The Instigator
FrackJack
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Ruckmanite
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

God probably exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Ruckmanite
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 831 times Debate No: 36099
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

FrackJack

Con

No semantics

No forfeiting


No Ad Hom.




"God"is the tri-onmi god of the Bible. His traits are All-Knowing, All-Powerful and All-Loving.

"...probably" means it is likely God exists. How ever the BOP is on Pro.


R1 is for Pro's opening shots.

Ruckmanite

Pro

I'd like to began by thanking Con for challenging me to this debate. I accept all terms and conditions.

I will focus on the fine-tuning argument for God's existence. To be more precise, I will argue that the universe and matter within it is so delicate, and yet so balanced, that it is far more likely there is a Creator, than that there isn't one. However, I don't want to limit myself to any one argument; therefore, I will use any evidence I find to be appealing.

To begin:

Suppose we went on a mission to Mars, and found a domed structure in which everything was set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, for example, was set around 70o F and the humidity was at 50%; moreover, there was an oxygen recycling system, an energy gathering system, and a whole system for the production of food. Put simply, the domed structure appeared to be a fully functioning biosphere. What conclusion would we draw from finding this structure? Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance? Certainly not. Instead, we would unanimously conclude that it was designed by some intelligent being. Why would we draw this conclusion? Because an intelligent designer appears to be the only plausible explanation for the existence of the structure. That is, the only alternative explanation we can think of--that the structure was formed by some natural process--seems extremely unlikely (1).

I reference the above quote as a "jumping off point" to the basis of my argument. Any form of civilization that man could discover on anoother planet would logically make him assume that there must be an intelligent designer behind these structures and cities. Even on our own planet we often use terms such as "builder" for building, "inventor" for inventing, "producer" for producing, and "manufacturer" for manufacturing. Why, then, not "Creator" for creating? If I show someone my car, and they ask me, "Who made your car?" would I say, "No one made it, it just accidently arranged itself and came into being and is now sitting in my driveway." Of course not. Nor would I say it about my house or anything else I own. And no one else would, either. Why, then, does the skeptic accept that there are makers and creators of what we can observe and see, yet there is an entirely different explanation for abiogenesis-how we came into existence?
God, then, is the more likely conclusion. If I see someone decapitated in the back of an alley, do I assume a) that someone just cut this man's head off or b) that by the natural observation of this man's health that his head just decombusted and burst? Choice b is possible, but which is more likely? That is the topic of this debate, afterall; God is more likely.

Having estblished the basics, let us move on to the fine-tuning argument. Here are a few scientific facts:

Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 4, 35; Barrow and Tipler, p. 322.) (1)

Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Davies, 1984, p. 242.) (1).

Slight changes to any of the physical constants, or to the rations between the constants, will result in a universe inhospitable to life (2).

Life requires carbon in order to serve as the hub for complex molecules, but it also requires oxygen in order to create water (2).
Carbon is like the hub wheel in a tinker toy set: you can bind other elements together to more complicated molecules (e.g. " "carbon-based life), but the bonds are not so tight that they can"t be broken down again later to make something else(2).
The carbon resonance level is determined by two constants: the strong force and electromagnetic force(2).
If you mess with these forces even slightly, you either lose the carbon or the oxygen(2).

These facts lend support to the idea that God is more likely. A fine-tuned universe is not nearly as likely if it was accidently formed by the expolsion of the Big Bang or such like.

A second argument that I would like to open up this round to is morality. Secular humanists have to jump through many loopholes to explain morality without a God. For instance, a mother only saves her child from a burning car because of genetic familiarity. A business owner only is nice to customers due to reciprocal advantage; if he's nice, the customer will come back. However, this does not account for all forms of morality or acts of goodness. Why do people donate blood if there is no benefit they are getting out of it? Why does a young man give up his seat to an old woman if he doesn't receive any benefit? Or why do people volunteer their time and money to help other people going through a famine in Haiti? Genetic kinship and reciprocal advantage doesn't come into play in every case of altruistic deeds. The more likely explanation is that a moral lawgiver (God) has given men a moral code (conscience).

A final argument that I will introduce is the idea of Hell. If religion is fallacious and a "fairytale" then that might explain Heaven- a nice place to think of to escape your problems here on earth, but that doesn't account for Hell. Why think up a place of eternal torment for people that don't accept your story? No author of any fiction book writes his story with the malevolent intention of damning you if you don't believe what he wrote. So why invent Hell if it's all fake?

Finally, Con mentioned that the burden of proof is on me to explain God's existence, but that ultimately is fallacious thinking. The burden of proof needs to be shared among us because Con needs to show the evidence that God is not more likely and offer what is more probable to him.

Sources:

1. http://www.discovery.org...

2. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 1
FrackJack

Con

Sorry for the late reply.


About the BOP. The BOP mainly rests on you because of the word "Probably". If I put "FSM" where "God" is, then ask you t5o disprove it, you can call me out on it. In fact, I think the lack of evidence would fit my BOP, even if it applied to me. Nonetheless, there is a relatively large portion of the BOP on you.


Suppose we went on a mission to Mars, and found a domed structure in which everything was set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, for example, was set around 70o F and the humidity was at 50%; moreover, there was an oxygen recycling system, an energy gathering system, and a whole system for the production of food. Put simply, the domed structure appeared to be a fully functioning biosphere. What conclusion would we draw from finding this structure? Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance?



I'll stop you here. This is a form of the Watcher makers argument. This argument is a fallacy and I explain why in simple terms:


P1: The sun gives light.
P1a: A light bulb gives light.
P2: Light bulbs run mainly by electricity.
C: The sun runs on electricity.



P1: A watch is complex; It is man made.
P2: A person is complex.
C: It is made by a god.



You are taking traits of things and falsely putting them to other things.




You then begin talking about the start of life. God is unlikely.


Let's say the chance of life starting is 1 in a billion.


That's a low chance, right? Sure it is. But if you have a few billion number of planets, it is likely life will arise, which it has. Take in the fact that there is billions of planets out there. (http://www.examiner.com...)


These facts lend support to the idea that God is more likely. A fine-tuned universe is not nearly as likely if it was accidentally formed by the explosion of the Big Bang or such like.

Why is a God needed to fine tune the universe? And really, what happens if there is only one "setting"? Again my rebuttal above can defeat this argument.




Why do people donate blood if there is no benefit they are getting out of it? Why does a young man give up his seat to an old woman if he doesn't receive any benefit? Or why do people volunteer their time and money to help other people going through a famine in Haiti? Genetic kinship and reciprocal advantage doesn't come into play in every case of altruistic deeds. The more likely explanation is that a moral lawgiver (God) has given men a moral code (conscience).




Would you rape people if I proved to you that god doesn't exist? This argument is baseless and an opinion. I am an atheist. But I dont rape people. I dont kill. So please tell me why I am a bad person? Even so, this doesn't prove God.



A final argument that I will introduce is the idea of Hell. If religion is fallacious and a "fairytale" then that might explain Heaven- a nice place to think of to escape your problems here on earth, but that doesn't account for Hell. Why think up a place of eternal torment for people that don't accept your story? No author of any fiction book writes his story with the malevolent intention of damning you if you don't believe what he wrote. So why invent Hell if it's all fake?


Scare tactics. This is not a arguemnt for God's existance. More so for an All-Loving God.
Ruckmanite

Pro

Con stated, "The BOP mainly rests on you because of the word 'Probably.'" I agree that it does, but this also means that some of the burden of proof rests on you, and you haven't provided any so far. If you believe there is a lack of evidence, then expound upon what you mean.


Con stated that my example of the structures on Mars is the common deist argument of God being a sort of watchmaker. However, I didn't state that. I am saying that if structures are found on Mars, which is more likely a) that is was put there by an intelligent being or b) that it just occured through natural processes. The obvious answer is a. It has nothing to do with complexity at all; it's just, which is more likely to believe? I could even use Con's argument to support my point:
P1: A watch is complex; It is man made.
P2: A person is complex.
C: It is made by a god.


If there was a "creator" of the watch, then what is more likely about a person's origins? Would anybody honestly say that the watch composed itself through random accidental means over thousands of years? I've stated this already, and so I ask again: what is more likely about the origin of man? If we find the evolutiionary standpoint fallacious in material objects, why do we accept a random evolutionary accident over man's origins?


Con states:

You then begin talking about the start of life. God is unlikely.
Let's say the chance of life starting is 1 in a billion


What does this have to do with the fine-tuning argument? The facts I presented demonstrate that life is improbable througut the entire universe. Stephen Hawking states in his book A Brief History of Time that, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125).


Even Richard Dawkins told Ben Stein:
"Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer" (http://www.theoligarch.com...)


Now, while I'm not arguing aliens notice that even Richard Dawkins admits life needs a "sort of designer." The fne-tuning argument shows that God is far more likely than any other theories on abiogenesis (Big Bang, etc).


Con states, "Why is a God needed to fine tune the universe?" Well, again both Dawkins and Hawking (who are not theists) have stated you can find a "designer" out of a fine-tuned universe. I am arguing that this designer is God.


As for morality, Con replies: "Would you rape people if I proved to you that god doesn't exist? This argument is baseless and an opinion. I am an atheist. But I dont rape people. I dont kill. So please tell me why I am a bad person?"


He misunderstands my argument. I'm not arguing that atheists are bad people. I'm stating that atheists have to find natural, evolutionary processes to explain any moralistic or altruistic deeds that people perform. Two common examples mentioned are reciprocal advantage or genetic kinship to which I provided my 3 examples above which don't fit into these categories.


My last argument on Hell was not a "scare tactic" as Con tries to argue. Again, Con misunderstand my point. What is the purpose of creating a place of eternal torment for people if religion was man-made from the beginning? Heaven could be argued that it's "man-made" but what is the purpose of Hell?


I shall present two more arguments in support of God's existence:

1. The ancient Hebrews (writers of the Bible) were the only group of their time to argue that God created the universe out of nothing. There was no pre-existing matter available. This is a remarkable thing because all other religions had "a god" or "gods" create the univese out of pre-existing material. I mention this point because modern science agrees that the universe came out of nothing. Only the Hebrews knew this in antiquity.


2. Up until the 1940s, the idea of a restoration of Israel was considered impossible. Afterall, the Germans were burning Jews in ovens. Yet, in 1948, Israel became a nation and was not destroyed by the Palestinians. I mention this because it was prophesied in the Bible. Ezekiel 36:24 says, " For I{God} will take you{Israel} from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land." Also, Jeremiah 16:14-15 says, " Therefore, behold, the days come saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of israel out of the land of Egypt; But, the lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers."


I only reference the Bible because it clearly says Israel would be restored and reestablished, and they were in 1948.


I place the ball in Con's court.
Debate Round No. 2
FrackJack

Con





Con stated that my example of the structures on Mars is the common deist argument of God being a sort of watchmaker. However, I didn't state that. I am saying that if structures are found on Mars, which is more likely a) that is was put there by an intelligent being or b) that it just occured through natural processes. The obvious answer is a. It has nothing to do with complexity at all; it's just, which is more likely to believe? I could even use Con's argument to support my point:
P1: A watch is complex; It is man made.
P2: A person is complex.
C: It is made by a god.



You dropped my rebuttal.

If there was a "creator" of the watch, then what is more likely about a person's origins? Would anybody honestly say that the watch composed itself through random accidental means over thousands of years? I've stated this already, and so I ask again: what is more likely about the origin of man? If we find the evolutiionary standpoint fallacious in material objects, why do we accept a random evolutionary accident over man's origins?

http://en.wikipedia.org...



What was the orgin of God?

What does this have to do with the fine-tuning argument? The facts I presented demonstrate that life is improbable througut the entire universe. Stephen Hawking states in his book A Brief History of Time that, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125).

http://en.wikipedia.org...



You also dropped one of my points about the chance that there really is ONE 'setting'. How do we know that there is a boom/crush cycle in the universe? That could happen. This means nothing.


Con states, "Why is a God needed to fine tune the universe?" Well, again both Dawkins and Hawking (who are not theists) have stated you can find a "designer" out of a fine-tuned universe. I am arguing that this designer is God.


That is not an answer to the question I asked you.


He misunderstands my argument. I'm not arguing that atheists are bad people. I'm stating that atheists have to find natural, evolutionary processes to explain any moralistic or altruistic deeds that people perform. Two common examples mentioned are reciprocal advantage or genetic kinship to which I provided my 3 examples above which don't fit into these categories.

https://en.wikipedia.org...


Which happens to fall under the kinship.We are porgramed by evolution to care about the well being of our young and the weak. Try slapping a tiger cub in front of its mother and I will bet you will be attacked and die unless you have a 'S' on your shirt. I could give you a long answer , but I dont like long winded answers.


My last argument on Hell was not a "scare tactic" as Con tries to argue. Again, Con misunderstand my point. What is the purpose of creating a place of eternal torment for people if religion was man-made from the beginning? Heaven could be argued that it's "man-made" but what is the purpose of Hell?

This is just an absurd arguemnt. Hell is part of Religion. If you argue hell exists, then that invalidates the All-Loving part of God. If God sent people to hell, then that meant he doesn't have any love for them.

1. The ancient Hebrews (writers of the Bible) were the only group of their time to argue that God created the universe out of nothing. There was no pre-existing matter available. This is a remarkable thing because all other religions had "a god" or "gods" create the univese out of pre-existing material. I mention this point because modern science agrees that the universe came out of nothing. Only the Hebrews knew this in antiquity.



a form of
http://en.wikipedia.org...


Means nothing.

I only reference the Bible because it clearly says Israel would be restored and reestablished, and they were in 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Nostradamus perdicted Gangnam Style. It's true:

From the calm morning,
the end will come
when of the dancing horse
the number of circles will be nine



The first line refers to Korea

The second? The end of the world.

Third. The dance Psy does in the Music Video.


And the last. The nine zeros in the number 1,000,000,000, which is how many views GS got last year.



This is really a hoax. However, this doesn't mean it's point is invalid.



Anyone can predict anything.

Ruckmanite

Pro

I will not present any new arguments for God's existence since it would be unfair for Con to have address new arguments in his closing round.

Since Con says, "You dropped my rebuttal" he seems to think it's appropriate to drop mine concerning which is more likely about our origins. He only provides a wikipedia source (when teachers agree wikipedia is not reliable) and fails to explain his argument. He believes that this source supports his statement "You are taking traits of things and falsely putting them to other things." However, people use analogies all the time to prove a point and/or a concept. Further, this debate was not about absolute certainty as the wikipedia article delves into, but about probability. I reiterated numerous times that a "Creator" is far more LIKELY than evolutionary randomness, and used manufacturers and builders and engineers as analogies. A car is not the product of natural selection, but the result of an "intelligent designer." Based on observation, if every material object around us is the product of a "designer," which is more likely, that man is the result of a "Creator" or came into existence through natural selection? Con hasn't provided any evidence to show an alternate theory is more likely, therefore I let my argument stand.

Con says, " You also dropped one of my points about the chance that there really is ONE 'setting'. How do we know that there is a boom/crush cycle in the universe? That could happen. This means nothing.

Alright, well if the constants are changed, then life would be impossible. The reason there is only "one setting" as you put it, is because outside of this one setting life would collapse.
http://books.google.com...

I provided the above source to help illustrate this. The basic premise to the fine-tuning argument is that the constants are so fixed that an "intelligent designer" is the most likely explanation concerning how they came about. Is it really likely that an evolutionary accident has brought about life when even the smallest alteration would make this universe collapse? For instance, not a single fingerprint matches another fingerprint, out of seven billion people. Nor is there a snowflake that is exactly identical to another snowflake. They are all unique. Surely, a random accident would cause at least one fingerprint or one snowflake to match another one, but they don't.

Con states, "Which happens to fall under the kinship.Which happens to fall under the kinship.We are porgramed by evolution to care about the well being of our young and the weak. Try slapping a tiger cub in front of its mother and I will bet you will be attacked and die unless you have a 'S' on your shirt. I could give you a long answer , but I dont like long winded answers."

But giving up a seat to an old lady on a bus is not kinship if she's not related to you. Nor is donating blood to people you don't know kinship, or reciprocal advantage. You state, " We are programed (sic) by evolution to care about the well being of our young and weak." How so? How would evolution program us to care for someone we don't even know? Explain.

Con states, "This is just an absurd arguemnt. Hell is part of Religion. If you argue hell exists, then that invalidates the All-Loving part of God. If God sent people to hell, then that meant he doesn't have any love for them."

I'm not even arguing God's love. I'm arguing what is the purpose for any man to invent Hell. Heaven could be argued as man-made since it promises the poor and weak a better life, an escape from their suffering, but if that's the "sales tactic" then what purpose does Hell serve? Wouldn't that frighten people and make them not listen to you? Moreover, Marx said that, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." In other words, it keeps the poor from rebelling against the class struggle they're in by being promised an end to their suffering when they go to Heaven, yet Marx fails to address Hell, which is my point. Hell is more likely to turn people away, and hurt this "man-made" religious enterprise, unless there really is one. I'm not concerned with whether the existence of Hell keeps God loving; my point is what purpose does Hell serve if religion is man-made?

Con uses a source to argue against the Hebrews knowing the universe came out of nothing and fails to give an explanation. My argument has nothing to do with apophenia, which is a mental disorder, not facts about ancient civilzations. Why did the Hebrews say God created the universe out of nothing, when every other tribe or ancient culture said different?

Con's rebuttal using a Nostradmus quote is fallicous, since Nostradamus's prediction of the end of the world has nothing to do with gangnam style. Second, the odds of the Jews getting their land back after 1900 years are staggering. They had been persecuted and killed by the millions and yet they survived. The Bible also clearly refers to them getting their land back; the Nostradamus quote is vague.

Yes, anyone can predict anything, but that doesn't mean everyone is right. For instance, Nostradamus said the end of the world would be the year 2000, but it wasn't.

I submit that since the debate is "God probably exists" Con should provide reasons why God most likely doesn't exist, and he hasn't.
Debate Round No. 3
FrackJack

Con

First off, you honesty dropped mine. Second, I 'dropped' your argument because the logic behind it could be defeated using the rebuttal above it.

Ruck avoid my rebuttals on the Fine-Tuning argument( There really is one 'setting' and that the universe could be one of many.).



Rucks moral argument fails because it is a fallacy, which I believe I pointed out.


Ruck also misunderstands the point of my Gangnam Style arguement. Note the wiki link. That link shoes a somewhat little known fallacy where people see patterns in meanless data. That's what the Bible is. Ruck had the BOP. He failed. Somethings existance is unlikey if evidence cant be found. Thats why I dont need a argument. In a sense, I already prove my end of the bargin.


Vote Frack.
Ruckmanite

Pro

My opponent seems to be a little hasty in his final statements. I didn't avoid his arguments; in fact I answered them the best way I knew how.

Con states, "First off, you honesty dropped mine. Second, I 'dropped' your argument because the logic behind it could be defeated using the rebuttal above it."
I did no such thing. I stated that I could take his watchmaker argument to defend my position that a "designer" is still behind a watch. A designer is also behind a lightbulb. Complexity lends support to a designer is my rebuttal which Con failed to refute.
The only other statement Con makes is, "You are taking traits of things and falsely putting them to other things. " How so? If there is evidence of design and complexity in nature, why wouldn't there be a designer for man? Again, Con never answers this question.

Con states, "Ruck avoid my rebuttals on the Fine-Tuning argument( There really is one 'setting' and that the universe could be one of many.)."

I did no such thing. I stated, "Alright, well if the constants are changed, then life would be impossible. The reason there is only "one setting" as you put it, is because outside of this one setting life would collapse."
http://books.google.com......

That is my rebuttal and my explanation to Con's "one-setting idea." If Con has a better explanation and rebuttal he should have stated it then. He never did. Hawking is in agreement with me on this point at least.

Con says that my moral argument is a fallacy without explaining why. Con never answered my question of examples where genetic kinship or reciprocal advantage don't apply. My three examples were never refuted.

I submit to the readers and voters that my Hell argument was never answered in the last round which seems to indicate that Con concedes that point.

Con said, "Ruck also misunderstands the point of my Gangnam Style arguement. Note the wiki link. That link shoes a somewhat little known fallacy where people see patterns in meanless data. That's what the Bible is."

Is it meaningless data? Con never backs his statement with any evidence or reasoning. Is the stock market data meaningless to the economist? No. Are legal codes meaningless data to the lawyer? No. Just because a man doesn't understand something, or isn't interested in something doesn't make the material meaningless. My Biblical example with Israel wasn't even discussed when it cleary states they'd get their land back.

Con ends with, "Ruck had the BOP. He failed. Somethings existance is unlikey if evidence cant be found. Thats why I dont need a argument. In a sense, I already prove my end of the bargin."

That is a fallacy. There must be some reasoning and explanation why my arguments show a lack of evidence when most of my points were glossed over. Second, even the skeptic needs an argument why God doesn't exist, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate. For example, the reason everyone agrees Santa Claus doesn't exist is:Parents admit to buying the gifts. This statement shows some reasoning and evidence to disprove Santa Claus. Moreover, my point is that Con needs an explanation to refute my arguments and he never really answers them.

If "God probably doesn't exist" as Con argues, then he must offer some reasoning and or evidence to qualify this statement. The purpose of a debate is to offer reasons and evidence which Con purposefully avoids.

I shall end with a poem:

A man came to a Barber
To cut his hair
The man started to say
God is so merciful
that I found a way
to express myself in gleeful.
The Barber said
"I don't believe in God".
The man asked:
"why don't you believe in God"?
Barber replied, 'because God doesn't exist'.
The man said "he does".
Baber replied "he doesn't".
Then the man said "no more argument,
You will find the way one day".
The man just went out
Noticed a man with long dirty hair
came back to Barber and said
"The Barber doesn't exist"
"What! I just cut your hair"! Barber exclaimed
"If you do then this man wouldn't have long dirty hair".
Barber said "he needs to come to me to cut his hair".
The man replied: "Exactly! the same way
You have to look for God to find his existance,
And ask yourself where to find his essence".
The Barbar didn't have an answer
Just said " You are so clever."

Vote fairly.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
I saw many spelling errors from FrackJack.
I will quote a few things that he said to prove this.
"This is not a arguemnt for God's existance"
". If I put "FSM" where "God" is, then ask you t5o disprove it,"
"This is a form of the Watcher makers argument."
" He failed. Somethings existance is unlikey if evidence cant be found. Thats why I dont need a argument. In a sense, I already prove my end of the bargin."
Capitalization errors here
"Would you rape people if I proved to you that god doesn't exist?"
Capital G for God.
He also uses a sentence fragment.
"About the BOP."
Here are some punctuation errors
"I dont kill."

I also saw some errors from Ruckmanite, but FrackJack had way more than he did.

Now, moving on to the conduct point.
I noticed that FrackJack used inappropriate words that made him look a bit cocky. I don't know if that was his intention or not, but either way, he did end up making himself look cocky.

For example, he called Ruckmanite's argument absurd.
"This is just an absurd arguemnt. "
FrackJack also said, "He failed." in Round 4. It must also be noted that his fourth round was short and ended abruptly, whereas Ruckmanite made a long argument for it. Quite a bit unprofessional on FrackJack's part.

For convincing arguments, FrackJack brought up Nostradamus' case and said that anyone can predict anything. He just made a straw-man argument, because the way Nostradamus predicted is different from the Bible's prediction. I mean, Pro proved that Nostradamus was wrong in his predictions. He was also hasty in his final round. He did not reply to any of Ruckmanite's arguments for the third round. That is not only bad argumentatively, but also happens to be harmful for the conduct point.
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
I love these kind of debates. An excellent rebuttal, Frackjack.
Posted by Ruckmanite 3 years ago
Ruckmanite
Why thank you
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Interesting debate.
Posted by Ruckmanite 3 years ago
Ruckmanite
ok, I'll accept tomorrow then since i have a lot to do monday and tuesday.
Posted by FrackJack 3 years ago
FrackJack
Oh! Yeah I think it's 3 days per round
Posted by Ruckmanite 3 years ago
Ruckmanite
Do I have a time limit, like 3 days or anything?
Posted by FrackJack 3 years ago
FrackJack
Post? Anytime. Is there a problem?
Posted by Ruckmanite 3 years ago
Ruckmanite
Hi, thanks for challenging me; however I have a question first. How long before I have to post?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
FrackJackRuckmaniteTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Rajuns invalid RFD.
Vote Placed by rajun 3 years ago
rajun
FrackJackRuckmaniteTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Frack did a good job. He pointed out that Pro "failed" but that didn't matter in the conduct i think cause it helped me as a voter. frack does need to work on his S/G.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
FrackJackRuckmaniteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments.