Anyone who is not Christian is on the path of sin and sodomy

Admittedly, I am biased in favor of people who write arguments.

Define 'on the path to' please. Neither debater did.

Pro won the debate because Con despite high rating messed up hard by doing next to nothing assuming autowin.

His source was a random link to Quora quoting a random guy’s comment. This source of his is completely unreliable, unverified, unscientific and so on… in short- “it cant be used to back up his claim ( not that he even attempted to present his own claims)” . “Cant be used” is equal to not having it. He literally copied someone’s comment from Quora on a topic slightly connected to this debate, posted it here and instead of giving sources to back up his stolen claims he just gives a link to where he copied the claims from lol. Just because someone posts a link to something super random doesn’t mean they have sources lol. They have bad sources, literally cant give someone points for sources when they gave bad sources. CON didn’t need sources for his rebuttal since PRO’s argument is incredibly weak. Simple logic does it

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: baggins // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

While concise, it's already longer than the debate.
It did add opinions not found within the debate (such as the source being unreliable), but this doesn't outweigh that it used the analysis offered from both debaters to reach its conclusion.
**************************************************

Technically true, but too many vote traders and idiots abused it. ‘My friend said Google it, so they win sources’ as an example.

Anything Vs 0 is noteworthy magnitude

Basically arguments may be awarded for a very slight lead, but all other points require some noteworthy magnitude to be reached.

Back in the day there were too many padded votes, which people pretty quickly agreed were BS. The rule has to over compensate a bit, but the only way to get rid of obviously padded votes is to have a rule which can target them, and it has to be applied to other votes which figuratively fit through the same hole.

One side had a source, other side had 0 source.

If this doesn't lead to default source awarding, idk what ever will.

Gigafacepalm

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Sources and arguments to pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:

I instantly find any argument longer than the case it's favoring, to be suspect. That said, I'd leave that award to another moderator to review if not for the glaring problem of sources.

The source award is invalid, as pro was required to at least minimally analyze what he presented.

from:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#sources

"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
*A lead of only a couple sources, even if only one side had any. While quantity isn’t the standard, there is a minimal threshold for consideration.
*Source spam without relevant analysis by the presenter. Sources are awarded for quality, not mere quantity."
**************************************************

RationalMadman
03.03.2024 10:23AM

#2
Reason:
'Anyone' is a different term to 'everyone'. Only Pro used a source.

Con just says not everyone, Pro didn't say everyone, he said anyone. Even if we go with the idea that anyone who is not Christian does mean everyone who is not Christian, 'on the path' doesn't mean has arrived at the destination.

What Pro does prove is not what Barney says or what Con says, it's not a small subset Pro is focusing on but a lot/majority of atheists. It suggests that they are all on that path and majority are wililngly walking down it.

Con's reply "So he loses instantly, even before I bring up other religions like Islam and Judaism that also walk the path of trying to avoid sin and who avoidf sodomy"

It is a sin in Christianity to worship any idol other than the Christian God, for starters and Islam especially has the reverse policy meaning there's a sin there alone.

Con's other reply "He even conceedes that some atheists do not walk, but avoid and condemn, the path of sodomy." Doesn't realise that 'sin and sodomy' can mean that if one is on the path of sin by happens to condemn sodomy, they still are matching Pro's definition. Also this is a lie, I am not sure where Con sees this in Pro's constructive at all. This is not there.

Con lies about concession but this is not really enough to give a conduct mark since Pro is using another source's words as his constructive.

All who are atheistic to the Christian god, could be taken to be on the path of sin by default as it's a sin in Christianity to be against the Christian God. However, Pro's argument is only about atheists, that's true. So the question is why does 'anyone' being on the path mean Pro has to prove 'everyone' has gone all the way down the path.

The default position is actually that you're on the path since Con hasn't stated what path they're on instead or clarified why they aren't on it. Pro has also not clarified what constituted the path, so both are making errors. However, Pro made a case as to why an atheist is on the path, Con's literal statement is that he doesn't want to bring up Islam and Judaism and that it's just a fact that not everyone is on the path. If Con doesn't want to bring it up, I will accept that and not buy into that sneaky way of going abou tthings because if Con did bring them up, Con would fail due to the sin of worshipping false idols.

This all doesn't make sense to me. Both sides don't clarify what 'anyone' refers to or what the path constitutes. Thus, since only Pro explores how some non-Christians walk that path, I assume Con is merely lying about the others not being on it, since Con has done absolutely zero constructive explanation.

We cant know that, since we can never know who is a Christian and who isnt.

I guess I’m going to hell for not being Christian

I know that. I don't benefit either way. But the site as a whole benefits if bad votes are removed and the principle of quality votes being upheld.

I know that attacking voters is a winning strategy, not for this site but for you, but its a waste of effort here. You dont lose any rating if you lose this debate.

RationalMadman has added a very bad vote where he basically projects his own arguments onto the PRO case and where he uses PRO's single source, which doesn't say PRO is correct, to double vote.