The Instigator
Gulsum
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,206 times Debate No: 16306
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (6)

 

Gulsum

Pro

I challenge anyone to argue on this topic.:)
Showing God's eistence there are many evidence in the world around us. In this debate I will go through and clarify that God exists.

DEFINTIONS:


God:
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]

Exist:
to have actual being;be.[2]

SOURCES:

1.http://dictionary.reference.com...
2.http://dictionary.reference.com...


Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for instigating this debate.

Pro has accepted my add on definition to "God"

God = uncaused, all powerful, all good, all knowing, the first cause, personal

Seeing Pro has presented no argument, and rather than try and guess what their argument will be, I will merely hand it over to Pro and await their opening argument.

So over to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Gulsum

Pro

Thank you Con.

If we observe everything around us we can see that everything is made so accurate and perfect. The way the entire universe is designed is with perfect organization and harmonious order
, and that all matter from atoms to galaxies moving according to a program, shows us that there has to be a creator of this amazing universe. If I said that a few jars containing chemicals for a medicine were put side by side then miraculously a strong wind blew the bottles. Then suddenly exact amounts of chemical from the jars just fell open and the medicine was created you will call this a complete nonsense. A medicine has to have very precise amounts of chemical that even a tiny bit extra would not complete the process, or a tiny bit less would fail too. However it is said that this incredible Earth is made without a creator and from:

1. Chance
2. Nature
3. Reason

I stated how this world cannot be created by chance already.

Now I would like to show you how this entire universe isnt creed from Nature. Nature consists of water, soil/earth, air, fire. If nature created this universe it has to have the things it created in order to create it. Who see's love, compassion, wisdom, etc. in nature. If I harm nature in any way it won't react because it isn't our creator. However if it was to be our creator it wouldn't let anything happen to itself.

Some other people believe that reason created this universe. Then who created reason?

So can this world be created by itself?
Your turn Con:)

Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

CA = Counter Argument

CA: If we observe everything around us we can see that everything is made so accurate and perfect.

Oh really ? Plug this piece of data into your theory.......Onchocerciasis (pronounced /ˈɒŋkɵsɜrˈsaɪ.əsɨs/ or /ˈɒŋkɵsɜrˈkaɪ.əsɨs/), also known as river blindness and Robles' Disease, is a parasitic disease caused by infection by Onchocerca volvulus, a nematode (roundworm). Onchocerciasis is the world's second-leading infectious cause of blindness. It is not the nematode but its endosymbiont, Wolbachia pipientis, that causes the severe inflammatory response that leaves many blind. The parasite is transmitted to humans through the bite of a blackfly of the genus Simulium. The larval nematodes spread throughout the body. When the worms die their Wolbachia symbionts are released, triggering a host immune system response that causes intense itching and can destroy nearby tissue, such as the eye [1]

Do you still maintain that "If we observe everything around us we can see that everything is made so accurate and perfect." ?

Assuming a designer/observable evidence and complexity

Pro says "The way the entire universe is designed is with perfect organization and harmonious order, and that all matter from atoms to galaxies moving according to a program"

And what "program" would that be ? You can't assume the universe is designed to prove that the universe is designed.

If we don't assume that pills are designed, how could we know that they are designed ? We could know because we have observable evidence of pills being made by people. We could go visit the pill manufacture if you wanted too.

Now lets not assume that the earth or the universe is designed, what observable evidence is there that shows the earth or universe is designed ? .........NONE.

Pro says "Then suddenly exact amounts of chemical from the jars just fell open and the medicine was created you will call this a complete nonsense."

Yes, because we have observable evidence of what it takes to make that medicine, in this case people/designer. What was the observable evidence again of the earth of the universe needing a designer ?

The reason its absurd to reject that medicine is NOT designed, is because we have observable evidence that medicine is designed. We have no observable evidence that the universe or earth is designed. Please note again, just assuming that the universe is designed is not observable evidence of the universe being designed.

To imply that because one things in the universe has design (medicine) therefore all things in the universe are designed even the universe it self its logically fallacious.

Pro has not proved why the universe or earth needs a designer.

Appearances are deceiving and just because something looks designed doesn't mean it is

People used to believe that the earth was still, and the sun moved around the earth, after all they watched the sun rise up, and watch the sun go down. When it was suggested that maybe it was the earth that was moving, clearly this was just an ABSURD claim.

Now we have, well if something looks designed then it must be designed, and notion that things like humans can exist without design is just ABSURD !!!

The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even willful ignorance, in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially tantamount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God did it!” It's also begging the question as to whether something can be too complex for evolution, at all. How would we know whether something is too complex without a sampling of confirmed examples contrasting natural low-complexity cases versus supernatural high-complexity cases? [2]

Medicine bottles don't have the ability to produce on their own, but living organisms do

Natural selection is the process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution...Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in adaptations that specialize populations for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. [3]

Example of "Design" that isn't really "Design" at all

The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees [4]

Now look at this from the moths point of view. Imagine that two moths are talking to each other, one moth says, we were "Designed", thus there is a "Designer". The other moths ask what evidence is there is for this design ?. The moth argues that look, we have this great dark colored camouflaged which helps protect us from predators, its absurd that this just happened by accident, you can't explain that...........God did it.........The great moth God of course.

Other statements by Pro

Pro says "Then suddenly exact amounts of chemical from the jars just fell open and the medicine was created you will call this a complete nonsense"

The universe or the earth or life is not the same as a pill. Just because a pill is designed does NOT prove that the universe or earth or life is designed.

Pro says "I stated how this world cannot be created by chance already."

You didn't prove it, you just asserted it.

Pro says "Nature consists of water, soil/earth, air, fire. If nature created this universe it has to have the things it created in order to create it."

If the cause has to be the same as the effect, then this refutes that "material" effect was caused by an "immaterial" cause (eg God), or that a timeless being "God" caused a time effect (the universe).

Pro says " If I harm nature in any way it won't react because it isn't our creator. However if it was to be our creator it wouldn't let anything happen to itself."

The reason it doesn't react is because its not capable of reaction.

Pro says "Some other people believe that reason created this universe. Then who created reason? "

I have no idea what Pro is saying here, and even if I did answer "I don't know" what is Pros argument here ? you can't explain it therefore God did it ?

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Gulsum

Pro

Thank you Con. I respect your ideas.

Which one isn’t perfect?

  1. The mean distance of the Sun from the Earth is approximately 149.6 million kilometers (1 AU), though the distance varies as the Earth moves from perihelion in January to aphelion in July. Even if Earth would escape incineration in the Sun, still all its water will be boiled away and most of its atmosphere would escape into space.[1] However, on the other hand if it were to be a little bit further the world will freeze to an extent that no life would be existing. Isn’t this perfect at all?
  2. The orbital speed of the Earth averages about 29.8 km/s (107,000 km/h), which is fast enough to cover the planet's diameter (about 12,600 km) in seven minutes, and the distance to the Moon (384,000 km) in four hours.[2] Going from a place to place with a car or a plane will disturb us with its noises and trembling. However comparing this to the Earth’s orbital speed we are just talking about nothing. This is just amazing how we can eat, drink, sleep etc. without feeling any discomfort. Isn’t this perfect at all?
  3. If the oceans were made up of sweet water, we could not have endured the putrefying odor. Salt stops the oceans from turning into giant swamps hence if sodium and chloride had not bonded, life could not have existed.[4]

Isn’t this perfect enough? Should I continue?

I still think that "If we observe everything around us we can see that everything is made so accurate and perfect." Sometimes every human being will go through hardships throughout life such as sicknesses, disasters and many other problems. Well, doesn’t this show other beings the value of health when sick, the value of being a teenager when old or the value of affording when seeing poor? Yes, you may call this unfair but if God did put us on Earth obviously he would test us. Some people are intelligent, some are beautiful, some are skinny, and some are fat. If someone was to give out money and gave a person less when he gave another more, the person having less money can’t argue that he or she didn’t receive the same amount of money. This is because the giver didn’t even need to give the money. Yet, we are talking about the all-fair God who can test a person but reward him and give something else at the end. Con has stated “Onchocerciasis”. Yes I agree that it is a very bad disease, however these diseases can encourage us to improve in technology and make cures. Having no cure wouldn’t mean that there isn’t any cure going to be found. In the past there have been several diseases which were deadly, but they all have cures now like typhoid, Black Death and etc. Con says “Please note again, just assuming that the universe is designed is not observable evidence of the universe being designed.” However please note that just assuming that the universe doesn’t have a God is not evidence proving this either.

Con says “To imply that because one things in the universe has design (medicine) therefore all things in the universe are designed even the universe it self its logically fallacious.” Giving the example of the medicine is to show that when a medicine which is so simple next to this universe has a designer, how doesn’t this universe have a designer. As a scholar says “A simple needle cannot be without a designer, a town cannot be without a reeve, how can this miraculous universe be without a creator?”

Con has not proved that the Earth doesn’t have a creator.

Statements from Con

Con says”appearances are deceiving and just because something looks designed doesn't mean it is.” Well, even if a needle is designed obviously a human being with its organs, values, morals is designed too this is very obvious.


Con says “The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even willful ignorance, in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially tantamount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God did it!”” It is actually a complete ignorance to believe that this universe is not created by God. No one can say that this world is rubbish and not amazing. In fact every human being has seen amazement in this world. However some tend to just be blind and not see this wonderful art produced by an all-supreme. The theory of Darwinism is already nonsence. Sorry, but my great grandfathers are not monkeys. And this at the end doesn’t leave us saying “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God did it!” because the evidence is clearly shown with the things around us not because there isn’t anything else to believe.


Con says (http://en.wikipedia.org...)” The evolution of the peppered moth over the last two hundred years has been studied in detail. Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation.” Con saying this actually proves that God exists by showing the system of camouflaging which God has designed so moths can be away from predation. Then he shows how when people do destroy it how the moths are affected. Look at this magnificent system of God. How did this randomly happen?

Josip Broz Tito

Josip Broz Tito was a Yugoslav revolutionary and statesman. He was an old man who had sacrificed his life for Communism.[3] His confessions of regret in his grand old age were quite interesting:

- Comrades, I am dying …and I cannot describe the horridness of death to you. Even if I was capable of this, you would not comprehend the seriousness of death because you are still young. Just imagine your dead…and do not exist anymore. Once you enter the grave, you are gone, never to return again…this is driving me crazy. Being separated from loved ones, friends and possessions…and leaving this world never to behold its beauty again…do you understand what this means?

Dear comrades, I want to tell you something with all my sincerity. When I die, if my body is going to decompose into the earth, if there is no resurrection and no reward or punishment, then what is the meaning of our efforts? Tell me comrades, after I die, what benefit will I have if I lived in the hearts of people and was never forgotten. Will the praises and applauses of people save my decomposing body?

Tell me where we are going? Lenin, Marks or Mao has not provided any answers to these questions. I have to confess, that I now believe in God, His Prophets and in the life after death. Atheism is not the solution. Just think about it for a moment, this

69 universe has to have a creator and an implementer of laws. I believe death is not the end…

There must be a place of justice where those who died innocently and tyrants who die without punishment are judged. There is no true justice in this world…this is not real, such chaos cannot exist…I feel this in my conscience. All the wrongs we have done to millions of people are now eating me away.

Someone must hear their screams for justice…how else can there be reconciliation? Carl Marks has failed us in this issue, we have been brainwashed[4]

Regret, regret and regret we shouldn’t wait until death

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] Ergi, O.A, Reflections, Lotus Publishing

Your turn:)

Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Emotional Rhetoric

Pro makes various claims which are just appeals too emotion such as........

"No one can say that this world is rubbish and not amazing."
" In fact every human being has seen amazement in this world. However some tend to just be blind and not see this wonderful art produced by an all-supreme"
" Look at this magnificent system of God."
" creator of this amazing universe."

Emotional rhetoric is not a substitute for a good argument. And often emotional rhetoric is used to hide the fact that their is very little substance to the argument.

CA = Counter Argument

CA: If we observe everything around us we can see that everything is made so accurate and perfect.

Pro presents three facts. I agree to these facts, but what do these facts prove ? that everything is perfect ? of course not. Do these facts prove that humans were made for their environment ? no, why couldn't they have evolved to suit their environment (natural selection) ? Pro didn't prove that humans existing can't be the result of a natural cause, Pro just goes straight to the supernatural for an explanation.

I presented just one little fact, a parasite that causes blindness to refute this oh so amazing perfection.

" Yes I agree that it is a very bad disease, however these diseases can encourage us to improve in technology and make cures."

Pros argument rested on the foundation of everything being so accurate and perfect, Pro tries to segway into talking about technology, trouble is this doesn't refute this fact. Suffice to say I think this fact rips apart Pros contention here.

Remember Pros argument was based on EVERYTHING being PERFECT and ACCURATE, not whether something encourages technology, I think Pro knows their claim is untenable in light of this fact, which is why they had to try and segway into something else.

CA: Design needs a Designer and complexity needs a Designer

Pro says "Giving the example of the medicine is to show that when a medicine which is so simple next to this universe has a designer, how doesn’t this universe have a designer. As a scholar says “A simple needle cannot be without a designer, a town cannot be without a reeve, how can this miraculous universe be without a creator?”"

We went over this in the previous rounds, needles, pills, paintings, cars can be proven to have a designer, cause we have OBSERVABLE evidence of this.

What was the OBSERVABLE evidence again of the universe or earth being designed ? PRO presented NONE.

So what is Pros evidence ? a mere question..........."how can this miraculous universe be without a creator?” Pro has not being able to prove that the earth or the universe needs a creator. Pros argument comes down too, I can't believe their is no creator therefore there must be one.

As I referenced before... "The idea that aspects of nature are too complex to have happened by chance (or more aptly natural processes if we wish to avoid straw men) is a fallacy of argument from ignorance, or even willful ignorance, in the case where the theist also has to reject what we already know about the facts of Darwinian evolution. It is essentially tantamount to the statement “I can't think how it could have happened, therefore God did it!"

Pro didn't argue against the moth example presented. This shows that natural processes can result in something that "appears" to have "design".

Pro says "The theory of Darwinism is already nonsence. Sorry, but my great grandfathers are not monkeys"

Since when did Darwinism claim that people are monkeys ? or that people evolved from monkeys ? Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. [1]

Pro merely says evolution is non sense but had nothing to back this up.

CA: Josip Broz Tito

Consider this argument.......

1) Either I will die or I won't
2) If I die, everything I have worked for will be for nothing
3) Therefore I won't die

Now Consider Pros arguments

1) Either God exists or does not exist
2) If God does not exist, then tyrants won't be punished
3) Therefore God exists

or

1) Either God exists or does not exist
2) If God does not exist, then when I die that will be the end of me
3) Therefore God exists

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy [2]

Pros arguments are just one big logically fallacy, more specifically the logic fallacy of appeal to consequences.

Summary and Conclusion

1) Pro claimed that everything is Perfect, they couldn't sustain this in light of the fact of the parasite causing blindness, thus their arguments that were based on this claim are without foundation.
2) Pro wasn't able to show observable evidence of the earth or universe being designed
3) Pro wasn't able to rule out complexity arising out of non intelligent causes
4) Pro wasn't able to refute that natural selection produces results that "seem" to be "designed"
5) Pro appeals to ignorance such as asking "how can this miraculous universe be without a creator?”"
6) Pro uses emotional loaded terms such as "miraculous universe"
7) Pro commits the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences

As such Pro has not being able to prove or even mount a good argument that "God exists"

I ask the vote go to the Con.

I thank Pro setting up the debate.

Sources

[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Qynze 5 years ago
Qynze
My friend, who is sitting next to me right now, says that this is a "stupid" topic, as it is basically opinion versus opinion. I, however, do not agree as this seems to be faith, belief, and opinion versus logic and opinion.
Posted by lovedebate 5 years ago
lovedebate
god...a supernatural being concieved as perfect and opnipotent, origonator and ruler of the universe.
object of worship be it in christianity or any other religion.

this argument is a pointless waste of time meant merely to take up time . the existance of any supernatural being is just that...supernatural . and no human being can say for sure.
Posted by Qynze 5 years ago
Qynze
About this whole "chance" argument --

Ever heard of the monkeys at a typewriter theorem? I don't exactly remember it, but it was something along the lines of "If you have enough monkeys on typewriters, eventually one of them will type Hamlet." Well, if you have enough solar systems and galaxies and stars and planets and whatnot, eventually one will have the exact circumstances required to have intelligent life exist. Such a thing does not prove God exists; nor does it disprove it.

Another thing I heard brought up is something about a "perfect" world.

A utopia is impossible, if you do not see that we have one right now. And indeed I do not believe the state of the world is anything near perfect. To what seems to be most of us humans, it is certainly a balanced society. Yet the uprisings in the Middle East and Global Warming do not seem like a balanced world to me. Then again, there is always regression to the mean if you define the "mean" as balance. Nature has a way of evening itself out. Yet, we humans, although creatures of nature, defy nature with our technology, and defy balance itself, however slowly we may be "progressing". Is this the will of God?

Many people say that the world of God is a better world where the "good" can be protected, and the "bad" can be punished and be forgiven for their crimes. Yet, when "good" and "bad" seem to be relative terms depending on the view, what about those between, or both, etc.?

Say a baby was born into this world. The baby dies at birth. Would he/she go to heaven or hell? Can a person be good or bad if they never had the chance?

I see fallacies in this system. Mainly in the whole concept of "good" and "bad/evil".

Seeing as I only briefly scanned the debate and touched upon the first page of comments, I hope I did not repeat anything that has been said before and apologize beforehand if I did.
Posted by Gulsum 5 years ago
Gulsum
@socialpinko
Yes, unfortunately people do believe that reasons made things happen. Lets say rain, they believe that the rain has been made from the water cycle(reason). There are several reasons and I do believe in them, however at the back of the reasons there is God.
Earth, Water, Air and Fire are the generally known and often quoted ancient elements of nature, within which, and through which, life (including humanity) has prevailed and evolved. (http://www.mountainman.com.au...)Nature can be from other things but I am sure that they are elements like fire, Earth,water and air too. And that they are not things we respect at all like a creator.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"We went over this in the previous rounds, needles, pills, paintings, cars can be proven to have a designer, cause we have OBSERVABLE evidence of this. "

This is Hume's argument, what I would have liked to see here is :

-reference Hume
-actually apply that being specific

This also isn't an actually valid rebuttal. You can infer design based on probability and rejection of the null hypothesis (but the calculations are non-trivial) this was not developed in detail in Hume's time.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Do you think he proved that all things are perfect ?"

I will make a meta-vote point here, as a general rule I do not vote on arguments based on how I feel is the strength of the argument, I vote based on how well the other side responded to it.

In some detail Pro noted that the oceans being salty preserved them otherwise they would be quickly befouled. Now you responded to this how? You made a very brief comments about us being adapted to our environment. Here is what I would have liked to see in response :

-there are large fresh water bodies, what does this mean - who designed them?
-there are lots of things which befoul salt water (algae blooms), that seems imperfect.
-we (the things about which everything are designed) are poisoned by this salt water.

Then, also argue that as you noted, we adapt to water either fresh or salty, and we can even adapt to water which is high in arsenic, thus if all water was arsenic would we say "just look at all that arsenic water - it is exactly as we were designed"

Note that I actually gave him one point on arguments and only then because of the put that in your pipe and smoke it line, as theists always take the moral high ground in debates and atheists almost always give it to them.

"Seeing you Vote in most of my debates, I'd like an answer to these questions."

I don't single you out, I just vote on most of everyone's debates.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
I laughed so hard when I saw Pro's opening Cosmological argument. It had to be the biggest argument from ignorance I've ever seen. Oh and the strawmanning. Has anyone ever said that reason created the universe? Pro also seemed not to understand that nature and the universe are pretty much synonymous and that fire/earth/wind/water aren't the only things that make up "nature".

As for the design argument, Con took care of it seemingly easy with the examples of blindness causing infections. Though this refutations I don't think would have worked had Pro actually used the argument correctly.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
I'm reading through now and will provide my RFD as a comment. This debate looks interesting.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Reasons for voting decision: Pro responded well the parasite infection, which came off snotty by Con, and Con really dropped the design elements (radius, speed, composition of the ocean, etc.) these can all be dealt with by evolutionary theory in depth. Pro did make a number of segways, but in general I would have to give this to Pro 3:2. Con, you also need a more structured argument, it gets fairly scattered.

So cliff do you think he defended his main contention that "all things are perfect" ?, if by responding well you mean he performed a dodge........

Do you think he proved that all things are perfect ?
Do you think he didn't commit all those logic fallacies I pointed out ?
Do you think he proved that the universe and/or earth must have an intelligent cause ?
Do you think he actually proved God existed ?
Do you think he refuted my argument that just because something seems designed doesn't mean it is ?

Do you think that I didn't expose Pros arguments as Bad arguments ?

Seeing you Vote in most of my debates, I'd like an answer to these questions.
Posted by Gulsum 5 years ago
Gulsum
yeh i actually to regret writing The last bit but İ was trying to emphasize how there is only one ruler even now.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
GulsumIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter
Vote Placed by mcgrif15 5 years ago
mcgrif15
GulsumIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: god exists as proved by pro
Vote Placed by lliwill 5 years ago
lliwill
GulsumIllegalcombatantTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate
Vote Placed by MontyKarl91 5 years ago
MontyKarl91
GulsumIllegalcombatantTied
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 am very impressed that you ran such a clean debate. Many debates include condescending language but both of you took the high road. That said, both of your arguments need better organization, I found myself getting lost reading this debate several times. You jump around from topic to topic without lead-ins or conclusions. The only thing that allowed me to award any points to one side over the other is the premise. Pro, your job was to prove God's existence. You did not. But good job anyway.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
GulsumIllegalcombatantTied
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: see comments.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GulsumIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro responded well the parasite infection, which came off snotty by Con, and Con really dropped the design elements (radius, speed, composition of the ocean, etc.) these can all be dealt with by evolutionary theory in depth. Pro did make a number of segways, but in general I would have to give this to Pro 3:2. Con, you also need a more structured argument, it gets fairly scattered.