The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Atheism is more Probable than Theism

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...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,046 times Debate No: 25540
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (9)

 

Microsuck

Pro

Thank you, CriticalThinkingMachine , for accepting this debate.

Resolved:
Atheism is more probable than Theism.

For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. Therefore, terms such as the incarnation, Biblical errors, etc. are irrelevant for this debate.

"More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism).

Rules:

(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.
(2) Sources may be linked to inside the debate; however, no arguments can be placed in that page.
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss.


Rounds:

(1) Acceptance
(2) Opening Statement
(3) Rebuttal

(4) Rebuttal
(5) Closing Statements - 1,000 character limit

Other notes:

(1) 72 hours to argue;

(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time.
(3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;
(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.


CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Thank you for starting this debate. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. In this debate, I will defend an Atheist worldview as opposed to a Theistic worldview.

Introduction


A challenge often presented to Atheists from fundamentalist Christians or various Theists is that atheists have no proof there is no God; therefore it is another faith. Although we do not have the Burden of Proof, we can still put forth different types of reasoning to give a philosophical justification for an Atheological worldview. There are two main categories of evidence that can be used. I will divide my arguments up into different sections for these categories. The first is called evidential arguments. These are arguments that some facts about the world are cited as evidence against God's existence; for example, the large amount of suffering in the world or the argument from Biblical defects. These arguments carry the probabilistic conclusion that God does not exist; in other words, on balance of probability, it is more likely than not that God does not exist. Therefore, these arguments do not carry conclusive evidence that there is absolutely no God. The second is called logical evidence against God's existence. These are philosophical evidence which cites that either a) The proposition that God exists is logically incoherent in some way; or b) the concept of God is incoherent in some way. These type of evidence purports to conclusively demonstrate the fact of atheism based on logical incompatibility with the cited contingent facts about the world and the proposition that God exists.

Part 1: The Evidential Evidence Against God’s Existence

Contention 1: Argument from Evil and Suffering

The Problem of Evil cites the large number of suffering as evidence against his existence. In syllogism form, we have:

  1. If God exists, unjustified evil does not exist
  2. Unjustified evil does exist
  3. Therefore, God does not exist.

The world is indeed full of unnecessary suffering and evil. When I say the word evil, I do not limit myself to just moral evil such as sin. Rather, I am referring to all types of calamity that can befall on humans (i.e., earthquakes, storms, floods) and the existence of mass suffering (i.e., famines, poverty, oppression, etc). I do not believe that Theists have a good answer for the Problem of Suffering and Evil. As Charles Brandlaugh argues [1]:

“The existence of evil is a terrible stumbling block for the theist. Pain, misery, crime, poverty confront the advocate of eternal goodness, and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity all-good, all-wise and all-powerful. Evil is either caused by God or it exist independently; but it cannot be caused by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exists hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had a beginning or it must have been eternal, but according to the theist, it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or outside God; but according to the theist, it cannot have originated in God, for he is all-good, and out of all goodness evil cannot originate; nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the theist, God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond infinity.”

For examples of disasters may include Hurricane Sandy, which left billions of dollars in damage and hundreds dead, or the Haitian earthquake that has left hundreds of people dead. Thousands of more examples can be noted.

William Rowe points out [2]:

Lightning strikes a tree in a forest, causing a forest fire. A fawn is caught in this fire, and suffers intense agony for an extended period of time before finally dying. (This has undoubtedly happened many times in the Earth's history.)

A five year old girl is, by her mother's boyfriend, severely beaten, raped and strangled to death. [3]

In conclusion,

“Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to, or he cannot and does not want to, or lastly he can and wants to. If he wants to remove evil, and cannot, he is not omnipotent; If he can, but does not want to, he is not benevolent; If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither omnipotent nor benevolent; But if God can abolish evil and wants to, how does evil exists?” [4]

One final note: This does not disprove the existence of all God’s; however, it is strong evidence against a God that is supposedly all loving , all-powerful, and all-knowing.

Contention 2: The Argument from Demographics

  1. If the demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism, then the demographics of Theism make Atheism more plausible than Theism.
  2. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism than Theism.
  3. Therefore, Atheism is more plausible than Theism.

We can begin by making some simple observations:

  1. There are many more Muslims than Christians in Saudi Arabia;[5]
  2. There are many more Hindus in India than in the rest of the world[6]; and
  3. In the ancient world, every culture had its own mythology. In fact, these mythologies often contradicted each other and varied wildly.[7]

This pattern is very surprising on the part of Theism. Why would God let such an important matter depend strongly upon the time and place of one’s birth? In fact, atheism explains these demographics better. If God does not exist, then religions are but elaborate social constructions. Therefore, we would predict that the demographics would obey the contours of history and geographic similar to other beliefs and ideologies. This is, in fact, what we observe.




Part II: Logical Arguments




Contention 3: Incoherence of God

The standard definition of “God” is largely incoherent. According to the National Catholic Almanac, there are 22 attributes of “God”[8]:

“[A]lmighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, immutable, incomprehensible, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, most high, most wise, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, patient, perfect, provident, supreme, true.

At least two of the above attributes (incomprehensible and ineffable) contradict the others. How can the other attributes of God be known if he can be neither understood nor described? If God has free-will, as some Christians believe that he does, then how can he know everything? These are some of the attributes of God that are logically incompatible; thus making the Theist God impossible. So “[t]hus the characteristics of God as supplied by Christian theologians (and other theologians) are nothing more than meaningless and contradictory concepts wrapped in theological garb.”[9]

Conclusions

  1. The mainstream concept of God is logically impossible;
  2. The problem of evil is proof positive for the non-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God;
  3. The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism; and
  4. Theism does not have a good explanation for the problems of suffering and the arguments for Atheism.



[1] Bradlaugh, Humanity's Gain From Unbelief: p28-29. Quoted in Tobin, P. (2000) “The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: The Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity.”

[2] As Presented in a debate between WriterDave and SuburbiaSurvivor http://debate.org...

[3] This is taken from an instance in Flint, Michigan in 1986

[4] This is the famous Epicurus Dilemma from Aphorisms of Epicurus (c300BC).

[5] 99% of Saudi Arabia are Muslims. http://www.state.gov...

[6] 80% of India are Hindus. http://censusindia.gov.in...

[7] See http://www.mythweb.com... for some of the world’s myths.

[8] Quoted in Smith, G. Atheism: The Case Against God

[9] Tobin, P. The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager

CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

INTRODUCTION

I would like to thank my opponent for his round two posting. He has presented evidential and logical arguments against God to which I will respond.

I would like to make it clear that I do not have to argue that theism is more probable atheism, but only that atheism is not more probable than theism. If my arguments properly defend agnosticism over atheism, then I win the debate. I have not used any sources as all of the thoughts which follow are my own.

My organizational style is as follows:
I have put my opponent’s arguments in green.
I have summarized my opponent’s arguments.
I have numbered my opponent’s arguments and put a number followed by a letter to denote my response to them.

ARGUMENTS

Negative Arguments

[1] the problem of evil

[1.1] evil originated in God

If evil had a beginning, then it must have originated in God.

[1.1A] confusion of two kinds of beginning and causation
It does not follow that if evil has a beginning, and therefore began in God, that God is morally responsible for evil. If I give birth to a child who grows up to kill someone, I may be causally responsible for the person’s death (as well as generations before me as the chain goes on and on) but I am not morally responsible. Similarly, if evil originated in God (for it could not come about without God) it does not mean that God is to blame for evil, which is what the argument implies.

[1.2] traditional formulation of the PE
God’s traditional attributes cannot co-exist with evil that exists for no purpose.

[1.2A] negation of evil in the grand scheme
Acknowledging the existence of pointless and horrendous evil, why exactly should God eliminate evil if it will all be eliminated anyway due to our deaths (and the death of the world)? From our perspective, evil can seem so overwhelming sometimes. But from God’s perspective, from the point of view from eternity, even the most horrible evil is like a paper-cut on a hand. God is traditionally understood as desiring for us a whole other world from which we fell and to which we are meant to return. Indeed, considering this grander scheme of things, wouldn’t it be redundant for God to stop evil? So while God may have the power and desire to stop evil, doing so would simply be impractical.

[2] argument from demographics
One’s religious beliefs are based on the region in which one grows up. Why would God let something like that determine one’s conception of God?

[2A] what incentive for caring?
In round one, my opponent said that we are not referring to a specific deity. So if we are not referring to a specific deity, then why would the deity care what conception people have of him as long as they acknowledge his general existence?

[2B] incidental and irrelevant
But going beyond this, even if we were talking about a specific God who wants people to reject one vision and accept another, the argument still would not work. Just because where one lives can affect one’s religious beliefs does not mean it has to. Human beings are perfectly capable of considering other religious conceptions, challenging their own, and even rejecting their own in favor of another. Many view reason itself as a gift from God, by which to attain knowledge over such matters. If demographics get in the way, that is an unfortunate circumstance, but it does not cast doubt on God’s existence.

[3] incoherency among divine attributes

[3.1] incomprehensibility versus all other attributes
If God cannot be comprehended, then how can we say that God is all-powerful or all-knowing, for that would entail that we comprehend something about him?

[3.1A] partial incomprehensibility
Some theists say that God is comprehensible; some say that He is not comprehensible, and others do not speak on this issue. There is no common consensus on the conception of God. I went to Catholic school for several years and do not recall hearing about the incomprehensibility of God. It all depends on whom you ask.

Considering this, the most bipartisan conception of God we must form based on comprehensibility would be one in which comprehensibility is intermingled with the other attributes, but not dominated by them nor dominant over them. For example, God can be spoken of as being loving, though we cannot comprehend how much He loves us or why or what He would do for us. One can apply this to any of the other attributes. There is no contradiction there. We must not use an ultra-literal interpretation of the words.

[3.2] free will versus omniscience
If we have free will, then how can God know what actions we will take?

[3.2A] omniscience does not include knowledge of future
As for the free will issue, some theologians have accepted both that humans have free will and that God knows the future. I am somewhat open to this but mainly I lead to the view that God cannot know the future because it does not exist and so knowing it would be logically impossible, and God’s powers are not traditionally understood to cover what is logically impossible. God’s omniscience therefore does not include knowledge of the future, so his omniscience is not in contradiction with the free will of humans.

Positive Arguments

I will present one two arguments for the existence of God.

the modal cosmological argument
The universe is contingent. We know this because we can imagine it being different from how it is. Since it is contingent, its existence does not follow from any aspect of it. There is nothing about it which explains why it exists. Whereas the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is tautological and hence requires nothing to make it so, the universe requires something else than itself to explain why it exists. If we simply posit another universe to explain the existence of this universe, then the problem only becomes backed up and we now have no answer to where that universe comes from. The only way out of the problem is to posit something radically different. If we keep positing something natural, we are left with the same problem, but if we posit something “supernatural”, we have a better explanation. We still would not know how this supernatural thing exists without a cause (we could never know that, regardless of what we posit), but we would have found a more likely first cause, as it differs from all other things that could be posited.

the argument from beauty
Unlike any other creature, human beings have the ability to see and appreciate beauty. We find beauty in music, in literature, in paintings, in the bodies and faces of fellow human beings. The ability serves no natural or evolutionary purpose. It does not fit into any materialistic scheme. Hence, we must look beyond to the divine realm and must posit some kind of “supernatural” being to account for the existence of beauty and our ability to see and appreciate it.

CONCLUSION

1- The problem of evil does not refute God’s existence. It fails to acknowledge the smallness of evil compared to eternity.
2- The demographics of atheism are irrelevant to a general deity.
3- The concept of God as I have laid out is not incoherent. The charges of incoherence against God are based on certain people’s over-literal and misapplied use of words.
4- The argument from beauty points to the existence of a God.
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your swift response. I shall point out that my opponent violated the structure of the debate. Round 2 is opening statements and round 3 was to begin rebuttals.


I. Evidential Arguments

A. Problem of Evil

My opponent's attempt at refuting the problem of evil is a strawman.

[1.1A] confusion of two kinds of beginning and causation


My opponent's argument is a strawman. If you were to birth a child that will grow up to be someone like Adolf Hitler, you may have caused it, though you are not morally responsible. However, if you were able to prevent the murder, then you would be morally responsible for it. If God is able to prevent evil, but not willing, then he is malevolent.

[1.2A] negation of evil in the grand scheme

My opponent acknowledged the existence of pointless and horrendous evil. However, he states that it's nothing because it will all be eliminated in the next world. I say that it would not be redundant to prevent evil because it assumes that the ultimate end of evil is good. For example, imagine that a doctor amputates a patient's leg, an "evil", in order to prevent gangrene from spreading throughout the patient's body, "the ultimate end", which is "good." Yet this example fails because the doctor is limited; unlike God who is unlimitted. A better example would be the same doctor having the same paitent having a cure for the gangrene without having to amputate it, decides do amputate it anyway. We would call such a doctor "mad", why should we then call "God" "good"? [1]


B. The Argument from Demographics


[2A] What incentive for Caring?

My opponent is correct in regards that we are not referring to a specific deity. If God were all-loving, then he would have a desire to have a relationship with the whole of mankind. So, we come with this syllogism:

Premise 1: If God were to exist, then he would desire a relationship with all of mankind.
Premise 2: However, God does not have a relationship with the whole of mankind
Conclusion: Therefore, it is probable that God does not exist.


So, the incentive for caring is that God, if omnibenevolent, would desire a relationship with the whole of mankind. In order to have a relationship with the whole of mankind, he needs to have revealed himself in such a way to be able to have that relationship he desires.

Sidebar note (this point is irrelavent as it is from a specific religion): This is exactly what Christianity teaches: God desires a relationship with mankind. [2]

[2A] Incidental and Irrelavent

See above.

II. Evidential Arguments



A. Incoherence of God


[3.1A] Partial Incomprehensibility

My opponent fails to understand the gist of the argument. He claims that there is no common concensus on the conception of God. My opponent is correct (and this can be used as another argument in favour of atheism, not going to go into detail here). This, however, does not address the argument. I defined God as a diety that has the specific attributes of the Judeo-Christian God.

[3.2A] Omniscience does not include knowledge of future

My opponent claims that God does not know the future. However, this goes against the definition of omniscience. Omniscience is the quality of having all knowledge [3]. Consequently, God knows all things possible and actual. In standard theology, God ordained whatever will come to pass according to his well (Eph. 1:11).

Premise 1: If God knows everything, it follows that he knows the future (indeed, if you don't know the future, you don't know everything)
Premise 2: God knows everything (by definition of omniscient);
Conclusion: God knows the future.


III. Refuting my opponent's arguments for God's Existence


A. Modal Cosmological Argument


I will respond to this argument in the next round due to time constraints and debate structure.


B. Argument from Beauty


I do not see how the fact that we can understand beauty means that there is a God. It simply does not follow. By contrast, the Neanderthals, although not human, did seem to have an understanding of art and music. [4 and 5]
______________________________________________________________________________

1. Tobin, P. (2004) "
The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity."
2. http://www.ucg.org...;
3. http://carm.org...;
4. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
5. http://discovermagazine.com...;
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

INTRODUCTION

First let me apologize if I did not accord with the debate format as my opponent wanted. I consider rebuttals to be statements. I thought he meant that that second round is only for initial/main points while later rounds are only for responses but no new arguments. If he had used the terms “positive and negative” arguments, I would have understood. Sorry again.

ARGUMENTS

Negative Arguments

[1.1] Con attacked a straw man. God could have prevented the evil but did not.

[1.1A] I did not attack a straw man. The first argument (from Bradlaugh) was about evil originating in God due to its finiteness, with the implication that God is responsible for this because of this. I directly responded to this. My opponent’s response that God could have prevented it, but that is a separate point; it belongs below, not here.

This is a minor point anyway. I do not think my opponent realized that he was presenting two separate arguments under his first contention, the first of which I’ve never heard before.

[1.2] Con’s argument assumes that the ultimate end of evil is good. A doctor amputating a leg to rid one of gangrene is an example of this, but it does not apply to God because the doctor is limited while God is unlimited.

[1.2A] My opponent does not explain what being limited or unlimited has to do with whether or not the ultimate end of evil is good.

[1.2B] My “assumption” of the ultimate end of evil being good is only based on the definition of God that we agreed to at the start of the debate: God is omnibenevolent and so will bring evil to a positive conclusion. And even if evil does not come to a good end, it will still all be eliminated regardless,
unless this universe is eternal, which is a view no scientist I’ve heard of subscribes to.

[2.1C] My opponent’s argument about the doctor amputating a leg when he does not have to
is very odd. It’s actually an inversion of the problem of evil. He is arguing that it is “mad” for a doctor to do remove an evil if doing so is unnecessary. I completely agree. That was my original point. He asks why we would call God good for doing this when we would call a doctor mad. But where do we see God doing this? This is an enitirely new atheological argument that does not belong in the debate.

[2.1/2.2] If God is all-loving, then he would desire a relationship with all of mankind. But he does not have a relationship with all of mankind.

In order to have a relationship with all of mankind, God must reveal himself in a way that would allow that relationship to occur.

[2.1/2.2A] Just because God desires something does not mean it is going to happen. Free-willed human beings have the ability to (at least temporarily) screw up God’s plans. God cannot force us to have a relationship with him if we are unwilling.

And as I already explained, we have reason that can allow us to form conclusions about God. My opponent and I are doing that right now in this debate. Why a revelation? I’m sorry that my opponent ignored this point.

I don’t know what kind of revelation my opponent has in mind, for he has not said, but I imagine that the average kind of revelation would be both unnecessary and an indication that we are unable to reason.

[3.1] I defined God as having the attributes of the Judeo-Christian God.

[3.1A] My opponent says he is referring to the Judeo-Christian God, yet he ironically agrees with me that there is no common consensus on the specifics of the Judeo-Christian God. So how can he expect his argument to hold up? I defended a very likely use of the word “incomprehensible”, the way I actually hear it being used by theists in everyday language.

[3.1B] To even further explain the compatibility between incomprehensibility and other attributes of God, incomprehensibility, in typical dialogue over God, refers to the “how”, “why”, or “what” of God, not the “that”. There is absolutely no contradiction between believing that some humans kill other humans without being able to comprehend precisely how or why it occurs (psychologically speaking). Lack of “how” does not entail lack of “that”.

[3.2] Omniscience is the quality of having all knowledge, all things possible and actual.

[3.2A] That is exactly my point. As I explained, knowledge of the future is not logically possible and so God’s omniscience does not extend to knowledge of the future and hence does not interfere with human free will. Asking for knowledge of the future is like asking for knowledge of the color of Wednesday. It is
incoherent. Similarly, when people say that God can do all things, they mean all things that are logically possible for him to do (raising the dead, giving sight to the blind, giving hearing to the deaf, as opposed to making square circles and 2 + 2 = 5). It is just a shorthand way of saying it. I really expected my opponent to know this. Many atheists do. Bottom line, his attack for contention 3 is on a straw man God, an obscure deity that no one I know believes in.

Positive Arguments

[1] Modal Cosmological Argument

I did not have enough time to respond to this but will do so next round.

Fair enough. I await his response.

2- Argument From Beauty
It does not follow from the fact that we can understand beauty that there is a
God.

I explained why beauty entails God’s existence. Without argument, my opponent simply says that it does not follow. I’ll reiterate why it does:

Something either has a natural origin or a supernatural origin. Neither beauty itself, nor our ability to experience and appreciate beauty has a naturalistic origin. It must therefore have a supernatural origin. The point about Neanderthals possibly being able to produce some kind of art does not change my point. It only means that they should be considered homo sapiens, as the first article says (the second article was removed from the site; the third link was also taken down. I would advise my opponent to check for these problems before posting links).

I anticipate what my opponent will say to this and what he may have meant when he said he does not see how my theistic conclusion follows from the reality of beauty, but I will wait for him to actually say it before I rebut.

CONCLUSION

My apologies to Pro again for misunderstanding how he wanted the rounds to go. Believe me, it was not intentional.

My arguments still stand after Pro’s response. His problem of evil cannot get around my objection about the eventual elimination of evil. His demographic argument still ignores the fact that humans can use reason to form proper concepts about God. His incoherence arguments are misplaced and rely on superficial understandings of the terms involved. His response to the AFB is undeveloped and I await his criticism of the MCA.

Note: Pro said that my argument was against the problem of evil was a straw man.

First of all, when one is accused committing the straw man fallacy, it makes no sense to say “his argument was a straw man”. The correct thing to say is “You attacked a straw man” or “You turned my argument into a straw man”. Second, when one says that his opponent has attacked a straw man, one must make clear two things: A- what was the real argument he was making, and B- how was it misrepresented. Pro did not do this.
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

I'm too busy to reply in this round. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to forfeit this debate.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

That's okay. Thank you for debating anyway.
Debate Round No. 4
Microsuck

Pro

Would you like to restart?
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I will consider a restart but at the moment I am very busy, but I will definitely let you know soon. Thank you.



Concerning the debate, I just wanted to cite two sources that share my thoughts on some of the subject matter.

the modal cosmological argument
Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think About God: A Guide For the 20th Century Pagan (1980)

the problem of evil
Adams, Marilyn McCord "Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God" Proceedings of an Aristotelian Society Supplementary Vol. 63 (1989)


Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Fixed my wrong vote. Sorry.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Con could have overcome the argument from evil by noting that there are concepts of God that do not require omnipotence. It might be that a devil is responsible for bad things and cannot be stopped. Or it might be that God has personality quirks, like the Greek and Roman gods.

Other arguments, such as the diversity of worshipped gods, could also be answered by God not caring about such things,which Con essentially argued.

The modern cosmological argument is unconvincing because modern cosmology has a theory of how the universe came into existence without deities. It is unproved, but having the posibility eliminates the necessity for a creator god.

Appreciation of beauty seems clearly natural. Appreciating the order and patterns in the world has a survival advantage. Humans benefit from looking closely at things.

The main argument against theiism is that supernatural occurrences are not reliably established as having happened. Science now explains thousands of things that religion was once called upon to explain supernaturally. So it's a reasonable use of induction to suppose no supernatural intervention. Not a proof, but probable.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
@Roy, You state in your RFD that Pro forfeited, but you still gave him the conduct and arguments, is this a DDO bug or human error?
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
So even when the atheist forfeits the debate he still gets the win xD great site quality guys.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Quick note on my wording under "Positive Arguments".

I had anticipated that I would only have room for one argument, so had orignally written "I will present one argument..." then I found I was able to fit two so I typed the word "two" but forgot to take out the word "one". And I forgot to refer to the argument I added in the last minute it in the conclusion.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I will be closely watching this debate!
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
oh, alright. I accept.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
I'll challenge you. He hasn't accepted.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Oops. The opponent must have popped up right when I was typing that comment. Well, have a good debate anyway.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Hello. I am interested in taking this debate. I know you said you wanted debaters to message you if they want to accept but you are "not accepting messages at this time", so I must say this here.

You say you don't want trolls but instead want an experienced debater. Well, I've been in 13 debates so far. Maybe you do not consider that experienced enough, but keep in mind that an experienced debater is not necessarily a good debater and a good debater is not necessarily an experienced debater. I would go by win ratio to determine if an opponent is worthy or not, and I have a win ratio in the 90s. So, I'm not a very experienced debater, but I'm no troll either.

If you would like to debate me, then I guess you can send me a direct challenge. And if not, then I'll respect the decision anyway.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeit.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because Pro forfeited. Arguments to Con because Pro did not refute Con's contentions adequately, sources to Pro because he had sources.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Couldn't take the heat of Con's kitchen. FF. Plus Con put up an extremely well thought out argument.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded. Con successfully showed that Theism is more probable than Atheism, and effectively refuted Pro's arguments. Clear win to Con.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did a relatively poor job defending themselves. Both sides made mistakes. In no way horrible, this was a decent debate, but both sides could have done better.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, leaving arguments unanswered. Some more general talk in comments.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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: Pro fell onto his own sword.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
MicrosuckCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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: Forfeited