The Instigator
David.McIntosh
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

God is immoral and evil.

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 6 votes the winner is...
David.McIntosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,669 times Debate No: 34681
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (6)

 

David.McIntosh

Pro

Fo the sake of this argument, we will be talking specifically about the Christian God, spoken about in the Bible.

I will be arguing that God is evil and immoral, and Con will be arguing that God is good and moraly just.

I thank Con in advance for taking on this debate, and hope we both enjoy it.


All powerful / All knowing

I put forward that the Christian God is said to be both all knowing and all powerful. This is shown in the following...

All knowing;

Job 37:16 - Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.

Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.

All powerful;

Matthew 19:26 - But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

So from the Bible, we can establish that God is all knowing, nd that God is all powerful.


Gods Choice

I put it to Con that when God was creating the world, he had many options. For example, he could have created a world in which the sky was 14 shades of green with yellow polkadots. He could have created a world that was cube shaped. he could have created a universe that played jazz music faintly in the background, all day... just because. He is all powerful, and he created, so there is no reason to asume otherwise.

Now, we look at the world in which he chose to create. He chose to create a world with hunger, rape, slavery, violence, lies and evil. He could have picked any other scenario while creating, but he didnt. He could have created a world with no evil do-ers at all.

Now, people argue that he had to allow evil to grant us free-will, but let me bring Cons attention to a few points before the free-will argument comes up. He created a world in which the laws of physics are enforced. Man cannot chose to disobey them. This is a restriction on free will, but he did it anyway. So clearly he doesn't mind restrictions on free will.. I also would like to point out that since he knew everything, he knew everyones choices when he was creating the world, and so what you have owuld not be free-will, but simply just the illusion of free will while this predetermined choice is acted out. Also, taking away evil doesn't restrict free-will, it just changes the options avialable to people. So to sum up, he chose to create a world filled with evil.


Evil God.

Once you accept the first part, its very easy to see how we can prove tht God is evil. He knew that by creating this specific world, things like WW2 would happen,would keep slaves and that discrimination would still be running riot 2000 years after jesus.

A god that chooses all the suffering of the wolrd, over creating a world withought suffering, to me, is evil and immoral.

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

All powerful / All knowing

Yes, if God exists he is all powerful and all knowing by definition.

All good

God is defined as omnibenevolent, and is all good by definition.

The idea of "God" being "evil" is logically contradictory. God by definition is "all good", so trying to argue that an "all good" entity is "evil" is absolute logical suicide. Lets say "Plash" is defined as an "all red" house. Pro's argument is analogous to trying to argue that Plash is blue. If it is all red, by definition, it cannot be blue. Hence, Plash being blue is logically impossible. Similarly, if a being is all good, by definition, the being can not be evil. Hence, the idea of God being evil is incoherent.

Conclusion

The resolution is logically contradictory. Thus, due to the Law of Non-Contradiction; the resolution has be negated.

Debate Round No. 1
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank Con for his response, although his logical contradiction fails as I will show below.


All Powerful / All Knowing & His Choice

We can now accept from the above round that we have agreed that God is all powerful, and all knowing.
Thus, He knew the outcome of all of his actions before doing them, could have done them any other way, and would know those outcomes too.

So from that we can say he chose this world, that is full of evil, suffering and bad things, over any other outcome possible. It was possibe for him to make a world with less suffering, for he is all powerful, but he did not. So at the very least, he chose a world outcome with rape, slavery, violence, hatred, discrimination, starvation, infection, disease, lies and evil.

If God is omnibenevolant as you say, this means he would want to be universally benevolant towards all of his creations. Surely he has failed in this if the above is true. He also goes against this apparent characteristic when he orders geneocide against entire cities, including wiping out children and babies. This is not something that can be dodged with the 'free will' argument, since this is on Gods own command.


Good and Evil

Con asserts that "God is defined as omnibenevolent, and is all good by definition."
Con also asserts that Being "Good" and "Evil" is logically contradictory.
There is a few points to cover on this as it was Cons main argument, so I will break this into a few seperate points.

Omnibenevolant

Firstly, Con states that God is Omnibenevolant. However, The Bible makes no mention of "Omnibenevolance", at best he is asuming that the Christian God is omnibenevolant. This needs backed up.

I would argue that there is overwhelming biblical evidence, from geneocide, to slavery, to killing innoscents, to the eternal torture of children, that would suggest, at least sometimes God does not act in a benevolant mannar towards every person. If he does not always act in a benevolant mannar, then he is not omnibenevolant.

Good and Evil Contradiction

At best the bible asserts that God is "Good" and sees that his creations are good. If we go to Genisis, he saw that man, specifically, was good. Since we have agreed that he is all knowing, he knew exactly what man would do, what sins man would commit, and what evils man would accomplish. Yet he still saw that man was good. This shows that God himself saw man as Good, yet knew man would be Evil. If this is how God sees good, then good is certainly not omnibenevolance, or absolutely morally right, either. So from this we can say that at best, it is good in Gods opinion.

If we are talking about good as an opinion, then what is good to one, may not be good to another. God can be evil, and see things he does as good just in the same way that I'm sure hitler saw the invasion of Poland and thought it was Good. This doesn't mean Hitler was not evil.

God is not bound by omnibenevolance, and we have shown the Bible itself gives examples of "good" things that create evil. Thus, there is no logical contradiction in being both good and evil.

Definitions

Con aserts that God must be omnibenevolent by definition. We have shown above that God cannot be omnibenevolant. This points the logical contradiction not to God being evil, but to the christian God being a God by definition at all. If we say that a God must be omnibenevolant, and we have shown quite clearly that the Christian God is not omnibenevolant, then the logical outcome is that th christin God is not a God by our definition and currant understanding.

Either we are wrong in our definition, and omnibenevolance is not a characteristic of a God, which in turn voids Cons argument. Or, the Christian God is not a God by definition, and therefore does not meet the characteristics of a God, in which case we cannot asume him to be omnibenevolant through the sheer fact of being a God.

Either one opens up the Christian God to being both Evil and Immoral withought breaking his own characteristics or being a logical contradiction.

Fact Or Fiction

While maybe an obvios one, there is another asumption to Cons argument. Con assumes that God is not only a God by definition, but that God is real, existing and actual. I say this because otherwise, it would simply be a character flaw pointing to poor writing on the authors part.

Since both these asumptions are unproven, The Christian God being evil can simply be put forward as either a poorly written God character, or that the author has simply used the word God as a name/title to project forward a notion of a powerful being withought sticking to the definition through out the piece.


A Truthful God

I put to Con a question of Gods honesty.

God Can't Lie

Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.

2 Samuel 7:28 - Thou art that God, and thy words be true.

Psalm 119:160 - The word is true from the beginning.

Hebrews 6:18 - It was impossible for God to lie.

God Can Lie

1 Kings 22:23 - Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22 - Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Jeremiah 4:10 - Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7 - O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

Ezekeil 14:9 - And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 - For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.


From this we can clearly see that God can and has lied, and has lied about being able to lie. At the very least this brings into question his morallity and benevolance, at the hasher end of the scale, is grounds for questioning the entire bible.

If God can lie, whats to say that he hasn't lied about being good? I put to Con that of all what we have gone over so far points not to an omnibenevolant God, but simply to an Evil God who has commited very immoral acts, allowed very evil things to happen, created this world knowing he would do this and that these things would happen, has the power to stop them but doesn't and simply lies to justify it all.


Conclusion

The Christian God is all knowing and all powerful, but does nothing to stop the suffering he knows will happen. This goes against omnibenevolance.

The Christian God does not meet the current definition for a God. He is either not a God, or Omnibenevolance is not a property of God and therefore there is nothing stopping God from being evil. Therefore there is no logical contradiction and Cons argument fails.

If he orders mass killings, allows rape, murder, slavery and child torture, knows the evils of man long before he exer created man, but thinks man is good and he is shown to lie, this shows Gods immoral and Evil nature.

To sum up, I have shown that God is evil.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, but as I said his entire case is a logical contradiction and can be dismissed as trivial.

All Powerful / All Knowing

Here my opponent commits the special pleading logical fallacy. He is saying that because The Bible defines God as all powerful and all knowing that it can be included in his definition, but The Bible defines God as all good as well and thus is included in the definition. Also, it is not even clear God is omnipotent:

"The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots." - Judges 1:19

Not even God could stop iron, what makes you think he could stop evil?

"If God is omnibenevolent as you say, this means he would want to be universally benevolent towards all of his creations." - Pro

God is all good by definition, it has nothing to do "with what I say", so the above is a red-herring logical fallacy. Thus, Pro is talking about a different being that is not God if he is accusing some being of not being benevolent. My opponent cannot defend this position because it is incoherent. You cannot argue that a square can be round, and you cannot argue that the Christian God is evil. This is an elementary logical blunder.

Good and Evil

Apparently, I have not supported omnibenevolence:

"As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." - Psalms 18:30

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" - 1 John 4:8

Most theologians interpret those passages as a clear indicator of omnibenevolence. A omnibenevolence is clearly an attribute of perfection.

Good Evil and Contradiction

God is defined as perfect, and love (perfect love) as I proved above. Therefore, calling this being evil is a logical contradiction. You can say that this being "x" cannot be God by definition because being "x" is evil, but you cannot say God is evil.

"If this is how God sees good, then good is certainly not omnibenevolance"

Pro is assuming that his idea of good is the correct one without warrant.

"God can be evil, and see things he does as good just in the same way that I'm sure hitler saw the invasion of Poland and thought it was Good." - Pro

No. God cannot be evil, because he is defined as a being with a perfect way. Evil is imperfection. Therefore, the term "God can be evil" is logically contradictory.

"Thus, there is no logical contradiction in being both good and evil." - Pro

There is a contradiction in the idea of a God who is defined as a being with a "perfect way" being evil.

Definitions


"Con asserts that God must be omnibenevolent by definition. We have shown above that God cannot be omnibenevolent". Pro

Pro has not shown God is not omnibenevolent. Con has taken things he personally believes are immoral and calling them immoral. Until he can bridge the gap between subjectiveness and objectiveness then he has no case.

Fact or Fiction

"Con assumes that God is not only a God by definition, but that God is real, existing and actual." - Pro

False. Pro assumes God is real, because the resolution is "God is immoral and evil" not "If God exists, he is immoral and evil". This means, Pro has to prove God exists, and that he is evil to meet his burden of proof. God cannot be evil and immoral if he does not exist. Therefore, Pro has to prove God exists to meet his burden.

God can lie/ God cannot lie

There are other ways to be deceitful than lying. This whole section from pro is a non-sequitur.

Conclusion

Pro is using what he personally feels is immoral, and trying to apply it to God fallaciously. Pro has no basis for claiming that any suffering allowed by God is evil or bad; it is just his opinion. Also, God could not even stop iron chariots, so expecting him to stop suffering has no merit. Plus, evil is an imperfection. I proved that God is defined as a being with a perfect way. This means, that Pro's argument that "a being with a perfect way is immoral and evil" is incoherent. Also, the resolution is "God is immoral and evil", not "if God exists, he is immoral and evil". Thus, Pro has to prove God exists to meet his burden.
Debate Round No. 2
David.McIntosh

Pro

and can be dismissed as trivial.

All Powerful / All Knowing

Con asserts I cannot say that a God can be evil, because it goes against the definition of a God.

Calling Peter "Mrs. Peter" does not make him a lady and married by definition. You wouldnt say "You can't call Peter a man, it goes against the definition of Mrs." Instead you would say "Peter is a man, and unmarried, someone has given him the wrong title of Mrs."

We have both agreed that we are talking about the Christian God. In the same way, christians calling their diety God does not automatically mean he is good, if we are shown numerous examples of him being bad. It simply means he may be wrongly titled, a notion I am certainly not against.

We are not saying that any god could be evil, simply that the Christian "God", as spoken of in the Bible, is evil. If his evil actions don't equate with the definition of God, then the authors have either made character flaws or title flaws.

Con also brings up that the God in question could not defeat iron, even though we agreed he was all powerful. This backs up my point that the "God" in question does not live up to the definition.


Good and Evil

The passages in no way state God is omnibenevolant. Saying something is "perfect" or "love", is not the same as "absolutely morally right". As stated, God has lied, killed, tortured kids etc.

Perfect can simply mean having all the desirable elements. Many men might think a model is "perfect", but this is in no way the same as "This model is absolutely morally right".

Contradiction

Con has states that I assume my own idea of evil and good is the correct one without warrant.
Infact, not only is it against my own morals to kill someone, it is against my countries and many others. However, all of that would still be opinion, so lets look at it another way.

The Bible puts forward its own moral code. Mass murder and geneocide are not acceptable within it, btu god commits these acts, and orders them. Over 2 million murders in the bible can be directly attributed to God. I put it forward that we cannot count the killing of 2 million, including innoscent children and babies, as morally good or perfect.

I state again, God does not act in a benevolant mannar towards every person. If he does not always act in a benevolant mannar, then he is not omnibenevolant.

Again, at the end of this section Con points to Gods definitions. You cannot say "God is goo dbecause he is good." Its a flawed circular argument.

Definitions

"Pro has not shown God is not omnibenevolent"
God puts preferance on certain groups of people against others in the Bible. He aids one group of people in wards against others, he orders one group of people to mass murder the other within the bible.

He cannot be benevolant towards all if he is pitching one side against the other. This shows he is not benevolant. If he is not benevolant towards all, he is not omnibenevolant.


Fact or Fiction

If I say "Darth Vadar was evil", this does not mean I am assuming Darth Vadar is real. I also wouldn't have to prove Darth Vadar is real to prove he is Evil, a character can have characteristics whether real, or documented in fiction, therefore cons assertion on this matter fails.

I stated that God would need to be real for Cons argument for a good reason. If God is not real, there is no reason "by definition" that god must be good. He can be evil, and the author is just abit rubbish at character writing.


A Truthful God

Con has not shown that God does not lie. As I meantioned there are contradictions within the bible and, in 2 Thessalonians 2:11 God makes people believe lies.

The only explination for these contradictions, is if the ones about him being able to lie are true.

If God can lie, whats to say that he hasn't lied about being good? I put to Con that of all what we have gone over so far points not to an omnibenevolant God, but simply to an Evil God who has commited very immoral acts, allowed very evil things to happen, created this world knowing he would do this and that these things would happen, has the power to stop them but doesn't and simply lies to justify it all.

Conclusion

I thank Con for the debate and his last round in advance.

I have shown that the "Christian God of The Bible" does not meet the current definition of "God".

I have shown reason to believe that this "God" is evil and has commited evil acts even by his own moral code.

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

All knowing/ All powerful

"Con also brings up that the God in question could not defeat iron, even though we agreed he was all powerful. This backs up my point that the "God" in question does not live up to the definition."

Pro loses the debate off of the above alone. Even if I agreed in my first argument that if God exists he would be all knowing and all powerful; this does not mean I cannot challenge this assertion later on. This is because I there are no debate terms which state that we both agree on those attributes, those attributes being applied to God is simply a part of Pros argument. I clearly pointed out a Bible verse which suggests that God cannot do something which is clearly logically and metaphysically possible. Pro did not actually refute this contention, thus it stands. Since it stands, we have no reason to believe that God necessarily has the power to stop the suffering and evil in question. Pro has not met his burden of proof.

Good and Evil

"Saying something is "perfect" or "love", is not the same as "absolutely morally right"

Would a perfect being:

(i) be absolutely morally right

or

(ii) not be absolutely morally right

I think (i) being true pertaining to perfection is self-evidently warranted. If it is not, then perfection is merely as subjective as the claims of evil projected by my opponent.

Contradiction
"Mass murder and genocide are not acceptable within it, btu god commits these acts, and orders them."

This begs the question against God having morally sufficient reasons for the things Pro thinks are immoral pertaining to God. Pro does not know the mind of God; therefore anything which looks evil to us may be necessary for some equally compensating good. Pro has not defended the notion that these things God does, or permits are actually evil. Therefore, Pro's argument here fails.

"I state again, God does not act in a benevolent manner towards every person. If he does not always act in a benevolent manner, then he is not omnibuses."

Even if God is not omnibenevolent (which perfection in the Bible seems to negate), it wouldn't follow from this that God is immoral and evil. God could be really benevolent, but not omnibenevolent, and still not be evil.

Definitions

"He cannot be benevolent towards all if he is pitching one side against the other. This shows he is not benevolent."

This is a non-sequitur. Even if God was not benevolent to all, it would not follow from this that God was not benevolent.

Fact or Fiction

Saying "Darth Vader was evil" would be to presume Darth Vadar exists in a debate like this, even if this is not how we would interpret it considering everyday language. If Darth Vadar does not exist, how can he be evil? One would have to say "The fictional Darth Vadar has an evil character".

My opponent is arguing that God is immoral and evil. However, something that does not exist cannot have any attributes. Therefore, Pro had to prove God existed to win this debate. He did not.

A Truthful God

There are other ways to deceive, than to lie. Thus, if it is claimed that God did not tell a lie, but he deceived; this is in no way a contradiction.

Conclusion

I showed that perfection seems to clearly suggest omnibenevolence. Thus, if God is defined as omnibenevolent then he cannot be evil by definition. If one does not accept this argument, Pro still fails as he has not shown that anything he is claiming is evil; actually is. Pro also did not dispute the charge I laid that God is not actually omnipotent and could stop these situations. Additionally, he begs the question against God having morally sufficient reasons for the suffering he causes or allows. Pro did not meet his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
haha Johnlubba I would have changed mine if I knew that you changed yours. Oh well, the end result is the same.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
Very true ragnar :)
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
@David.McIntosh: I pointed out the missing definition as a point of semantics, so that you might avoid the possible loophole in future arguments (I still awarded you the argument point for strength of arguments). By the end I disagreed with you. hence my "Who did you agree with after the debate?" vote for con; but merely agreeing with people isn't what we award points for.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
Also, people say I didn't define evil.

There are things that are generally accepted over many countries are morally right, there are things put forward by philosophers as objectively morally right, and as I mentioned within the debate, the bible puts forward its own moral code.

No matter what one you look at, God fails to meet the set standards.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
Wouldn't ask it to, I think people should vote based on the entire debate :)
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"And Rational, if God is defined as omnibenevolent then he cannot be evil by definition" The argument of definition is invalid if you agree that he does not meet the definition of god on other aspects"

This was only one of my many arguments against you though. Thus, even if it fails, that should not be enough to give you the win in my humble opinion.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
And Rational, "if God is defined as omnibenevolent then he cannot be evil by definition" The argument of definition is invalid if you agree that he does not meet the definition of god on other aspects.

I think this is what Ameliamk1 is meaning by god just being a human defined title. This is roughly were I stand on it too. Just because we define a god a certain way, shouldn't mean anything we call a god fits into that.

Good debate btw, i think my 2 with yourself have been the most enjoyable!
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
O.Z. If a God exists, and exists to the definition of a God (all powerful, all knowing etc.) then freewill is an illusion.

He knew all that would happen, and knew all of your 'choices' before you chose them and knew how every change in the way he created the world would effect each of those choices. Therefore, you don't make those choices, you are just acting out what has already been chosen.

As for what he could have done, he could have chosen not to order mass murder, that would have been good, instead he chose to order it, that is evil. Simple :)
Posted by O.Z 3 years ago
O.Z
I think that God never had any evil intentions at all. He could have not given us free will and we could simply be slaves to his will. But no, he made us imperfect and able to choose. What's better, to be perfect or to learn how to be perfect?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You have even had an RFD against me in another debate, and said:

"I hate people who think they are clever and funny."

Seriously, that was your RFD? Ameliamk1 is nothing more than a votebomber. Also, AgentRock, why would you give me conduct? Neither one of us breached conduct at all, so I should not have gotten that point.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
David.McIntoshRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: My original vote was to counter a vote bomb, for agent rocks invalid RFD, I mis voted and only gave pro three points and not con, then ClassicRobert countered my vote, it was brought to my attention that my vote was wrong so I removed it, however I never noticed ClassicRoberts counter vote. Now I have no choice but to counter that vote and make the points which were awarded fair.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
David.McIntoshRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling: Pro please hit the spell-check button in future, you even had spelling mistakes inside a quote. Argument: Key flaw to pro's argument is a lack of definition for evil, which caused him to fall just shy of his full BoP. I mean I don't help the homeless even when it's within my power, but does that automatically make me evil and immoral? No it means I just don't care (I'm evil for other various reasons). Con's argument can be summarized as "and you cannot argue that the Christian God is evil," which is a pretty bad case of begging the question. A better tactic may have been to measure the good in the world, as a counterbalance to the evil; and maybe talk about butterfly cocoons, how their wings could not fly if a greater being helps them in that early struggle. FURTHER EXPLAINED: pro did a better job in the Analysis factor, explaining his own case and catching weaknesses in cons. He did far better in Refutation (yes someone may argue about god). And both did ok in Organization.
Vote Placed by HeartOfGod 3 years ago
HeartOfGod
David.McIntoshRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I really hate con's argument about the contradiction. It seems rather petty. But I was convinced by con's statement that pro did not meet his burden when it comes to "evil".
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
David.McIntoshRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: johnlubba, if you are going to counter, counter for both sides, not just one side. I'm completing his counter right now.
Vote Placed by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
David.McIntoshRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con's argument is rather silly, and somewhat annoys me. If he is clearly not omnipotenet or omnibenevolent, the we should not call him God. God is a human label, not a divine one.
Vote Placed by AgentRocks 3 years ago
AgentRocks
David.McIntoshRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm bad at feedback.