The Instigator
Pwner
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
popculturepooka
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

God does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Pwner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,528 times Debate No: 30813
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (5)

 

Pwner

Pro

I. Introduction

I’d like to thank my opponent for debating me on this interesting topic, and look forward to an enlightening exchange.

So, here’s the deal. I’m going to show you that God [1] doesn’t exist. Your efforts to find a way out of my argument will fail, but I need you to try anyways. Your de-conversion will only be as real as the effort you put into the debate.

II. The Argument
  1. If God exists, then any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it. [Premise]
  2. If any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it, then no one ought to prevent any child from suffering. [Premise]
  3. But, someone ought to prevent a child from suffering. [Premise]
  4. Therefore, some child that suffers will ultimately fail to benefit from it. [(2), (3) M.T.]
  5. Therefore, God doesn't exist. [(1), (4) M.T.]
This argument is deductively valid, meaning if its three premises [(1)-(3)] are true, then its conclusions [(4) & (5)] have to be true. But, are its premises true? Let’s investigate them one by one.

Premise (1): If God exists, then any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it.

The first premise is true because allowing a child to suffer purely for someone else’s sake (or for no one’s at all) is child abuse and God wouldn't be a child abuser. It would harm the child's well-being and likely inflict psychological damage as the child comes to grips with the frightening and cruel reality of having to agonize for no good reason. As Kant recognized, it’s wrong to use any person merely as a means to an end. If someone can simultaneously be morally perfect and a child abuser, I’d like to know what’s left for nonsense to refer to. Most people—theists and atheists alike—will endorse (1).

However, there are more inquisitive minds—especially if they’re heavily invested in their God-belief—who will wish to investigate deeper. They’ll want to look for counter-examples, and see whether God even could insure that every child that suffers ultimately benefits from it. I’ll only anticipate the most likely objections in this post. [2]

For instance, you might wonder whether retributive punishment is a counter-example, perhaps being a morally permissible instance of allowing a child to suffer without ultimately benefiting from it. (If it was rehabilitative punishement, the child would obviously ultimately benefit) But, I submit that retributive punishment for a child is gravely questionable, and doing so by allowing it to suffer is morally forbidden. Suffering does not refer to the discomfort of sitting in a corner for time-out, having your games taken away for a weekend or even getting spanked: it's an agonizing level of pain that no child should be subjected to unless it ultimately benefited from it.

The interest in whether God could accomplish such a feat will most likely arise from worries over free-will: couldn’t humans freely interrupt God’s intention and prevent a child from ultimately benefiting from its suffering? But, the question is uninteresting since even if we answered yes to it, it would still be true that humans could just as well fail to freely disrupt God’s intentions. Whether free-will is compatible with determinism—in which case God could just determine people to not interrupt his goal—or not—in which case God could foresee and make real those circumstances in which every agent fails to freely interrupt his goal—God could still insure that any child that suffers, ultimately gains from it.

In sum, we have excellent reasons for thinking that if God exists, then any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it.

Premise (2):If any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it, then no one ought to prevent any child from suffering.

The second premise is as true as the first. How could we be morally obligated to harm a child's well-being? Because harming these children is exactly what we'd be doing if we prevented them from ultimately benefiting from their suffering: it'd be for nothing.

Furthermore, one could only be morally obliged to prevent a child from suffering if allowing the child to suffer would be wrong. But, if there really was a greater good made available to every child through suffering, it would not be wrong to allow any of them to suffer for the sake of that greater good. Any instance of their suffering would just be like when we allow a child to feel the pain from a needle so they might ultimately benefit from a vaccine or surgery.

Keep in mind when chewing on this premise the difference between moral epistemology and moral ontology.

Now, is that the world we live in? One in which we don’t need to worry about whether a child will come out on top after enduring their suffering?

Premise (3): But, someone ought to prevent a child from suffering.

No! It's precisely because we aren't sure whether a child will come out on top that we have the drive to prevent their suffering.We know there’s a genuine chance that their suffering is for nothing, and we’re driven by this.

Our final premise is certainly true: someone should prevent children from being sold into prostitution, from being mercilessly beaten to within inches of their life, or from being abandoned to a lonely and agonizing death like starvation.

III. Conclusion

Unfortunately then, because all three premises true, our conclusions must also be true, and not every child will ultimately benefit from the suffering it endures. As harsh as this reality is we’re doing no one a service by hiding from it. God simply does not exist and that’s why we fight so hard for children, a fight we otherwise wouldn’t need to engage in.

Now, I do not foresee my opponent trying to defeat any of these premises directly: there’s no way to rationally confront any of them. But, he might argue that his reasons for believing in God are so strong that the conclusion is just too implausible. In light of this, he will be forced to reject one of the premises, whichever he finds least plausible. However, as I’ve argued, it’s absurd to reject any of them. Thus, if he is forced to embrace absurdity to maintain his theism, the rational thing to do is abandon his belief in God. If his reasons for believing in God are remarkably strong, this will push him into agnosticism. If they’re weak (or impotent as I will endeavor to show in my rebuttal), then he should affirm the non-existence of God. Either way, the rational thing to do is de-convert.


—Footnotes—

[1]: I follow the standard notion of God as a metaphysically necessary, essentially omnipotent, omniscient morally perfect person.

[2]: There are other objections I hope my interlocutor does not advance, such as that there would be no objective moral duties unless God existed. For now, suffice it to say I am a polytheist. But, will offer defeating considerations if prompted to.
popculturepooka

Con

I thank Pwner for his very interesting and challenging variant of the argument from evil.

The argument is logically valid so if I want to deny the conclusion I have to challenge one of the premises. I agree with 1 and 3. I disagree with with 2. My criticisms will focus on 2.


"Ultimately Benefit"

First, I propose that the phrase "ultimately benefits" should be understood in a way similar to how Marilyn McCord Adams understands what an answer to the problem of evil has to look like. Mainly, she is concerned with how God can be good to those who have participated (both to the victim and the perpetrator) in horrendous evils. [1] (If anything, instances of child suffering like their rape are prime examples of horrendous evil.) Meaning, that these goods must be "patient-centered" - that is, they must be goods that are shared by the sufferer. Not only must they be goods shared by the sufferer they must be goods that make all the sufferings had by the person that threaten to destroy all meaning in their life meaningful through the defeat of those evils. The persons' life must be a great good to them on the whole and, eventually, the person must be able to recognize that fact. What Adams means by "defeat" of evils is this: she means a state where God integrates the evil into the persons life such that those evils as a part add an indispensable element to the whole overall that makes the good better would have been without the evil(s) added to it. [2]

Connection-Building Theodicy [3]

Second, I want to lay out the CBT. It is not being put forth as an entire or whole explanation of all evil - more of a partial explanation. (It could be combined with other theodicies like free will, soul making, etc) But I think it has a lot of value in answering this challenge nonetheless, so I will just focus on the CBT.

1. Virtuous responses to evil create intrinsically valuable connections among persons, with the type of connection corresponding to the type of virtuous act.
2. Some of these connections will last forever as an ongoing part of the conscious experience of both the performers and recipients of the virtuous acts [4]

The basic idea of CBT is encapsulated in 1. and 2. above. These connections are intrinsically good relationships that can be had between persons. These relationships are very intuitive posits because people often claim to have formed special connections with each other through times of great difficulty. This often comes in the form of emotional, mental, or physical support.

The type of connections important here are those of appreciation, contribution, intimacy (ACI for short). Appreciation would (obviously) be appreciation of a person who has done something for another person. Undoubtedly, a person isn't fully aware of how connected they are to others through their contributions both great and small to their life. No doubt this appreciation would grow the more they learned about how others did contribute to their life. For example, my appreciation of my parents sacrifice in raising me would tremendously grow if I found out that they had went without in order to give me opportunities they never had. Contribution would be when a person contributes to the welfare of another. Many people claim that some sense of meaning in their life would be lost if they did not contribute to the overall welfare of the world and help others. This contribution will often form a special bond between the helper and the helpee - i.e. the connection of intimacy.

These ACI connections figure in the CBT so heavily because they allow for virtuous responses to evil that form intrinsically good connections that could not be had otherwise.

1. Connections of ACI resulting from one person sacrificially aiding another in times of suffering, especially when that aid involves some sort of sharing in the pain and suffering of the recipient.
2. Connections of ACI resulting from one person helping another out of moral and spiritual darkness.
3. Connections of ACI resulting from forgiving and being forgiven. [5]

If it is assumed that the connections can last forever - that is, from here into the eternal afterlife (and it's unclear why an afterlife should/would be ruled out given the God we are talking about) it can also be plausibly be assumed that the value of these connections as they grow and deepen over time can integrate these evils into an organic whole such that these evils are defeated in Adams' sense.

Premise 2

Now, what does all this have to do with premise 2? The answer would be that the CBT can provide a partial explanation as to why preventing child suffering is good even when the child will ultimately benefit.

1) On the CBT the means in which a child will ultimately benefit from their suffering will be through a person preventing their suffering. That is, the way God ensures that any child will benefit from his or her suffering is through another person. That would be because those ongoing ACI connections that are formed between the child and their helper are partly what helps to defeat those evils in the first place. God integrates those sort of ACI connections formed through virtuous responses and weaves that into how that child would benefit.

For example, it could work the following: suppose Steve sees a poor, malnourished, dispossessed, abused, and homeless child out on the street and decides out of the goodness of his heart to take this child into his home and care for him as he would his own children. Obviously, this would form significant ACI connections. Perhaps Steve sells his expensive Hummer and uses public transportation in order to have more money to put toward the child's welfare. Or perhaps he doesn't go out anymore. Perhaps Steve was at one time homeless himself so he can significantly empathize with the child. That might illustrate connection 1. Perhaps the child acts out in destructive ways and rebels against Steve's authority because he has a distrust of of adults due to how they have treated him in the past (that would be why the child is homeless; he ran away from an abusive home) but eventually changes due to Steve's patient and loving disposition and parenting. That would be connection 2. Perhaps the child eventually changes so much that he gets in touch with his former abusers and forgives them for hurting him. That would be connection 3. Vice versa, of course, the child could help Steven become a better person by teaching him to be more patient, loving and kind. He could also teach Steve the value of learning to do without more material possessions. In both cases, there are mutual ACI connections formed through virtuous responses to each other. On the CBT, the value of these connections would only deepen and grow in the afterlife.

The above scenario is entirely speculative, of course. But I think it illustrates how a person preventing a child's suffering could figure in the ultimate benefit that God ensures that child will have.

Thus, I think there is good reason to doubt premise 2 of Pro's argument and judge it to be unsound.


Sources

[1] Evils the participation in which (that is, the doing or suffering of which) constitutes prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to him/her on the whole.
http://www.iep.utm.edu...
[2] http://books.google.com...
[3] http://home.messiah.edu...
[4] ibid pg 2
[5] ibid pg 3
Debate Round No. 1
Pwner

Pro

Rebuttal

I thank popculture for his opening statement.

Of my argument’s three premises, my opponent concedes the first and the third but opts to dispute the second. Let’s think very carefully about his objection.

Premise (2) says that “If any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it, then no one ought to prevent any child from suffering.”

There are only two ways to defeat this premise. You could either show that it’s no more plausibly true than its negation (called undermining), or you could show that its negation is more plausibly true than it (called overriding).

Premise (2)’s negation can be stated as that someone ought to prevent a child from suffering even if that child will ultimately benefit from it.

So, in order to defeat premise (2), popculture must either undermine premise (2)—by showing that it’s no more plausible than this negation—or override (2)—by showing that its negation is more plausible than it.

Which route does popculture undertake? Well…neither by the sounds of it.

After clarifying the notion of ‘ultimate benefit’ by reference to Marilyn McCord Adams—which incidentally strengthens my first premise—and laying out Collins’ connection-building theodicy (CBT), he says “Now, what does all this have to do with premise 2? The answer would be that the CBT can provide a partial explanation as to why preventing child suffering is good even when the child will ultimately benefit.” (Emphasis mine)

And how would the CBT provide a partial explanation for this? “On the CBT the means in which a child will ultimately benefit from their suffering will be through a person preventing their suffering.”

But, we can concede that it’s good (in some cases) to prevent a child from suffering even if the child will ultimately benefit from it without having to say one ought to (in some cases) prevent a child from suffering even if the child will ultimately benefit from it. Thus, even if he was right, he will have only shown that (in some cases) preventing a child’s suffering is supererogatory, not that it is obligatory, which is what he’d need to do if he wanted to defeat (2). He therefore does not seem to be responding to premise (2), but rather objecting to the claim that it wouldn’t be good to prevent a child from suffering if it ultimately benefited from it.

However, would his CBT response work if it was re-worded to show that one ought to (in some cases) prevent a child from suffering even if the child will ultimately benefit from it?

No, because premise (2)’s negation is impossible. A child can’t ultimately benefit from its suffering unless it suffers in the first place, and it can’t do this if it was prevented from doing so. Thus, if a child will in fact ultimately benefit from its suffering (as (2) stipulates), then it will not be prevented from suffering. In fact, it’s impossible for a child to ultimately benefit from its suffering if it’s prevented from suffering, for then the child will and will not have something to ultimately benefit from!

Since ought implies can, and one cannot prevent a child’s suffering if it will ultimately benefit from it, then no one ought to, just as premise (2) stipulates.

Thus, premise (2) is rationally indubitable.

All of this is aside from the fact that his CBT response requires an eternal after-life, which even if it is unclear why it should be ruled out given God’s existence, it’s also unclear why it should be included, as it needs to be. Furthermore, not all after-lives would do the work his CBT needs to be done. It needs an after-life wherein these relationships will grow deeper, but it’s hard to see how this would feasibly obtain on eternal after-life scenarios like reincarnation where the people in the relationship don’t need to reincarnate at the same time, in the same place, or even as the same species, or on scenarios where participants in the relationship end up in hell, where such relations cannot deepen. He needs there to be a very specific after-life which unfortunately presupposes God's existence. Since that's precisely what's in dispute, his response begs the question. But, even if it didn't, it requires a hefty amount of evidence he's not yet mustered.

As my opponent has conceded two of my three premises, and I’ve shown the final premise to be rationally undeniable, there are only two options left for him. First, he could concede that the premises are true and de-convert. This needn't mean endorsing atheism, agnosticism or giving up any of his arguments for theism as he'd be free to believe in other deities, re-routing his arguments towards other gods. This seems perfectly reasonable since most arguments from natural theology are for generic things like an 'intelligent designer', which of course needn't be identified as 'God'. His second option is to reject at least one premise on the grounds that it leads to the unacceptable conclusion that God does not exist. If he opts for the second option, he will need to explain why God’s existence is more plausible than the premises of my argument. In other words, he’ll have to give us some arguments for God’s existence (as I recommended he do in my opening post). Being late in the debate, some might feel this would be cheating as I would have little room to do justice in a further rebuttal. However, I’m not bothered to be honest. I feel more than confident that I could adequately address any new arguments he wishes to marshal, and invite him to do so if he’s not yet prepared to concede that God does not exist.
popculturepooka

Con

Thanks, Pro.

My line of attack was simply this: due to an insufficiently clear understanding of "ultimate benefit" and ambiguity in Pro's argument does his argument get it's legs. There is a version of theism that is compatible with premise (2)'s negation that is more plausible than (2). Once it is fleshed out what "ultimate benefit" is and what it would involve - some goods that are ACI connections - this would show that there is more reason not to believe (2) than there is to believe it.

Pro is right that I did say "Now, what does all this have to do with premise 2? The answer would be that the CBT can provide a partial explanation as to why preventing child suffering is good even when the child will ultimately benefit." (Emphasis on the "good"). That was a mental faux pas on my part. It should have been cast in terms of obligation - i.e. right and wrong.


Pro objects that (2)'s negation is impossible. Because obviously a child can't ultimately benefit from the suffering it was prevented from going through in the first place. But this itself is a bit unclear and ambiguous. For instance, one could prevent a child from experiencing any ongoing or more thoroughgoing suffering. John could prevent a child being beating within inches of his life from being beat further until he is dead. In that case, the child has experienced suffering, yet the person has prevented more suffering had he not intervened. Does Pro mean "prevent suffering" in both the proactive sense (such as working to prevent children from being sold into prostitution rings in the first place) and the reactive sense (such as working on getting children trapped in prostitution rings out of their predicament)? Obviously in the second sense a child could still ultimately benefit from their suffering even if they are prevented from experiencing more suffering. But even in the first sense the CBT helps because it provides no overarching reasons for skepticism about moral obligation. On the CBT preventing suffering in that first sense would still build positive ACI connections that are part of the ultimate benefit of the child. In essence, the moral obligation - and connections that spring from it - to prevent child suffering figures in the ultimate benefit of the child. The CBT also could work as a complement to the soul-making theodicy whereby preventing evil would help form one's morally virtuous character. [1]


Finally, Pro questions my assumption of a certain sort of after life that is essential to the the CBT. His charge seems to be that this assumption is either a) unmotivated or b) question-begging. I can't see the force of either of these objections. Regarding both those objections when considering Pro's argument it's surely fair play to consider propositions that are likely given the existence of God. If we assume that God is a morally perfect person - and we are for this debate - and is the supreme good (in Platonic terms The Good), it would seem likely that the greatest good/ultimate benefit for any child would be to participate in communion with God. If full participation in this life doesn't happen it'd be reason to think it happens in the next life. If full participation with God partly involves the sort of goods I invoked (ACI connections). Necessarily, that would rule out afterlives that don't have ACI connections (i.e. ones with an annihilation of some people or an eternal hell). So the "other afterlives" objections doesn't really work. One point I didn't perhaps make clear is that the CBT isn't limited to ACI connections between humans. There could also be ACI connections between human persons and non-human persons (like God or angels).

In conclusion, I think I need not offer arguments for God's existence in the context of this debate. Not only would it take us too far a field - and given space and character limits that's a real concern - it is enough to just show that it is not reasonable to believe Pro's argument is sound. Thus the resolution is not affirmed.

Sources

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Pwner

Pro

Closing Statement

I thank Con for participating in this debate and hope the reader has found it informative and entertaining.

My opponent and I have mostly spent our debate talking about the second premise of my argument:


‘If any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it, then no one ought to prevent any child from suffering’.

As I’ve argued, premise (2) must be true because its negation is impossible. Con summarizes my line of thought succinctly: “[O]bviously a child can't ultimately benefit from the suffering it was prevented from going through in the first place.”

And if no one can prevent a child from suffering something it will ultimately benefit from, then no one ought to.

Now, he alleges that this is ambiguous: there are two ways to prevent a child from suffering X: a proactive prevention wherein the child is protected from suffering X in the first place, and a reactive prevention wherein someone stops the child from suffering X any longer. He says that “Obviously in the second sense [reactive prevention] a child could still ultimately benefit from their suffering even if they are prevented from experiencing more suffering” and wonders which sense I’m using.

But, this strikes me as odd: there is only one sense of ‘prevention’ under which I could reasonably claim that it’s impossible to prevent a child from suffering if it will ultimately benefit from it, and he seemed to acknowledge it when he summarized my line of thought as that “a child can’t ultimately benefit from the suffering it was prevented from going through in the first place.” That is to say, I must be using the proactive sense of prevention or my claim is complete nonsense. So, I’m not sure why he finds this ambiguous, unless he doesn’t think I’m all that bright of a lad. :P

Regardless, he says even on a proactive sense of prevention, someone would still be morally obligated to prevent a child from suffering even though it will ultimately benefit from its suffering. But, this is impossible folks! If the child will ultimately benefit from its suffering, then it will suffer in the first place, and if it will suffer in the first place, then it won’t be proactively prevented from suffering! To deny premise (2) is to say that a child will and will not be proactively prevented from suffering X. That is, you deny (2), you deny the law of non-contradiction. So, I’ll reiterate my claim as true using his distinction: ‘If any child that suffers will ultimately benefit from it, then no one ought to proactively prevent any child from suffering’.

Finally, Con addresses my concerns about the after-life his CBT theodicy requires. The idea is that in order for the goodness of the relationships between people that arise from having endured an evil (or some such) to outweigh the badness of the evil, some of these relationships are gonna have to deepen throughout an after-life. But, I retorted that there are numerous after-life scenarios where these relationships wouldn’t deepen, and thus that his CBT theodicy requires us to believe in a very specific kind of after-life. Since he didn’t seem to provide any reason for thinking this kind of after-life would obtain rather than any other kinds, if God existed, I pointed out an unmet burden. Finally, I alleged that the kind of after-life he needs (one with an eternal heaven) presupposes God’s existence. In other words, we can’t accept his CBT theodicy unless we already believe in God, so his theodicy shouldn’t convince anyone who doesn’t already believe in God to change their mind.

He responds to this by listing some conditions on which we might expect the kind of after-life his CBT theodicy needs. If God is the supreme good, and if communion with him is the greatest benefit a child could incur, and if this communion isn’t satisfied in this life, and if full communion with God partially involves the deepening of the relationships his CBT theodicy describes, then we might expect such an after-life. Folks…that’s a lot of ifs. Granted, some are more plausible than others, these are controversial theses. God’s being the supreme good is to theism what Calvinism is to Christianity. Can you imagine how much work my opponent would have to do in order to sufficiently establish each of these conditions? Think of the innumerable objections that are bound to be lodged. Furthermore, you’d pretty much have to accept all of these ifs. For instance, suppose you accept the first three ifs. You’re free to believe in after-life scenarios like reincarnation under which my opponent’s required relationships wouldn’t deepen. So, just take a look at this heap of claims that you’d have to believe in order to accept his CBT response. Ask yourself if you endorse any of them, or all of them. What would it take to convince you of them?

All this aside, even if you did endorse his theodicy, it wouldn’t help since premise (2) would still be necessarily true.

In summary, I’ve given a validly deductive argument against God’s existence with just three premises. Its first premise is true on pain of God being a child abuser. Its second premise is true on pain of denying the law of non-contradiction, and its final premise is true on pain of things like child abuse not being wrong. With all true premises, the argument is sound, and the conclusion necessarily follows: God does not exist.

popculturepooka

Con

popculturepooka forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pwner 3 years ago
Pwner
I wouldn't mind a redo.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Could there be a redo?
Posted by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
Had to FF dude to some medical problems with my mom. :S
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 3 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
Wish I could vote right now...
Posted by FiniteRegress 3 years ago
FiniteRegress
Is difficult to determine whether the Pro's premises' are valid because the "God" being debated is undefined.
Posted by cybertron1998 3 years ago
cybertron1998
genie true the beliefs in the bible are either extremely exaggerated or made up but some of the customs are legit like quran says that only to attack if attacked i mean you don't think that is bad. and adultery again is bad to some case but yes doing it for a god is childish. as you know i believe that theres an almighty entity but i am not striving to work for it in any way
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
keytarhero, ignores direct sunlight in his eyes like he avoids the Genie.

He calls the sun a troill too when its truth stings his eyes :)

keytarhero believes the stars came from slave supporting sexist, he hates when you break things down to reality :)

Its more fun to understanddebate format like p=r and bull that splits hairs because the truth and focusing on the immature beliefs of the biblical fairy tale pansy is embarrassing

Structure the fact that the bible is the most childish and divisive book next to the quran, :)

Dont forget the name keytarhero, while your playing DJ at a wedding (straight people of course, gay marriages are gross god is good :) I'll be smashing your leaders in the mouth with the Sun light you call troll :)

Now grab your holy binky and go mentally abuse a child by telling them leviticus and deuteronomy are awesome
Posted by cybertron1998 3 years ago
cybertron1998
genie I can see your a bit less hostile than sagey and I thank you for that
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
Yeah, Pooka, Devient is a troll and I just ignore him now.
Posted by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
@proglib, thanks.

@devient.genie, (-_-)
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
PwnerpopculturepookaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeit was disappointing, but I feel that Pro would've won anyway.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
PwnerpopculturepookaTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
PwnerpopculturepookaTied
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: Obvious win for Pwner. However, I would say that premise 1 should be restated as: "P1: If God exists, then when a child suffers/ dies, it is necessary for a greater good." The reason being, is that there is no reason why the greater good in question has to necessarily benefit the person suffering. However, there is good reason why a person suffering would have to be necessary for some greater good in general if God exists. For the theist to deny this premise, would be to admit that some suffering is gratuitous.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
PwnerpopculturepookaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: After reading all that, I was disappointed to see Con forfeit in the last round.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
PwnerpopculturepookaTied
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: That's unfortunate.