The Instigator
PussySl4y3r69
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
imnotacop
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Atheists Are Smarter Than Theists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
imnotacop
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 88554
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

PussySl4y3r69

Pro

I believe that people who do not believe in celestial beings are smarter than those who do







































































































































































































































































































































Terms:

  1. 1. These terms are here to prove that anyone who accepts this debate did not think before they accepted.
  2. 2. Accepting this debate is a 7-point Total forfeit for con
  3. 3. Whoever accepts this was not smart enough to scroll down to the bottom of my arguments
  4. 4. Contesting terms 1-5 is an automatic forfeit
  5. 5. By accepting this debate, you accept terms 1-5.
imnotacop

Con

Being an Atheist, I accepted this to prove, even knowing full well that I will lose in points, I still was willing to accept believing I am capable of winning through this loophole, thus proving my stupidity as an Atheist and proving that Atheist are capable of being stupid.
Meanwhile, Theists have seen this and didn't accept do to few of the reasons I did, thus proving these Theists smart than me, an Atheist.

Through these terms, a Theist can be (is) smarter than an Atheist.
Debate Round No. 1
PussySl4y3r69

Pro

... phuk you ...

I will respond in attempt to make the claim that the contestant's argument is evident enough the prove that he is in fact intelligent, thus proving my claim.
imnotacop

Con

Although I can not win, it is possible for me not to lose. I have forfeited all my points, but Pro has not claimed any of them.
Despite the fact I can not get the score for better arguments, grammar, or conduct, it is possible for Pro not to get the scores for them either.
There are plenty of smart people who are theist. Ben Carson is capable of surgery that takes immense education. To become the pope you must work your way through a political system that takes as much intelligence and ability as any other.
Theists have been some of the smartest and most important people in history.
Debate Round No. 2
PussySl4y3r69

Pro

PussySl4y3r69 forfeited this round.
imnotacop

Con

"... phuk you ...

I will respond in attempt to make the claim that the contestant's argument is evident enough the prove that he is in fact intelligent, thus proving my claim."

That is a translation of my opponents round 2 argument.
This is a direct violation of term "4. Contesting terms 1-5 is an automatic forfeit"
By stating that I am "in fact intelligent" even though term 5 states that, as con, I cannot possibly be intelligent, they have forfeit this debate.

https://www.google.com...
Smart = Intelligent.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RainbowDash52// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con violated rule #2 resulting in a 7 point loss

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter can reasonably interpret (given the rules in this debate) that Con violated one or more of them. It is not up to moderation to determine whether or not this is entirely accurate, only whether or not that interpretation has any merit to it whatsoever. Nor is it a part of moderation's duty to determine whether the voter could/should have applied points to the other side based on separate perceived rule violations.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: logicinlife// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Well played by Con.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a statement of praise for Con without explanation.
************************************************************************
Posted by imnotacop 8 months ago
imnotacop
Well it was fun. ^_^
Posted by PussySl4y3r69 8 months ago
PussySl4y3r69
Such a shame
Posted by PussySl4y3r69 8 months ago
PussySl4y3r69
I honestly didn't expect anyone to accept the debate and at the time it was accepted, I was caught up in something :c
Posted by imnotacop 8 months ago
imnotacop
Dpow, He was trying to beat me based on the idea that I wouldn't be smart enough to scroll through it, stating at the bottom that whoever accepts is stupid and therefor loses.
But I used my atheist as a reason that argument is invalid and tried to remove his ability to get any points in order to maintain my ELO.
In round 2, if you translate what he said he actually breaks his own terms of agreement and forfeits.

ViceRegent, Atheists don't argue that they know everything. Atheists are typically agnostic, meaning they admit to not knowing whether there's a god. Theism is a belief, just as atheist, but you don't here many theists saying they don't know. That's likely do to the unfair BOP placed on a negating belief (Atheism), to be fair. Though the circumstances used to give leeway are frankly unfair.

Did you know people are more likely to vote for a gay black Muslim than an Atheist. Not saying there's anything wrong with being a gay black Muslim, but you surely can see the point and the unfair discrimination toward atheists given how we match up against other discriminated people. And if you claim you can't discriminate against atheists because it's a belief, than there is no war on Christmas, or anti christian culture. That's a belief, right?
Posted by Dpowell 8 months ago
Dpowell
What's with the giant space in Round 1?
Posted by vi_spex 8 months ago
vi_spex
know=something
Posted by ViceRegent 8 months ago
ViceRegent
That is funny given that atheists cannot even provide me with a rational way that they know anything.
Posted by Zarium 8 months ago
Zarium
*splutter* you just made me snarf yo!

Daamn that was a funny debate - well done!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Death23 8 months ago
Death23
PussySl4y3r69imnotacopTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro creates what's obviously a trap debate by concealing unconscionable debate terms with white space; I will not enforce ridiculous terms that amount to "I win you lose". Pro also forfeited, said "phuk you", etc.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 8 months ago
RainbowDash52
PussySl4y3r69imnotacopTied
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 violated rule #2 resulting in a 7 point loss
Vote Placed by fire_wings 8 months ago
fire_wings
PussySl4y3r69imnotacopTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by ssadi 8 months ago
ssadi
PussySl4y3r69imnotacopTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's 2nd term states that "Accepting this debate is a 7-point Total forfeit for con". This is actually against instigating a debate here. If one instigates a debate, then they are challenging others to accept it. To challenge others on a topic with 3 rounds and setting a term that one should not accept the challenge is meaningless, hence unacceptable in a formal debate. (Out of record: That shows the childish intelligence of Pro in a way that they hoped that they would win this debate anyways, but haven't noticed that the term they provided is contradictory to challenging others to a debate, hence unacceptable.) So, Con doesn't forfeit any points. BOP was fully on Pro to prove the claim they made, but they didn't provide any argument nor did they address anything provided by Con. Therefore arguments go to Con by default. Pro forfeited 1 round, so conduct goes to Con. Contrary to Con, Pro wrote something symbolical in round 2 that was not readable and clear, therefore S&G go to Con!
Vote Placed by Hayd 8 months ago
Hayd
PussySl4y3r69imnotacopTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff so conduct to Con. Pro did not bring up any arguments and dropped all of Con's, thus arguments to Con.