The Instigator
Fanath
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points

God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,645 times Debate No: 56198
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (49)
Votes (4)

 

Fanath

Con

Resolution: God exists

In this debate, we will use the Christian God.

Rounds:

Con

(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/rebuttals
(4) Rebuttals/Closing Statements

Pro

(1) Contentions
(2) Contentions/Rebuttals
(3) Rebuttals/Closing statements
(4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else

Rules

(1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he or she will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss.
(2) 10k character limits.
(3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff.
(4) Plagiarizing results in a FF.
(5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started.
(6) It is accepted that the BOP in this debate is on Pro.

Thanks to whoever accepts the debate.
dsjpk5

Pro

My argument relies.heavil heavily on Dr. William Lane Craig's debate "Does God Exist". My first contention is: there's no good argument that atheism is
true and secondly that there are good arguments that theism is true. I will let my opponent support the first contention before I respond. Now on to my reasons to support my second contention:
Number one, the cosmological argument: The question of
why anything at all exists is the most profound question of philosophy.
The philosopher Derek Parfit says, "No question is more sublime than
why there is a universe, why there is anything rather than nothing."
Typically atheists have answered this question by saying that the
universe is just eternal and uncaused. But there are good reasons, both
philosophically and scientifically, to think that the universe began to
exist. Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past seems absurd. Just
think about it: If the universe never began to exist, that means that
the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite.
But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite
number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is
infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get
self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in
your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps
the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, wrote, "The
infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in
nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role
that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." But
that entails that since past events are not just ideas but are real,
the number of past events must be finite, therefore the series of past
events can't go back forever. Rather, the universe must have begun to
exist. This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in
astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments
of modern science we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe
is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about thirteen
billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What
makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the
universe from literally nothing, for all matter and energy, even
physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As
the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, "The coming into being of the
universe, as discussed in modern science, is not just a matter of
imposing some sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state but
literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."
Now, this puts the atheist in a very awkward position. As Anthony Kenny
of Oxford University urges, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at
least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from
nothing and by nothing." But surely that doesn't make sense. Out of
nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist, instead of just
nothing, where did it come from? There must have been a cause which
brought the universe into being. Now as the cause of space and time,
this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being
of unfathomable power. Moreover, it must be personal as well. Why?
Because the cause must be beyond space and time, therefore it cannot be
physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit
that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a
personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore it
follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent
mind. Thus the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the
universe.

Two, the moral argument: If God does not exist then
objective moral values do not exist. By objective moral values do exist.
Many theists and atheists agree that if God does not exist then
moral values are not objective in this way. But, for example, rape is always wrong regardless of someone's opinion. This can only exist in reality if there is a moral law giver.

Source: http://m.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Fanath

Con

Thanks. I actually agree that the universe couldn't be eternal so I'm not going to attack that part of his argument. A big problem in Pro's arguments is to prove some of the claims he's making.

"Out of nothing, nothing comes"

There's two problems with this. First of all, that would mean that God doesn't exist as Pro has already asserted that infinity is impossible to achieve, meaning God had to have had a cause. If this rule is true then God logically would not be able to come into being. Secondly, he hasn't proved this statement. We don't have "nothing" to observe, meaning it isn't as if we can know this for a fact.

Pro is also asserting that God is the only thing that could have caused the universe to exist. This is simply not true. I can think of a plausible scenario.

A) Simultaneous causation

This is the idea that cause and effect can happen simultaneously. The cause of the Universe could have happened at the same time of it's effect. Let's say we have atoms A, B, and C. If atom A causes atom B, then atom B would cause atom C, and atom C would cause atom A.

Why should we accept God over simultaneous causation?

Pro needs to meet his burden of proof that God is the most likely cause of the universe.

"Two, the moral argument: If God does not exist then
objective moral values do not exist. By objective moral values do exist.
Many theists and atheists agree that if God does not exist then
moral values are not objective in this way. But, for example, rape is always wrong regardless of someone's opinion. This can only exist in reality if there is a moral law give"

Pro's argument relies on objective moral values existing, which he hasn't yet proved.

Pro's arguments have been refuted. I'll move onto mine now.

Argument 1:
P1. God is supposedly omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

P2. If God was omnibenevolent, he would have the will to destroy all evil.

P3. If god was omnipotent, he would have the power to destroy all evil.

P4. If god was omniscient, he would know how to destroy all evil.

P5: Evil exists.

C: Therefore, god cannot.

For evil, we can substitute pain and suffering.

Argument 2:

P1. In order to prove there is a god, we have to have a need for one in order to explain the mechanics of our universe.

P2. We do not have a need for a god in order to explain the mechanics of our universe.

C: Therefore, god is probably not real.

Defense of premise 1:

Pretty self explanatory. If we don't have any need for a god in order to explain the mechanics of our universe then there's no reason to assume he exists.

Defense of premise 2:
I've already explained how we don't require a God in order to explain the mechanics of our universe by showing a very plausible explanations for the universe coming into being. This both refutes Pro's contention that the only way it could have happened was from God and also supports my argument that we don't need one.

The conclusion follows logically from the two premises.

Argument 3:

A. It is possible that p.
B. Necessarily, if it is possible that God exists, then it is necessary that God exists.
C. Necessarily, if God exists, then it is not the case that p.
D. Therefore, it is not possible that God exists. (from A, B, & C)
We can use various plugins for P, like
1. Minds are dependant on the physical world
2. An evil deity exists
3. The universe was created by some non-god being
4. Being morally perfect is impossible
5. Gratuitous evil exists.
6. All free non-god beings always produce evil.
7. Being omnipotent is impossible.

Thank you, thank you, vote Con.
dsjpk5

Pro

To begin with, as anyone can see by reading the rules above, my opponent has violated the rules of the debate established by him/her. According to the rules of the debate, Con is only allowed to give contentions in round 2, but instead has also offered rebuttals to my contentions. This will give my opponent three rounds of rebuttals, while I will only have two (under the current rules). Please consider this when deciding which one of us had the better behavior.

Now, my opponent is wrong to say that the claim "out of nothing, nothing comes" somehow disproves God. The argument is referring to the beginning of the physical, material universe that had a beginning. As my convention clearly states, God is uncaused and timeless. Therefore, since God has existed for all eternity, God didn't come from anything. So my opponent would do well to stick with the definitions offered, and not create one that supports a straw man fallacy.

As for infinity existing, again context is key. The argument about the impossibility of infinity existing was made in context of our physical universe. God, existing outside our universe would not be included in such an argument.

As for the "simultaneous causation" argument, I would assert that it is an illogical possibility for the creation of the universe. When I say "out of nothing, nothing comes" the concept of "nothing" not only refers to having no material, but also no potential. So if there was no physical potential for material, this refutes the idea that an atom can cause another as it itself is coming into being. God is a more likely cause because God exists outside of the physical world, and therefore wouldn't be constrained by the rules of the physical world.

As for the evidence that objective moral truths existing, I would argue that they are self evident. For example, it's a fact that rape is wrong. Regardless of society's opinion about rape, it is wrong. Even if we lived in a society that believed rape was acceptable behavior, rape would still be wrong. But without God, objective moral facts can't exist. All you would have is opinions, and subjective morality. You really couldn't say that Hitler was wrong to kill six million Jews. All you could say is that it's not right for you. But objective moral truths do exist, so God (the objective law giver) must exist.

Now on to my rebuttals of Con's contentions:
Con claims that since "evil exists", God doesn't exist. But notice something here. The fact that Con admits evil exists is actually indirect evidence for the existence of God. Here's why: First let's talk about what evil IS. I would say that evil is something that has "gone wrong" in the world. But if something has gone wrong, then that implies there is a design for the world, and a design implies a designer. As for Con's premises, I would say they are flawed. They don't follow that God doesn't exist. For Con to show that the premises show that God doesn't exist, Con must show that it's logically impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and/or suffering to exist. Under Christian theism, God can compensate victims of evil either in this life or the next with an infinitely larger amount of justice.

Con's second argument claims that in order for God to exist, we would have to need God to explain the mechanics of the universe. But this doesn't follow at all. For example, just because I may now how a mechanism works doesn't mean that no one created the mechanism. I may know how a watch works, but that doesn't mean that a watchmaker doesn't exist.

Now on to Con's third argument. I want you to notice premise C. As Con implies, if C is true, Then the entire argument collapses. Therefore, since one of Con's premises negates Con's argument, the argument is self refuting.
Debate Round No. 2
Fanath

Con

Jumping right into the rebuttals.

"Now, my opponent is wrong to say that the claim "out of nothing, nothing comes" somehow disproves God. The argument is referring to the beginning of the physical, material universe that had a beginning. As my convention clearly states, God is uncaused and timeless. Therefore, since God has existed for all eternity, God didn't come from anything. So my opponent would do well to stick with the definitions offered, and not create one that supports a straw man fallacy"

My adversary seems to be confused as to what I was actually pointing out. If he says infinity is just a concept in your mind, and not something that is actually possible, then God logically cannot be eternal.

"As for infinity existing, again context is key. The argument about the impossibility of infinity existing was made in context of our physical universe. God, existing outside our universe would not be included in such an argument"

Just curious, how does Pro know this about God?

Also, the argument doesn't have anything to do with the laws of the universe. Pro's argument on disproving infinity plain is proof that infinity is logically impossible, in or out of the universe.

"As for the "simultaneous causation" argument, I would assert that it is an illogical possibility for the creation of the universe. When I say "out of nothing, nothing comes" the concept of "nothing" not only refers to having no material, but also no potential. So if there was no physical potential for material, this refutes the idea that an atom can cause another as it itself is coming into being. God is a more likely cause because God exists outside of the physical world, and therefore wouldn't be constrained by the rules of the physical world"

It simultaneously causes into existence, it doesn't need material for it to occur. Pro hasn't proven that there is absolutely no potential for nothing. There isn't any "nothing" we can observe after all, so we can't prove this. If there was no potential, it would disprove the theory, but simultaneous causation would be the potential. Pro hasn't proven that it's impossible yet.

"As for the evidence that objective moral truths existing, I would argue that they are self evident. For example, it's a fact that rape is wrong. Regardless of society's opinion about rape, it is wrong. Even if we lived in a society that believed rape was acceptable behavior, rape would still be wrong. But without God, objective moral facts can't exist. All you would have is opinions, and subjective morality. You really couldn't say that Hitler was wrong to kill six million Jews. All you could say is that it's not right for you. But objective moral truths do exist, so God (the objective law giver) must exist"

It really isn't obvious that objective moral values exist. Under the moral view others hold for example, different societies would hold some beliefs to be true. Some other societies may disagree with them, but those are the moral values that they think are true. In other words, it's subjective.

"Con claims that since "evil exists", God doesn't exist. But notice something here. The fact that Con admits evil exists is actually indirect evidence for the existence of God. Here's why: First let's talk about what evil IS. I would say that evil is something that has "gone wrong" in the world. But if something has gone wrong, then that implies there is a design for the world, and a design implies a designer. As for Con's premises, I would say they are flawed. They don't follow that God doesn't exist. For Con to show that the premises show that God doesn't exist, Con must show that it's logically impossible for God to have morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and/or suffering to exist. Under Christian theism, God can compensate victims of evil either in this life or the next with an infinitely larger amount of justice"

This argument simply is not logical at all. I'd already said earlier that we can place pain and suffering in the place of evil, which God wouldn't allow if he's omni-benevolent. The argument that I must show that God cannot possibly have a moral reason for evil existing doesn't follow as well. The definition of omni-benevolent beings simply cannot allow evil, Regardless of whether something good comes out of the suffering. If God was all powerful he'd be able to achieve the greater good without resorting to evil deeds.

"Con's second argument claims that in order for God to exist, we would have to need God to explain the mechanics of the universe. But this doesn't follow at all. For example, just because I may now how a mechanism works doesn't mean that no one created the mechanism. I may know how a watch works, but that doesn't mean that a watchmaker doesn't exist"

I was saying we don't have a need for a God in order to explain how our universe works; how it came into existence. It'd be like saying we don't have a need for a Y in order to explain X.

"Now on to Con's third argument. I want you to notice premise C. As Con implies, if C is true, Then the entire argument collapses. Therefore, since one of Con's premises negates Con's argument, the argument is self refuting"

The argument is pointing out that if P would be impossible if there wasn't a God. Yet P is possible, so it's a contradiction.

Thanks Pro.
dsjpk5

Pro

Rebuttals:
"My adversary seems to be confused as to what I was actually pointing out. If he says infinity is just a concept in your mind, and not something that is actually possible, then God logically cannot be eternal."

Again, my opponent has taken what I said about infinity out of context. As one can clearly see above, when referring to infinity not existing, it was in context of the confines of the physical universe we live in. An uncaused, transcendent creator would not fall under that category. With this in mind, Con's argument is not relevant to our discussion.

Con asks how do I know that God exists outside of our universe? I know this because, as Con admits, our universe hasn't always existed. Therefore, any cause of the universe must not be part of the universe.

As for Con's "simultaneous causation" argument, my opponent asserts that non-existent atoms can cause other non-existent atoms. But this is not how atoms act. I challenge Con to give us one example of this happening in nature. Point us to the empirical evidence. Without this, I am sure Con will understand if we reject such unsubstantiated, unscientific claims.

Now concerning the existence of moral truths existing, I would simply point to Con's own words: "Evil exists". If Con truly believed that morality is subjective, Con couldn't claim any action was "evil". All Con could say is that he/she doesn't prefer a certain action. So, in reality, Con has implicitly admitted moral truths exist. Now, as for Con substituting "evil" with "suffering", this still doesn't provide a hurdle for the existence of God. My opponent claims that the existence of suffering is somehow inferior to a scenario without suffering, but offers no evidence to support such a claim. For example, if by losing $5, I am able to receive $100, that would be better than never losing the $5. Maybe suffering isn't bad. How does Con know that suffering is bad? Is Con omniscient?

"I was saying we don't have a need for a God in order to explain how our universe works; how it came into existence. It'd be like saying we don't have a need for a Y in order to explain X."

Again, that doesn't give us any reason to believe God doesn't exist. Just because I don't need something or someone, it doesn't follow that they don't exist.

As I have shown in the previous round, Con's third argument is self-refuting.

Closing remarks:

I want everyone to notice that at this point of our debate, Con has not even attempted to refute my first contention: There are no good reasons to believe atheism is true. I think this is very telling. Con has at least attempted to refute my other contentions. In any debate, unchallenged contentions are presumed true. So, as of now, we must presume that there are no good reasons to believe atheism is true. And if that's the case, then God must exist, because if God didn't exist, then that would be a good reason to believe atheism is true.

As for my other contentions, Con has shown a tendency to take my arguments out of context, and to implicitly agree with my contentions. As for Con's contentions, we have seen them to be irrelevant and self-refuting. Con seems to be a nice person, but not the best debater.

When you consider all that, and add the fact that Con violated the rules of the debate by offering rebuttals in round two, I think the winner of this debate is rather clear. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Fanath

Con

"As for Con's "simultaneous causation" argument, my opponent asserts that non-existent atoms can cause other non-existent atoms. But this is not how atoms act. I challenge Con to give us one example of this happening in nature. Point us to the empirical evidence. Without this, I am sure Con will understand if we reject such unsubstantiated, unscientific claims"

I was asking why we should accept God over simultaneous causation as a cause of the universe. I don't need to prove simultaneous causation in order to ask why we should accept God over simultaneous causation. We don't have an example of God creating something, yet that by itself doesn't disprove God. Further, voters should note that Pro gives absolutely no evidence of his claim that this is impossible.

"Now concerning the existence of moral truths existing, I would simply point to Con's own words: "Evil exists""

I actually said in the argument that we can replace evil with pain and suffering, then I also clarified in the last round and pointed out that I was stating that if God exists. evil exists, yet that's a contradiction. Pro is twisting my words in this. Further,

"My opponent claims that the existence of suffering is somehow inferior to a scenario without suffering, but offers no evidence to support such a claim"

I never made this claim actually, Con is twisting my words again. I was pointing out that an omni-benevolent God wouldn't allow pain and suffering at all because he's completely good. Omni-benevolence mean that one is kind and generous towards everyone and everything. [1] Yet if we look at examples of evil happening in our world, wouldn't that contradict with God being "Kind and generous?" We can look at for example. Her father kept her locked in a dungeon for over 25 years, raped her constantly, and the children from the rapes were often forced to see this. [2] Can you imagine the pain she must have felt? How much she begged God for an escape route? You can't erase this from happening. Many people who have lost a family member, been raped, or even lost a limb point out that even though justice in the courtroom may have been served, they still lost something dear to them. This contradicts with God being completely kind to everyone.

Pro makes no attempt to refute my counter rebuttal to point 3.

"I want everyone to notice that at this point of our debate, Con has not even attempted to refute my first contention: There are no good reasons to believe atheism is true"

This is downright false. I've given the problem of evil for example, which showed that the God we're discussing contradicts itself. That would be a good reason to think that atheism is true.

He then goes to make a case about that, which I've already proven to be false.

So let's look at what's happened in the debate:

Pro's arguments were concerning objective moral values, and saying that God must exist because the only cause of the universe could have been God. With the moral values argument, I've pointed out that we don't have a need for a God in order to have objective moral values, and Pro failed to prove the existence of them. He did attempt to twist my words and claim that I agreed that they exist. However, even if we do assume that they exist, it doesn't prove that God is real as Pro gives literally no logic on why we need a God for them to exist, he merely claims it to be so.

With the cosmological argument, when I asked why simultaneous causation couldn't have been the cause he merely concluded that it couldn't have been the cause with no evidence other than that we haven't seen simultaneous causation before. But this argument doesn't follow, as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. With Pro's logic God would be false because there's no cases where we have seen this happening. Just because we haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Further, even if we assumed simultaneous causation is impossible, the claim that the universe must have had a cause, therefore God exists, fails. Pro needs to show evidence that the premise "If the universe had a cause, it was God" is true. As he hasn't done that, his cause falls apart. I didn't even need to provide any arguments as the BOP was on Pro but I did, and I also succeeded in disproving Pro's contentions. Pro fails at proving God, meaning the BOP has not been fulfilled. I also want you to notice that Pro, other than saying where his arguments came from, has not used a source to support his arguments, while I have used several in this debate to support my arguments. This is a clear choice folks.

Thank you, make good choices.

[1] http://www.collinsdictionary.com...

[2] http://www.crimelibrary.com...
dsjpk5

Pro

no round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
1. I absolutely illustrated how one could use "contention" without having to counter someone's claims. 2. 2.This is not a new usage.
3. I don't deny the definitions are ones that COULD'VE been used, but that's not how Fanath used it.
4. They are your personal favorite. This doesn't nullify the legitimacy of them. The fact that they're valid is irrelevant since its not how Fanath used the words.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
1. My reasoning is fine.
2. Fanath didn't define terms, and debaters cannot deliberately change the definition's of words without announcing it in round 1.
3. I presented several viable dictionaries that all agreed with me. It's not my "personal favorite definition", it's the English speaking world's interpretation of the word. I challenged you to come up with a definition that fit your meaning but you failed to do so. Perhaps it is you that should stop using "your personal favorite definitions".
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I am not looking for you to change your vote. The voting period is over and Fanath has won. I accept that despite your poor reasoning. As for debaters defining terms, it happens all the time on this website. Again, you're just being obstinate. And the definition you prefer is not the only one. I can contend something is true without countering another person's claims, but the only way I can offer a rebuttal is if I am countering another's claim. Clearly this is how Fanath was using the terms. Your personal favorite definitions are irrelevant in this case.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
That is irrelevant since I don't believe DDO grants it's users the right to redefine words, so without an explicit declaration from Fanath (which he did not give) the regular English definition stands. Also it's not my "personal definition". It is the agreed upon English meaning for the word. The only possible way you can win this argument is to convince the people who write the dictionary to change the definition, because you want a conduct point. Good luck.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
That could only be considered if fanath hadn't only allowed for "contentions" in the same round for Con. But that's not the case, so clearly Fanath was making a distinction. If he/she had listed both for him/her, then it would've been possible... but that's not what happened, so again, your personal definition is irrelevant.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Your argument is irrelevant since the first thing, his "contentions", encompassed his second thing "rebuttals". Just because they are two "things" does not mean one cannot be a part of the other. One was part of the other.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
I didn't have to guess that Fanath violated the rules; I just needed to read them. In round 2, Fanath said pro could offer "Contentions/Rebuttals" and Con could only offer "Contentions". So clearly, Pro could offer two things, but Con could only offer one thing. This was because in the last round, pro couldn't offer rebuttals, but con could. If Fanath had followed the rules, each of us would have had equal opportunity to rebut.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Except there is no English definition of the word that would exclude his rebuttals from being considered "contentions". Fanath never proposed any definitions, so I have the right, and you have the responsibility to interpret them in the standard English meaning that best fit the context. The fact that you thought Fanath was cheating, and apparently failed to look up the definition of "contention" is a complete failure on your part.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
By the way Fanath used the words, he/she defined the actions. You yourself admit that Fanath differentiated between the two, so please stop playing games. If you are the type who remains obstinate even when proven wrong, that's fine, but please stop pretending to be ignorant.
Posted by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
I don't believe Fanath proposed a definition, so I have the right to interpret it as the standard English meaning. Go to dictionary.com, merriam-webster, oxford english dictionaries, or just the google definition, and guess what? All the definitions will agree with me. You can't attempt to redefine words, or lie and say that Fanath did, just because you think you deserve the conduct point.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
Fanathdsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The BoP was completely on Pro here since he was making the assertion that "god exists". Pro showed little understanding of Atheism when he basically implied that atheism needs evidence to justify a lack of belief in god. Actually, all atheism needs is a lack of evidence supporting the existence of god to be justified. This makes any positive arguments from Con unnecessary. Pro also makes the complaint that Con presents rebuttals, not contentions in round two. Contention- an assertion, especially one maintained in argument. The causation was unjustified, due to the nature of the argument. Since Con's job was to negate Pro's argument, his contentions would also be rebuttals. Con should clarify on that next time but it doesn't warrant loss of conduct. Pro had two main arguments: cosmological argument, and morality. The first was torn apart by Con when he asked what made god exempt. Pro failed to provide evidence for objective morality. The BoP was unfulfilled so Con gets arguments.
Vote Placed by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Fanathdsjpk5Tied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets a 7-point forfeit for cheating by making an arbitrary and unfair rule, then breaking a legit rule. He broke Con rule 2 by giving new arguments in round 2 and made a rule that Pro was not allowed to type anything in round 4 except "no round as agreed upon." Pro addressed Con's violation of the rules and Con never responded to that at all. Con apparently did this to get an easy win by cheating.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
Fanathdsjpk5Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough decision, but i think that Con made a better counter-argument to Pro's argument. Con brought up points that ultimately pro couldn't respond with well. Though Con made some points unrelated to the debate and pro countered them well.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
Fanathdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.