The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
SamuelMarshall999
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Atheism is the default position

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 13 votes the winner is...
SamuelMarshall999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,647 times Debate No: 52410
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (93)
Votes (13)

 

nonprophet

Pro



First round is for acceptance only.

For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God".


SamuelMarshall999

Con

I accept.

For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Theism is "The lack of Disbelief in a God".
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro


My opponent is attempting to cheat by not accepting the rule set in round 1
First round is for acceptance only.

Instead of just accepting, he attempts to set new definitions. Total cheat.


Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists.
That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it.
That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist.
Nobody is born a Theist.
If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position
of being an Atheist.

It's that simple.
SamuelMarshall999

Con

My opponent is attempting to cheat by not accepting the rule I set that Theism is the lack of disbelief in a god.
First round is for acceptance only, and I have accepted and used your logic.

Instead of you accepting your own logic, you attempt to be the one who accepts your own definition of Atheism but don't accept the definition I have set for Theism. Total cheat.

Theism is the lack of a disbelief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no disbeliefs at all. All babies are born Theists.
That's why it's the default position. The only way to be an Atheist is to learn what God is and choose not to believe in it.
Nobody is born an Atheist.
If you begin to have faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position
of being a Theist.

It's that simple.
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

My opponent cheated and deserves no win in this debate.

It was made clear that the first round was for acceptance ONLY.

Anything other than "I accept" was a violation of the rules.

His attempt to sneak in a new definition during the first round, knowing full well it had nothing to do with acceptance
of the debate, is just a full cheat.

This type of behavior should not be rewarded with a win.

SamuelMarshall999

Con

My opponent has also cheated and deserves no win in this debate.

I accepted and stated what my opinion is, as have you stated your's in the first round.

If anything other then an "I accept" was a violation of the rules then we don't have much to debate seeing as I have no right to state my opinion.

Your attempt to sneak in a new definition during the first round, knowing full well it had nothing to do with the topic of the debate, is just a full cheat.

This type of behavior should also not be rewarded with a win if we use your own logic.
Debate Round No. 3
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
You people are retarded. You don't understand what "For this debate, it must be accepted that the definition of Atheism is "The Lack of the Belief in a God"." means?
Posted by CookieMonster9 2 years ago
CookieMonster9
infraFred is right. You guy just argued. And Samuel is right. I think if you want to define something as well go ahead, but if nonprophet doesen't like it then nonprophet will say the he or she declines it, not start arguing that samuel broke the rules. You guys didn't even debate.
Posted by InfraFred 2 years ago
InfraFred
I didn't even READ a debate here because of the continuous arguing over ONE DEFINITION. How about next time, one of you put forward an argument or two.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
@Lt.Harris I'm the instigator. I can set the rules. He needs to either accept them or reject them, not do exactly what I did.
Your "ha ha" shows you voted out of spite.
Posted by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Lt.Harris
You set a definition of atheism in the first round. He only did exactly what you did. Haha. Maybe you should take your own advice.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
First round is for acceptance only.

ONLY

"I accepted and stated what my opinion is" -SamuelMarshall999

The man has a problem with the word ONLY
And voters REWARD him or that?!?
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
"If anything other then an "I accept" was a violation of the rules then we don't have much to debate seeing as I have no right to state my opinion."

You could have done anything you wanted in the second or third round. What part of ONLY didn't you understand?
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
I didn't. I'm trying to make debates and if anyone wants to accept them, and debate with my rules, what's it to you? YOU are the one trying to dictate what I can do here. But guess what...the more you tell me what to do, the more I'll do the opposite. Enjoy!
Posted by SamuelMarshall999 2 years ago
SamuelMarshall999
And when did YOU become king of DDO, nonprophet?
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not going to vote on the "cheating" claims, because there was no clear abuse demonstrated. Besides, both wrote definitions in round 1. Pro's definition isn't challenged and also takes priority. Although Con might have demonstrated that a baby may be a theist by default, that does not mean that the baby isn't an atheist as well, due to the fact that the definitions aren't mutually exclusive. Thus, even if a baby who knows nothing of God is a theist (lack of disbelief), s/he is also a theist (lack of belief). Because the topic is discussing atheism and not theism, Pro would seem to be on-topic. However, the resolution does seem to imply that there is only 1 default position. Both sides seem to debate as if there is only one default position. The other arguments cancel each other out. Each debater mis-characterizes their opponent's definition. Therefore, my vote will have to go back to the number of default positions possible. The wording seems to imply 1, and no other argument
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Lt.Harris
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: No one used a source. S & G was close enough. Conduct goes to Con as he didn't break the rules, he just did the exact same thing that Pro did.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Broke rules. Simple.
Vote Placed by DeeAnn 2 years ago
DeeAnn
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con broke the rules. It clearly stated that first round is acceptance only. However, Pro never set any consequences, so I can't award him 7 points by default.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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: Con did not violate the "first round for acceptance" rule. If we follow Pro's logic on that, then even saying "good luck" or "thanks for instigating" would be violation of the rules. Instead of objecting to Con's definition of theism the proper way (i.e. stating that DDO rules only allow the instigator to set definitions, and then bringing up a dictionary definition of theism), Pro just called Con a cheater, so his definition still stands. Con then effectively showed how invalid Pro's argument was by simply replacing all the places where atheism was mentioned with the definition of theism, to which Pro's only response was more complaining, rather than actually pointing out why babies do not necessarily lack a disbelief in God. Pro should really learn how to debate, sometime.
Vote Placed by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters are acting immature. Pro wins because Con's argument that we are all born with a lack of disbelief is an absurd statement and he is refusing to accept he initial statement of Pro. If you do not agree with Pro's definition, do not debate with him. You can't attempt to change the parameters of the debate that the instigator had already set.
Vote Placed by mmadderom 2 years ago
mmadderom
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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: Left started with a false premise then continued to argue in that manner.
Vote Placed by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Mhykiel
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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: Clearly demonstrated the opposite was just as valid a default position. Con defined "Theism" in the same manner Pro defined "Atheism" Pro had no rebuttal. Since burden of proof was on Pro and not con, con merely had to show the resolution could be false.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible conduct on Con's side as well as poor spelling, grammar, and a lack of an on topic argument. No sources from either side.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
nonprophetSamuelMarshall999Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the first to define atheism in his own way and those who accept such debate need to argue based on that definition as opposed to re-defining the "Not P" in such a way to derail the debate, so I'm going to give the arguments to Pro because his arguments are compatible with the original definition. Con broke the rules of this debate by offering a definition when his round was dictated to be just for acceptance, which resulted in the whole debate being derailed into a meta-debate and so Conduct goes to Pro, although I would have liked it more if Pro focused on how it's generally problematic to shift definitions of important key-terms, and I think this is an area Pro should have not ignored if he wanted to solidify his case even more. I also believe that Pro should have went ahead and presented his original case and simply left one or two comments about his opponent's dishonest tactic.