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.
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.
Right, because bsh is a dreadful debater that wasn't near the top on DDO at all. His rules must be so stupid. I'm such a moron for using rules that he developed over his successful debating career.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know if you're just teasing. You've managed to lose all seven of your previous debates. Perhaps I should be merciful and allow special conditions, just for you :)
"I asked for help on the debate. I hope that is okay"
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1132
Lol you haven't even written anything, and you've already given up.
I'm not sure asking for outside help, during a debate (after is obviously okay), constitutes good sportsmanship, which was one of the rules I outlined. What's the point in debating someone, when all he/she does is copy someone else's arguments? In any case, all of the rules were outlined before the debate, and I'll leave it to the voters to decide whether asking for outside help is appropriate.
This is an interesting topic, something this site currently lacks.
Personally, I think Pro is on the right side, but convincing people through debate of something politically incorrect, is quite difficult (debates are quasi popularity contests), especially when the truth is rooted in underlying values not currently valued.
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 :)
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.
That just shows how flawed the Elo system is here.
It looks like your sub-50% win-ratio is recovering, so I'd hate to cause you further embarrassment.
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 :)
Right, because bsh is a dreadful debater that wasn't near the top on DDO at all. His rules must be so stupid. I'm such a moron for using rules that he developed over his successful debating career.
iS tHaT tHe BeSt YoU'vE gOt?
yOu WiLl NeVeR dEfEaT mE!
*mAnIaCaL lAuGhiNg*
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.
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.
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.
I don't know if you're just teasing. You've managed to lose all seven of your previous debates. Perhaps I should be merciful and allow special conditions, just for you :)
"I asked for help on the debate. I hope that is okay"
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1132
Lol you haven't even written anything, and you've already given up.
I'm not sure asking for outside help, during a debate (after is obviously okay), constitutes good sportsmanship, which was one of the rules I outlined. What's the point in debating someone, when all he/she does is copy someone else's arguments? In any case, all of the rules were outlined before the debate, and I'll leave it to the voters to decide whether asking for outside help is appropriate.
"Above all else: be armed."
This is an interesting topic, something this site currently lacks.
Personally, I think Pro is on the right side, but convincing people through debate of something politically incorrect, is quite difficult (debates are quasi popularity contests), especially when the truth is rooted in underlying values not currently valued.