The Instigator
Magic8000
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points
The Contender
Dale.G
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Atheism has Proof, Evidence, Facts, Validity and Truth that it's Accurate, True and Correct.

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 9 votes the winner is...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,462 times Debate No: 29266
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (9)

 

Magic8000

Pro

Greetings FBI agent Dale.

Resolution: Atheism has Proof, Evidence, Facts, Validity and Truth that it's Accurate, True and Correct.

Rules:
No Forfeits
No Fallacies
No Insults
72 Hours to Post
8000 Characters Max
1 Week Voting Period
Round 1 is for acceptance only
Dale.G

Con

OK First of all I would like to thank Magic8000 for wanting to debate me, here we go I would Like to ask Magic8000 what Proof and Evidence do you have that say's Atheism is Accurate and Correct.
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Pro

Argument 1: Lack of Evidence for Theism.

Atheism can be a few things, the rejection of Theism or the lack of belief/conviction in a god(s). Both of these can be proven by the lack of religions fulfilling their burden of proof. If skeptics don’t find any evidence for theism, then atheism is the default position until theism can properly prove itself.

If someone claimed unicorns exists and if they can’t prove it, then “aunicornism” is justified.

Since religion has yet to met their BOP, atheism is justified.

Argument 2: Non Cognitivism

The Argument from Non Cognitivism is formed like this,

1. There are three attributes of existants which concern us particularly, these being:
A. Primary Attributes
B. Secondary Attributes
C. Relational Attributes.
2. B as well as C are dependent upon and must be related to an existant’s A in order to be considered meaningful.
3. The term “God” lacks a positively identified A.
4. Because of this, the term “God” holds no justified A, B, or C. (From 2)
5. However, an attribute-less term (a term lacking A, B, and C) is meaningless.
6. Therefore, the term “God” is meaningless. (From 3, 4, 5)
7. Therefore, the god-concept is invalid.

A typical response is that God is “All-loving, all-powerful, all knowing, perfect, just, ect”.

These are only attributes of “B” not “A”. I will quote from the strongatheism.net’s article on this argument to demonstrate why the above attributes don’t answer this argument

“It is important to note that the question is particularly, “What is God?”, rather than inquiring as to the capacities, actions, or character traits of such a thing. The inquiry posed by the ANC(Argument from Non Cognitvism) demands a comprehensive presentation of the identity of whatever that is which the theist is asserting. This is necessary for two reasons:

Firstly, if one were to say that, “The dress is beautiful”, and I were to respond by asking, “What is a dress?”—it would hardly be a help to me for that individual to respond, “It has a nice design and is comfortable”. While it being comfortable and being designed attractively may play a factor in its being called beautiful, my question has not been answered. I have not asked for further secondary characteristics of the dress, but rather what the dress is itself that it has the capacity to be called “beautiful”.

Similarly, when the Strong-Atheist inquires, “What is God?”—the theist’s reiterating of the various capacities and secondary character traits found in scriptural texts and elsewhere is insufficient. The question inquires specifically into what “God” is, rather than what “God” can do, likes to do, or has done.”

Argument 3: Argument from Perfection.

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.
4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.
5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).
6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

Argument 4: Argument from Reason

1.God is omniscient.
2.God is omnipotent.
3.God wants everyone to believe in him.
4.Since God is omniscient, he knows exactly what demonstration would convince any given person that he exists.
5.Since God is omnipotent, he is capable of performing this demonstration.
6.Since God wants everyone to believe in him, he wants to perform this demonstration.
7.However, atheists manifestly exist.
8.Therefore, the god described by the first three conditions does not exist.

Also formed

1.God either does or does not reveal his existence
2.If God does not reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief
3.If God does reveal his existence, there is no reason for belief, only knowledge
4.The problem of vagueness indicates that there is an unclear ground for belief.

Argument 4a: Application to Bay’s Theorem.

We can apply any one of these arguments to Bay’s Theorem, which is a Theorem on calculating the probability of something. We will use number 4.

For a better understanding of Bay’s, I recommend reading the Wikipedia article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Bay’s starts with taking the probability of hypothesis being true based solely on the background knowledge and nothing else. We will assume the background knowledge of God existing is 50/50. Now we must get the probability based on evidence. We have a lot of experience with beings that have these characteristics of wanting to give evidence, having the power to do so and actually doing it. They’re called humans. If we have 1000 humans who want to give evidence they exist and have the power to do so, there wouldn’t be any reason at all for someone not to give that evidence. Let’s be really generous and say there exists 50 good, unique, and valid reasons for not giving that evidence. This would mean our probability for God’s existence would be 50 or 0.5 and against would be 950. Our equation with answers is below.

0.5*0.5 = 0.25
P= -----------------
0.5* 950 = 475 + 0.25= 475.25
0.25/475.25 = 0.0005

Meaning there’s only a 0.0005% chance God exists.

Conclusion for 4a.
Theism is extremely improbable.

The resolution is affirmed.


Dale.G

Con

wow Pro did not really answer my question? that I asked, I said I would Like to ask Magic8000 what Proof and Evidence do you have that say's Atheism is Accurate and Correct.

/ Me Quote Me saying Pro avoided my question by saying this atheism is the default position until theism can properly prove itself.

/ Me Quote Me saying Pro needs to present Proof and evidence for atheism being accurate and correct, I am talking about Atheism here: the Burden of proof is on the Atheism to prove why they do not believe in God. Atheism is not the default position all the time, then how come some Atheist try to say that there is no God for; if you Pro say Theism is extremely improbable/ Me Quote Me saying then the Burden of proof is now on you to try to prove your claim about Theism is extremely improbable. / Me Quote Me saying a question to Pro why try so hard to try to disprove God. can you say for sure that there is no God, Pro I am wanting proof and evidence that says atheism is accurate and correct, I am talking about atheism so far Pro has not said anything that says atheism is true. I want Pro to show me where it is written through History that atheism is accurate and correct.

I will say this Atheism has no evidence and proof at all, why well when asking the atheist a question like for example; Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

here is another Example,' here Does God exist? The universe had a start - what caused it?
no atheist has proven there belief to be accurate and correct

like for example;l The universe operates by uniform laws of nature. Why does it?

Atheism has no real proof and evidence, here is why when asking a atheist a question like for example; Can you provide a deductive argument that proves God does not exist?
atheist arguments fail. why do they fail well atheist have no video proof and evidence for their belief system,' a atheist is in unbelief all the time, until a believe in God comes they will believe. but the believe in God is real but the atheist cannot agree why is that Pro?

here is why atheism has no proof and evidence for their belief,' they cannot disprove God, pro needs to be honest here A question for Pro Can you provide a deductive argument that supplies the fixed reason one OUGHT to avoid logical fallacies?

/ Me Quote Me saying Pro I would like to ask you another question here
How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe if there is no God?

/ Me Quote Me saying Pro I got another question to ask you How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?

I got 7 more question? to ask Pro

Number 1. Question Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of divine origin?

Number 2. How do you explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years before Christ lived?

Number 3. How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?

Number 4. How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?

Number 5. How do you account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ?

Number 6. How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?

Number 7. How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the number and the proximity to the originals of its many copied manuscripts?

/ Me Quote Me saying here is a link to why atheism cannot be accurate and correct

/ Me Quote atheist often say there is no evidence for god, the reason why I do not accept what the atheist says about atheist saying there is no evidence for god. is for example; to say there is no evidence for god that is like saying there is no evidence for Radio - active poisoning. like for example; if someone breaths in Radio - active poisoning,' then science cannot prove that it is Radio - active poisoning. but science can prove that someone can die from Radio - active poisoning,' thus atheist would disbelief in the fact that there is no evidence for example, the wind, and the Radio - active poisoning. one reason why atheism is not accurate and correct is this a atheist cannot believe they are a atheist, :)

/ Me Quote Me saying I would like to ask pro this question? Atheism is an intellectual position. What reasons do you have for holding that position? Your reasons are based upon logic and/or evidence or lack of it. So, is there any reason/evidence for you holding your position that you defend?
Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Pro

wow Pro did not really answer my question?

Did you not see my arguments? I gave 5 arguments, you only touched on 1. 2 were by Theodore Drange, 1 of my mathematical calculation on Drange’s argument, 1 was based on the meaninglessness of the word “God”. Are you just trolling?
prove your claim about Theism is improbable.

Didn’t you see the mathematical proof above where I said that?

All you’re doing is committing the fallacy of proof by assertion. I gave you good evidence & all you keep doing is keep repeating it.
Con then gives arguments for the existence of God to try & refute argument 1. However in the light of argument 2, I can dismiss it all by simply saying since “God” is meaningless your arguments can’t be evidence of “God” anymore than it’s evidence of anything else meaningless such as a “Plopei”. The term hasn’t been defined & is meaningless to try & prove it without a meaningful definition.

The universe had a start - what caused it?
no atheist has proven there belief to be accurate & correct

Since time began with the universe, the universe needed no casue as a cause comes from before an event. No time = no before. If the universe had a cause this doesn’t mean it has to be God.

How do you explain the high degree of design & order in the universe if there is no God?

This is actually good evidence FOR atheism.
“Similarly the “fine tuning” of the universe’s physical constants: that would be a great proof—if it wasn’t exactly the same thing we’d see if a god didn’t exist. If there is no god, we will only ever find ourselves in a universe finely tuned (in that case, by random chance), because without a god, there is no other kind of universe that can produce us.... a universe that produced us by chance would have to be enormously vast in size & enormously old, so as to have all the room to mix countless chemicals countless times in countless places so as to have any chance of accidentally kicking up something as complex as life. That’s exactly the universe we see: one enormously vast in size & age. A godless universe would also only produce life rarely & sparingly, & that’s also what we see: by far most of the universe is lethal to life (being a deadly radiation filled vacuum) & by far most of the matter in the universe is lethal (constituting stars & black holes on which no life can ever live). Again, all exactly what we’d expect of a godless universe. Not what we’d expect of a god-made one." Thus, we have exactly the universe we’d expect to have if there is no god.... It also does no good to say such a random accidental universe is improbable, because the convenient existence of a marvelously “super-omni” god is just as improbable... Thus, we’re forced to choose between which lucky accident it was, & the evidence confirms the one & not the other." -Richard Carrier

provide a deductive argument that supplies the fixed reason one OUGHT to avoid logical fallacies?

Really? A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. If you have the demonstrated flaw, then your conclusion can’t be trusted.

Archaeological and the Bible.

Archaeology is now becoming at odds with the Bible
Matthew Sturgis said

“During the years since WWII it has become harder & harder to escape this sense of doubt. The expected discoveries of specific biblical artifacts & buildings were simply not being made...Discrepancies between the biblical account & the ever increasing archaeological record become more noticeable & harder to ignore...The very term biblical archaeology has become tainted, & is now rejected by many academics... If the Bible is consulted at all, it is approached with varying degrees of skepticism. The onus of proof has shifted: the text [of the Bible] is now considered historically unreliable until proven otherwise.” [1]

Lack of archaeology has raised questions about the town of Nazareth [2]. There’s no evidence it was ever a town at the time of Jesus. There's no archaeological evidence that Jews were enslaved in Egypt or millions of people wandered the desert, not one piece. Archaeology has also shown that King David as well as Solomon’s kingdom was nowhere near where the bible claims they did [3].

Con committed what’s known as a spiderman fallacy. Which is

“A recently coined logical fallacy. It follows that archaeologists 1,000 years from now unearth a collection of Spiderman comics. From the background art, they can tell it takes place in New York City. NYC is an actual place, as confirmed by archaeology. However, this does not mean that Spiderman existed.”[4]

1.Prophecy
There's several ways a prophecy can be fulfilled
  • Retrodiction. It can be written to fulfill or changed after the event happened.
  • Vagueness. Wording it in such a way that it can be interpreted anyway people want. Such as Nostradomus' prophecies.
  • Inevitability. it can say something will defiantly happen, such as the fall of a city. Nothing lasts forever, the city will hit the dirt someday. If it has not, it’s just said it will happen someday.
  • Self-fulfillment. A person can act to fulfill prophecy.

Furthermore the bible does have failed prophecy. Ezekiel 26:14 says Tyre will never be rebuilt again & Nebuchadnezzar didn’t completely destroy Tyre. Ezekiel 29:8-12 also says Egypt will be a desolate wasteland & none will walk through it. Egypt has never been a desolate wasteland.

2.David & Jesus’ Death
Falls under retrodiction. It’s also circular, assuming the accounts of the bible are correct.

3.Daniel prophecy
Mike G from An American Atheist answered this very well.
“There is so much to say here,.. First, Daniel was almost certainly not the author of this book nor was it written 500 years before the time of Jesus. It was probably written about a century & a half before Jesus was born...this book really does make clear prophecies & actually gets a ton of things wrong, as most scholars without a severely evangelical axe to grind will admit. Third, the year counting is ironically just a reinterpretation of Jeremiah 25 because it didn’t happen as it was prophesied (oops! I thought no prophecy ever failed). So, they lengthened the timeframe to mean weeks of years, instead of just weeks... Fourth, even doing that it still doesn’t correspond to Jesus. Rather, it seems to correspond to the Maccabean revolt (around 160 B.C.) & restoration of Israel on a timeline following that, which didn’t even happen. I could say more about Daniel & about this passage, but I think it should be clear the author of these questions either has no idea what he’s talking about or he’s using some incredibly dubious assumptions to make all this work.” [5]

4-6 are answered thorough number 1.

7.Vast number of manuscripts
To quote Bart Ehrman
“At one time or another, you may have heard someone claim that the New Testament can be trusted because it is the best attested book from the ancient world, that because there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than of any other boo,.... Given what we have seen in this chapter, it should be clear why this line of reasoning is faulty. It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, & none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes-altogether many thousands of mistakes.
Moreover even if scholars have...succeeded in reconstructing the New Testament, this, in itself, has no bearing on the truthfulness of the message. It simply means that we can be reasonably certain of what the New Testament authors actually said .... Whether or not any of these ancient authors said anything that was true is another question, one we cannot answer simply by appealing to the number of surviving manuscripts that preserve their writings”

Con ignored just about everything I said and still said atheism as no proof. That's a proof by assertion fallacy. Extend arguments from R2.

Out of Space.

Dale.G

Con

Pro can you show me proof and evidence from History and Sciences that says Atheism is Accurate and Correct I want it in Written evidence :) a Atheist has no real proof and evidence that says atheism is accurate and correct can atheism speak for it's self and the answer is no Atheism is a made up fear based Religious cult that has no real proof and evidence for being real here is video proof and evidence: place watch

/ Me Quote If Pro says he has a belief in being a Atheist then Pro would be a false atheist because atheism has no real believe system atheism has a unbelief system and atheism promotes doubt and unbelief into people that is why atheism is madness for the fact that no one wants to live in doubt or in unbelief why well everyone believes in something right
atheism cannot believe believe in being a atheist because atheism is a unbelief system and if a atheist says he or she dose not believe they are a atheist then that means they have denied being a atheist thus anyone who says they do not believe they are a atheist is not a atheist at all :) here is video a must watch of how a atheism cannot provide proof and evidence that says atheism is accurate and correct
Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Pro

Pro can you show me proof and evidence from History and Sciences that says Atheism is Accurate and Correct

How many times are you going to ask a question that I answered? The fine tuning argument is a scientific argument for atheism and the lack of biblical archeology is evidence from history against Christianity. You still haven't addressed my other arguments.

It's clear who won this debate. There was nothing but evasion from Con. Con I will ask you a question, if atheism has no proof, evidence, facts, validity and truth that it's accurate, true and correct then why do you continue to run away from my arguments?

If Pro says he has a belief in being a Atheist then Pro would be a false atheist because atheism has no real believe system atheism has a unbelief system and atheism promotes doubt and unbelief into people that is why atheism is madness for the fact that no one wants to live in doubt or in unbelief why well everyone believes in something right

This makes no sense at all. An atheist can't "believe" in atheism since atheism is unbelief, but an atheist can have other beliefs. We don't live in doubt we just want evidence to support claims. Even then that's not atheism that's skepticism, so it's irrelevant


Anyone who read this debate should know who to vote for. I'm beginning to think Con is shockofgod trolling, from what I've seen of SOG it defiantly seems like him.

Watch the video from more proof and evidence of atheism being accurate and correct.








Dale.G

Con

OK Pro has filed,' by not showing any proof and evidence, for some of his claims; pro talks about the New Testament, but that is all he talks about. Pro never given any evidence, for any of his claims about the new Testament. I can boast and say that the New Testament is true, :) Pro never went into any of the New Testament with me to try to find fault, no Pro is a deceiver in round 4 of this debate I will be showing the voters how Pro has tried to deceive me. and you but Pro cannot deceive me, :) OK here is where Pro failed Pro never given me any names to who the scholars were / Me Quote Me Saying this is where I use the truth to Pro, I Dale say the Prophet Daniel was the one who put the Pen to the book of Daniel. here is my Proof and Evidence right here http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://carm.org...

/ Me Quote Me Saying Pro the Prophet Jeremiah never said that the Prophet Daniels prophecies where not true. if you don't believe me read the book of Jeremiah your selves. :) Pro said this nor was it written 500 years before the time of Jesus. It was probably written about a century & a half before Jesus was born / Me Quote Me Saying Pro never fully answered my question regarding this question here: How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?

/ Me Quote Pro I was talking about the year when Christ would be presented as Messiah, Pro did not understand my question at all so to the voters I would like for you to dismiss Pro misunderstanding of my question about How do you explain that the prophet Daniel prophesied the exact YEAR when the Christ would be presented as Messiah and also prophesied that the temple would be destroyed afterwards over 500 years in advance (Daniel 9:24-27)?

/ Me Quote but anyhow the prophet Daniel lived before Jesus Christ was Born so thus Pro said I thought no prophecy ever failed) / Me Quote Me Saying well Pro Prophecy cannot not fail :) yes the Messiah was mentioned in the Prophet Daniel said in Daniel 9:24-27
King James Version (KJV)
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

/ Me Quote Me Saying Jesus Christ is the Messiah The Bible says in John 4:25-26
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
25 The woman *said to Him, "I know that (A)Messiah is coming ((B)He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us." 26 Jesus *said to her, "(C)I who speak to you am He."
/ Me Quote Me Saying The YouTube Video that Pro used in his around 4 of debate the women never answered the question about Atheism being accurate and correct Pro failed to Provide Proof and Evidence for Atheism being Atheist and correct Pro failed to provide proof and Evidence of what I asked of pro I said this to Pro Pro can you show me proof and evidence from History and Sciences that says Atheism is Accurate and Correct I want it in Written evidence :) a Atheist has no real proof and evidence that says atheism is accurate

/ Me Quote Me Saying I was talking about Atheism and pro went off topic by trying to deceive people but bless God I was not deceived by Pro

/ Me Quote Atheism cannot stand up for it's self Atheism by it's self cannot provide proof and evidence that says atheism is accurate and correct I want Proof and Evidence not by humans but Atheism it's self that atheism says atheism is accurate and correct but atheism is unbelief system Atheism cannot be proven accurate and correct why because Atheism likes to shift the burden of proof onto atheism atheism says there is no god thus atheism but then atheism uses people to try to say atheist do not say there is no god so atheism by it's very own ways is a liar Science and atheism is not comparable why well there are Christians who are Scientists here is proof and Evidence right here

/ Me Quote Me Saying there are Atheist who are not even Scientists like Jeff Dee on the atheist experiences show listen to what he says

/ ME Quote Me Saying Pro failed to show me any scientific methods and evidence that say's atheism is accurate and correct.

/ Me Quote Me Saying atheism is a unbelief system thus because atheism is a unbelief system that means no one can believe they are a atheist Pro did not try to refute that but rather Pro cannot say for sure that atheism is accurate and correct Pro said this we just want evidence to support claims. Even then that's not atheism that's skepticism, so it's irrelevant

/ Me Quote Pro cannot say we just want evidence to support why well Pro said this Even then that's not atheism that's skepticism, so it's irrelevant/ Me Quote Me Saying so is not a atheist then Pro is a skepticism.

/ Me Quote I will show Pro how many people who have not given any proof and evidence of atheism being accurate and correct

/ Me Quote Me Saying some people say they want proof and evidence for God well the bible is Number one Proof for God being real, Pro I can say that even if atheism had it's very own religious book you would not find where it says word for word that atheism is accurate and correct Pro never used where atheism says that is it accurate and correct
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Man, look at how Dale owned all us atheists!
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Dale.G's account is no longer active.
Posted by thigner 4 years ago
thigner
to prove someone or something's existence in real world, they all have burden to prove confirmed proof stuff not virtual guesses. In this debate, there were just probability and throwing burden to prove their reasoning because it's level of impossible. Guess someone's success of logical approval to proving justification, that will be the best century attest ever in the world. Wordy and very critical points shown in this debate. both all had nice viewpoints and great logical skills but as u all foretell the result, nobody succeeded to authenticate their claims. good tho.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
*it may be
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
It may shockofgod himself. He does stuff like this
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
He may be faking his spelling and grammar problems to make it harder for us to tell when he's plagiarizing. Google often comes through in spite of his alterations, though.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
well dale g account no longer available
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Bladerunner, after skimming a few of his videos, I suspect he actually believes his own arguments. That is rather unfortunate for him.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
If he's a troll, he's living a troll lifestyle.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
We all realize that Dale.G is just a troll, right?
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: con "filed" by saying pro "filed" to provide evidence when pro did provide evidence. Con also "filed" in grammer and spelling by "filing" to capitalize and thinking failed is spelled "filed"
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has bad grammar when he says me quote.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented evidence for atheism in the form of several arguments (Argument from Reason) and explained why it's a correct position in the absence of compelling evidence in favor of God. Con was unable to understand this and kept re-asserting "There is no evidence for Atheism." Perhaps, he felt repeating it over and over like a mantra would help to convince himself and others? Con plagiarized again, so conduct to Pro. It's ironic that Con's conduct is enagaging in immoral conduct when he's here to propheletyze his religion.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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: Full Forfeit for plagiarism.
Vote Placed by JasonGlenn 4 years ago
JasonGlenn
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Dale "Fail" Garland
Vote Placed by minstrel 4 years ago
minstrel
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: "atheism cannot believe believe in being a atheist because atheism is a unbelief system and if a atheist says he or she dose not believe they are a atheist then that means they have denied being a atheist thus anyone who says they do not believe they are a atheist is not a atheist at all" Dale.G gave us four rounds of that. Enough said.
Vote Placed by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a well thought out argument and then con gave us a nonsensical word salad. This repeated for 2 more rounds. I read over the whole debate twice. I still have no idea what con was blathering on about half the time, and using a shockofgod youtube video as evidence....seriously! The proverbial monkeys on typewriters could have wielded a better argument than con.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con simply ignored Pro's arguments, in part or in whole, and repeated his grammar-defying question and his signature "/me quote" nonsense. Pro had actual sources and arguments.
Vote Placed by derkcloud 4 years ago
derkcloud
Magic8000Dale.GTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave a very well-structured and efficient argument. Pro answered and effectively refuted all claims and inquiries presented by Con, though Con continued to repeat himself like a child.