The Instigator
devient.genie
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

An Afterlife is NO threat to an Atheist viewpoint :)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
Marauder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,975 times Debate No: 27566
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (10)

 

devient.genie

Pro

Conciousness is the ground of all being. Therefore conciousness could exist on other dimensions after leaving this dimension into an "afterlife" that is NOT defined in any religious text :)

An atheist view is not threatened by an afterlife :)

No Rules Go Nuts :)
Marauder

Con


All right then no rules, (except of course we are to focus this debate on this resolution in specific, and not to deviate from it obviously)


No need for clarity on any definitions although it is possible the definition of an “afterlife’ might come up later but we will burn that bridge when we get to it. I hope you feel special deviant.genie because for this debate I have decided to argue not with a persona of assuming I am speaking to a crowd of our reading voting audience, I’m going to just speak to you personally making a sincere attempt at persuading just you.



For this resolution “An Afterlife is NO threat to an Atheist viewpoint” I do not need to or desire to convince you to drop your Atheist view. By all means know that I am fine with you remaining an atheist by the time we are done with this debate if you just listen to what I say on the afterlife, and be a little more rational about your own viewpoint that you want to keep


I will be arguing as though for the time being I think like you and own your non-theist perspective. So if some theist came to me making a case for God with the afterlife I could see myself still being an atheist but not because an afterlife is no threat to my view but because I would not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. The Atheist viewpoint you want to keep being the baby, and the fact that an Afterlife should be bothering to it being the bathwater.



To be able to say “an afterlife would be a threat to an Atheist viewpoint” one would only have to show how hypothetically if it were confirmed with proof that an Afterlife existed, then you Atheist viewpoint should rationally be threatened, maybe even enough to come shattering to an end.


Case #1:


If for any reason you found yourself suddenly knowing without a doubt an afterlife of some kind existed, you would immediately find there is immediately a HUGE elephant in the room because of this, and that elephant is the fact that theist religions for thousands of years have already been onto the fact that there is an afterlife. By mere virtue of that fact should make you seriously consider if they were right about that, they were probably right a about other things like there is a God or Gods. It would be a fairly reasonable to think It was not just coincidence the many religions were right about an after life, but that a there was something legit in at least some degree there source for knowing this fact.


Case #2:


Like I said, an atheist view is necessarily one of the philosophy Naturalism, which is a belief that rules out the possibility of a Supernatural God everything is a part of Nature, the universe, and the universes great chain of cause and effects. From the atheist naturalist perspective, there are no Gods that are behind the creation of what we call our souls. Our souls are the natural product of evolution. The thing we call our soul has been measured as a system of frequencies and electrical activity within our brain. That is all there is too it. When we die our brain no longer supports sustaining any electrical activity within itself and so all the energy within it ceases to be. Like a flame on a candle that’s put out, the flame does not become the smoke it just no longer exist. There’s no room to think its possible your soul continues to exist because you do not expect it to. The battery’s are dead and so the of course we believe the voltage is no more.


Case #3:


Now, to directly address your ‘alternate dimension’ argument. To say that its possible for an alternate dimensions for our souls to go to is a lot like giving up on all your reasons for being an atheist. You might as well have said “its possible god exist” and “the bible is his word”. From the atheist viewpoint that’s a ungrounded claim made on faith, and your alternate dimension claim would be just as groundless. So to suddenly give ground in your eyes for this alternate dimension to stand on, you have to simultaneously give that ground back equally for belief in God, Pixies, and Werewolves. And to continue to attack the God theory as being too groundless to consider means you have to take away the same room for considering your alternate dimension theory. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


Case #4:


Even if though I drop Case # 3, and let your acknowledgement of another dimension for souls to go to come to the table for an atheist viewpoint, we basically have to lose our atheist view point to do so. At the very least this alternate dimension that sucks our souls into it and sustains them when we die is a supernatural force because it is from outside nature and its interfering and affecting our own nature.


At best you could continue to believe this supernatural force is just a part of nature or rather is all of nature itself but then you end up with a belief called Pantheism, which is a kind of theism.


Case #5:


Its worth bringing up Pascal’s Wager just once in this debate, if only for a brief note. To many Athiest treat it like it’s the dumbest of arguments but that’s only because the critique it for the wrong end goal its point is for. They critique it as if Pascal is trying to prove god. But its not an argument that try’s to prove anything. Pascal’s point is just one about dealing with 2 unknowns if there being equally considered. If one is unsure in having faith in a God and being a Christian, but there also unsure in denying his existence, and if they believe they will never be able to know for SURE what the case is either way, then might as well pick Christianity. Because being wrong is consequenceless and being right is rewarding. Taking the atheist side though, being wrong is an eternity of suffering, and being right is consequenceless.


Among the chief reasons for the dismissal of Pascal’s argument is in denying there is a afterlife we go to upon death to worry about. But for purposes of this debate’s resolution we are determining if accepting an afterlife’s existence is a threat to an atheist viewpoint. So denying there is an afterlife is no longer an option and Pascal’s Wager suddenly gets new life. If you were to now find out without a doubt there is an afterlife but nothing about it, Pascal’s wager should give you a shake to the core of your atheism. You know there’s an afterlife but not what awaits you there. Maybe it’s a Pantheist kind of afterlife, and all our souls just go back to a universal consciousness that is ‘God’, or maybe that other dimension that’s awaiting your soul is hell and sorrow and gnashing of teeth await you there. You now have reason to spend every waking moment for the remainder of your life finding out details from any theologian, religious leader, philosophy, mystic, ect….that has ever claimed any knowledge about what awaits us in the next reality and try and determine which of these experts was most likely right. The theist views of the world have long known about a an afterlife before the scientific studies were in there infancy and leading scientist like Charles Darwin still ignorantly thought our cells were made of mud platelets, so there views should be given credit if you are ever given reason to know there is an afterlife.


Conclusion:


So you see, an Afterlife and Naturalism simply do not go together. Perhaps anything I could tell you or argue to you about the afterlife would not threaten your ability to still believe there is no God, but only because you have to flat out deny that there is an Afterlife and contend that one exist. If you are to be a Naturalist, you necessarily should based on that foundation of thought believe that the soul, if you call anything a soul that is inside you like your brainwaves or something, is not eternal. Your viewpoint if it is to be consistent needs to believe your soul comes to an end upon death.


Debate Round No. 1
devient.genie

Pro

Conciousness is the ground of all being. Therefore conciousness could exist on other dimensions after leaving this dimension into an "afterlife" that is NOT defined in any religious text :)

An atheist view is not threatened by an afterlife :)

No Rules Go Nuts :)

Case #1--You claim that since religion talks about an afterlife and if it were proven to be correct we should assume they are correct about god. The level of illogical thought in that statement is staggering. Religion also talked about drought, famine, and war. Religion does NOT own the rights to famines, or droughts, although they do have a stranglehold on wars, religion does NOT own the rights to wars either :)

Religion also does NOT own the rights to morality. Morality preceeds any organized religion, arrogance assumes otherwise :)

Religion also does NOT own the rights to our conciousness existing beyond this dimension. So your case #1 is ridiculous because it makes the claim that religion somehow owns the right to something just because "they called it first"

Case #2--What you call the soul, science calls our conciousness. Our conciousness is studied in Quantum Physics. You and no human on this planet completely understands conciousness. Claiming to have all the answers regarding our conciousness, is how you outdo the illogical claims you made in case #1.

So case #2 is destroyed because you are putting limits on our conciosness and no human has any idea the limits of conciousness.

Case #3--This is easy to destroy. I am NOT making any claims that there is an afterlife for our conciousness, nor am I saying I know anything 100%. Certainties are for religious people, saying "I dont know, lets roll up our sleeves and keep looking" is what brilliant minds known as scientists do :)

What needs to be understood is the word atheist is really pointless. There isnt a term for people who dont believe in astrology, there isnt a term for people who dont believe in leprechauns at the end of rainbows, there isnt a term for people who do not believe there is a tea pot orbiting the Andromeda galaxy either. The best words for such "nonbelievers" would be sane or logical :)

So case #3 is destroyed because the possibility of our conciousness existing on another dimension cannot be proven or disproven, however, proof that our conciousness can exist, does NOT automatically mean the reason for everything supprts human sacrifice to prove a point :)

Hope there's room in the trash for Case #4 because thats where it belongs. Again, you are assuming you know everythihng. I am NOT young enough to know everything.

You are claiming things that cannot be proven. We might as well talk about how many stars are in the universe. Its a statistical improbability that any human can count them all, just like its a statistical improbability that the reason for everything can be unequivically proven.

Case #5--Pascal should stay out of casino's. He wagers like a scared person and scared money doesnt win!

The beauty of science is that all of todays serious scientists are smarter than Darwin. Darwin, Einstein, Copernicus, and even the christian favorite, Isaac Newton, knew nothing at all about genetics, DNA, Fractal Geometry, Quantum Physics, the Higgs Boson or the complete mapping of the Human Genome which finally happened in 2001-2002 :)

Just like ancient religions, ancient geniuses just gave us a kick start. Choosing to follow the outdated kickstart given by religion is nothing short of foolish because the kick start of science was just that, a start. We are leaps and bounds ahead of 150 yrs ago and todays brilliant minds would crush past geniuses becasuse we know so much more today.

So in conclusion of this round, an afterlife is no threat to an atheist viewpoint, because religion does NOT own the rights to an existance beyond this dimension simply because they wrote about it "first".

Religion may have been our first attempt at answering questions avbout life, and because it was our first, it is our worst. Science is flexible and always learning. Religion is stagnant and stuck on outdated beliefs :)

Now since we have enough characters left, lets get some big kids stuff out there :)

WAKEUP 16:4--Never fear learning and education, such fear is contagious and harmful to children :)

WorkOut 7:2--By allowing your intuition, intellect and instinct to stretch their legs, is the most corrosive thing you can ever do to religious views :)

BigKids 9:47--The Genie is NOT ONLY A-THEIST to zeus, romulos, mithra, krishna, osiris, horus jesus, allah and all the other "personal gods", but also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows :)

DevientGenie 9:26--Contrary to popular belief, the Genie understands the trinity. The trinity of Intuition, Intellect and Instinct, there you will always have the answer, even if the answer is "I dont know", thats ok, big kids arent young enough to know everything :)

LEARNING 1:1--The universal genetic code--- All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended :)

LEARNING 1:2--The fossil record---The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another :)

LEARNING 1:3--Genetic commonalities--- Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on, all the way to less than 1%. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged :)

LEARNING 1:4--Bacterial resistance to antibiotics---- Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, it will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not :)

BigKids 11:30--I dont have faith in logic and reason, I use logic and reason. When it comes to science of course youre going to make mistakes, if youre not, youre doing it wrong. Worse though is NOT correcting those mistakes, then youre really doing it wrong. However, worst of all is if you cant accept youre mistaken, then youre not doing it at all :)

Brainiacs 9:17--Not every animal and creature fossilizes. However, as of the year 2012, we have amassed an obscene amount of fossils, that we can tell what the puzzle looks like without having all the pieces. Either you or have someone put together a 100,000 piece puzzle, however, with no knowledge of what the puzzle is supposed to look like, you could tell it is going to be a train, a car, outer space, the desert, whatever it is, with less than half the pieces, thats how the most brilliant minds of the world figure out things without having all the pieces in place. Thats why they are labled genius and get noteriety and awards. If all the money donated in the name of jesus, went to genius, we would have even more awesome advancements for life here on earth now and for the future :)
Marauder

Con

Case #1 Counter: Religion does not own….

Perform thought experiment with me.


Your on what well call ‘Planet X’ for now. On Planet X there atmosphere is different though. The air is purer and the oxygen concentration is higher. The outer layers of the atmosphere are also so dense they block UV rays from there Sun. There are also no volcanoes to the peoples current ability to detect them and they feel there science has let them dig pretty deep into the earth so they have never herd of ‘magma’ and have no concept of it. they also have no concept of ‘famine’ either since conditions rig the planet to have so much food that not a single child ever goes to be hungry. For the sake of this thought experiment lets also assume they have done the math and even if the population of the planet grew dramatically the Planet would always have enough food.


Now you live on this planet in the future after astronomical events changed the atmosphere and Volcanoes came. So you know about famine and volcanoes. In your time you to invent a time machine. You use it intending to escape to the Eden like era when there was always enough food. It was a one shot trip also.


You tell the people in the past, about where you came from and speak of famines and volcanoes. There leading scientist just laugh thinking you are trying to pull there legs. You can’t prove it the machine no longer works and they have no concept of the famine or the volcanoes you speak of.


In 5 years the events occur that changed the atmosphere. Planet X no longer makes enough food and the people learn famine. And Magma has broke the surface in one of those 20 feet deep holes.


Do these recent events not vindicate your supposed time travel claims for the people of Planet X now? I’m not arguing you ‘own’ volcanoes for speaking of them first, just that when you spoke of them before the science existed for people to know about them, does it not at least say to some degree your source for knowledge was enough of what it claimed to be that it was able to make an accurate telling of famine and volcanoes?


Case #2 Counter: No one understands….your putting limits…


Straw-man would be the best description of the fallacy to your argument. As you are arguing against claiming to no everything which I have not done at any stretch of the imagination. Case #2 put in its simplest form would go “If A Then B”. ‘if, then’ statements are practically the foundation of logic and reasoning, and they are certainly claims at all knowledge on any given matter. But in any given Topic, IF your given one thing, THEN a range of things can probably be expected. IF you are given Atheism as your starting point assumed philosophy, THEN you should be lead to believe our ‘consciousness’ dies with body it was made in. Even granting there are possible unknown details about our consciousnesses we have yet to discover, it is easy to see no surprise added details will change the known facts, and their consequences. Known fact’s like your consciousness is undeniably attached to your body, born with it, grows with it, and rationally should die with it. If you have a problem with those kind of ‘limits’ then you have a problem with logic and reason all together.


Case #3 Counter: I’m not claiming there’s an Afterlife…


Whether you personally believe there is an afterlife outside of this debate, a alternate dimension our consciousness goes do upon death, is irrelevant. You are the PRO to this resolution and at the least must defend how you would hypothetically defend belief in an Afterlife from your Atheist viewpoint. If an Afterlife became a known fact, and If you could not make its existence comply with that viewpoint, then it would threaten your view with a need to change your view to something that accounts for the afterlife dimension or at least is not abrasive to it.


Case #4: Pantheism


Your counter to Case #4 was more of your failed responses to Case #2 and #3 of ‘you claim to know everything’ and ‘I cant prove anything’. I have already addressed those arguments above so this round I shall add on to case #4 a more full description of why an alternate dimension for your ‘consciousness’ to go to at your death should at the least alter your Atheist view to a Pantheist view. I understand not all even know what ‘Pantheism’ means.


Pantheism has taken lots of forms overtime under lots of names, and it is a very basic kind of belief in God that follows the basic views of a philosophy Atheist often takes called Naturalism, and so thus should a Naturalist Atheist come to believe in a God he would probably believe in Pantheism. The Pantheist view is that Christian and Judean beliefs are very primitive, imagining God in a ‘Anthropomorphic’ kind of image. While there own view is one without those attributes and for the most part has no defining attributes of its own. For them God could be said to be a common indwelling principal in Beauty, Truth, and Goodness. There God is thought of as a great spiritual ‘force’ pervading in all things, a common mind of which we are all parts of, a pool of generalized spirituality. This Pantheist God is little more than a word for the universe itself understood as if the universe had a consciousness, and by ‘the universe’ I mean absolutely everything that there is, dimensions and all. This God does not do miracles or really anything at all.


If you were to admit an afterlife, even the dimension for our consciousness you described, you have stepped out of Atheism and into Pantheism. This dimension you have described as a place our conscious is so connected to already that should your body die it continues to exist in this other dimension, that’s basically a God, and the Pantheist God to be exact.


Do you get it now? I’m not arguing for an Afterlife threatening to end your Atheist view in favor of Christianity, I’m arguing it’s threatened to end in favor of Pantheism.


Case #5 Counter: Pascal should stay in the Casino…


Maybe he should, but if he should or shouldn’t doesn’t matter as you locked yourself in the Casino when you opened up to the question of the Afterlife existing. You stayed out of it making Pascal a refuted argument when you denied there is an Afterlife. But by accepting there could be one, you now in the Casino, the doors are locked and you’re not getting to leave without placing a bet.


And Pascal really has nothing to do with odds though, its about consequence. You have taken great pains to stress how you ‘don’t know everything’ and open to possibilities. When you are stuck at Pascal’s table not absolutely knowing is going to affect your bet unless your insane of course. The odds do not favor Christianity or Atheism or anything as far as you know being the right card to pick up off the table and flip over. Pascal has let you know though, even if Atheism is right, you gain nothing, and you could loose much for being wrong. Where as his chosen card he loses nothing for being wrong and gets all for being right.


Now maybe you would still bet on the Atheist card just on principal that it’s the one you think is right, the lack of gain irrelevant to you in winning on the card. But this would only be if you KNEW it was the right card and that it was impossible that the card could lose. If it’s not impossible though, just improbable, then you would never sanely bet the farm on such a potentially costly card that gives you nothing. By admitting you don’t know everything you ruled out the ‘it’s impossible’ option.


Conclusion:


All 5 of my cases still stand as you have not effectively refuted any of them. For a recap they are…


1) Various theist beliefs would be vindicated in a small degree by proof of an afterlife.


2) IF Atheism THEN consciousness should be expected to die with our bodies.


3) Your ground for rejecting unproven things disappears when you start accepting other unproven things. Cant have cake and eat it at the same time (unless you Chuck Norris haha)


4) Atheist + Afterlife = Pantheist


5) Admitting an Afterlife locked you in Pascal’s Casino.


Debate Round No. 2
devient.genie

Pro

You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact, not proven. You've been misled. Keep reading, and in less than two minutes from now you'll know that you've been misinformed. I dont need to change peoples minds about evolution, anymore than I need to help them take a piss, if they cant do it for themselves, thats part of the problem.

The Theory of Evolution is a theory, but guess what? When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. That's right, it all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.

This bears repeating. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! You can observe it for yourself. Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Cumulative genetic change over generations, happens, just like gravity does. Google it. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.

Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it's just something someone guessed at, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better. In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you.

Evolution is not just a theory, it's happily a theory!

Allowing the poison of religious text to atrophy intuition, intellect and instinct, is the ball and chain mankind drags on its way to a higher standard :)

Mankinds most brilliant minded individuals, all see the world through the eyes of cumulative evolution over billions of years. Studies have been done that show there is a clear link, a very clear link between education and Non belief. The higher the education level, the less religious :)

Science is a very stringent process, it is precise, and it can be tested over and over again. Of course science is going to discover things which disprove old ideas. How is that somehow a bad thing? When are you considered a failure, anywhere else in life, for learning new information and using it to save peoples lives :)

The point is, the ridiculous ignorance of denying scientific proof as no big deal, is paramount to claiming jerry sandusky would make a great role model for 10 yr old boys :)

Higgs Boson other dimensions--

Science tells me other dimensions are just waiting to be discovered, just like the Higgs Boson was waiting to be discovered when suggested in 1964 by Peter Higgs :)

So as a human on the earth, we have a lot of things to learn. We have come a long way, I mean a really long way when you look at the big picture.

Darwins Finches started the greatest debate mankind would ever face. However it was that science learned there is no debate at all, cumulative evolution by natural selection is true. The theory of evolution and theory of gravity are both proven theories holding to the stringent prerequisites to be true :)

So every human has a choice. They can grow their conciousness and awareness of reality, take responsibility for all the good you do in your life because youre nice not because of a god, and be accountable when youre wrong, without blaming the devil.

So every human has another choice to make. Science or religion? Who is more likely to be right. Since nobody can prove or disprove a god, we can only base things on probability.

When you understand science and can see the beautiful picture evolution paints and when you appreciate the precious value of life, when you really "get it", You will be able to feel love for the universe, you will feel hope, that science will advance to help our lives and faith in ourselves and mankind as a whole :)

So who is more right, science or religion? One tells us how to save lives, fight disease, grow food, build anything and creating anything, and everything always has science behind it somewhere, everything involves math and science, its as unavoidable as gravity and evolution being equally true no matter "how you feel", or how "you see the world",you cannot control nature thru beliefs, thats what makes people considered delusional :)

Science is telling me that other dimensions are within reach, and science is a helluva lot more probable to be right, than a holy binky that claims the reason for everything in the world is admittingly jealous and can convict you of thought crime, that science considers a statistical improbability, like a set of dinner plates floating in the andromeda galaxy, a statistical improbability.

So if an atheist, for lack of a beter word, or no word at all, is someone who does not believe the reason for everything is a petty bully, how does anafter life of our conciousness threaten our view when science says other dimensions are highly probable, unlike the reason for everything throwing telper tantrum floods, which is a statistical improbability :)

So since science is more reliable than religion, an afterlife is No threat to an atheist viewpoint.

Now some more big kids stuff to wrap it up :)

STUDS 7:58--"Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty " a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show,"--Bertrand Russell, He couldnt be more right :)

DevientGenie 2:7--For those who are smarty pants, the Genie is not deviant, the second 'e' is testament to that fact. He is merely splashing a glass of ice water on the world :)

UNIVERSE 6:3--GJ 581, or Gliese 581, is a low-mass M dwarf star, the most common type of star in the Galaxy. Earlier studies have shown that it hosts at least four planets, including one that resides in the 'Goldilocks Zone' -- the distance from the central sun where liquid surface water could exist. Earth is in the Goldilocks Zone :)
Marauder

Con

You have made no direct or indirect points addressing the resolution or any of my arguments. So there is really nothing for me to do this round.

for the record, I am all for Science. The guys working on that Large Hadron Collider, power to the, I think there doing a great job.

but all that is like talking about apples and how well they are growing. Meanwhile the resolution is about oranges.

When you sent me a PM, I offered you 4 different debate resolution and said I would be willing to take on anyone of those with you. there are lots of false assertions you gave in you 'bigkids' book quotes, but I challenged to defend only 4, each 1 in there own independent debate so that they may each be addressed independently.

that's the beauty of the debates on this website, they give us the opportunity to thoroughly go through any given disagreement we may have without having to tackle the whole of the other mans entire belief structure.

Thus the resolution of this debate "an afterlife is no threat to an Atheist viewpoint'. By all means I can respect you continuing to believe as you do, but I just want to challenge to challenge this one wheel in your clock as an unnecessary one and as abrasive to your clock functions.

Evolution, Higgs Boson, the progress of Science, your sideways character attacks at particular deities some or most theist believe in...... you consider all of these things still true and yourself correct on them and maintain your Atheist view, while conceding an existence of an afterlife would threaten that view, but that's okay cause you can deny such exist.

And an afterlife would, if you wont listen to any of my cases but one then back up to take a second look at 4 at the least now that I have explained it more fully. most everything you have said has treated like the theist alternative is some being that kills children and commits genocide. Pantheism (which is not my faith, its very anti-christian-Judaism belief) does not have belief in a God that is any of those things at all. the Pantheist God does nothing at all in fact. It is just a universal consciousness of sorts.

your favorite hero's, those 'brilliant' scientist, many of them like Carl Sangan, and Stephen Hawkings are labeled as Pantheist right here on the Pantheist website http://www.pantheism.net...

Pantheist is if there ever was a faith that was one that can be called the church of science.

but it is still by definition not an 'Atheist' viewpoint, but technically a kind of 'theist' one. an afterlife for your consciousness changes you from a strict 'atheist' to a strict 'pantheist'.

this is not a belief that is based on some religious book they want you to believe in, but it defends its belief purely on theological, metaphysical, and philosophical arguments an grounds. and as soon as that 'higgs boson' particle is confirmed to be the particle they where anticipating to find (as of right now the status on that is 'its higgs like' so its probabllllly it but who knows....) the Pantheist will have scientific arguments as well, the arguments you have without thinking i all the way through, for atheism.

but once you think it through and realize the true implications of of science and the cases you have used from science, you will join Stephen Hawkins and Carl Sangan and become a Pantheist.

also I before ending this round I would like to give another perhaps simpler example of my thought experiment that for all I can tell you did not participate in with me and give your thoughts on my conclusion on my point in case #1 with it. perhaps this version of the thought experiment will strike you closer to home.

Peter Higgs makes predictions of a particle long before there was evidence to prove it, to know it exist.

does the discovery of said particle not validate Peter Higgs math? He guess about it first so now we turn to his works on the matter. likewise you confirm and afterlife, its hard to see any logic and not taking a serious look back at the people who guess about it before they should have known about it.
Debate Round No. 3
devient.genie

Pro

devient.genie forfeited this round.
Marauder

Con

I must say I'm not that suprised you forfietted, But it is poetically ironic that you who were quite demanding that the only terms you would debate me on was 2 day period long debate rounds when we were first agreeing on terms of debate challenge, and only after I drew the line I would not accapt unless I had 3 days, at the comprimise of debating 5 rounds with you, It was you who did not keep to the debate for all 5 rounds being given even more time than you wanted to have.


But perhaps this debate forfiet was on purpose because you do not want to shame all the intellegent athiest debaters on this website by showing them there are screaming examples of athiest like yourself that are every unintellegent thing they would like to specifically associate with religion and faith. But here you are to show that any person of faith who comes of as unintellegent in there methods of debate or anti-science and anti-thinking, this actually is not caused by there religion for here you are, keeping yourself as distanced as you can from religion and you are clearly anti-thinking and really kind of anti-science as well I think to other fellow athiest eyes I expect.

by the fact that you are anti-science I do not mean that you dont believe in something you or even most people commenly refer to as the 'sciences' of physics of all sorts, but that you do not show yourself to take side of science on the inherent properties of science itself that should uphold itself (and for that matter I believe it does uphold itself on its own well), instead you believe in all the athiest positions on science because you have faith in the many famous scientiest of today. Your entire mindset rest on grounds of the athority of other people who study quantum physics while you yourself do not really understand anything about it.

you have faith in the 'established fact' of the theory of evolution in the scientific community, but you unlike other athiest dont actually have a decent personal understanding of it yourself to do more than parrot out some commonly presented soundbite defenses of it. you here people of athority and who have minds that actually think like scientist (something you cant do) speak about the higgs boson partical in a short interview on CNN that had CNN's pittiful attempt to turn it into a religion vs science controversy as if a 'god partical' somehow disproves God. But you dont really know enough to explain why that is yourself so your best arguments you can form for it are 'learn about the higgs boson you will know'.

most athiest of intellegence I have actually debated with or just conversed with actualy laugh at the idea any of those things could disprove God. at best it can make God a less nessesary extended deeper explination of the begining of the universe. But everyone knows God is still a viable possible extension because the 'God theory' is a theory about 'why' things occured they way they have and it really does not matter the specifics of the 'how' are in order to answer the 'why'.

is evolution how God made the life on earth diverse? mabye
is the higgs boson partical how God worked his wonders to create the big bang to create the universe as we know it? mabye

if evolution worked as we understand it, why did it happen so? athiest answer: I dont know, it just did. thiest answer: Its how God choose to express himself in his creation.

if the higgs boson ignited the big bang, why did it happen that way? athiest answer: I dont know it just did does there need to be a reason? theiest answer: That how God wanted to express himself.


Its not hard for anyone who understand anything about what they are talking about to see why none of that stuff really has drastic impacts on thiesm. But since you dont have the ability to understand any of this, only someone of high athority can teach you that. Too bad your so selective though in who you would allow to have you learn such things from.

you call yourself a big kid, but you are actually as childish in the fields of thinking as they can ever come. unable to speak on terms with us adults, you can only find a real adults hand to cling onto and let them guide you and have faith they themselves will not get lost. and because you dont really understand or even take serious grown-up atempts at trying to understand anything thats going on, you can only try picking the adults you want to trust. the ones say things that scare you you stay away from, as you dont want to accapt the truth could be frightening, and the ones that say want you want to here, and hand you candy, these people you will take the hand of so they can lead you straite into the dark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you should choose to try and redeam yourself by posting next round something of worth, while I think its far too late to save a victory for yourself in this paticular debate, I ask you to please, just for my benifit personally respond to the things I have said about Panthiesm.

as I said I know you have difficulty understanding anything grown-ups talk about and are prone to here nothing from grown-ups who you do not already like or want to trust, but I would need to see how you react to being informed about Panthiesm so that I might be better equiped to compact my explanation, and argument from and for panthiesm in the future so that even a child can understand it. gauging your own reaction will be the best way to help me learn how to do that right now.

Debate Round No. 4
devient.genie

Pro

Save the youre not surprised routine. Nobody is forfeiting anything. Had no internet. Now back to big kids stuff :)

An afterlife is NO threat to an atheist viewpoint. Atheist is a made up word for someone who dosent believe the reason for everything can convict you of thought crimes.

You believe that the reason for everything throws temper tantrum floods when he doesnt get his way. You believe the reason for everything is concerned with who and when you get naked.

You believe the reason for everything uses human sacrifice to prove a point.

I dont believe that the reason for the beauty of life came from a petty bullY :)

"I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bulls A$$, but Id rather take the butchers word for it--Tommy Boy

"I can get a good look at evolution by going in a time machine, but I d rather take evolutionary biologists word for it"--Devient Genie

You believe in supernatural causes taught by wicked and disgusting scripture and I believe in emperical evidence and the intelligent minds of today.

You believe that all the stars and galaxies came form a sexist, and I believe they didnt :)

You think religion owns the right to an afterlife, and I say nothing owns the rights to an after life.

God cannot be proven or dispoven. An after life cannot be proven or disproven. However, that doesnt mean that proof of an afterlife proves a god

You are making assumptions based on NO EVIDENCE.

Nobody knows the reason for everything. Yet you claim the reason for everything demands obedience on bad evidence or will condemn you.

Delusional is the word best used to describe a human who believes they know the reason for everything.

Facts and evidence are evolutions fortay, just like facts and evidence are gravities fortay. Denying either theory is childish, arrogant and flat out ignorant.

There is proof of evolution EVERYWHERE EXCEPT CREATIONIST WEBSITES :)

WAKEUP 2:2--Cornell University is a very respectable institution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other scientific organizations, ALL AGREE with this, A Very brief guide for the curious and confused...

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu...

The Higgs Boson will lead to discovery of other dimensions. Even if it doesnt lead to those discoveries in no way means that the reason for everything is concerned with what food you eat :)

Pride is the only thing humans can swallow that will never give you indigestion. Swallow your pride and listen to your butcher and evolutionary biologists, and you will eat the best food and learn the best information :)

I dont need science to tell me that the probability of a sky daddy getting upset and demanding obedience is ridiculous, because intuition, intellect and instinct tell me that anything able to create the universe has to be more complex.

So if this creator is more complex than us, concern over petty human actions is absurd to a thinking person.

Its not a coincidence that the highest IQ's and smartest humans on the planet are Non religious.

Just because the religious morons are louder, more violent and intrusive, doesnt mean it will stay that way.

More and more humans are waking up. Although they dont possess the fire to mock and ridicule ignorant religious beliefs like me, that will change as well.

Smart people are smart because they are NOT dumb. Smart people tell me that evolution is real, delusional religious people tell me its NOT real. Why listen to a dentist explain heart surgery, just listen to a world renowned heart surgeon.

If I wanted to learn fairy tales and how to spin the truth, and talk in circles, I would consult a religious leader.

Logic and reason, intuition, intellect and instinct are my sources. Your lack of, intuition, intellect and instinct is NOT my problem, nor is your atrophy of those attributes evidence that the reason for everything came to earth thousands of years ago in the middle east demanding obedience.

Use the same logic you use towards Zeus and every other god and you will see that pride and ignorance are the only things standing in your way of being a big kid :)

Now lets get back to big kids stuff in TRUE SCRIPTURE :)

CaptainObvious 11:38--Either god made childbirth painful for women because eve ate the apple, or childbirth is naturally painful. Believing the latter is your logic and reason speaking, believing the former is what makes you delusional :)

BigKids 1:18--We have now emotionally evolved and can now effectively satisfy the emotions of love, hope, and faith, when we allow our intuition, intellect and instinct to finally stretch their legs :)

WAKEUP 11:3--Its called brainwashing for a reason, the right amount and it sometimes works, and tax exempt church leaders relish in the effects :)

BigKids 2:11--The Mandelbrot Set is one of many countless discoveries, that make it clear the beautiful, mysterious nature of life, and the reason for everything is NOT the smurfs, zeus, a virgin promiser or a pansy temper tantrum flood boy :)

TRICKS 6:19--Read and wholeheartedly believe in the teachings from a really old book that has been translated thousands of times, indoctrinate children with that belief that the reason for life, and all the stars and galaxies will send bad kids to hell and thinks its a good idea to stone someone who picks up sticks on Sunday in Numbers 15:32-36, hammer that into your childs brain and presto, you figured out how to abuse your childs youth without yelling or hitting them. Way to go :)

CaptainObvious 10:21--Science doesnt claim to know everything. Science cannot disprove or prove a slave supporting sexist concerned with circumcision is responsible for cells with a nucelus, the sub atomic world, and all the stars and galaxies. They can only list such a claim amongst the many statistical improbabilitites in this world. Fairies, hobgoblins, thor, jesus, smurfs, zeus, unicorns, and even leprechauns at the end of rainbows, are all in the same pool of statistical improbabilities :)

Ideas 4:3--Museums are a great weekend activity to truly bless your children with the truth instead of consistent poisoning of the pansy written in the holy binky that throws temper tantrums :)

WAKEUP 4:12--Religious leaders know that the corrosive effects logic and reason present to religious doctrine must be curtailed by mocking science as somehow incompetent :)

BigKids 12:9--We came from something, not nothing. Scientific understandings are as follows: When we say nothing, we are referring to space, empty space. When scientists remove the atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, everything, even gravity and radiation, everything is removed from this empty space, that empty space still has weight after removing everything. So the nothing, is really something that our 5 senses cannot apprehend. We can be lazy and say its a god, put some scripture behind it, get some followers, and infect governments with lunacy or we can roll up our sleeves and keep digging into this Higgs Boson and let kissing girls get married :)

DUH 7:15--Fortune cookies predict the future in the same way that prayer to a god changes it :)

BigKids 4:33--So here we are, humans with the conciousness to ask, how did we get here? We have scientific understandings that say we came about thru cumulative evolution by natural selection, and a religious understanding that the reason for everything, is also concerned with your sex life. :)

THOUGHTS 22:20--Science is led by people who use a process of thinking known as the scientific method. Religion is led by people who use a process of non thinking called faith :)

FourHorsemen 3:10--It has become almost a clich" to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics--Richard Dawkins
Marauder

Con

I once complained before in a past debate of mine that when a person forfiets on me, i get all the same joy out of debating with them as I do to debate with the fencepost in my backyard. and by all means I can carry on a debate just fine with a fencepost and still have some fun, it just wont debate back.

but you have not been like a debate with a fence post, but rather like me having a debate with a bird in the tree nearby the fencepost. you see while the fencepost will suffer my delusion we could be in a debate about whatever topic I talk about by not interupting to show me otherwise, the bird will not. It will go on chattering about lots of stuff that has nothing to do with what I was trying to debate with it about. also the bird does not the ability to understand much of anything, so its actually must be pretending that I am conversing with it about whatever frivolus thing it feels like ranting about with its short attention.


devient.genie, you might as well have chattered on about the early worms you ate for breakfast. the resolution was about the afterlife and its affects on your beliefs. in fact it had nearly nothing, it anything at all even, to do with my religous beliefs which I told you you in the begining I would not be arguing from. and it would make no sense to as this is about the athiest view. a rational athiest view anyway.

I made a case for how that athiest view would be altered to a panthiest view by accaptance of an afterlife, and you have not shown any signs of even reading more than one sentace of my post so its unclear if you even comprehend what a panthiest is. Its the only one I asked you to give special attention to in the form of a response because I had previously decided to take special intrest in you over the audience. But you could not do even that.

While we had planned on debating other resolutions with each other in the future, dont bother sending me another challenge, as its clear to debate with you is same as having not debated with you at all.....after the 2nd round anyway. I might consider a 2 round debate with you....mabye, we will see.

all of my points stands, my opponent has carried mostly on about irrelevant material, generally lacked decent conduct, forfieted a round and I think thats about it.

please vote all points CON! :)
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
genesis 7:1: The lORD then said to noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

So your saying noah was righteous, right?

job 2:3: Then the lORD said to satan, "Have you considered my servant job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears god and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."

So youre saying, job was righteous then

luke 1:6: Both of them were upright in the sight of god, observing all the lord"s commandments and regulations blamelessly.(zechariah and elizabeth )

Sounds to me like he is sying that zechariah and elizabeth were righteous.

james 5:16: Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

So now we learn that, some men are righteous, and their prayers are effective.

1 john 3:7: Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

So that makes sense, christians become righteous.

romans 3:10: As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

Dont pay attention to what I said before, I talk out of both sides of my mouth, and I monitor your sex life,what I really mean to say is, No one is righteous :)

Keep being a religious person, and keep asking yourself why you get made fun of, and before you know it, one of these days, you will die, as a brainless brainwashed twit :)
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
Its none of your business what is or isn't any of my business. especially when your are inherently wrong by definition on just what is my business when you added '...even when there yours..' haha. Point is none of the crap you just said made any since, and its still weird. People with integrity give there honest vote in the debate and pretty much move on as theirs nothing they can do about anyone else votes unless there scummy multi-accounters or are actually part of a collective votebombing group themselves.

If I dont understand your behavior actions in your comments but would like to the only way I can learn to better understand people like you is to inquire. If your not part of an organized votebombing group yourself, or a multi-accounter, what do you hope to accomplish? to intimidate and bully the votes of those whose votes you did not approve of? It's really your only remaining logical option if your not trying trying to do one of the first to things in your 'fight against votebombers'.

I just wonder if you run illegal accounts, or are a hypocrite, or are a thug. your definitely a thug, and from looking at your own joke of a RFV your definitely a hypocrite too.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
It's none of your business which debates I follow. Even when they're yours. The point is, those of us with integrity have to constantly watch and be on guard for those who have none. Especially when a voting period is on the order of half a year. That allows for plenty of time for shill voting and baseless votebombing.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
cartoon dinosaur, there is no crying in baseball. Walk It Off :)

One month aint sheet, I dont stop, I'll make a green light jealous :)

STUDS 5:14--Obviously a confident man has a greater chance of bringing a female to orgasm. A confident straight man is Not intimidated nor is he in any way threatened by gay men, therefore, if youre a homophobe, your girl nuts harder riding the Genie :)

Ouchies 11:6--Proliferating a religious fairy tale in front of the Genie is akin to jumping off a high dive platform into an industrial sized wood chipper :)
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
look at the weirdo following the votes of a month old crappy debate that's not one of there own.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Oh look a theist vote bomb.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Immature 11:58--Disgusting and shameful laws, allow corporal punishment in United States Schools in 21 states in 2013, makes sense though since proverbs clearly says, "Do not spare the rod....." and 44% of Americans believe earth is 6,000-10,000 yrs old, that is the equivalent of saying its 12 ft across the United States from coast to coast :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
You sure did a lot of whining in your debate. Did you forget agreeing to No rules?

If there are No rules, how can I error, and what would you have to whine about?

Shhhh,Shhh, shh...Go get your holy binky and go night night :)
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
your right there are no names for people who dont believe in leprechons or unicorns. there are no names for what you call the people who do believe in unicorns or lepreochons for that matter either. not sure why culture never felt the need to make names for them.

but there is a name for someone who believes there is no God of any sort, mabye because there are a variaty of names for the people who do believe there is a God of some kind, like 'Hindew' for example.

also if you read any of what I said in the debate or actually visited the Panthiest website, Panthiesm is not some other lable for 'athiest'. Its not an athiest at all. a Panthiest believes in a universal God. they do not believe in some sexist baby killer people read about in a book though. they do not believe God is a woman with 6 arms, or any other kind of 'anthropomorphic image'. God is basically just a universal mind to there beliefs.

denial that there are no terms for the belief that there is no God is denial of the existence of the dictionary. of course I can see 'denial' is a state you live quite comfortably in haha :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Calling a non believer an atheist or pantheist is equally ridiculous. There is NO NAME for aperson who does NOT believe leprechauns are at the end of rainbows with a pot of gold, so just because a theologian in the 18th century labeled humans who dont believe the reason for everything is a sexist means NOTHING :)

There are NO LABELS for humans that DO NOT believe horses with horns used to fly, there is NO LABEL for humans who DO NOT believe in horoscopes, so just because ignorance labels humans a name for Not BELIEVING the reason for everything uses human sacrifice to prove a point in the middle east thousands of years ago, doesnt prove anything.

Religious people are deluded and slave supporters are pathetic. Using outdated bronze aged writings to prove otherwise is nothing short of arrogant ignorance :)
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Nidhogg 4 years ago
Nidhogg
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB deadlykris
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering JimLoyd's votebomb.
Vote Placed by jimloyd 4 years ago
jimloyd
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: it poses a serious threat
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct tied there were no insults, spelling and grammar, tied, convincing arguments goes to pro, no one truely knows what comes after death. sources tied.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter FritzStammberger, Better arguments means the arguments point,not full seven points. I agree with him on the better arguments, so I'll give it to con.
Vote Placed by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: con presented the better argument and was simply correct.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: No rules = no reason for conduct points to be deducted. Thought I was tempted to deduct them from Con for whining. The rest is obvious, Con's arguments were way out there, without anything resembling fact or logic. Con also had no sources of note.
Vote Placed by yuiru 4 years ago
yuiru
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments in this debate sucked! Pro went on a tangent and con's arguments were flawed. Conduct goes to con for pro's forfeit.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
devient.genieMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. Too long for me to read right now, but I might revisit it since the voting period's so long.