The Instigator
Barcafan99
Con (against)
The Contender
NKaloms
Pro (for)

God Exists.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Barcafan99 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 970 times Debate No: 104149
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (0)

 

Barcafan99

Con

Burden of proof is on the believer.

Definitions:
God: "Creator and ruler of the universe, a being omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, and eternal."
Exists: " To have objective reality or being."

The believer will be arguing that God (any God) exists in objective reality, I will be arguing that he doesn't.

Rules:
1. No forfeiting
2. No ad hominems

Only accept if you accept the definitions and terms of the debate.
Message me if interested.
NKaloms

Pro

Before I begin I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to accept this debate.

To start with, I would like to state that it is true that he burden of proof is indeed on the believer to objectively prove God exists. Because the existence of God is not "a priori" knowledge, I must prove that God exists in order to know he exists.

Before I can even present my arguments I must define what/who God is.
I will be arguing for the existence of God in general, I will not be specifically arguing for any God in particular.

God is defined as "the perfect being which possesses all perfect attributes".
These attributes are as follows:
One - God is one being
Unchanging - He cannot change his mind/ His will is perfect
Eternal - God exists outside of time so he has always existed and will always exist (I know that phraseology is using terms that describe time, but because we are within space-time, we cannot fully comprehend what this would be like, we cannot experience no time)
Infinite - Limitless/ Endless, God has no spacial constraints, he exists outside of space
Omnipotent - All powerful, able to do all things that are possible
Omniscient - All knowing, God knows everything always(I know this implies time, once again only way I can describe it)
Perfect - Absolute, complete, God has no flaws or faults.

Now that we have defined God, I can present my arguments for his existence.
There are many philosophical arguments for God's existence. And while I believe that most of them are irrefutable, I would like to present only 3, so as to not cram all the arguments into this one debate. My "proofs" for the existence of God are as follows:

1) The Ontological Argument

1 God is the most perfect being.
2 It is more perfect to exist than to not exist.
3 If God lacked existence then God would not be God.
4 Thus to understand 'God' is to understand that God must exist.
5 To deny that God exists is a contradiction.
6 Therefore God exists by necessity.

2) Argument of Contingency (First Cause)

1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence other than itself (i.e. contingent beings)
2 The universe began to exist. (The universe is contingent)
3 Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence other than itself.
4 The cause of the universe must be a necessary being (i.e., a being that is not caused, it is eternal, has always existed and will always exist) and not a contingent being because of that would lead to an infinite regress.
5 This being must be God because he is the necessary being.
6 Therefore, God exists.

A small argument for why God cannot have a creator.

1 God cannot have a cause because he would then be a contingent being.
2 God is not a contingent being God did not begin to exist.
3 Therefore, God is a necessary being.

3) The Argument from the culmination of St. Thomas Aquinas's works

1 One cannot deny one's own existence.
2 There is at least one thing that exists - you.
3 The act of being(existing) must itself exist.
4 The nature of existence is actuality. ("actuality - really existing" v. "potentiality - could potentially exist")
5 Esse (Existence) is nothing but pure actuality.
6 Esse not only does exist but must exist.
7 Esse is distinct from everything else that exists.
8 Esse must be one.
9 Esse must be immutable.
10 Esse must be eternal.
11 Esse must be infinite.
12 Esse must be omniscient.
13 Esse must be omnipotent.
14 Esse is God.

This is not actually the argument, these are just the points of the argument. I cannot possibly write all of it here so I have provided a link: https://www.catholic.com...

I await my opponent's response.

Sources:

https://www.catholic.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Barcafan99

Con

I thank my opponent for agreeing to this debate. I have not debated someone on this issue in a long time, so this should be very fun.

Rebuttals:
"1) The Ontological Argument
1 God is the most perfect being.
2 It is more perfect to exist than to not exist.
3 If God lacked existence then God would not be God.
4 Thus to understand 'God' is to understand that God must exist.
5 To deny that God exists is a contradiction.
6 Therefore God exists by necessity."

I would ask my opponent to define perfection. Why is it more perfect to exist than not to exist? What you have done is assume that existence is a perfection (perfection is a subjective quality), and then said that since God is perfect he must exist. Not all things that we view as perfect exist. I can imagine in my mind a perfect mountain, yet it is still a product of my mind, and does not actually exist in the real world. That is because perfection is a product of the imagination. It is entirely subjective. Perfection exists only as a concept in the mind, what we view as personally appealing compared to other things. Just because we subjectively view or define existence as a perfection does not mean that these perfect things therefore objectively exist.

"2) Argument from contingency
1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence other than itself (i.e. contingent beings)
2 The universe began to exist. (The universe is contingent)
3 Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence other than itself.
4 The cause of the universe must be a necessary being (i.e., a being that is not caused, it is eternal, has always existed and will always exist) and not a contingent being because of that would lead to an infinite regress.
5 This being must be God because he is the necessary being.
6 Therefore, God exists."

In this argument, it is first assumed that the universe could not be an infinite regression. It asserts without good reason that everything in existence except god must have a cause. Why is this? Why must matter have a cause? Or energy? In the words of Bertrand Russell: "If God simply is, why cant the universe just be?" By universe he does not mean our collection of galaxies, which obviously has a cause (i.e the Big Bang). What he means by "universe" is all that is in existence. Matter, light, energy, motion, elements, atoms, and a quarks. The scientific building blocks of our collection of galaxies. Why must these have a cause? Why cant they exist in and of themselves? We may as well assume that the universe is uncaused, existing eternally and giving rise to all other cause and effect. This hypothesis has just as much explanatory power as the hypothesis that God created the universe, and it is much simpler, requiring fewer additional assumptions. Therefore, all other things being equal, it is to be preferred. (Occams razor).

The argument also assumes that an infinite regress is impossible. This is drastic, especially since you are arguing for a being that itself has existed in an infinite regress. For instance, every thought God has ever had has been proceeded by another thought. This also leads to an infinite regress. Regardless, this is a flawed assumption, and it is entirely possible that the universe could have been proceeded by an infinite number of previous universes, each one unfolding with a rapid expansion and concluding with a rapid collapse. This should not be overlooked or discounted, or assumed to be incorrect.

Finally, I cannot say this better than I have read it in an article long ago that I saved,

"Say for the sake of argument that we ignore the above difficulty and grant this argument everything it asks then it still does nothing to establish the existence of God. Even if we accept this argument"s logic, all it proves is that there was a first cause. It does not prove that this first cause still exists today; it does not prove that this first cause has any interest in or awareness of human beings; it does not prove that this first cause is omnipotent or omniscient or benevolent. It does not even prove that the first cause is conscious or a person. An atheist could accept this entire chain of logic and then posit that the first cause was a purely natural phenomenon." -- Anonymous

I thought your final argument was the most interesting.
I hope you dont mind that I didnt write a neat paragraph, its much easier to refute proofs going line by line. If you would prefer I only write paragraphs, I will in the future.

1 One cannot deny one's own existence.

You can, I will allow it on the basis of common sense.

2 There is at least one thing that exists - you.

Yes. Me, you. Everyone.

3 The act of being(existing) must itself exist.

Remember, we defined existence as that with has objective being in reality. Many things have "being" in our imaginations but may not themselves exist in objective reality.

4 The nature of existence is actuality. ("actuality - really existing" v. "potentiality - could potentially exist")

Not necessarily. Existence is not simply being, but becoming. It is both potentiality and actuality. We are, and we are becoming something else. A man cannot step in the same river twice. He is not the same man, and the river is not the same river. We are always becoming something else. So here, I will disagree, existence is being AND becoming. Actuality, and potentiality.

5 Esse (Existence) is nothing but pure actuality.

See above.

6 Esse not only does exist but must exist.

7 Esse is distinct from everything else that exists.

8 Esse must be one.

Wait, wait. Didnt you just define Esse as existence, and then say that esse (existence) is distinct from everything else in existence? So if there are many existences and they are all distinct, how can esse (existence) be one?

9 Esse must be immutable.

No, since existence is also potentiality it can (and does) change. We call this time, which marks the change in what exists and what does not.

10 Esse must be eternal.

Existence is not eternal. What exists now may not have existed long ago. Likewise what once existed may not exist in the future.

11 Esse must be infinite.

Why? There are only a finite amount of existing things, and these things are not infinite. They do not last forever.

12 Esse must be omniscient.

In order to know something, one must be personal. But how can you say existence is personal when there are many things that exist and are not personal?

13 Esse must be omnipotent.

Again, why?

14 Esse is God.

See above.

I appreciated the time you took writing your arguments, I hope my responses made sense and my arguments do as well.
Now, onto my own counter arguments.

Argument 1: The concept of God is in and of itself logically contradictory.

The Immutability vs. Creation Argument
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time,
after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

Omnipotence vs. Omnipresence argument
1. If God exists, then he is omnipotent
2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent
3. An omnipotent being can do all things
4. An omniscient being knows all things
5. If something is known, it cannot be learned
6. Thus, since God knows everything, he cannot learn (4, 5)
7. God cannot do something (6)
8. God is a contradiction (3, 7)
9. It is logically impossible for God to exist.

I could go on, but these two will suffice to prove that the very concept of God is contradictory. Of course this does not mean God does not exist (it is possible logic is an illusion or that God is beyond logic and experience), but since the very concept of God is illogical, we are justified in not believing in him in much the same way as we would disbelieve the existence of a married bachelor. The very concept is contradictory.

I appreciate Pro taking the time to have a friendly debate with me. I wish him all the best.
Max
NKaloms

Pro

I appreciate Barcafan99 for his response. I agree, this debate is the most fun I've had in some time on this issue. Anyways, I first would like to begin by refuting his rebuttals.

1) The Ontological Argument

- Perfection: the condition, state, or quality of being free from all flaws or defects.
Because this is what perfection is, therefore it is more perfect for something to exist than to not exist. Not everything we imagine exists in reality yes, but if God is without all flaws, namely he is perfect, he must by definition exist.

2) Argument from Contingency

- My opponent is correct that in this argument we assume that the universe cannot be an infinite regression. But this is for a reason. Infinite regression of something made of substance, matter, energy, etc. cannot be an infinite regression. Anything that has physical or material substance cannot have infinite regression because it itself is not infinite. The universe's cause cannot have an infinite regression because then there would be no universe. For example, if time was infinite then there would be an infinite past and therefore there could be no present or future because there was no start to time, no beginning. But because there is a present, a now, there must have been a beginning.

The universe cannot have caused itself because it is contingent, it changes. God is the only explanation for contingent things because he is not contingent, he is eternal, he never changes.

God does not exist in an infinite regress. God cannot exist "in" anything. He is existence itself.

The universe cannot come from an infinite number of universes for the reasons above. There cannot be an infinite regress of universes because then there would not be this current universe.

3) Argument from CatholicAnswers.com

1)The points I provided were only the topic points, I understand that one can deny one's own existence, that doesn't mean they are correct in that belief.

2) I don't understand where this is a problem. If something exists, it exists. That's all the argument is saying here. If something exists in objective reality, it exists.

3) My opponent is correct in saying that some things that exist are both actual and potential. For example, I exist as I do now, but there is the "potential" for me to fall and cut myself. I would then exist with that scar, which was once potential, has now become actual and is continuing to change as my body repairs itself. All this argument is saying is that the nature of "existence" is the becoming of one thing to another, the actuality of something changing(potentiality) and becoming actualized again.

4) See above

8) My opponent misinterprets what the nature of existence is. Esse is distinct from everything else because esse is actual. We, as beings who change are both potential and actual, whereas existence itself is only actual. We participate in existence, we go from one thing to a next. We are actual, we have potential to change, we change and become actualized. This process repeats over and over every moment of our lives. That is what it means to exist. But existence itself is only actual. There is no such thing as existences, there is only one "existence" which we participate in. Just because I exist as something other than you does not mean we participate in different existences, it only means we are different as we participate in one existence.

9) See 3 and 8

10) My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that existence is a thing, a tangible object. Existence is eternal because
"it is". Things that exist participate in existence. Just because something doesn't exist anymore does not mean existence doesn't exist anymore.

11) This is not true. There are some things that are infinite. My opponent makes the mistake of assuming that everything is physical and therefore cannot be infinite. While my opponent is correct in saying that physical things cannot be infinite, he fails to recognize that there are non physical things that are infinite. Ex. Numbers, immaterial beings, Logical concepts, existence...

12) Once again my opponent confuses existence with things that exist as things. Just because something exists that is not personal, does not mean that existence is not personal.

13) The article explains why.

14) The article explains why.

Now to my opponents counter arguments -

1) The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

My opponent confuses the idea of time and God. If God is immutable, he exists outside of time. Therefore God created the universe because he always had the intention to create the universe and he continues to have that intention. My opponent believes that for God to create the universe he must have had the intention prior to creating it and then not have the intention after creating it. This is misunderstanding how God creates and thinks. God is eternal and unchanging. He is timeless. He cannot have intentions that he has not had before. Therefore, God has always had the intention to create the universe and always will, this is not a problem for God because God is outside of time.

2) Omnipotence vs Omnipresence Argument

Before I even respond to this I'd like to address something brought up after this argument. My opponent says that it is possible for logic to be an illusion or for God to work outside the laws of logic. This is a misunderstanding of God and truth. How did my opponent come to this conclusion... by using logic. Though that logic may be flawed, he nevertheless used it. Also, God cannot do what is logically impossible, for something logically impossible is just nonsense, and therefore just because you put an all powerful God before nonsense does not stop making it nonsense.

Anyways on to my rebuttal of his argument

My opponent's argument against God's existence is flawed because my opponent does not understand what omnipotent means. Omnipotent means - able to do all things that are logically possible

This means that because God knows all, he doesn't need to learn anything, he already knows everything. This does not make him not all powerful, rather, God is constrained by his own omnipotence, which really isn't constraining at all. God cannot learn because he has no need to. He already knows everything. For an all powerful God, learning is an imperfection. This means that if God learns, he would no longer be God, because to be God you must know all, therefore you have no need of learning.

I await my opponent's response.

Sources:

https://www.catholic.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Barcafan99

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for his arguments, and I hope to continue our friendly and fun debate.

Lets begin.
Rebuttals:
"- Perfection: the condition, state, or quality of being free from all flaws or defects.
Because this is what perfection is, therefore it is more perfect for something to exist than to not exist. Not everything we imagine exists in reality yes, but if God is without all flaws, namely he is perfect, he must by definition exist."

So perfection is that which is flawless? But again, the very concept of a flaw is subjective. Its based on what appeals to us. The only reason some say non-existence is a flaw is because they view it as not appealing. Why is non-existence a flaw? You are assuming this in the same way you assumed existence was a perfection.

"Infinite regression of something made of substance, matter, energy, etc. cannot be an infinite regression. Anything that has physical or material substance cannot have infinite regression because it itself is not infinite"

Not infinite? Do you mean not of an infinite quantity? Your assuming that things of a finite number could not have existed for an eternity. Just because there isnt an infinite number of atoms does not mean that matter has not always existed. That doesn't follow.

"The universe's cause cannot have an infinite regression because then there would be no universe. For example, if time was infinite then there would be an infinite past and therefore there could be no present or future because there was no start to time, no beginning. But because there is a present, a now, there must have been a beginning."

No, if time was infinite there would be an infinite past and infinite present. Think about it like this - you have a line that goes on infinitely in both directions. Now point to a place on the line - this is the moment in time you now occupy. The present. Behind you is an infinite stretch of time, and ahead of you is an infinite stretch of time (past and future). So, think about time that way. Just because there is a present does not indicate any kind of beginning.

"The universe cannot have caused itself because it is contingent, it changes. God is the only explanation for contingent things because he is not contingent, he is eternal, he never changes."

Matter is not contingent. There is no good reason it cannot exist in and of itself. Matter cannot be created or destroyed[1] - it makes the most sense if we then say it has always existed, and that most other cause and effect (like the big bang, evolution, etc.) are somehow are the result of matter and energy.

"God does not exist in an infinite regress. God cannot exist "in" anything. He is existence itself."

If God cannot exist in anything, how can he exist at all? If by time we mean "The measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues,"[2] then if God exists outside of time he doesnt exist at all. He cant move or think or create or do anything if he is outside of time (time measures action), so if god were to do anything he would be in time.

Also, what does it mean for God to be existence itself? Existence is a state of being or becoming, not a person.

"The universe cannot come from an infinite number of universes for the reasons above. There cannot be an infinite regress of universes because then there would not be this current universe."

Yes there can, for the reasons I said above.

Argument from Catholic Answers:
1)Ok. I'm more than happy to grant it.

2) No it wasn't a problem, I was just pointing that out.

3) Yes, the "actuality of something changing and becoming actualized again" is potentiality. Existence is not "pure actuality", because in pure actuality there is only being. The better way to see existence is by looking at it as being and becoming - a more dualistic view.

4) See above.

8) What is esse? Now Im getting confused. If esse is existence, then it is both potential and actual. Existence is constantly changing and constantly being.
Now when you say there is only one existence we participate in, I assume you are saying that there is only one reality. This is true, I agree. But this reality is not only actual. It is not only in a state of being - it too is always changing, always becoming something else.

9) Ok.

10) Existence is not a thing - it is a state of being. But I understand what you are saying - yes something will always exist.

11) Ok, Im sorry I misunderstood this.

12) Existence is a state of being, not a person. A state of being cannot know anything, cannot do anything, it simply is. By saying existence is omniscient, you are speaking of it as if it were a person. It is not, it is a state of being.

13) For the reason above, existence also cannot be omnipotent. Omnipotent implies personhood. Existence is a state of being, and cannot do anything.

Now to my counter arguments.

"My opponent confuses the idea of time and God. If God is immutable, he exists outside of time. Therefore God created the universe because he always had the intention to create the universe and he continues to have that intention. My opponent believes that for God to create the universe he must have had the intention prior to creating it and then not have the intention after creating it. This is misunderstanding how God creates and thinks. God is eternal and unchanging. He is timeless. He cannot have intentions that he has not had before. Therefore, God has always had the intention to create the universe and always will, this is not a problem for God because God is outside of time."

Ill rephrase what I said before about God and time. If by time we mean "The measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues,"[2] then if God exists outside of time he doesnt exist at all. He cant move or think or create or do anything if he is outside of time (time measures action), so if god were to do anything he would be in time.
God has to be inside of time, because as an omnipotent being he has do be able to do things. If he was outside of time, he could do nothing, because there is nothing by which to measure his actions. or non action, past actions or future actions.
So the argument still stands.

"My opponent's argument against God's existence is flawed because my opponent does not understand what omnipotent means. Omnipotent means - able to do all things that are logically possible"

Omnipotence: "having virtually unlimited authority or influence"[3]

Your turning omnipotence into a weasel word, and redefining it simply for the sake of the argument. Its an ad-hoc, really. Redefining a term so that its not affected by an argument.

Almost like Carl Sagan's dragon in the garage. You redefine his attributes as we examine his character critically, so as to put him out of the reach of our logical argument.

Plus, even if I granted that god can only do "logically possible things", its still logically possible to learn. I do it all the time. So, since learning is logically possible, then god should be able to do it. But do to his omniscience, he cannot. Now we have a being who simultaneously can and cant learn. A contradiction. Regardless of how you put it, the argument still stands.

Thanks so much for a fun debate, I wish you the best in school and whatever else is keeping you busy,
Im sorry if not all of my arguments made sense - this was hastily typed after I came back from school and realized that I had 49 mins left to complete the debate! Ill re-expalin anything that was rushed next round.
Cheers!
Max

[1]https://www.britannica.com...
[2]https://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]https://www.merriam-webster.com...
NKaloms

Pro

Thanks to my opponent again for his response. It's been a very fun and amicable debate. I'm going to just dive right into it.

My opponent claims that flaws are subjective. I completely disagree. For example, if something has lost a limb, it has lost the ability to function with what it previously had. This is a flaw. It is objective because the thing has actually lost something and therefore cannot do what it previously could. Remember, words are not subjective, the are objective noises and sounds we use to describe real experiences. Non-existence is a flaw because it lacks the ability to do anything. It is nothing.

Forgive me for my wording. What I meant was that matter that created matter cannot go on forever.

My opponent's third rebuttal is a misunderstanding of infinite regression. If there is a line, where is the middle? The problem is, there is no middle. A line goes on infinitely in one direction and infinitely in the other. But you cannot have a present if the line continues infinitely back. For where is the start? There is no start, and if there is no start, there is no present. There is no past, present, or future with an infinite regress. But we are in the present moment so there must have been a beginning. Notice, there is nothing wrong with an infinite progression, only regression.

Matter is contingent. We know that matter and energy have not existed forever. They could not have caused the Big Bang because "before"(using time to understand this here) the Big Bang, there was nothing; no matter, no energy, nothing.

God can exist because God is existence itself. He doesn't need to exist in anything. Things can exist outside of time. Numbers "exist" as numbers but they are not within time. They exist outside of time as a concept, an objective way to measure things. Logic exists outside of time as an objective way to measure reality. If there was nothing, there would be no one who could use such things, but nevertheless they would still exist because it would be true that "nothing existed(except for the things I already described)".

God is both a state of being and a person. This is a hard thing to understand but if we understand that existence is actuality, then actuality can be an all-powerful being.

3) Existence itself is actuality. It is the changing of one actuality to another, over and over again. My opponent misunderstands existence as being and becoming. But existence is not this and becoming is only the changing of one "being" to another.

8) Esse is pure actuality. Existence is actuality. When something "changes" it is one "being" becoming another. This does not contradict my argument.

12 and 13) Existence is a being, a being capable of doing all things that are possible. The argument from CatholicAnswers.com explains why.

Once again, things can exist outside of time, there is no reason why something cannot decide something outside of time as long as that something has always had and will always have that intention. God can do things outside of time.

My opponent accuses me of ad-hoc reasoning, but his very definition is basically the same as mine. Notice the word "virtually". Virtually - nearly, almost. So, I don't see how my opponent can claim I'm using ad-hoc reasoning. God can do all things that are possible for him to do, or in my opponent's words - "virtually unlimited".

It is not logically possible for God to learn. This does not make him not all powerful, for God is able to all things that are possible... for him to do. He cannot do things that are impossible because those things are nonsense. My opponent is trying to compare God's ability to our ability. It doesn't make sense.

Thanks again for this debate. I await my opponent's response. Hope to hear from you, Nicholas.

Sources:

https://www.catholic.com...

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NKaloms 3 months ago
NKaloms
Absolutely! I'd love to. Perhaps next week? I'll check to see if I can.
Posted by Barcafan99 3 months ago
Barcafan99
This has been very fun. I hope to have a response in a few hours. Maybe we can do this again when we both dont have school or exams to do?
Posted by NKaloms 3 months ago
NKaloms
No problem! Excited to continue!
Posted by Barcafan99 3 months ago
Barcafan99
Hey! So glad to see you submitted your argument! Ill have one back to you today or tommorow :)
Thanks for not forfeiting
Posted by NKaloms 3 months ago
NKaloms
Sure thing C_e_e
Posted by NKaloms 3 months ago
NKaloms
Sure thing C_e_e
Posted by C_e_e 3 months ago
C_e_e
Mr. NKaloms, would you please change your settings on this site so that you can receive a message via the "Send a Message" button on your profile page? Or, click on the button on my profile page so that we can communicate that way.
Posted by NKaloms 3 months ago
NKaloms
I'm so sorry Barcafan99, I just uploaded my argument. School and projects have been unforgiving upon me. I just submitted my argument. Sorry for the worries, I'll do my very best to respond as quick as possible in the next rounds.
Posted by Barcafan99 3 months ago
Barcafan99
Aw man, please dont forfeit. I just want to finish a debate for once lol
Posted by canis 3 months ago
canis
The invisible green monster some claim to exist, does not exist. I could defend that claim...But would not really have to..
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.