How would proving God is real or that Christianity is true, prove that the entirety of the bible is true? I think you could have proven it, particularly since in round 2 pro stated he was inviting you to use bible quotes and prior to that he accepted the gospels as a valid source of historical events.
Tell me specifically how you connected Jesus to young earth creationism? How would the gospels of Mark Mathew like and John prove that Genesis is correct? More important how did you show that matthew mark like and john's eyewitness accounts of Jesus prove any of the old testament beyond the fact a magician can perform "miracles" and factually existed?
I consider an RFD, not only an analysis of a debate, but also an opportunity to educate debaters. So, you’ll see mostly analysis below, but some education as well. Part 1 of this RFD is about the debate description, which is more an education than a portion of the debate analysis. The following quote in particular is what I am going to discuss.
“Burden of proof is shared. No quantum physics arguments allowed. No trolling. No semantic arguments. No kritiks”
The instigator of the debate does not determine who holds the burden of proof. It is entirely inappropriate and I would argue worthy of a conduct violation for even attempting to do it. Though I won’t award conduct points here. In this case, the instigator of the debate is correct, the burden is shared. However if the instigator was incorrect than he would either be taking on too much of the burden or too little.
Denying semantic arguments is bad because semantics is literally how we understand what is being said. In fact if a debate is done properly, both people should be arguing semantics prior to engaging in the debate, so that way they know if they even really disagree. Since that is usually not a practical thing to do, than we need to allow semantics within the arena of the debate it self.
Kritiks are something pointless to even ban. If a judge is tabula rasa as they should be, than it is impossible to prevent them anyway, putting the rule in place seems to be something that would merely confuse inexperienced judges into thinking they are not allowed to award wins to a kritik.
Attempting to disallow quantum physics arguments is also inappropriate for the same reasons as disallowing kritiks.
I am writing this while reading it, so please excuse the lack of structure, but my time is limited.
Round 1 pro
semantics
It’s good that pro makes a preemptive strike by discussing his spelling mistake in the description, but ultimately it isn’t that important and he wastes too much space on it. I suggest in the future, just dedicating one sentence to it and moving on. If con is a terrible enough debater to bring up an argument depending on that misspelling, than just smile, point to your semantics rule and then make the same argument you wasted space on in this round. I know I pointed out how bad it was mentioning a semantic rule before, but in this particular and very rare situation, as a judge I would apply it, because of my disdain for abusing spelling errors by debaters.
geology
Pro uses what he calls Geology arguments, pointing to the accumulation of snow over a period of over 100,000 years or rock accumulation of over 100,000 years and even the estimated age of a volcano according to estimates of how long it would take to grow to a specific height. In the future I would suggest picking one of those examples and using it. This is a gish gallop of sorts and it would be impossible for your opponent to tear down each piece of evidence one by one, because it is quicker to say something like “A study says fact A” than it is to carefully pull apart a study and discuss it’s methodological flaws. If your opponent calls you in this Gish gallop, I would just erase all of your points for the unfairness. As long as he picked one of your examples and tore it apart. This is my second reading of the debate though, and it doesn’t look like he will do so.
I like the radiometric testing argument. It is focused on one method of testing to show the age of the Earth. However it still borders on a bare assertion, because it lacks a defense of why we should trust it. I think this is part of a problem with kids these days a blind trust in what is perceived as established “science” without a realization that science in general as a method rejects appeals to authority or appeals to conventional or so called established wisdom. Actually discuss the science behind radiological testing next time, to strengthen your case.
Evolution
This by far is pros best argument, he points out that evolution would require a new animal a day to be evolved into in order for the Earth to be less than 100,000 years old and for I don’t like the use of the supreme court. Their rulings have little to do with deciding whether creationism is real or not, and is more about whether parents can force schools to include creationism. Also the appeal to authority pointing out 97% of scientists agree with evolution is not even remotely convincing. Appeals to authority usually aren’t. Experts thought lead was okay to put in make-up, they thought smoking was healthy and they thought you can cure women of mental illness by giving them orgasms. The opinion of experts is considerably less important than the reasons behind those opinions.
Questions
I don’t understand why there are questions at the end of the round. They seem irrelevant. However I am going to assume it is some strategic thing to get con to waste words and character space on things that won’t advance the debate. If it is a strategic thing to place those questions, than I appreciate the gamesmanship by pro, if not than he wasted space for seemingly no reason.
Con round 1
burden of proof
This is annoying. Con is wasting time randomly declaring that pro has the burden of proof. If he laid out a good argument to defend that position, I would accept it, but he merely wastes time bitching the other rules that pro made (which I plan to ignore) are unfair so that means pro should accept burden of proof. I believe burden of proof is shared, but am mostly tabula rasa so can still change my mind if con makes an argument better than “The rules are unfair, so fuck it give pro BOP”. I don’t buy it. Some advice for the future con. Don’t waste so much time giving a shit about burden of proof. After the debate is said and done, BOP really only matters if impacts are precisely even. This only happens in debates where every round is forfeited by both sides. BOP is not very important.
He ends the BOP section by claiming that in order for pro to win the debate he must erase all doubt of the earth being less than 100,000 years old. This is a ridiculous standard and impossible for pro to do. Pro only needs to show the Earth is most likely over 100,000 years old to win the debate, unless con provides a good argument for that not to be the case. Spoiler alert, con doesn’t he just makes a bare assertion here.
RFD part 3
Pro breaks the rules
Con spends a lot of time explaining that pro broke his own rules. For example the semantics rule. Technically con is correct that pro broke the semantics rule. He is incorrect on the kritiks rule. However there is two issues with this. I don’t care about pro’s rules is the first. However the biggest problem is that he doesn’t argue how pro should be punished. This is where I could be convinced to dock pro a conduct point, but the argument is never made. Perhaps it will be in a later round.
Unfounded claims
con says that pro makes several unfounded claims, and yet makes many himself. Con’s hidden premise is that YEC should be disproven by pro, but this is incorrect. Con actually needs to make an argument for YEC.
I don’t even know what con is doing here. Con mentions Noah’s ark being small for example. It is irrelevant as to whether the Earth is over 100,000 years or not and ultimately a waste of time to explain the size of the Ark. Some of the unfounded claims he says pro made, don’t even matter in the context of determining how old the Earth is. For example pro said God was not an expert. Who cares? It is an unfounded claim, but I am not accepting God as an expert unless Con makes a good argument for why God is one, and proves God that God has stated the age of the Earth.
We are now about to enter the section titled rebuttals for con. However Con has not made any positive argumentation. He has not provided any evidence that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. This means he is entirely leaning on the fact that the burden of proof is on pro. The two problems are that, the burden of proof is actually evenly split here. The other problem is that, if even a single piece of pro’s evidence stands unrefuted, no matter how small than pro wins.
Rebuttals
Con instead of disputing the geological evidence pro gives instead chooses to somehow randomly interpret his words in a literal way they clearly weren’t interpreted to be.
For example pro says
“the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old”
Here is what con mysteriously gets out of it
“He claims "the earth says", but then attributes the facts to geology.”
This is not even a rebuttal, this is just random complaints that pro did not use the word geology as a substitute for the word earth in that sentence. This is made even more odd by the fact that Geology literally means “Study of the Earth”, so swapping out the words would do nothing to change the meaning.
Con’s next rebuttal is to hand wave pro’s evidence away by basically saying that his evidence shows that the Earth merely appears to be over 100,000 years old. That’s what evidence does con, it shows us what appears to be the truth. Any evidence con provides also would not be absolute proof to a solipsist type of mindset, it would only look like evidence of what he is saying. I suggest in the future not using “The evidence just makes you look correct” as a rebuttal. It is probably the worst rebuttal I have ever seen.
I want to skip the parts of this debate that have nothing to do with proving or disproving the resolution, but some of con’s statements are just absurd. Con, do you really think the term devil’s advocate is supposed to be taken to literally mean you are advocating on behalf of the devil or are you just trolling? If you do have a tough time with these very very common phrases than please google them in the future, so you can know what 99.99% of the population already know. Which is that devil’s advocate just means you are making an argument you disagree with.
YEC argumentation
In this section con has finally got to the positive argumentation that he should have started the round with. Instead of using a typical syllogism, which has 2 premises and a conclusion he instead provides 3 premises. I am going to be generous here and assume P3 was really meant to say C1.
P1
Con points out that if the bible is true than YEC is correct. However he has apparently been handicapped this debate, so he says he can not use bible verses to prove his point. I am going to accept that the bible says this since pro cannot disprove it, as that would require bible verses to do. Something pro has disallowed.
For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious.
P2
I am going to do what I did with pro. I am going to accept all of con’s arguments as true until they are disproven. Con argues the following evidence proves the bible is true.
1. Anthony Flew was a famous atheist and then became a christian on his deathbed so it must be true
2. Philosophical arguments including cosmological argument and fine tuning
3. There are records that Jesus existed such as the eyewitness accounts in the new testament
I would like to see con spend the entire round on these 2 premises and then just wait on rebuttals if he had no room left. These premises can get him the debate win if he doesn’t waste space on irrelevant crap like the size of Noah’s Ark. Con will be a much better debater once he starts doing what I suggest and taking more control of the debate as opposed to being merely responsive to his opponent.
I’d also like to see him expand on why he thinks the above arguments prove the bible, seeing as how he has backed himself in a corner and need to prove the bible true this debate, as opposed to the much easier arguments of just proving the Earth is younger than what scientists believe.
Right off the back pro clarifies that he was okay with bible verses being used and invites con to use them. This is a dangerous invitation since rebuttals in a 3 round debate should be limited to round 2 and pro won’t have the opportunity for most of the types of rebuttals that would be available to him in round 3. The introduction pro offers here, I take issue with his lack of understanding what semantics mean. It is the redefining of words, but getting to a more precise definition. It is irrelevant to the debate though, seeing as how con did not argue how we should punish pro for using semantics. If con makes the argument in round 2, I will revisit this.
Con really gave no rebuttals, so this round we don’t really need any defense of his previous rounds arguments. I am looking for pro to offer rebuttals for con’s positive argumentation for P2.
Pro does a good job of this by addressing the philosophical arguments. He points out that the universe having a beginning does not necessitate that beginning being the tri-omni God. Pro points out that the goldilocks zone for fine tuning is large and so fine tuning would not be needed for our universe to evolve to what it is, and also hints at the problem of evil disproving a fine tuning without directly stating it, pointing out brain parasites etc. Pro spends more time addressing Con’s philosophical arguments than he has to. I would have just pointed out they were bare assertions and not spent too much time on them myself.
Pro seems to concede that Jesus was a historical figure who actually performed miracles. However he points out that Jesus performing miracles and existing has very little to do with how old the Earth is. I agree with pro here. Con really needed to show how the fact Jesus existed makes the entirety of the bible true if he wanted this premise to mean anything.
Pro refuses to address the fact that Anthony Flew claimed to believe in God when on his deathbed and barely coherent, and surrounded by family who would be put at ease believing he would go to heaven. Con’s Anthony Flew argument stands.
The rest of pro’s arguments is pointing out con ignored some irrelevant questions. I don’t care Again if this is another strategic attempt by pro to distract con than good on him, if not than it is a waste of time. Either way it is boring and irrelevant to voters, especially when the questions have nothing to do with the resolution.
I just want to quote con real quick to show his poisonous mindset that will likely end up losing him this debate.
Con “PRO ignores that if GOD wrote the Bible then its authority is far greater than that of science. PRO must debunk God or Christianity in order to win.”
I don’t believe pro is ignoring that. However it is not pro’s job to disprove God or Christianity. It is your job to prove that the bible is reliable to prove YEC. That would mean proving God and Christianity is not enough here, you would need to prove how them being true means the bible is actually the word of God. If the bible is the word of God, and you prove it. You win this debate. However if you merely prove God or christianity correct, than you have not done enough to win.
Another quote by Con “I don't need to. Without a sound philosophical foundation, PRO cannot claim science is a valid way to understand the world.”
This is a great seed to some rebuttals for pro’s scientific evidence. I like it. However it is too little too late. You needed to show in round one why science is a bad way to understand the world or to expand greatly on this argument on round 2. I think you have a good rebuttal for pro’s science based arguments here if you expand on this in a convincing manner. I suggest looking into solipsism for one way that would work at disproving the scientific method, though there are several ways to make this good argument, not just that one.
I like Con’s defense of fine tuning here. He is wrong that the phrase goldilocks zone can only be used in one context, but he explains that the gravitational constant being what it is, is beyond chance. Because the argument comes so late, pro will have a chance to offer a good rebuttal in the following round, but it is unlikely to matter because con really does a terrible job explaining why god created the world less than 100,000 years ago.
Con says “I have fulfilled that BoP by showing why God exists and why Christianity is the correct religion. You are just critiquing theological though, not Christianity.”
Con is correct in some respects. Pro conceded that the gospels were good historical evidence for not only the existence of Jesus but for the fact he performed miracles. I don’t have any arguments for why Jesus being real and performing miracles means that the bible’s assertion of a young Earth is true. We are assuming the bible does say that YEC is true because of Pro’s restrictions, but we need an argument for why the bible is true not for why God is real or whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are historically accurate or not.
I think Con finishes the round strong. He really drives home the point that pro concedes the historical accuracy of the gospels. Con brings up another new point though, and I think he should have brought up earlier. Con says that the Earth must look old, no matter when it was created. Con, please retry this debate with somebody else and take my suggestions, it could be great. Bring this up round 1. In this final round, you don’t expand on this bare assertion either. I was very curious at what the argument behind this is. You must do more than flatly state this. You must provide evidence for your position
Conclusion and winner
The final rounds of the debate were pretty uninteresting. Pro is correct that he met his burden. He proved that geology, evolution and radiometric dating all agree with the fact that the earth is over 100,000 years old.
While con did prove that God was real and that the new testament accounts of Jesus were accurate, he did not explain how the Gospel of John (or any other gospel) proves that the rest of the bible is accurate. I think Con could have done this because of the constant references by Jesus to the old testament books, but con did not.
I am awarding pro argument points based on the above analysis. I would advise pro to stay away from gish gallop in the future and just focus on radiometric testing or if he is using radiometric testing and geology for example he chooses one example from each and expands on it as much as the character limit allows.
I advise Con to bring up all his arguments in round one and fully elaborate on them in the future, and not just hand wave his opponent’s arguments. He has the seeds from some great debating in the future.
I think you are right. I just kinda assumed they were the slaves that built the pyramids. I don't know I just think it sounds like an easier argument to make whether it's true or not that Jews build a pyramids then does to argue that aliens built them.
The vote by fauxlaw, particularly the conduct point falls under the fluff vote rule in the voting policy guidelines and should be removed. Is this possible after the debate has ended?
Illegal immigrants aren't necessarily unallowed. Are you referring to increasing legal immigration?
It's odd I think increasing legal immigration is apolitical. The left wants to do it through amnesty and the right wants to increase legal immigration while simultaneously making the border more secure.
You might have a hard time finding challengers since most republicans and democrats agree with this.
Actually I'm going to try to have somebody review everything I text to make it a better writing. So hopefully the text-to-speech aspect of this is not too distracting. Actually I meant speech to text not text to speech
How would proving God is real or that Christianity is true, prove that the entirety of the bible is true? I think you could have proven it, particularly since in round 2 pro stated he was inviting you to use bible quotes and prior to that he accepted the gospels as a valid source of historical events.
Tell me specifically how you connected Jesus to young earth creationism? How would the gospels of Mark Mathew like and John prove that Genesis is correct? More important how did you show that matthew mark like and john's eyewitness accounts of Jesus prove any of the old testament beyond the fact a magician can perform "miracles" and factually existed?
Again I am not qualified to give a vote yet, but there is my RFD and I will add the vote when I am qualified
RFD part 1
Description
I consider an RFD, not only an analysis of a debate, but also an opportunity to educate debaters. So, you’ll see mostly analysis below, but some education as well. Part 1 of this RFD is about the debate description, which is more an education than a portion of the debate analysis. The following quote in particular is what I am going to discuss.
“Burden of proof is shared. No quantum physics arguments allowed. No trolling. No semantic arguments. No kritiks”
The instigator of the debate does not determine who holds the burden of proof. It is entirely inappropriate and I would argue worthy of a conduct violation for even attempting to do it. Though I won’t award conduct points here. In this case, the instigator of the debate is correct, the burden is shared. However if the instigator was incorrect than he would either be taking on too much of the burden or too little.
Denying semantic arguments is bad because semantics is literally how we understand what is being said. In fact if a debate is done properly, both people should be arguing semantics prior to engaging in the debate, so that way they know if they even really disagree. Since that is usually not a practical thing to do, than we need to allow semantics within the arena of the debate it self.
Kritiks are something pointless to even ban. If a judge is tabula rasa as they should be, than it is impossible to prevent them anyway, putting the rule in place seems to be something that would merely confuse inexperienced judges into thinking they are not allowed to award wins to a kritik.
Attempting to disallow quantum physics arguments is also inappropriate for the same reasons as disallowing kritiks.
I am writing this while reading it, so please excuse the lack of structure, but my time is limited.
Round 1 pro
semantics
It’s good that pro makes a preemptive strike by discussing his spelling mistake in the description, but ultimately it isn’t that important and he wastes too much space on it. I suggest in the future, just dedicating one sentence to it and moving on. If con is a terrible enough debater to bring up an argument depending on that misspelling, than just smile, point to your semantics rule and then make the same argument you wasted space on in this round. I know I pointed out how bad it was mentioning a semantic rule before, but in this particular and very rare situation, as a judge I would apply it, because of my disdain for abusing spelling errors by debaters.
geology
Pro uses what he calls Geology arguments, pointing to the accumulation of snow over a period of over 100,000 years or rock accumulation of over 100,000 years and even the estimated age of a volcano according to estimates of how long it would take to grow to a specific height. In the future I would suggest picking one of those examples and using it. This is a gish gallop of sorts and it would be impossible for your opponent to tear down each piece of evidence one by one, because it is quicker to say something like “A study says fact A” than it is to carefully pull apart a study and discuss it’s methodological flaws. If your opponent calls you in this Gish gallop, I would just erase all of your points for the unfairness. As long as he picked one of your examples and tore it apart. This is my second reading of the debate though, and it doesn’t look like he will do so.
RFD part 2
radiological testing
I like the radiometric testing argument. It is focused on one method of testing to show the age of the Earth. However it still borders on a bare assertion, because it lacks a defense of why we should trust it. I think this is part of a problem with kids these days a blind trust in what is perceived as established “science” without a realization that science in general as a method rejects appeals to authority or appeals to conventional or so called established wisdom. Actually discuss the science behind radiological testing next time, to strengthen your case.
Evolution
This by far is pros best argument, he points out that evolution would require a new animal a day to be evolved into in order for the Earth to be less than 100,000 years old and for I don’t like the use of the supreme court. Their rulings have little to do with deciding whether creationism is real or not, and is more about whether parents can force schools to include creationism. Also the appeal to authority pointing out 97% of scientists agree with evolution is not even remotely convincing. Appeals to authority usually aren’t. Experts thought lead was okay to put in make-up, they thought smoking was healthy and they thought you can cure women of mental illness by giving them orgasms. The opinion of experts is considerably less important than the reasons behind those opinions.
Questions
I don’t understand why there are questions at the end of the round. They seem irrelevant. However I am going to assume it is some strategic thing to get con to waste words and character space on things that won’t advance the debate. If it is a strategic thing to place those questions, than I appreciate the gamesmanship by pro, if not than he wasted space for seemingly no reason.
Con round 1
burden of proof
This is annoying. Con is wasting time randomly declaring that pro has the burden of proof. If he laid out a good argument to defend that position, I would accept it, but he merely wastes time bitching the other rules that pro made (which I plan to ignore) are unfair so that means pro should accept burden of proof. I believe burden of proof is shared, but am mostly tabula rasa so can still change my mind if con makes an argument better than “The rules are unfair, so fuck it give pro BOP”. I don’t buy it. Some advice for the future con. Don’t waste so much time giving a shit about burden of proof. After the debate is said and done, BOP really only matters if impacts are precisely even. This only happens in debates where every round is forfeited by both sides. BOP is not very important.
He ends the BOP section by claiming that in order for pro to win the debate he must erase all doubt of the earth being less than 100,000 years old. This is a ridiculous standard and impossible for pro to do. Pro only needs to show the Earth is most likely over 100,000 years old to win the debate, unless con provides a good argument for that not to be the case. Spoiler alert, con doesn’t he just makes a bare assertion here.
RFD part 3
Pro breaks the rules
Con spends a lot of time explaining that pro broke his own rules. For example the semantics rule. Technically con is correct that pro broke the semantics rule. He is incorrect on the kritiks rule. However there is two issues with this. I don’t care about pro’s rules is the first. However the biggest problem is that he doesn’t argue how pro should be punished. This is where I could be convinced to dock pro a conduct point, but the argument is never made. Perhaps it will be in a later round.
Unfounded claims
con says that pro makes several unfounded claims, and yet makes many himself. Con’s hidden premise is that YEC should be disproven by pro, but this is incorrect. Con actually needs to make an argument for YEC.
I don’t even know what con is doing here. Con mentions Noah’s ark being small for example. It is irrelevant as to whether the Earth is over 100,000 years or not and ultimately a waste of time to explain the size of the Ark. Some of the unfounded claims he says pro made, don’t even matter in the context of determining how old the Earth is. For example pro said God was not an expert. Who cares? It is an unfounded claim, but I am not accepting God as an expert unless Con makes a good argument for why God is one, and proves God that God has stated the age of the Earth.
We are now about to enter the section titled rebuttals for con. However Con has not made any positive argumentation. He has not provided any evidence that the Earth is less than 100,000 years old. This means he is entirely leaning on the fact that the burden of proof is on pro. The two problems are that, the burden of proof is actually evenly split here. The other problem is that, if even a single piece of pro’s evidence stands unrefuted, no matter how small than pro wins.
Rebuttals
Con instead of disputing the geological evidence pro gives instead chooses to somehow randomly interpret his words in a literal way they clearly weren’t interpreted to be.
For example pro says
“the Earth itself says that it is over 10,000 years old”
Here is what con mysteriously gets out of it
“He claims "the earth says", but then attributes the facts to geology.”
This is not even a rebuttal, this is just random complaints that pro did not use the word geology as a substitute for the word earth in that sentence. This is made even more odd by the fact that Geology literally means “Study of the Earth”, so swapping out the words would do nothing to change the meaning.
RFD part 4
Con’s next rebuttal is to hand wave pro’s evidence away by basically saying that his evidence shows that the Earth merely appears to be over 100,000 years old. That’s what evidence does con, it shows us what appears to be the truth. Any evidence con provides also would not be absolute proof to a solipsist type of mindset, it would only look like evidence of what he is saying. I suggest in the future not using “The evidence just makes you look correct” as a rebuttal. It is probably the worst rebuttal I have ever seen.
I want to skip the parts of this debate that have nothing to do with proving or disproving the resolution, but some of con’s statements are just absurd. Con, do you really think the term devil’s advocate is supposed to be taken to literally mean you are advocating on behalf of the devil or are you just trolling? If you do have a tough time with these very very common phrases than please google them in the future, so you can know what 99.99% of the population already know. Which is that devil’s advocate just means you are making an argument you disagree with.
YEC argumentation
In this section con has finally got to the positive argumentation that he should have started the round with. Instead of using a typical syllogism, which has 2 premises and a conclusion he instead provides 3 premises. I am going to be generous here and assume P3 was really meant to say C1.
P1
Con points out that if the bible is true than YEC is correct. However he has apparently been handicapped this debate, so he says he can not use bible verses to prove his point. I am going to accept that the bible says this since pro cannot disprove it, as that would require bible verses to do. Something pro has disallowed.
For anyone wondering, yes the bible does say it is true anyway. The age of the Earth is derived easily using the geneology of Adam and Eve that takes us all the way to Jesus Christ. I am not taking that into consideration this debate, because nobody argued it, but it is a tidbit for anybody curious.
P2
I am going to do what I did with pro. I am going to accept all of con’s arguments as true until they are disproven. Con argues the following evidence proves the bible is true.
1. Anthony Flew was a famous atheist and then became a christian on his deathbed so it must be true
2. Philosophical arguments including cosmological argument and fine tuning
3. There are records that Jesus existed such as the eyewitness accounts in the new testament
I would like to see con spend the entire round on these 2 premises and then just wait on rebuttals if he had no room left. These premises can get him the debate win if he doesn’t waste space on irrelevant crap like the size of Noah’s Ark. Con will be a much better debater once he starts doing what I suggest and taking more control of the debate as opposed to being merely responsive to his opponent.
I’d also like to see him expand on why he thinks the above arguments prove the bible, seeing as how he has backed himself in a corner and need to prove the bible true this debate, as opposed to the much easier arguments of just proving the Earth is younger than what scientists believe.
RFD part 5
Pro round 2
Right off the back pro clarifies that he was okay with bible verses being used and invites con to use them. This is a dangerous invitation since rebuttals in a 3 round debate should be limited to round 2 and pro won’t have the opportunity for most of the types of rebuttals that would be available to him in round 3. The introduction pro offers here, I take issue with his lack of understanding what semantics mean. It is the redefining of words, but getting to a more precise definition. It is irrelevant to the debate though, seeing as how con did not argue how we should punish pro for using semantics. If con makes the argument in round 2, I will revisit this.
Con really gave no rebuttals, so this round we don’t really need any defense of his previous rounds arguments. I am looking for pro to offer rebuttals for con’s positive argumentation for P2.
Pro does a good job of this by addressing the philosophical arguments. He points out that the universe having a beginning does not necessitate that beginning being the tri-omni God. Pro points out that the goldilocks zone for fine tuning is large and so fine tuning would not be needed for our universe to evolve to what it is, and also hints at the problem of evil disproving a fine tuning without directly stating it, pointing out brain parasites etc. Pro spends more time addressing Con’s philosophical arguments than he has to. I would have just pointed out they were bare assertions and not spent too much time on them myself.
Pro seems to concede that Jesus was a historical figure who actually performed miracles. However he points out that Jesus performing miracles and existing has very little to do with how old the Earth is. I agree with pro here. Con really needed to show how the fact Jesus existed makes the entirety of the bible true if he wanted this premise to mean anything.
Pro refuses to address the fact that Anthony Flew claimed to believe in God when on his deathbed and barely coherent, and surrounded by family who would be put at ease believing he would go to heaven. Con’s Anthony Flew argument stands.
The rest of pro’s arguments is pointing out con ignored some irrelevant questions. I don’t care Again if this is another strategic attempt by pro to distract con than good on him, if not than it is a waste of time. Either way it is boring and irrelevant to voters, especially when the questions have nothing to do with the resolution.
RFD part 6
con round 2
I just want to quote con real quick to show his poisonous mindset that will likely end up losing him this debate.
Con “PRO ignores that if GOD wrote the Bible then its authority is far greater than that of science. PRO must debunk God or Christianity in order to win.”
I don’t believe pro is ignoring that. However it is not pro’s job to disprove God or Christianity. It is your job to prove that the bible is reliable to prove YEC. That would mean proving God and Christianity is not enough here, you would need to prove how them being true means the bible is actually the word of God. If the bible is the word of God, and you prove it. You win this debate. However if you merely prove God or christianity correct, than you have not done enough to win.
Another quote by Con “I don't need to. Without a sound philosophical foundation, PRO cannot claim science is a valid way to understand the world.”
This is a great seed to some rebuttals for pro’s scientific evidence. I like it. However it is too little too late. You needed to show in round one why science is a bad way to understand the world or to expand greatly on this argument on round 2. I think you have a good rebuttal for pro’s science based arguments here if you expand on this in a convincing manner. I suggest looking into solipsism for one way that would work at disproving the scientific method, though there are several ways to make this good argument, not just that one.
I like Con’s defense of fine tuning here. He is wrong that the phrase goldilocks zone can only be used in one context, but he explains that the gravitational constant being what it is, is beyond chance. Because the argument comes so late, pro will have a chance to offer a good rebuttal in the following round, but it is unlikely to matter because con really does a terrible job explaining why god created the world less than 100,000 years ago.
Con says “I have fulfilled that BoP by showing why God exists and why Christianity is the correct religion. You are just critiquing theological though, not Christianity.”
Con is correct in some respects. Pro conceded that the gospels were good historical evidence for not only the existence of Jesus but for the fact he performed miracles. I don’t have any arguments for why Jesus being real and performing miracles means that the bible’s assertion of a young Earth is true. We are assuming the bible does say that YEC is true because of Pro’s restrictions, but we need an argument for why the bible is true not for why God is real or whether the gospel accounts of Jesus are historically accurate or not.
I think Con finishes the round strong. He really drives home the point that pro concedes the historical accuracy of the gospels. Con brings up another new point though, and I think he should have brought up earlier. Con says that the Earth must look old, no matter when it was created. Con, please retry this debate with somebody else and take my suggestions, it could be great. Bring this up round 1. In this final round, you don’t expand on this bare assertion either. I was very curious at what the argument behind this is. You must do more than flatly state this. You must provide evidence for your position
RFD part 7
Conclusion and winner
The final rounds of the debate were pretty uninteresting. Pro is correct that he met his burden. He proved that geology, evolution and radiometric dating all agree with the fact that the earth is over 100,000 years old.
While con did prove that God was real and that the new testament accounts of Jesus were accurate, he did not explain how the Gospel of John (or any other gospel) proves that the rest of the bible is accurate. I think Con could have done this because of the constant references by Jesus to the old testament books, but con did not.
I am awarding pro argument points based on the above analysis. I would advise pro to stay away from gish gallop in the future and just focus on radiometric testing or if he is using radiometric testing and geology for example he chooses one example from each and expands on it as much as the character limit allows.
I advise Con to bring up all his arguments in round one and fully elaborate on them in the future, and not just hand wave his opponent’s arguments. He has the seeds from some great debating in the future.
I think you are right. I just kinda assumed they were the slaves that built the pyramids. I don't know I just think it sounds like an easier argument to make whether it's true or not that Jews build a pyramids then does to argue that aliens built them.
I got you. Have vote written up but need to wait until I have 100 forum posts
Haven't looked into it in a while, but I heard that seal of solomon was found at one of the pyramid sites.
If I was pro I would have just argued the Jews built the pyramids
The vote by fauxlaw, particularly the conduct point falls under the fluff vote rule in the voting policy guidelines and should be removed. Is this possible after the debate has ended?
Illegal immigrants aren't necessarily unallowed. Are you referring to increasing legal immigration?
It's odd I think increasing legal immigration is apolitical. The left wants to do it through amnesty and the right wants to increase legal immigration while simultaneously making the border more secure.
You might have a hard time finding challengers since most republicans and democrats agree with this.
Actually I'm going to try to have somebody review everything I text to make it a better writing. So hopefully the text-to-speech aspect of this is not too distracting. Actually I meant speech to text not text to speech
Also can we agree to take it easy with the spelling and grammar rules because I have a disability and will mostly be using talk to text.
I haven't ever debated but might as well do something while waiting for that mafia game to start.