Atheism and Theism are different.
Debate Rounds (4)
Atheism: a disbelief in the existence of deity. 
Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. 
Different: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. 
1. No trolling.
2. Vote as fair as possible.
No more rules. Good luck.
Here are the sources-
I want you all to note a few things about these definitions.
First, these definitions come from mixed sources. This suggests that rather than choosing a qualified source and pulling the definitions for this round from that, Pro picked out the exact terms he wanted for this round. As this is the case, you MUST hold him to these definitions as they are offered.
Second, The definition provided in-round for 'Different' is different from the definition on Dictionary,com (that was a confusing sentence.) This seems like an honest mistake, but the definition of different provided on Dictionary.com is as follows "not alike in character or quality; distinct in nature; dissimilar"
Finally, this action is a forfeiture of the 'Reliable Sources' voter. There are two warrants (a)Pro failed to actually provide these sources in-round which suggests he doesn't much care; and (b) Pro falsely cited the definition of different as a double posting of 'Theism'.
1. Criteria for winning-
a. As one would expect, in order for the Pro to win he must show that the resolution is a truth statement. Con cannot hope to win if the resolution is only probably true, he must show it to be absolutely true.
b. Con maintains presumption. This means that (i) We assume Pro hasn't met his burden prior to the beginning of the debate; (ii) If the debate looks like a wash, the vote goes Con; and (iii) The only thing Con has to do in order to win is to cast some level of doubt onto the Pro.
c. If Con chooses to make arguments as to why Atheism and Theism are not different, this does not nullify their presumption status. If anything it solidifies it further.
d. The inverse of different is similar. If at the end of the debate you find Atheism and Theism to be similar then the vote goes Con.
2. Athiesm and Theism are not different-
a. Pro cannot claim that because the definitions of the these two things are not the same that his burden has been met. Such a tactic would be abusive to the Con and make the resolution a truism. Voters are Fairness, Ground and Education.
b. The definition of 'different' states 'not alike in character or quality; distinct in nature; dissimilar'. Both Atheism and Theism have to do with a belief, therefore they are not different.
c. Specific instances of Atheism and Theism should be avoided in this round as the resolution asks a broad question. Were the Pro to attempt to compare Southern Baptists to Dawkins Athiests for instance, it would skew the overall discussion. It would also guarantee him a loss as all I would have to do to win is suggest a single instance of similarity and the vote will go Con.
3. Atheism and Theism are similar-
a. As suggested prior, both Atheism and Theism have to do with belief. Theism is a belief that there is a God or Gods, and Atheism is a belief that this is no God or Gods.
b. Pro may want to discuss Strong versus Weak Atheism, however even if he can show that one or the other is different from general theism, I have already shown why that would be insufficient for him to win the round.
Thank you, Con.
"First, these definitions come from mixed sources." One source was different.. but okay. And yes, hold those definitions.
"Finally, this action is a forfeiture of the 'Reliable Sources' voter. There are two warrants (a)Pro failed to actually provide these sources in-round which suggests he doesn't much care; and (b) Pro falsely cited the definition of different as a double posting of 'Theism'." Don't tell the audience how they should vote, it is up to them. Not to mention I provided it in the comments for different, so this is irrelevent. Not to mention in your arguments you have NO sources whatsoever. I will have sources in mine, however.
And you really don't choose the criteria, the audience chooses their own, but anyway.
"Pro cannot claim that because the definitions of the these two things are not the same that his burden has been met. Such a tactic would be abusive to the Con and make the resolution a truism."
Define- to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.) 
Meaning- what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import 
So, the meaning of Atheism and Theism actually is different, because the definitons are different, meaning that the meaning of both have to be different, which means they are actually different.
Con's arguments were relatively weak. He says that definitions can't express the meaning of something when it says it.
Con says that I have to prove that Atheism and Theism are different, although he needs to as well. The BOP is shared. So far, he hasn't which means he can't say that I lost, in fact, he hasn't done anything in the first round but contridict my definitions, and also tell the audience what to do.
Because Con's arguments were weak, and I am low on time, because I have to be somewhere and I do not wish to forfeit, I will not argue this round.
So unlike Pro I'm simply going to respond to my opponent's rebuttals. I'm not going to quote what I'm responding to line-by-line. Pro never actually refutes any of my arguments so they're all going to extend straight across your flow. I will touch on a few on-case issues at the end of this round, but as explicitly chooses not to even cover the arguments I make I feel like this round would be better used to cover framework.
First is the issue of setting a weighing mechanism -
a. Pro claims that I don't get to tell the voters how to vote, but that's the entire point of contest debate. You make arguments for or against a given proposition, and you warrant how those arguments should be interpreted by your judges. by If my opponent simply wanted to have an informal bull-session with no declared winners or losers, he could have gone to the forums or posted a thread on thread on reddit. Instead he chose to set up this debate, and when one engages in a debate in a forum such as this there is value in figuring out how votes should be allocated. I am very much-so in my rights to highlight an issue I'm winning and urge the vote on it.
b. One assumes that the person who opens a debate proposition holds the burden of proof. There is nothing in Pro's round one to suggest that the burden of proof is shared, so to that extent the entire burden rests on him. There are multiple warrants as to why this is true (i) is that debates of this nature function as a truth-testing paradigm, if we assume the resolution is true before any argumentation happens, then debate on it's legitimacy can't happen. (i) is presumption, that existing structures continue to exist unless change can be warranted. Pro gets the privilege of framing the round, he can't claim that privilege and also hedge out on his responsibilities there. It would be like a person throwing a party and then getting angry when their guests arrive without any food or games. Those are the host's responsibility unless explicitly noted otherwise prior to the beginning of the round.
Second is the issue of fairness-
a. Despite quoting my argument on truisms directly, Con completely glosses over the warrant here. If all he had to do in order to win the debate was show that these two words had different definitions, then there would be no reason to have this debate whatsoever. The resolution would be a truism and meaningful discussion could never occur.
b. Semantics kill debate. They just do. I understand the utility of offering some cursory definitions, but Pro has already done that. There is no reason to debate the dictionary. Words do indeed have meaning, but they also have nuances that extend beyond their semantic meanings. In order for this to be a debate, I have to have ground to argue, and if you reject my truism warning in favor of Con's 'they have different definitions so they're different' then there's no ground for me to argue.
On-case I just want to note a few things.
1. It was pro's decision to have this debate, and he set a 3 day time limit for each round. If he wasn't able to allot time to post even a single argument or rebuttal then that is his own fault. He can pass this round if wants to, I don understand that sometimes things just aren't workable time-wise, but if this continues into further rounds then that needs to be reflected in your vote.
2. Claiming without warrant that my arguments are weak so he's not going to refute them is a bad move. Unless Pro responds to my arguments their very existence on your flow is a reason to default Con every single time.
3. I spend a good deal of time on framework in round one, but I also make three different argument for why the ballot needs to go Con. Pro can't just ignore these, he has to refute them. At the point he doesn't he loses before any debate can actually happen.
I need to forfeit this round, take off conduct, audience. Winter Storm Marcus is effecting my power, I'm on my laptop, and it is almost dead. I can't charge anything, my power is off. I wish the best of luck and hope my power gets on my tomorrow.
Whataburger forfeited this round.
IcySound forfeited this round.
Whataburger forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.