in the resolution” is labelled a “Kritik” or “theory” does not change the fact that the opponent challenged assumptions in the resoluton, which was the definition of rules outside the debate (rule number 6), and since breaking the rules merits a loss (rule number 10), this constitutes a loss for the Con side.
Ad Absurdium: If you don't agree that the opponent has already lost, if we are to take Wylted's notion of rules not applying to debates, then there can be no generally accepted ways of debating, because it boils down to the subjective interpretation of the debater. Thus, trolling, insults, using the comments section for references or to extend character count, blackmail, death threats, doxxing etc. all become viable methods of debate, due to allowing “progress” and “freedom” (the opponent's words), and thus all common understanding on acceptable debate conduct is completely disregarded.
Thus, rather than arguing the resolution of the debate, the debate is far more susceptible to all the above problems, thus making the resolution of any debate far less likely to be debated, and thus severely hindering productive discussion on the resolution. All this due to the opponent deciding that this debate isn't meaningful, which is, again, a subjective interpretation.
What should be preferred is an inter-subjective agreement on rules prior to debate, thereby allowing for productive debate on all resolutions, provided rules are prior supplied. This is precisely what I implemented in my debate structure in this debate, and this is why it should be preferred over the opponent's subjective interpreation method.
Self-defeating: It is the opponent's claim that in debating me, he hopes to help me stop “wasting my time” (Round 1 “Debate should have Purpose”). However, he also claims that I'll “fight [him] hard in this battle,” that I am “too much of a coward to be done letting your strength be a weakness, and will press on”.
This renders the opponent's arguments self-defeating, because as he attempts to argue against me in a debate he considers to have no purpose, one where he told me to forfeit in the first round, he continues to engage me in a debate that he considers to have no purpose, knowing precisely that this will happen.
If the opponent was truly interested in helping me not “waste my time”, he would stop responding, because this would allow me to stop, too. Hence, by continuing this debate, the opponent is implictly conceding that this debate isn't wasting my time, thus contradicting his own argument/Kritik.
Counter argument to: Framework
Self-defeating: We do not have to delve far into the content of the opponent's arguments, before we find more contradiction. In this section, the opponent demands that you “ignore [Pro's] rules”, and then follow his rules, which contradicts the opponent's argument of allowing “freedom” and challenging rules (Round 1 “Role of judges and debaters”). If his rules were to be implemented, by his own arguments, they should be ignored, because they restrict freedom and need to be challenged.
Thus, as will become a recurring theme, the opponent's arguments contradict each other. In this instance, the opponent has accidentally created an infinite-loop, through his arguments, in which we are never to escape continual rejection of established rules, in the name of freedom and changing society.
Therefore, it would be wiser to not base the vadlity of challenging rules based on their restriction of freedom and ability to change society, and instead judge the merit of said rules. Since I advocate for the latter, please see my third paragraph in “Ad Absurdium” for defence of my advocation.
A note: Furthermore, just to be clear, all allegedly dropped arguments are either re-addressed in this counter argument, or else addressed under “Ad Absurdium” (an argument I made in this round).
Counter argument to: Anal Destruction
Cultural relativity is a terrifying excuse: The opponent attempts to excuse his uncivil comments by arguing that they would not considered uncivil in the southern part of the United States. By using that principle, witch burnings in modern Kenya should not be considered uncivil, because that is “completely subjective” and we are not from Kenya. Stoning women to death for being raped in Pakistan should not be considered “inherently wrong”, because that is a different “cultural background”. Unless the opponent would like remain ambivalent to witch burning and honor killing, I suggest he uses a better metric than cultural relativity to excuse his uncivil conduct.
Reiteration of rule violation: To reiterate my counter arguments in the second round (under “Counter argument to: Anal Violation”), these are the uncivil comments:
(1) “I doubt it, it is her dream to be a housewife, I think she could use the same mental energy to learn how to sew clothes so she can save her future husband money since she likely won’t contribute to the household financially.”
(2) “Or she could use the same mental energy to learn how to pick up women, so her husband doesn’t get bored by having just a single hole to fuck repeatedly until the end of his days.”
Comment number 1 has the implication that I won't be intellectually/physically able to contribute, which is a personal slur against me.
Comment number 2 suggests that women are to be picked up to be used as disposable goods. It further suggests that I would be too boring sexually for my husband.
Finally, I posit that both comments were non-essential to the debate, hence further affirming their uncivil nature.
Since these were uncivil comments, and maintaining “a civil atmosphere” is the fourth rule of this debate, and because violations of any of the rules merits a loss (rule 10), Con should immediately lose the debate.
Counter argument to: Most Meaningful
Please see my “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, of which was argued this round.
Counter argument to: Impact Analysis
Poor conception: I reject the opponent's “changing the world” conception. As seen in “Self-defeating” under “Counter argument to: Framework”, it is not internally consistent. Thus, the opponent's attempt to change “the culture of the site” is self-defeating, and therefore should not be considered an effective argument. A preferable model in which to judge debates is offered under “Ad Absurdium”, of which is my argument found earlier in this round.
Real world impact: If you do not accept the explanation for the rejection above, then please consider the usefulness of this debate with me. As I showed previously, people do believe that an omniscient, omnipotent creator god can be proven through fine-tuning. Since approximately 1/3 of the world “is considered to be Christian” (https://www.thoughtco.com/christianity-statistics-7005330), and because religion can be an important part of their lives, surely they would want to justify their belief with non-contradictory arguments. How strong is faith if it is untested?
Furthermore, I personally would like to know if there is indeed fault in the resolution of this debate. By not arguing the resolution, the opponent is preventing me from determining whether the argument is acceptable for proving God, thus potentially altering my life for the worse (I could miss an opportunity to embrace a great argument, or I could miss an opportunity to avoid a bad argument). Seeing as I once did not believe the resolution (when I was 14), debating the resolution has been proven to have real world impact.
Finally, there is a difference between knowing the truth and espousing the truth, because the opponent argues that knowing the truth is not worth it. Sometimes, not saying what you know can avoid the pitfalls of knowing the truth. Hence, the opponent's argument here does not alter the value in knowing the truth, especially when you run the risk of burning in hell or believing in God falsely your entire life.
Unless the opponent wants to argue that believing in God has no effect on one's life, then it appears self-evident that it should be a resolution for debate, because it has real world impact.
Dropped arguments
Below are a list of dropped arguments by the opponent:
False equivalence of Mafia and debating (since dropped, it stands that I never argued that debating was a waste of time).
Charge of hypocrisy (since dropped, it stands that even if my actions were different to what I advocate for inside the debate, this should have no bearing on the debate).
Round 4
Pro
#7
Unfortunately, the opponent was unable to post an argument last round. I have a forfeit clause in the rules (#1, then #10), which should mean that Con automatically loses the debate. In any case, I hope we can agree that a round forfeit is a serious offence.
As for the debate, it should be noted that the resolution was never touched by the opponent, hence if you think the resolution should have been debated, I should win automatically.
Con also managed to run a Kritik (which is against the rules), and also personally insult me (again, this is against the rules). So, not only has Con forfeited a round, but he also broke the rules in two other categories.
Even if nothing above is sufficiently convincing for you, I still addressed Con's arguments.
Rather than repeating myself any more in this final round, my 3rd round argument is the best summary of why I should win the debate.
Please keep in mind that if Wylted comes back, I cannot address any of his counter-arguments.
Nonetheless, thank you Wylted for the debate. I hope anyone reading this found it enjoyable :)
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con was attempting to put up a decent case, but started to veer into ad hominem attacks and then Con forfeited 2 rounds leaving Pro's case basically untouched AND the rules explicitly state that forfeiture warrants a loss AND Pro even pointed this out last round. So, the forfeits mean dropped arguments and a loss for Con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Forfeiture, and no challenge to pro's case (claiming someone should shut up and not make a case at all, isn't the same as challenging it).
...
Con's tactic (he should have challenged a debate on that topic, not made this off topic rant):
Con skipped half the debate rounds in what I'm guessing is a protest against intellectual elitism? What he did post was strictly off topic. I would by no means call it a K to the topic, because even those are related to the topic. This felt more like asking people to vote for him, because they like him more or that they hold some grudge against her from activity on another site.
Mafia is a waste of time:
I do thank con for the reminder of such a good debate.
This debate is a waste of time:
Like my old vote... "I'd say it's a waste of time (which isn't to say that's not people's right to waste their time how they see fit)."
Voting Standards:
When con agreed to debate the topic, he did so under a specific framework. Such includes the inability to be penalized a conduct point. Such includes that we the judges would weight the arguments in question under the precise resolution defined. You don't like the resolution, request it be changed prior to acceptance.
Some of the lines about how judges should vote for whom appealed to their their bleeding heart more (AKA, just vote your bias!), seemed highly inspired by notable intellectual rejects who trade votes instead of winning debates by merit (not to say winning the old fashioned way, given that fellatio was sometimes on offer for favorable votes... To be clear, I am highlighting the problem of the slope his argument is on, to my knowledge con has never been associated with those who are outright opposed to judicial integrity).
God:
Within the confines of this debate, pro proved that God (as defined) is a self contradicting concept. I wish her luck in finding an opponent to actually debate this with.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Two forfeits plus nothing but ad homs from con. All dropped arguments are considered concessions by me. Since con forfeited two rounds he essentially dropped pro's entire arguments and conceded them. Rule one of the debate is no forfeits. Victory to pro.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
1.) Con offers no argument whatsoever against the resolution, at all of any kind.
Pro wins on the resolution.
2.) Con clearly offered a Kritik argument that challenged an implicit assumption of the resolution. Haggling over whether this is a theory argument, or Kritik clearly goes to pro as pros main points are un-refuted. This together with exceptionally poor conduct that has no place in a debate (that pro highlighted in round 2), forfeits, etc are clearly also rule violations.
Pro wins on the grounds of the rules.
3.) is debate just a game.
I will consider any argument for debates, even ones like this which are so far left field, it’s travelled once around the earth to arrive at right-field. Cons argument are essentially that I should not consider any debate that doesn’t have some positive real world impact. If I were to weigh cons argument by the very merits he asks me to - then It is not clear why his debate approach in this single debate here should change the world.
The only argument for why this should be what debate is for, is that it’s not a game - and we know it’s not a game because pro is not playing pool - together with other similar assertions presented without justification.
This is wholly unwarranted claim is the basis for this kritik and pro gives me no good reason to believe it. Why would Con be playing pool if debate was a game?
As a result, I can’t really consider anything that comes after as warranted.
Pro again wins.
4.) who has more real world impact.
Even if I overlook points 1-3, and vote on clear impact to the real world, con offers a substantial number of points in addition to this real world impact argument. I agree with pro that these are wasting pros time - something con argued is a negative impact.
Con also offers no framework for how the content of this nonsense has any impact on the real world: it mainly boils down to asserting that this resolution will change no ones mind either way - something pro addresses.
Pro pointing out that this weird anarchic thread of argument is detrimental debate is compelling, as is the idea that pro argues that honing debate arguments and position is beneficial clearly seems more reasonable.
As a result, even voting based on cons argued voting lens means I am compelled to vote for pro too.
5.) The rules
I’m willing to accept harms from rules, and reject rules as presented rather than argued by fiat.
I will actually grant cons argument that there is some notional inherent harm in accepting the kritik portion of the argument, and that he shouldn’t be marked down on that particular rule violation - as this was not directly addressed by pro.
However, for the remainder of the rule violations con offers no argument for harm for the rules, and gives me no clear reason to reject them. So these must stand - which means I must accept those rule violations.
This goes pros way too.
6.) Pro argues the resolution has been affirmed
- and says if I think the resolution should be debated, I should consider it affirmed. As I do generally feel the resolution is the most important point of the debate, id agree with pro here too.
Conclusion: there is no lens or analysis that I could warrant awarding this to con. While the approach was ballsy from con - the sloppy, and petulant way he argued let him down, the appearance of trolling undermines his position in the very lens he argued to judge him by, so I have to say this is an easy vote for pro.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con attacked the character of Pro and took it a little stranger than Ad Hominem, he relied on the 'appeal to hypocrisy' fallacy.
=======
CREDIT TO: https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/appeal-to-hypocrisy/
The Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy follows the pattern:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Conclusion: Therefore X is false.
=======
So, what Con failed to do in this debate is explain why, if Pro has stated elsewhere that activities online that have barely any real-life impact waste life that therefore those activities should result in us concluding that the resolution in false. Pro is entitled to be a hypocrite, Pro is entitled to not only play devil's advocate but break their moral code or life prioritising system in order to engage in the arena of debate. It is not our place as 'judges' to judge their moral integrity when we officially vote (that's for outside of the arena) but rather to judge if Pro represented the resolution well or Con tore at it well enough in a debate of this format.
What I am left with is Con completely offering 0 arguments against the resolution but instead Con defeated their own case, because Wylted is wasting his own life as are voters under the system of life priorities that Con is advocating (on behalf of Pro in the past on the Forums).
Pro explained how an omnipotent being, even if it is omniscient, is invalid to be tested for omniscience as it could not only fool any test but the very idea that we could test the being with components within the reality that it totally controls and has created is ludicrous.
Con offered 0 refutations to this, one would be that the ability to test omniscience is not absence of untested omniscience and to Kritik the Kritik back onto Pro and push harder with the rest of the case to impress and convince voters that the resolution is false due to others factors while leaving that as a stale-mate counter-Kritik'd angle. Con didn't do so, thus the Kritk alone won Pro the debate.
Pro also Kritiks that evidence of complexity of design necessitates a creator, to this Con offered 0 refutation.
Con lost the debate and forfeited the last 2 Rounds. Con tried voter intimidation against me (which is a CoC violation on 2 counts due to how he encouraged his opponent to join in with it as well) in the comments but because he's Wylted, the mods won't do anything about it and I feel bad for him so I'll let it be.
is it really that fine tuned ? 99.999999% is uninhabitable
I'm citing this debate in the Kritik guide.
Thank you for your comment. Here is my responses to your arguments:
Argument 1: If God isn't perfect, then proving God's existence becomes impossible, because you couldn't distinguish intention from creation of the universe. In other words, if are trying to prove God's existence through the creation of the universe, how do we know what's a mistake and what isn't? Thus, saying that God isn't perfect couldn't be used as evidence to negate the resolution.
Argument 2: If we're unable to perceive God's omniscience and omnipotence, then we're unable to use it as evidence of his existence.
If God chooses not to take action with his qualities, then again, we cannot use anything as evidence of his existence.
Thank you for voting :)
While I agree that an intelligent designer (or entity, as it were), would attempt to find the most simplistic modalities by which to create and run our universe, I disagree that our universe being complex is evidence against an intelligent designer. This may simply be an inevitable consequence of the evolution of conditions originally made by a creator - just like winding up a toy car and then letting it take off. I find your premise very interesting and thought-out, but ultimately flawed.
Argument 1: I think your argument is that there are things that need to be re-tuned in the universe, and the fact that they aren't already properly tuned is evidence that the universe wasn't created by an intelligent designer because he's omniscient and omnipotent - and would therefore be able to create a universe that didn't need re-tuning. My contention is that God isn't perfect, and did not create the universe as such the first time around. Or, by giving free will to humans and possibly the universe as well (see "argument 2"), he created an inevitable chaotic quality to the universe.
Argument 2: I believe Omniscience and Omnipotence can be demonstrated in ways we may not be able to perceive, for example perhaps holding together the laws by which our universe operates - i.e., physics. However, assuming this isn't true, I can tell you that an entity such as God could possess both qualities but simply choose not to take action with them. It's said God endowed humans with free will - the freedom to make choices that govern their lives, and more importantly not interfering with the consequences of said choices. If free will is applied not just to humans, but to the universe as well, then God could still be omniscient and omnipotent without using these qualities to affect the universe he created.
I really enjoyed this debate, I hope you keep posting!
Thank you, Ragnar, for you effort in voting :)
Wow, 47.41%!!!!
Dude, I have a win-ratio of well over 90% on DDO. You clearly don't know who you're talking to. But it's okay. Not everyone could beat a front-page Debate Leaderboard debater like me.
"tbh I really don't care about win percentage" -- Nice coping mechanism. By the look of it, it looks like you debate to lose.
Yeah. If you look at my percentage of my entire 8+ year debate history, I have about a 47.41% win rate, which is about average especially considering my early debates were total shit
That just shows how flawed the Elo system is here.
tbh I really don't care about win percentage
Rofl. Given that I'm now no. 6 on the leaderboard...
It looks like your sub-50% win-ratio is recovering, so I'd hate to cause you further embarrassment.
Not a problem. I'd gladly take this debate sometime soon if you wanna redo it.
Thank you for the concise vote, Virtuoso : >
Thank you, Ramshutu, for taking the time to create a thorough vote :)
1-3
Thank you, RM, for your reasonable vote :)
I usually without reading arguments until debates are finished, but you calling focus on the resolution silly got my attention...
Had the word been proof, the con side would be very very difficult. Instead she took the hard one, basically trying to argue against raw evidence...
As per your off topic case, I wonder why you did not simply start a debate on that topic instead of hijacking this one? I actually enjoyed the read, particularly the callbacks to that rather epic debate. I'll be sure to cast a real vote with feedback, not a mere "forfeiture."
I think the focus on the word evidence is silly, though obviously this was meant to be somewhat of a semantic debate. If she said "proof" the debate really would give the con side no room to argue.
Hard one, as evidence does not mean proof.
No when he fought Tommy Gun he was a street fighter. Have you even seen the movies? He was street tough who just happened to be able to hold his own in the ring.
A better analogy would be that you're Rambo and SHE is Rocky Balboa. That is iconic comparison.
Rocky Balboa was a prize-fighter. A showman overall.
He won well and had grit but he was no street fighter.
This is what debate is supposed to be like. Not a prize fight, but a street fight. I am Rocky Balboa and analgesic is acting like Tommy Gun
You'd need to show how the fine-tunedness is consistent with what you'd expect to see if an omni-God created the universe. The debate has gone off the rails though so it's too late for that.
Then prove it is indicative to a omniscient omnipotent creator God, as opposed to perhaps a creator God who is not omniscient, but very nearly omniscient.
I agree that countering his/her arguments won't make you win the debate because you need to provide a positive case for how the fine-tuned universe evidences an omni-God. It's not impossible at all.
"Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth - the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient "coincidences" and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. Fred Hoyle, the distinguished cosmologist, once said it was as if "a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics".
- Paul Davies
If "evidence" is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" then all you'd need to do is show how the fine-tuned universe is indicative of an all-powerful, all-intelligent creator.
Con's position is not winnable in that way. You have to make positive arguments that a fine tuned universe means that the fine tuner is omniscient and omnipotent. Really con's position is impossible to arguewithout being creative against a competent opponent.
I wish this debate would've been taken seriously. Since Wylted a decided not to debate the topic, I'll put in my two cents.
Your main arguments, on complexity and fine-tuning, fail for the following reasons:
Basically, you've argued that intelligently designed things are supposed to work simpler, not more complexly. Thus, the complexity in the universe is not evidence of God.
If we found ourselves in a simple, plain, and small universe, this would be more indicative of having originated accidentally. The vastness, complexity, and intricacy of the universe has inspired people for thousands of years to question whether it's part of a grand design. If a creator God wanted to indirectly reveal himself, creating a complex universe would be preferable to a simple one.
Your next argument, about tuning, is off-topic. You're only debating whether the fine-tuned universe, as defined by the fine-tuned universe proposition, is evidence of God. Nowhere in the definition of the fine-tuned universe proposition does it indicate "tuning" in the sense that one might tune an instrument. "Tuned" in this sense just means that all the constants that determine that composition of the universe, had they been infinitesimally different, things like matter, complex chemistry, and the universe itself would be unlikely to exist.
Much better.
iS tHaT tHe BeSt YoU'vE gOt?
yOu WiLl NeVeR dEfEaT mE!
*mAnIaCaL lAuGhiNg*
Is that the best you got? Is that how you deal with adversity? Give me your best.
That's because you don't understand he is full of shit about his reasoning, nor do you understand how to properly judge a debate. Also you of all people. You beautiful unique flower, should know that merely following along with the crowd is not a good reason to do something.
I don't see how you think it's fine to so blatantly break the rules of a debate. I mean, if the rules are intentionally unfair, like 'my opponent will not argue in this debate', then I could understand breaking the rules. But I used some pretty generic rules that plenty of other debaters use. You really can't blame RM for already deciding who won the debate, when you've done something that instantly merits a loss.
As a judge you are required to actually suspend most of your thinking and substitute it for what both debaters have presented. I don't know what you are thinking. I do know that if your thoughts matter that much and you have already decided a winner than you will not vote fairly. I don't expect you to vote fairly though. You are after all a bully.
I actually cannot give a single shit more for your inane ramblings about what I am or am not thinking.
You come up with what you want, everyone knows who the irrational madman is between us.
That doesn't even matter. You just showed a disregard for the tabula rasa mindset.
Wylted, you didn't even debate the fucking topic at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfJhMfOPWdE
^ Slight epilepsy warning.
That is incorrect for reasons I will lay out in the debate. For one that is not a kritik. For another thing the rules are not important nor should one side have a right to impose rules on the other side.
You broke the rules of the debate by running a Kritik. If I were voting on this, you would have immediately lost. You've actually wasted my time because I was looking to debate the resolution, not have someone tell me that I'm wasting my time. That's why trolling, personal attacks and Kritiks are often banned from debates -- they just waste everyone's time.
I don't want to put words into RM's textfield, but I imagine that's the reason he's already decided a winner.
I want your blessing for a counter vote if he votes. He has decided the winner after the first round already.
My arguments are really, really bad? Have you had a look at your ones? You're sitting at a win-ratio of 39%.
It's funny how the smallest dogs bark the most.
RM actually hates my guts. I considered preventing him from voting on this debate, but I don't see him as the kind of person to vote maliciously on a debate out of spite, unlike imabench or yyw.
I personally don't like many things RM does, but I respect his honourable nature, and so I allowed him to vote.
You were regardless despite me clearly being in the lead here
Wylted, I am voting you down on conduct and arguments as is.
looking forward to your arguments
The judges may not respond well to the type of argument I am making here though.
LOL. The problem is her arguments are really really bad.
She may not feel like it after crushing me