The Instigator
NightofTheLivingCats
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Dmot
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

God exists.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Dmot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 942 times Debate No: 36676
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

NightofTheLivingCats

Con

4 Rounds
6,000 characters
72 hour rounds
Voting will last 10 days

I will let Dmot debate me.

'God' is the Judaeo-Christian God
BOP is slightly shared
No semantics

R1 Dmot may fire his opening shots.
Dmot

Pro

First of all is the original question "God exists." The notion of God that con is talking about is the "Judeo-Christian God." Therefore, we are talking about the supreme being that is unique, Omni-potent, knowing, present, good, etc. We are not talking about ancient Greek gods or the gods of any other religion(s).

Judaism and Christianity are specific revelations of God. It is possible that a god exists and each of these be false or it is possible that God exists and they both be true or only Judaism be true. That is a question of what the specific god in question has revealed about himself. That is not what we are debating today. The way I understand it is that we are arguing whether or not the being "God" as generally defined and understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition exists. Because of this, my arguments will not specifically be in support of Judaism or Christianity. My arguments will attempt to show that God as generally understood in these traditions does in fact exist.

Next, the BOP. The proper a priori position before any arguments are given is to withhold belief in the specific being. My job therefore is to demonstrate that this being does in fact exist and that one should assent to this truth. Con seems to be arguing against this being and therefore shares the burden of proof because he is making a positive claim, namely, the claim that the being in question does not in fact exist.

Now for my arguments. These are not all possible arguments for the God of J-C tradition. if con feels as though my arguments are too broad and need to be narrowed down for the debate, I will do that and either provide different arguments or clarify the ones below. I will offer 3. They will start from the effect and proceed to a cause without a priori understanding of that cause.

I. Argument from Contingency
Definitions: A contingent thing is something that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary thing is that which exists by the necessity of its own nature.

P1) If all that exists in the world is contingent things, there is no ultimate explanation
P2) There must be an ultimate explanation for existence
C1) It is impossible that everything be contingent therefore we must admit a necessary being.

Proof of 1- A contingent thing points to something else for its existence as a cause or explanation. This is because the nature of the thing in question does not tell us that it exists. A contingent thing therefore is the kind of thing that might exist but might not. Therefore, the explanation for its existence cannot be in itself (i.e. cannot reside in the nature of the thing) but must be in something else that gave it existence. I can further defend this premise if you wish, but for now all I will say is this: If the sum of existing things is contingent, the sum of existing things must point outside itself for an explanation of its existence but there would be nothing outside of the sum of existing things. Therefore, there would be no explanation if we postulate everything exists contingently.

Proof of 2: This is a simple intuitive claim that we should accept if we want to be reasonable. Also, it can be defended using a number of metaphysical ideas. For the sake of time I will just say that if there is no ultimate explanation, it is in principle at least highly unlikely anything exists.

Here is an analogy to sum up the argument: A cart is being pulled in a train. The movement of this cart is contingent if it depends on something else for its movement. The cart depends on something else for its movement if the type of cart it is cannot explain why it is moving (i.e. it has no engine of its own). If all carts were like this, we could have no explanation of the train moving because there would be no engine. yet we need an explanation because if there is no explanation, there is no movement at all (we need an engine). Hence a car must exist that includes an engine and explains the movement of the train. this is an analogy its not meant to be perfect just to show what I mean.
The conclusion of this argument is a being that exists by the necessity of its nature meaning its essence and existence are somehow one. This sounds a lot like Exodus 3:14.

Argument II - Fine tuning of the universe
1 There exists anthropic coincidences that are necessary for human life
2 These may either be explained by chance or by design
3 Since there are so many it is near impossible they exist by chance
C They exist by design
We conclude therefore: There is at least 1 entity that has designed the universe with human beings as at least part of the goal. This entity(s) must exist outside of the known universe and have the power to design the laws of the universe. The God of the J-C tradition is a reasonable conclusion (although not definite) because this God is described as a personal being that creates with humans in mind.

P1 is accepted by almost all physicists. P3 is the main premise. I will leave this for a later time because I am running out of characters. I will handle objections round 2.

Argument III- The soul
1 Humans are at least part immaterial
2 Matter cannot produce the immaterial
C There exists an immaterial entity that gives an immaterial component to humans
Sounds like Genesis 2:7.
Here is the defense of P1 using qualia:
Imagine you are locked in a room from birth that is black and white. You have never seen the color red. Yet you are a color scientist who sets out to understand red. You study from books and measurements all that can be known about light and visual perception. after all this you know all you can know about the physical qualities of red. you step out of the room once this is complete and see red for the first time. Do you learn something new? Yes because you learn the experience of red. Yet you knew all physical traits of red, so there must be a non-physical part of the subjective experience of red.
P2- an effect must exist in some way in the cause.
out of chrts. rnd 2
Debate Round No. 1
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

I. Argument from Contingency
Definitions: A contingent thing is something that depends on something else for its existence. A necessary thing is that which exists by the necessity of its own nature.

P1) If all that exists in the world is contingent things, there is no ultimate explanation
P2) There must be an ultimate explanation for existence
C1) It is impossible that everything be contingent therefore we must admit a necessary being.


This sounds like a non sequitur! P1 is false and P2 is unfounded. Even so, the Big Band could be considered as a 'Ultimate explation'. God even seems to break this logic


Argument II - Fine tuning of the universe
1 There exists anthropic coincidences that are necessary for human life

I agree.

2 These may either be explained by chance or by design


I agree, but I dont like your use of the word "chance".

3 Since there are so many it is near impossible they exist by chance


I disagree. There is plenty of planets out there. Even if the odds were 1 in a billion, Life would still ikely arise becuase of the number of planets and maybe universes.

C They exist by design



False.



Argument III- The soul
1 Humans are at least part immaterial

False? Actually, answer me this: Are dreams immaterial? Light? Concepts?

2 Matter cannot produce the immaterial

C There exists an immaterial entity that gives an immaterial component to humans




Moving on to my arguement.





ONE:


The Problem of Evil.



P1. Evil exists in some form.

P2. God is all-loving

P3. He is all-knowing

P4. He is all-powerful.

P5. God with these traits would never let evil run though the Earth.

P6. Evil exists, therefore God does not exist.
I am foreseeing a Free Will rebuttal. The Free Will rebuttal is not effective because it implies God is not all-powerful. All-powerful means all-powerful. To imply that Free Will and evil come together nulls God being all-powerful. I can choose to eat sushi over salad. I do need to kill or steal. I will go more in detail later.
Dmot

Pro

Thankyou con for responding to my arguments. Unfortunately, I think I did not make myself clear enough because you miss the point of them

First, the argument from contingency.
How is it a non-sequitur?
If all that exists is contingent there is no ultimate explanation.
There is an ultimate explanation of existence
IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THEREFORE that all that exists must not be contingent. I am not sure that you know what a non-sequitur is. Because my argument is actually logically sound. This does not mean that the premises are true, but IF they are true the conclusion follows NECESSARILY. There is no non-sequitur.

If something is not contingent, it is necessary as I explained in my definitions. Therefore, since not all things are contingent, there exists a necessary being. My conclusion proves.

Now, you Say P1 is false. You offer however no argument whatsoever for this assertion. It seems as though you cannot come up with one. I offered a coherent and complete explanation of why this is true. You haven't responded.
If you think that P1 is false, let me ask you this question: Can you come up with an explanation for existence that includes all contingent things? since a contingent thing by definition points outside of itself for its existence, this would mean the ONLY way to have an explanation of all things existent would be to point outside of all things existent! But outside of all things existent is nothing. Therefore it follows that there is no ultimate explanation if all things are contingent. Premise 1 is 100% sound.
I gave reasons, you failed to.
Premise 2 you say is unfounded but I gave an explanation. I also gave an analogy to help explain. You see, there has to be an ultimate explanation. If we deny this, we deny the principle of sufficient reason, and essentially deny reason itself. Is atheism a position that denies reason itself?
Also, premise 2 can be demonstrated using metaphysics. I don't have the space to defend all of the metaphysics. So I created the analogy. But basically the gist of all of the metaphysics is that everything must have sufficient reason for its existence not arbitrarily but because anything that exists potentially cannot exist in actuality unless it is made actual by something that is in act. That means that only being can change possible being to being. This is a metaphysical principle. Possible being cannot change into being on its own because possible being is merely possible. Hence it follows that there must be something to make actual the possibility of existence. This is the reason why there must be an ultimate explanation---because there must be something actual to make the possibility of contingent things existing actual. If this actual being does not exist, nothing would, because there would be nothing to make real the possibility of contingent things existing. Again, very brief, but the only sketch I could give in the space.

Finally, the big bang cannot be an ultimate explanation because it is not a necessary being. The big bang is not a being first of all its an event.
Also, the necessary being must necessarily be eternal obviously because the necessary being cannot fail to exist. For if it did, by definition, it would not be necessary! Anything that fails to exist therefore is no necessary being and therefore no ultimate explanation.

As of now, it seems like my first argument is completely intact. To summarize, your response is flawed because: 1) you misunderstand what a non-sequitur is, 2) You say my premises are unfounded without responding to my explanations and without giving any of your own. 3) You misunderstand the big bang by assuming it can be an ultimate explanation but this is incoherent given what is meant by an ultimate explanation here is a being outside of the realm of contingent things.

Now for the fine tuning argument
You deny premise 3. However, you say there are plenty of planets out there. The problem is that the anthropic coincidences as studied by physicists aren't coincidences on planets but coincidences in the laws of physics for the universe itself! Hence you cannot appeal to many planets! Your objection fails.

The multiverse has some credibility. However, I will provide an article by a physicist. He goes through the anthropic coincidences and says why the various objections to them are not sound.
http://www.firstthings.com...
Basically, the multiverse cannot explain everything because the very conditions of the multiverse would have to be "fine-tuned" to allow for anthropic coincidences. Hence the argument stands.

Finally, my argument for the soul: You say that humans are not in part immaterial. Okay fine, but Did you even read my argument from qualia which I attempted to use to DEMONSTRATE that in fact humans are in part immaterial????
Look, if con does not even respond to my argument, the argument stands. I used the qualia argument to defend premise 1. My argument stands.

So far, all my arguments stand. Running out of characters but on to responding:
The problem is premise 5. How do you know? You need to defend this premise.
What if God would ALLOW evil to exist in the world for some greater good?
God is powerful so He can bring good out of evil?
The BoP is on you for premise 5. However, be careful. I explained that God has the power to bring good out of evil. It is conceivable that God has sufficient reason to allow evil. Unless there is NO POSSIBLE CONCIEVABLE reason for God to allow evil for a good purpose, then premise 5 fails. Again, you have to prove that there cannot be any way in which a loving God would allow evil. If you fail to do this, your entire argument fails. Remember, BOP is on you! Which seems tough given that throughout history atheists have failed to convince theistic philosophers that premise 5 is true. Plus proving a negative is very difficult.

Summary:
1) My arguments stand
2) Your argument rests on an unproven assumption
Debate Round No. 2
NightofTheLivingCats

Con



First, the argument from contingency.
How is it a non-sequitur?
If all that exists is contingent there is no ultimate explanation.
There is an ultimate explanation of existence
IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THEREFORE that all that exists must not be contingent. I am not sure that you know what a non-sequitur is. Because my argument is actually logically sound. This does not mean that the premises are true, but IF they are true the conclusion follows NECESSARILY. There is no non-sequitur.

If something is not contingent, it is necessary as I explained in my definitions. Therefore, since not all things are contingent, there exists a necessary being. My conclusion proves.


The fallacy was that you assumed that there is no ultimate explantion. The BOP is on YOU to prove that. You didn't.

Now, you Say P1 is false. You offer however no argument whatsoever for this assertion. It seems as though you cannot come up with one. I offered a coherent and complete explanation of why this is true.

Ha ha ha. Is this a Ad Hom? I think it is. First off, you didn't prove anything in the first place. Please prove it without Circular reasoning.

You haven't responded.

If you think that P1 is false, let me ask you this question: Can you come up with an explanation for existence that includes all contingent things? since a contingent thing by definition points outside of itself for its existence, this would mean the ONLY way to have an explanation of all things existent would be to point outside of all things existent! But outside of all things existent is nothing. Therefore it follows that there is no ultimate explanation if all things are contingent. Premise 1 is 100% sound.


The Big Bang? Anyway this is a subtle appeal to ignorance. "I dont know how a object could be created by a other object to infinity. Therefore God"


I gave reasons, you failed to.

Premise 2 you say is unfounded but I gave an explanation. I also gave an analogy to help explain. You see, there has to be an ultimate explanation. If we deny this, we deny the principle of sufficient reason, and essentially deny reason itself. Is atheism a position that denies reason itself?


The analogy was irreavelnt. There is no real ultimate explanation yet.It is a fallacy to assume God. Why are you Straw Manning Atheism now?

Finally, the big bang cannot be an ultimate explanation because it is not a necessary being. The big bang is not a being first of all its an event.


The Big Bang was necessary! If we were not here, then the Big Bang isn't necessary! But we are here therefore...See the problem? You are posting fallacies again.


The multiverse has some credibility. However, I will provide an article by a physicist. He goes through the anthropic coincidences and says why the various objections to them are not sound.
http://www.firstthings.com......
Basically, the multiverse cannot explain everything because the very conditions of the multiverse would have to be "fine-tuned" to allow for anthropic coincidences. Hence the argument stands.

Appeal to authority. I will 'drop' this becuase Dmot is pointing-- not arguing. Frankly, I dont see why the multiverse as a whole has to be fine tuned. Besides, why make the fallacy that life cannot arise in a different universe in other conditions? Please bring PROOF. the BOP is on you.

Finally, my argument for the soul: You say that humans are not in part immaterial. Okay fine, but Did you even read my argument from qualia which I attempted to use to DEMONSTRATE that in fact humans are in part immaterial????
Look, if con does not even respond to my argument, the argument stands. I used the qualia argument to defend premise 1. My argument stands.

I did. Did you read my rebuttal? You dropped it. This arguement is dropped by Dmot.


THE PoE


The problem is premise 5. How do you know? You need to defend this premise.
What if God would ALLOW evil to exist in the world for some greater good?
God is powerful so He can bring good out of evil?


Then God is not All-Powerful. This is very clear. Please give me an example.


The BoP is on you for premise 5. However, be careful. I explained that God has the power to bring good out of evil. It is conceivable that God has sufficient reason to allow evil. Unless there is NO POSSIBLE CONCIEVABLE reason for God to allow evil for a good purpose, then premise 5 fails. Again, you have to prove that there cannot be any way in which a loving God would allow evil. If you fail to do this, your entire argument fails. Remember, BOP is on you! Which seems tough given that throughout history atheists have failed to convince theistic philosophers that premise 5 is true. Plus proving a negative is very difficult.


Sorry, my friend. The BOP is on you. The voters will vote, however. Please give an example. If you dont, you drop the PoE by default and basically forfeit because God wont be shown as All-Powerful/benevolent.



Have a nice day.



Dmot's case has large fallacies in it and failed to rebut my rebuttals. This is why my round is short. Also, I vouch for a point reduction to Dmot for subtle Ad Homs and his horrible formatting.

Dmot

Pro

Con's quotes are in quotation marks. I don't know how to bold on here.

"The fallacy was that you assumed that there is no ultimate explantion."

Con, I did not assume an ultimate explanation. Re:
Contingent thing- something that has potential existence but depends on something else to actually exist (e.g. the human species)
Necessary thing- something that does not have potential existence but exists by its own nature since its essence and the act of existence are one and the same.
Ultimate explanation- An entity(s) that ties up all loose ends and gives final explanations to why contingent things exist.
Argument
1)If all that exists is contingent, there is no ultimate explanation.
2)There is an ultimate explanation
3)Hence it follows that not all that exists is contingent, something must exist by necessity
Defense of premise 1: If all that exists is contingent, it follows that all that exists has potential existence and depends on something else for its existence. Yet for "all that exists" to depend on something else for existence is to depend on something outside of "all that exists" in other words, to depend on something non-existing. Something non-existing, given that it is nothing, cannot function as an ultimate explanation as it leaves open the question "Why do contingent things exist, from where does their potential existence become actual existence?" Besides, nothing is not an entity that answers any questions.

Defense of premise 2: There must be an ultimate explanation. Reason tells us to look for explanations. If atheists are reasonable, they should look for one too. Further, if there is no ultimate explanation, it follows that there is at least one question left open, in other words, one entity that"s existence is unexplained. If this is the case, it means something that has the potential to exist actually does exist yet nothing made this possibility of existing real. Someone may assert that the possibility itself is the cause of its reality. Yet this is absurd given sound metaphysics and understanding that potential or possibility has no power of its own"for obvious reasons.
My conclusion follows. A necessary being exists. A necessary being is what is often meant by "God." You can deduce certain qualities about a necessary being but I lack the space for the day.
Con, I have put forward my argument more than once. Now accept it and respond to it.

"Ha ha ha. Is this a Ad Hom? I think it is. First off, you didn't prove anything in the first place. Please prove it without Circular reasoning."

An Ad-Hom is an attack on you. This was an attack on your reasoning not you. Do you understand what circular reasoning is? I didn"t use it. If I did please give me an example.

"The Big Bang? Anyway this is a subtle appeal to ignorance. "I dont know how a object could be created by a other object to infinity. Therefore God""

Con, I did not mention infinity. I said that if all things existed were contingent, there would be no UE. There is nothing there about not KNOWING.

"The Big Bang was necessary!"

I don"t see the problem. The big bang was an event; therefore it doesn"t even count as a being. Besides, the big bang was not necessary in the sense that it is causeless or it explains its own existence. If it were necessary by its own nature, this would mean we would not need to find an explanation of the big bang. Yet scientists who learn about quantum gravity are hoping to eventually find an explanation of the big bang in terms of QG"(as far as I understand).

"Frankly, I dont see why the multiverse as a whole has to be fine tuned."

It doesn"t matter what you see, it matters what science tells us. I gave a brief sketch and provided a link to all who want to learn more. A scientist explaining anthropic coincidences is no fallacy, it"s just the humility to recognize neither of us are experts in the area and we have minimum space here so let"s provide more information for all interested. In any case, my argument stands since you did not give any argument to rebut my claim about anthropic coincidences.

"I did. Did you read my rebuttal? You dropped it. This arguement is dropped by Dmot."

What was your rebuttal? Readers can go check, but as far as I can tell, this is the only thing you said about my argument for the immateriality of the soul:

"False? Actually, answer me this: Are dreams immaterial? Light? Concepts?"

However, this is by no means a rebuttal to the premise that humans are part immaterial. It is a question. I used an argument to demonstrate that my premise is true, something called the "qualia argument" which attempts to show that not all knowledge is physical. Did you respond to the argument? No.

HOW DOES THIS:
"What if God would ALLOW evil to exist in the world for some greater good?
God is powerful so He can bring good out of evil?"
IMPLY THIS:
"Then God is not All-Powerful. This is very clear ?

"Sorry, my friend. The BOP is on you. The voters will vote, however."

Okay, the BOP is on the person making the claim to knowledge. As far as the existence of God goes, the BOP is on me. However as far as premise 5 from above goes, since it is claim to knowledge, it is on you. You provide no reason to accept premise 5 and instead shift the BOP which is a fallacy.

"Dmot's case has large fallacies in it and failed to rebut my rebuttals. This is why my round is short."
Well, unlike your arguments, mine are still lengthy. This is because I care to actually find truth and I use arguments to do that. If you are content with simply accusing me of fallacies, so be it.
Debate Round No. 3
NightofTheLivingCats

Con

As per the unwritten rules of conduct on DDO, I will not had any more rebuttals or arguments.

Dmot mention him not knowing how to bold etc. So in the future, Dmot, you click on "Rich text" that is above where you type you arguments.


To square off, Dmots argument of the Fine Tuning fails because it relies on faith of chance.

The Soul argument fails because it assumes the material cannot make the immaterial. Now, this could very well get into semantics because I think dreams are immaterial. The various brain connections create the dream.

Dmot dropped my PoE argument. Dmot, if a all-good god allows evil to exist, then he is not a 'Tri-Omni' God. It is pointless to talk the BOP now. The voters will vote.

I will ask Dmot for two follow up debates. One on the Fine Tuning and one on the PoE.

You may accept in your next round.


Vote for Cats
Dmot

Pro

Thank-you for letting me know how to bold and things like that!

Also, I accept both debate challenges.


A few concluding points to summarize:
1. My central argument for contingency
This argument is one of the classical arguments from the theistic tradition. It is a cosmological argument. In my opinion, much stronger than the Kalam version. I think that this argument is proof of a necessary being, otherwise, we cannot explain reality. The necessary being must have certain deducable traits but I did not get into those traits in this debate.

2. Fine Tuning

This was a variation on the design argument. It relied on modern physics. I think that it suceeds because it is based on solid science and because the "chance" involved in these anthropic coincidences would be astronomically low in terms of likelyhood. I provided links earlier to explain some of this. I think that it is solid evidence for a designer(s) with human beings involved. Not irrefutable proof of God per se, but still strong evidence of Design. Given that the Judeo-Christain religions rely ona designer with humans in mind, I think it is solid evidence.

3. Argument from the Soul
My third argument argued from an immaterial part of the human being to an ultimate immaterial being. Sound reasoning tells us that material things cannot cause the imamterial. The reason is that for something to be the cause of something else, the cause has to have the effect in it somehow. This does not mean in the exact same way, but in some way. This is precicely what gives things the power to bring about certain effects and not others. Matter has no power to cause the existence of immaterial substances because the material cannot contain the immaterial. Because of this, some immaterial principle must breathe life as it were into the human being. This I think is good evidence for God.


4. Problem of Evil as raised by Con

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that If God is all-Good He would Want to eliminate all-evil. This however is fallacious. The reason is that it is perfectly logically possible to assume that an all-Good God would not elimate all evil IF that evil could somehow serve His good purpose. Therefore, the problem of evil is one that does not refute the existence of an Omni God. Through the centuries of theism it seems as though many philosophers would agree with my statement.


All in all, I ask everyone to vote Pro. The reason is that I think I have succesfully demonstrated with thorough reasoning that a necessary being exists as an ultimate explanation of reality, a designer of the universe with humans in mind exists, and a immaterial giver of life to human beings exist. I argue that these are properly identified as God. Obviously there is more to a debate over God. This could take books and books. But in the space given, I think that I have made my case more than con has.


Regardless of who you agree with, I ask you to vote for Pro. I think I have made my case well and answered the objections raised by con.

Thankyou for the time debating this most important issue.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Con,
time is running out, better post an argument!
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
Isn't it Abrahamic rather than Judeo-Christian, because that excludes Allah, who is based upon fundamentally the same principle since the Koran is basically the New New Testament, and it embraces figures from all the other religions.
Posted by Kiroen 3 years ago
Kiroen
How can I follow the debate?
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Because I am only a new member here but would be happy to debate this. btw you made the debate open to acceptance for anyone I think
Posted by NightofTheLivingCats 3 years ago
NightofTheLivingCats
Well I am still writing the rules, but let me check your debates.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
what would you consider a member of caliber?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by leonardlewis4 3 years ago
leonardlewis4
NightofTheLivingCatsDmotTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct goes to Pro because Con repeatedly cried wolf on "fallacy". Also Con promised more detail on points to which he never returned. - S&G to Pro because Con used poor punctuation and sloppy formatting. Con rarely used more than a few words (almost always one sentence) to present an argument or rebut a point. - Pro consistently presented his arguments with sound reasoning. He also addressed/rebutted all of Cons arguments with sound reasoning. The same cannot be said of Con's posts (very short on content and ideas).
Vote Placed by thg 3 years ago
thg
NightofTheLivingCatsDmotTied
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: I tried voting twice before, but I've learned from DDO that I should not give S/G and conduct points unless they are overwhelmingly clear. Same for sources. So I'll try again: I contend that CON's arguments were not thorough. He appeared to assume that his brief counters were refutations, which often they were not. PRO was more thorough throughout. CON's theodicy argument was unsupported.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 3 years ago
Mrparkers
NightofTheLivingCatsDmotTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro unfairly used the last round for an advantage. Arguments go to Pro for actually having more than one argument. Con: Just saying "false" does not adequately refute an argument. You could have easily won by putting the BOP on Pro and explaining why his claims are false instead of just proclaiming it.