The Instigator
Skyangel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zaradi
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Are Atheists fools?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
Zaradi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,557 times Debate No: 45165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (51)
Votes (6)

 

Skyangel

Pro

Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
An Atheist is a person who claims there is no God.

Do you think Atheists are fools? I will be arguing that they are fools and my opponent will argue that they are not fools . Who's up for the challenge? Round 1 is for acceptance only.
Zaradi

Con

I accept. I'll define some terms since the Pro didn't do so.

Fool: a person who lacks good sense or judgment : a stupid or silly person
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Skyangel

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge.
The merriam -webster definition is not the whole definition of fool
The oxford dictionary gives extra definitions
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

" archaic,
a person who is duped or imposed on:
he is the fool of circumstances

" historical
a jester or clown, especially one retained in a royal or noble household.

I will also take the historical definitions into account since the bible is a very old book.

A fool is a jester or a clown who tricks others and can also trick themselves.
A fool is also a person who acts or speaks unwisely, lacks good sense or judgment : a stupid or silly person.

Anyone who claims there is no God must be joking or kidding themselves due to the following reasons.
The word God can be defined in many ways.
Whether God exists or not depends on how you define and perceive the word.

Mythical gods obviously do exist in myths. The stories themselves are proof that these myths exist. To deny that myths exist and mythical characters exist in them is foolish. It lacks good judgement and is basically just silly.

Imaginary gods and other characters obviously exist in the imaginations of people who imagine they exist. To deny that people imagine invisible characters exist is foolish because it does not take into account the things which exist in peoples imaginations.

The word God can be defined as Love. Love exists as an attitude and a feeling in humans. To deny that is also foolish and lacking good sense and judgment.

The word God can be defined as life itself. To deny life exists is as foolish as denying your own existence.

If an object or a concept does not exist, no person will be aware of it. They will not label or name it due to not being aware of it.

A non existing thing has no identity. No person on the planet will ever be aware of it because it does not exist. Therefore no one would be able to argue about it because it does not exist and there would be no doubt about its non existence. There would not even be discussion about it due to no person being aware of it.

To claim that something which has been named and defined, does not exist is foolishness.

Atheists are fools who are only kidding themselves. They have not thought the whole thing through in a logical manner. Any logical thinking person can see and observe that God does exist in this world as a concept, as an invisible friend in the imaginations of all who love that invisible friend and as life and love itself to those who define it that way.

Atheists would appear smarter and wiser if they admitted that imaginary characters do exist in the imaginations of those who create them even if the invisible characters do not exist in reality.

To say there is no God is as silly as saying there is no air just because you cannot see it. It is as silly as saying there is no love just because you have never experienced love.

Only a fool will deny that the invisible friends of children exist in their imaginations.

I look forward to my opposition explaining why it is not silly to deny that myths exist in this world and in the imaginations of people.
Zaradi

Con

The semantics are strong in this one.

Fair enough. If he wants to play hard ball I'm down. Start with his mythology example.

First, my opponent is trying to claim that being referenced = existence. This claim is entirely unwarranted. If I write a short story about an invisible pink unicorn, that doesn't provide warrant for the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. The words "invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" would exist, but the entity known as an invisible pink unicorn would hardly be proven to exist by my mentioning it.
Second, myths in and of themselves aren't actually truths, rather parables used by ancient societies to explain natural phenomenons. If anything you can turn this in my favor by saying that since Atheists are disbelieving of these myths that they are being more rational for not believing in things that aren't true to begin with.
Third, even if we discount the whole history of why myths were created (to explain natural phenomenons that they had no explanation for at the moment), the stories existing does not confirm them as true. I can invent a story about how I jumped to Saturn and then fell back down to earth all before dinner, but that doesn't make the story true.

Then, move to his imagination example:

First, my opponent would be the best friend of a scitzhophrenic. If it exists in your imagination, it exists in reality via your imagination. However, just like the myth example, this jump is entirely unwarranted. If I imagine an invisible pink unicorn, that doesn't make an invisible pink unicorn suddenly exist in reality.
Second, I would hardly call imagination existing within reality. Hell, I'd say it's a stretch to say that imagination exists. Hardly something that my opponent has warranted.

In short, what my opponent is doing is pretty semantical and abusive. He's taking the literal wording of what an atheist is, a person who does not believe in the existence of god(s), and taking it and applying it to the incorrect context. Whether or not concepts or possibilities or explanations of God or god(s) is outside the scope of actual atheism, which is saying that a person doesn't believe in a god existing within reality, not outside of it. My opponent has yet to prove that atheists are fools, but rather a misinterpreted and misrepresented form of an atheist is a fool. In short, he's fail to uphold his BOP.

Just so I can have an argument outside of refutations against his arguments, it's actually empirically proven that atheists aren't really fools since they're, on average, smarter than their religious counterparts. 63 scientific studies spanning nearly a century confirm.

http://www.independent.co.uk...

So the round breaks down really easily:

1. My opponent isn't actually trying to debate the resolution. He's trying to semantics his way to a free win. Drop conduct at least for trying to be unfair and cheat his way to a win rather than engage in actual intellectual discourse.
2. My opponent is failing to uphold his BOP of proving that atheists are fools. I'll concede that his misrepresented version of what an atheist is would be foolish, but that version of atheism isn't even atheism.
3. Even if you're buying his version of atheism as valid, I'm showing empirically how atheists aren't foolish through numerous studies. That outweighs analytical arguments since you can make a sound analytical argument for anything, regardless of what you're arguing for is actually true or not. Empirics show us what is actually true in reality, thus carries more weight in determining truth.

Debate Round No. 2
Skyangel

Pro

If anyone writes a short story about any imaginary character, it proves that character exits in their imagination. By writing the story they created a myth and made it visible to the world through the words in the story book. so others can also imagine the character,
If a story about a pink unicorn exist, the pink unicorn obviously exists in story. If it does not exist in the story, where does it exist? The story warrants its own existence and the existence of all the words it.
My opposition obviously agrees that mythic characters exist in the fictional books which exist.

A myth does not need to be true for it to exist. Lies and deceptions also exist in this world. Just because something is not true does not mean it does not exist. Only a fool would claim that lies and liars do not exist in this world. Fictional stories and fictional characters in the fictional realm. To claim they do not exist at all is the same as denying the fictional realm as a whole exists at all. That is very foolish. All rational thinking people accept that myths exist and they even tell those myths to their children for the fun of it and pretend the myths are real. Pretence exists in this world.

Atheists are indeed disbelieving of the myths as any rational person would be but to claim the myth does not exist is still totally silly and foolish. Myths do exist even if they don't exist in reality.

My opponent is arguing that just because mythical characters are figments of the imagination, they do not exist at all . That is illogical thinking and very silly to any person who understands that the fantasy realm also exists in the reality of this world. All fictional books are proof of that fact.
Fictional characters do not only exists in peoples imaginations. They also exist in the words in books and as characters in movies. The fact is that humans make these fictions appear to be real by creating real visible and tangible objects which represent the fictional characters.

If my opposition created a carving of a pink unicorn and told everyone that the invisible pink unicorn would look like the carving if it could be seen, they have created a real object which can be seen and touched. If they decided to worship that pink unicorn and call it God, then their God would be the pink unicorn. In effect they have created a real idol out of visible materials and they worship that idol. Religions have done the same thing. They have kinds of carvings which they reverence in their religious places of worship. If they call any of them God, then their God is the object they worship. Anyone can see what it looks like by paying attention to what their idol looks like.

My opposition claims that it's a stretch to say that imagination exists. Does that include his own imagination? If human imagination does not exist in reality, where exactly does it exist? Does my opponent have no imagination in reality?

A person may not believe in the existence of god(s), but to deny they exist as idols in this world is very foolish. Anyone can go into a Catholic church for example and observe all the idols in the church. Do those idols not exist? If you can see a carving, a painting,a work of art, does it exist in reality? Of course it does.

If any concepts of God or god(s) are outside the scope of actual atheism, then atheists obviously don't have much imagination or understanding of very real concepts.
A person who cannot understand a concept or believes a concept does not exists in reality must lack understanding. Any person who lacks understanding needs to be educated.

Fictional stories and idols exist within reality as well as in the fictional realm itself simply because fiction exists within reality. It is foolish to believe it does not. All fictional things in reality are proof that fiction exists in reality. Eg fictional books in the library, movies, plays, people pretending to be different characters etc. To deny those things exist in reality is quite foolish. The character God is simply one of those characters which has been crated by humans. Some decide to carve a stature of a man hanging on a cross and label that object God. Does that mean God does not exist? If you can see and touch a carving, does it exist? If someone labels it God, does that mean God does not exist just because the word God somehow makes it nonexistent? Only a fool would claim such a thing. Rational thinking people understand that when people create idols and call their idols God that their object of worship does exist as a work of art.

My opponents argument that atheists aren't really fools since they're, on average, smarter than their religious counterparts does not prove they are not fools when it comes to the declaration that there is no God. All they need to do is look at the idols in religious institutions and understand that the word idol is synonymous with God. Idols exist in this world.

My opponent accuses me of cheating. I say all is fair and love and war and debates.

God is an object of worship. In effect a very real idol created by mankind.
Any person who denies that idols/gods exist and are objects of worship are very silly and foolish to make such ridiculous statements no matter how intelligent they may be in other areas of life.
Idols can be observed in many churches and only a fool would lack in the understanding that many people worship their idols even if their worship is in vain. The fact is their man made creations which they call God do exist in reality as a form of art.
Zaradi

Con

Whelp. I'm running out of things to talk about.

My opponent continues asserting that if it exists within myth or imagination that it exists within reality via the myth/imagination. He has yet to provide a warrant for that. What he's essentially doing is trying draw a false link chain by saying that "OH HEY THIS STORY MENTIONS GOD IS HE REAL!?" to proclaiming that said God exists within reality. This is quite the jump to make, and requires quite the sum of proof to back up, proof my opponent never provides. Don't let him get away with this, force him to prove why if it exists within a story, it exists in reality OUTSIDE of the story. If he can do that he might actually have an argument. But until then he hasn't proved anything relating to atheism or atheists.

My opponent then makes the claim that idol worshiping is a valid proof. Let's go there:

First, it's quite the unwarranted stretch to claim that a carving or statue is God. My opponent never warrants this claim at all, just seems to assert that these idols are gods.
Second, valuing something as godlike does not actually make it god. To me my left pinkie could be a god and I may revere it as such in the form of idolatry but that doesn't actually make my left pinkie a god.
Third, it's actually impossible for simply considering something to be god and worshiping as such to make it God. To assume that it did would assume that your worshiping it trascribes godlike qualities to it (i.e. omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.). Sadly enough I can't worship my desk into writing all my papers for me.

The problem being that atheists believe that God(s) doesn't exist within reality. Atheists couldn't give two f*cks about whether or not a god exists within some kind of story or within your imagination. All the power to you then. But if it doesn't exist within reality, it doesn't contradict their beliefs. Therefore, arguing anything than a god existing within reality, not within a myth/imagination and not in reality, doesn't say anything about atheistic beliefs. This pretty much means that my opponents past two rounds have been pretty much outside of the scope of the actual debate. ^_^

Fictional stories fall under the same line of logic as myths. If it exists within some story, and that story exists within reality, then that person/god must exists within reality. Slap the same responses I put against myths that my opponent never touched and move on.

Funny point here is that my opponent never denies any charges of just trying to play semantics for a free win, rather admits to doing it by saying "I say all is fair and love and war and debates.". He concedes to just trying to play semantics. If I felt like running theory to make this a lost debate for him because of it I could, but just drop conduct. This isn't worth the effort to write a theory shell.

Now, for the empirics argument I made. My opponent makes the claim that just because they're smarter, doesn't make them not fools and you can look to the fact that they don't call idols gods as proof. This is assuming all the same unwarranted assumptions that I already addressed earlier in this round so that refutation is dropped. Extend out my argument saying that non-believers (a.k.a. atheists) are, on average, smarter than their religious counterparts. This has been empirically proven throughout over 60 separate studies done over the course of a century. And you're going to give more weigh to empirical evidence rather than analytical evidence since empirics are more indicative of what is actually true within reality, which is the primary focus of this debate.

This debate breaks down really simply:

1. My opponent concedes to just trying to semantics his way into a win. None of his arguments actually address the actual resolution, but are rather just vast misrepresentations of either atheistic beliefs or what a God is.
2. All of his arguments have still been responded to anyway. He doesn't have any offense that hasn't been refuted to extend out.
3. I'm providing you a clear extension and analysis for why my empirical evidence will outweigh his analytical arguments. This means you prefer my argument over his even if you do buy his argument.
Debate Round No. 3
Skyangel

Pro

If you are running out of things to talk about. I'll make it easy for you and you can just answer questions for the next round.

Do myths exist in reality in the form of real stories? If you say they do not, please explain why you think they do not and provide proof that no mythical stories or characters exist in this world.

Does imagination exist in reality?
Do you have a real imagination?

Whether God exists within reality or not depends entirely on how people define the word God. It obviously has far more than one definition.

If a mythical character exists within a story, it does not need to exists in reality OUTSIDE of the story in order to exist.
To claim "There is no God" is the same as denying myths exist at all in this world.
It all comes down to whether you believe mythical stories exist or not and mythical characters exist or not.
To "exist" does not mean they need to be real.
Santa exists in this world but is not real. It is a concept which exists. God is also a concept which exists.
To deny these concepts exist is quite foolish and very silly. Don't you agree?

The proof that myths and fairy tales exist is in all fictional books you can find in the world. There is plenty of literature to prove it exists.

The oxford dictionary defines God as ...

2.1 an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god:
wooden gods from the Congo

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

According to that definition any object of worship symbolizing a god is god. Anyone with common sense can see those images exist in the reality of this world. All they need to do is look in a Catholic church.

Atheist might mean they do not believe that God exists in reality but as long as they claim there is no God at all, they remain fools because anyone can see that objects of worship exist in this world.

Atheists might not care about whether or not a god exists within some kind of story or within human imagination but the fact is they do exist in those places.
They need to take a closer look at what does exist in this world and understand that myths exist even if they are not real.

Any charges of just trying to play semantics for a free win, is merely a matter of perception. My opponent appears to be upset that I included the existence of myths, fables and fairy tales in this world as things which exist.

A fool claims" there is no God". An atheist claims "there is no God" when clearly there are many gods which are worshiped in this world.

It appears my poor opponent is trying hard to give reasons why he should win the argument instead of proving why an Atheist is not a fool to claim there is no god when clearly gods do exist in the form of idols.

People do not go to churches to worship nothing. They worship what they have labelled God regardless of who thinks they are worshiping myths and who doesn't. The object of their worship obviously exists in whatever form they have decided to portray it. Only a fool would claim it does not exist.

Do you understand that people call their objects of worship God?
Do those objects of worship exist in the form of idols carved of wood or stone or made of silver and gold and hung around their necks?

That should make the next round easy for my opponent to answer. ;-)
Zaradi

Con

Whelp, my opponent finally said something correct: this round is remarkably easy.

Let's answer your questions first:

"Do myths exist in reality in the form of real stories."

The stories exist. Whether or not they are "Real" stories is entirely debatable. If you wanna defend the Greek Pantheon as valid and completely indicative of what is true in reality, then be my guest. You've yet to do so thus far, though. The stories in and of themselves exist. That does not make the stories true. You're not doing anything to prove that they are true. You are simply saying "There are stories, therefore they are right, therefore atheism is dumb". That's like saying "There are stories about Superman, therefore I am Superman".

"Does imagination exist within reality."

No. Imagination exists within the conceptual parts of our thought. These conceptual parts of our brain are entirely separate from reality. To say that they were interconnected (i.e. imagination exists within reality) would be the same as saying that if we imagine it, then it also exists not only within our imagination, but also within reality. This is entirely illogical, as me imagining an invisible pink unicorn does not make an invisible pink unicorn spontaneously appear into existence.

And I'm not even going to address that last question until you fix the contradiction between "real" and "imagination".

Now move onto his definition of God:

First, he skips two far more accurate, applicable, and more widely agreed upon definitions to arrive at his enormously skewed definition. It's mentioned as the third most accurate definition by Merriam Webster (http://tinyurl.com...), and isn't mentioned at all by dictionary.com (http://tinyurl.com...) or by Google (http://tinyurl.com...). Don't buy his skewed definition.
Second, this logically makes no sense when drawn out to his conclusion. If anything we worship as a god is, therefore, god, then if everyone is worship then everyone is God. And everyone being God makes no logical sense because if we're all gods with god-like qualities, then none of us can actually have god-like qualities because there would be nothing distinguishing one of us as supreme over all the rest. I would be just as strong as the guy next to me, who would be just as strong as the guy next to him, and as the guy next to that guy, and as the guy next to that guy, etc. We can't all be gods. Since that is what his definition suggests, you either a) reject the definition, and his point fails or b) negate the resolution right here. Atheists are ones who are casting doubt on pro's concept of god, and if pro's concept of god is illogical than we are hardly fools for saying that it isn't true.

And yeah. I am slightly upset that we're not having an actual debate but rather you're wasting my time with twistings of words in stupidly foolish ways. You know full well that your definition of God isn't actually what "god" is, yet you're using it because you see it as an argument that you can try to use to win the round (even though it's a really bad argument and it will hardly win you a pat on the back, much less the debate). Not only is this just intellectually dishonest, but it's a waste of my time.

And yeah I am giving reasons why I should win the arguments. It just so happens that it also proves how atheists are not fools, since it also disproves your arguments :) I just love it when everything works together so nicely.

Do you understand that I talk to my pillow at night and call it the names of attractive female supermodels in the vain hope that my wet dreams may actually become reality? That hardly makes my pillow Kate Upton, though. If only, though...

But back to relevancy.

My opponent has dropped all mention of arguments or refutation made in the past round. Extend them out as concessions. This also refutes his idol concept, since I addressed that in the last round and he never responded to my objections. Don't let him do it in the next, and final, round since he already had his chance and missed it.

My opponent also fails to respond to my argument about how multiple studies over the course of a century have determined that atheists are actually, on average, smarter than their religious counterparts. This is empirical evidence that atheists are not fools, and he just completely drops it in this round. Extend it out. Don't let him respond to it in the last round because he already had his chance to make refutations to it and he didn't choose to, which is his fault entirely. And, extend out the analysis I give explaining how empirical arguments will outweigh analytical arguments due to the fact that empirics are more conducive to reality, and therefore more likely to be true. This means that since he's dropped this argument, and I'm extending it out, and it outweighs all the other arguments in this round (since every other argument has been entirely analytical), then literally the only place to vote is off of my argument, which is a negative vote.

And, before we go to the final round, don't let my opponent make any kind of new arguments or refutations that haven't already been made in previous rounds. To do so would be highly abusive of the last round which gives me limited time to respond to these kinds of refutations, which is highly unfair.

Wait, he's running semantics. He doesn't care about fairness. Oh well. Voters hold him to this and penalize him if he does so.
Debate Round No. 4
Skyangel

Pro

In conclusion ...

* My opponent admitted that myths exist.

* Fiction does not need to be true in order to exist.

* If humans decide to create the things which they imagine and make them visible to others in the form of literature, music, sculpture or any form of art, that art form exists in reality since it becomes visible and tangible to all.

* The word God has been defined in many ways through dictionaries and religion. Life is only one definition of the word God. Using that definition, anyone who claims there is no God is basically claiming there is no life. That is a very silly thing to do since we can all see life exists.

* When Atheists claim there is no God they are only using one definition of God and their view is very narrow minded. They are not looking at the bigger picture.

* God exists in the world as a concept, as a story, as an art form, as love and life itself.

* To deny the existence of God is to deny all the above exists. Only a fool would deny such a thing.

* Claiming that a myth is not true does not make it vanish into nonexistence.

* Studies regarding peoples intelligence does not prove intelligent people don't make fools of themselves. Intelligent people can still make fools of themselves when they have narrow minded views and do not take the whole picture into consideration.

* I have proved that Atheists are fools for claiming "There is no God" simply because the word God has more than one definition and a concept, a myth, a fiction does not need to be true, visible or tangible to exist in this world.

I rest my case.
Zaradi

Con

I doubt I'll break 2k characters.

- I've already proved how mythology is insufficient to prove that atheists are fools.
- I've also actually proven how atheists disbelieving in mythology actually makes them not fools, which my opponent never responded to.
- I've already touched on how works of fiction is insufficient to prove that atheists are fools. He never responded to it.
- I've already refuted the entire concept of imagination -> existence. He never responded to that, either.
- I've already refuted my opponent's choice in definition as being a) hardly the most accurate, b) not applying to atheistic beliefs, and therefore outside the scope of the resolution, and c) hardly applying to the God debate at all.
- I've refuted my opponent's concept of idols. He doesn't even bring it up in his final round.

So my opponent literally doesn't have a single argument left standing. Even if you wanted to, there's not a place you can vote for him. But, to sweeten the deal:

- I'm extending out empirical evidence for how atheists aren't fools. He (finally) responds to it by saying that they can still be fools. Not only is this non-responsive to the actual warrants coming out of the evidence (his response is the equivalent of plugging your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"), but also prefer my argument anyway because it's talking about the average case, not nit-picking to take extreme cases or cherry-pick examples, which is more indicative of reality and what is actually true. He never responded to the analysis I give that says you should prefer empirical evidence over analytical evidence anyway, so you'll be voting off of that anyway.

Not to mention he came up with this argument in the final round, which is highly unfair.

Wait that's right. He's running semantics. He doesn't give a f*ck about fairness.

So to quickly summarize:

1. I've responded to all of his arguments, and virtually all of my refutations go dropped.
2. I'm actually proving through the mythology example on how disbelief in mythology is actually rational, and therefore proof that atheists are actually not fools. He never responds to this.
3. I'm extending off empirical evidence through over a century of study that shows that atheists are not fools. Empirical evidence is more indicative of the truth of what is true in reality. This goes uncontested throughout the vast majority of the round.

Damm. Went over 2k characters.
Debate Round No. 5
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Anyway, my take on it is, if you claim that things that only exists in someones head don't exist, then what are memories? If memories don't exists, how can we remember them? So if GOD ( hallowed be thy name) exists in my head, even if i'm dillusional, the facts are clear, GOD (thy kingdom come) exists. And anyone who believes otherwise obviously can't think, because where do thoughts exist?
Posted by Furyan5 2 years ago
Furyan5
Well I just wanna know how something invisible can be pink? Lol. Is that something like a round square? And if its invisible, how do you know its a unicorn? Maybe its GOD?
Posted by tcpanter 3 years ago
tcpanter
Wow. Pro had a bizarre angle in that debate. Atheism doesnt say anything about not beleiving that there are stories about Gods...
Posted by bubbatheclown 3 years ago
bubbatheclown
To all DDO Users: I have created a 2020 Mock Presidential Election, located in the Debate.Org forum. If you wish to participate as a candidate, sign up. If you do not wish to participate, feel free to watch and vote anyway.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
It is not good and rational thing to insult whole group based on their ideology or religion or the ideas they follow. And I would recommend Pro to read it (Psalms 14) in context, it is not just talking about who say there is no god, but also people who are corrupt, whose deeds are while, and don't do any good. (I am not Christian, by the way, and not defending OT)
Following any idea, ideology, religion which has no rational basis is foolishness. And no one would disagree with it (may be except Skyangel).
Posted by flyingavocadosofdoom 3 years ago
flyingavocadosofdoom
sometimes intelligence leads to an ego causing someone to be foolish.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
What he's saying is, you can have knowledge but still not be logical or wise. Though generally the people who are logical are often intelligent.
Posted by swalter 3 years ago
swalter
Skyangel : Atheists reject the claims of god. We don't make the assertion that there are no gods. So your premise is flawed from the start. You did not make a compelling argument. I would say the 'fool' is the one who's dedicated 60+ years of his life to a lie.
Posted by jrelkins 3 years ago
jrelkins
One would think that the more intelligent one is they would make wiser decisions. Too many intelligent people making foolish decisions however seems defeat that notion. To be unpolitical there are a lot of really smart prison serving time in prison as well from making really foolish decisions. Ask Enron's CEO.

One would also think that an intelligent person could debate an issue without using profanity but I guess that doesn't work either.

So directly answer your question. No, being intelligent doesn't seem to increase the chances of someone being foolish nor does it seem to decrease the chances of someone being foolish. You and I may agree that it ought to but reality is that it does not. Intelligence is not the issue. Intelligence doesn't equal wisdom. What persons do with their intelligence reveals wisdom or foolishness.
Posted by Zaradi 3 years ago
Zaradi
Wow, that's actually a really nice way of using political bullsh*t to dodge a question. I'll have to make a note of that.

Yes or no, are you denying that more intelligence decreases the chances of someone being a fool?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by annanicole 3 years ago
annanicole
SkyangelZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire position was based upon word games, which Con correctly pointed out - as well he should: he has played them plenty of times himself. Nonetheless, attempting to prove a point by hauling out nothing but various definitions of "fool" is a little dishonest.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
SkyangelZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro started the debate by using the bible, implying the biblical god. However, Pro then went on a semantics trip that William Lane Craig would have been proud of, while ignoring all Cons arguments. Con made logical rebuttals to arguments he did not need to often and went beyond the scope of the debate and as such argument points go to Con. Regarding conduct, I not awarding as while Pro misled, Con did use profanity. S&G is tied, while sources go to Con as Pros sources were misleading.
Vote Placed by PeriodicPatriot 3 years ago
PeriodicPatriot
SkyangelZaradiTied
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: Are you kidding me? What freaking cares about the definition (especially if it's long or not. At least you have a freaking damn definition). Dishonest arguments are why con wins a point.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
SkyangelZaradiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: 3 words: Semantic Rampage.
Vote Placed by Orangatang 3 years ago
Orangatang
SkyangelZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Skyangel uses intellectually dishonest semantic tactics throughout the debate which fail to prove anything as Zaradi correctly pointed out. Zaradi had clearly responded and defeated all of Skyangel's arguments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
SkyangelZaradiTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro continues to attempt to make dishonest semantical arguments. He's done this before, and it's as intellectually dishonest as the previous time he did it. Hence, conduct to Con, and arguments to Con, since the semantical argument holds no weight here, as Con demonstrated, as the context of the statement makes clear its intent, which is not as Pro attempted to claim. For Pro's sake: Stop this. It's ridiculous. No one denies that the idea of God exists. There are those who argue it does not reflect and actual being, existent in reality, which has the attributes listed as being "God's". That's the context of the original quote, and this continued attempt to argue a very poorly constructed semantical argument is patently absurd. S&G and Sources were equal enough, I suppose. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.