god is real
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you shall eat the plants of the field; (Genesis 3:17-18)
- If nothing is real, then God can’t be real unless God is nothing and to be nothing is to fail to be a real ‘thing’ by definition.
- Alternatively, if God is necessitated to have created all that is real, it follows that either God itself necessitates such a creator or is to be deemed impossible to be real or that God operates outside of all the real things it created and to operate outside all that is real is to not be inside ‘all that is real’ meaning you are unreal.
How do we know that anything is real?This is something that Pro needs to establish, not Con. If there is no objectively verifiable way to ascertain what is ‘real’ or ‘unreal’ then Pro cannot prove that God is real.There is a snowball-Kritik here that follows:
- If nothing is real, then God can’t be real unless God is nothing and to be nothing is to fail to be a real ‘thing’ by definition.
- Alternatively, if God is necessitated to have created all that is real, it follows that either God itself necessitates such a creator or is to be deemed impossible to be real or that God operates outside of all the real things it created and to operate outside all that is real is to not be inside ‘all that is real’ meaning you are unreal.
Con did very well in this debate, and it was Con's conciseness that made it easy to see Pro's case refuted. Though Con was being slightly mean by saying "I stand here annihilating Pro in just 3 paragraphs-worth of debating" Con is correct, because in the three paragraphs Con made the case that nothing is real. Con simply had to point out that evolution could be false and the bible could be correct about things and demons and creationism could all be true and it would not show any realness in God so Con uses a K that nothing is real and this is left untouched by Pro. It is a silly argument, but I view this as a dropped K that successfully negates the resolution that God is real. If nothing is real, (untouched by Pro) then god is not real...I'm sold. Pro should make more relevant arguments and make them much much shorter for everyone to read. Con was cocky, but concise.
I consider pro to have the burden of proof here.
Importantly, for pro to meet this initial burden to me as a voter, pro must provide me some facts and/or argument that shows that Gods existence is necessary. So let’s move on to argument.
1.) Evolution can’t explain X.
If I assume this is true, it doesn’t mean God is real.
2.) The Bible says some things about that can be validated today.
If I accept this premise on its face, it doesn’t mean God is real.
The examples given, in my view are terrible.
2.a) Even If the Bible said the guy ate well, I don’t feel this shows God exists
2.b) Even If the Bible says honey is healthy, I don’t feel this shows God exists.
2.c) Even If the Bible says stress causes illness, I don’t feel this shows God exists.
2.d) Pro correlates “hauntings”, with the rich people. This is hugely tenuous, as it requires me to accept hauntings are real, and to accept pros facts on their face.
2.e) Even If the Bible says you should drink while pregnant, I don’t feel this shows God exists.
3.) Even if everything Pro said was true about giants, I don’t feel this shows God exists. Most of this argument seems fairly tenuous, and along the ilk of conspiracy theory where pro seeks to explain facts, not justify the resolution.
4.) Pro asserts that there must be thought for life to happen. Pro provides no meaningful justification for why he feels this is true. In my view pro has to offer a more detailed explanation for me to consider this as valid.
So at best, pro offers only the most tenuous of arguments, without supporting facts, and primarily asserted. I can assume everything he said were true and it doesn’t logically follow that God is real.
As in my opinion the BoP falls to pro here, the absence of pro establishing his burden is that con wins.
Con:
Cons only made two attempts at an argument. The first was to point that proving evolution false does not show God exists. The second was a fairly tenuous Kritik, in my view a pre fiat Kritik has to be pretty solid in order to win, and this one was fairly lax - but pro doesn’t bother to refute it.
All told con gets arguments here as a result - even though he appeared to do everything he could to lose this debate.
Simply put, BoP.
Pro's case offered 5 key areas.
1, that random evolution is false, which was countered by con with the vague possibility of aliens (I.e., any one particular god is not required). The defense tried to be entertaining with talk of Jedi and lightbulb-fish, but the idea that there's an originator fails to imply the particular one required for the resolution (pro, I am not trying to be mean, but rather help you improve).
2, that the bible has wisdom.
3, haunted houses (this was supposed to support #2, not sure how... or how it supports the resolution for that matter).
4, sex/monsters being featured in many mythologies to include the bible and conspiracy theories.
5, gingers are soulless!
Con focused his efforts on a counter case instead of pure refutation, that case being a very annoying K to the topic (PRO: You don't need to prove existence exists, but you'll see this K a lot in debating, so study the logical fallacies related so you can counter it concisely). ... Despite the heading, con made a well-reasoned point that if some god created everything but resides outside our reality, then said god is not real as we understand it (this point should have been addressed by con!).
IMAGES: Images cannot be displayed inside debates here. If it's important, give a link; just be selective as no one wants 20 windows open for one debate.
SOURCES: I really want to give this to pro for effort. However, crossing into source spam to say there's a lot of them, doesn't make any of them utilized to support the case beyond a bandwagon appeal. If I could give 1 point for sources instead of 2, pro could get this.
CONDUCT: Plagiarism forgiven this time, due to high probability of pro being the original author of the copied works (next time cite yourself... or at least clean them up a little, refine the copies on your harddrive).
NOTE 1: yeah, read the debate before realizing it's the argument only standard.
NOTE 2: Some judging standards would insist pro has won, due to con dropping such matters as gingers being soulless ('pro won a greater number of contentions'). Firstly, the connection to the resolution was too unclear to me for this to be valid evidence; secondly, I care more if the resolution is adequately supported/countered or not.
ADVICE: Next time do a simple logic map on each premise, and only share them in a debate where they directly support the conclusion. Any one of them could be its own debate, so that might be a good place to practice.
Totally agree with 'more contention wins' being a faulty judgement system. My specialty is decimating 100 points with 2 brutal fundamental attacks etc.
Thanks for the useful feedback.
---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:
In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).
Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."
In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.
After both debaters reach their BoP (most debates), voters weigh arguments presented in relation to the resolution to determine the winner. The default position however is a tie.
A vote based on BoP is only valid if it details why one side failed, and/or what would have allowed them to reach their BoP.
Continued in Late Debate Shenanigans: BoP!
Did as you said, simple as I could. Pls vote?
Ouch ouch ouch! ... Sorry, it's just after a light skimming of Pro's R1, and knowing the type of debater Con is, this is going to be painful to watch.
A word of advice for Pro: Next time start a debate on just one of your lines of reasoning. That way you go in depth on it, and avoid risk of anyone pointing out that 'Even If True...'
you are allowed to debate against what you believe
I thought Con was Pagan, meaning he believes in at least 1 God.