The Instigator
PreacherAndy18000
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
90 Points

Gods existence

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,631 times Debate No: 11478
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (17)

 

PreacherAndy18000

Pro

I will be defending the position that god exists i'll wait for my opponents responses his arguments why god doesn't exist my arguments for god's existence are

1. Kalam cosmological argument

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause
my support for this premise first is its logical you don't see anywhere else in nature where things just randomly begin to exist without a cause
2. the universe began to exist
first evidence for this is philosophical
1. an infinite number of moments cannot be traversed
2. if an infinate number of moments had to elapse before today then today would never have come
3. but today has come
4. therefore an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today
3. therefore the universe has a cause

2. Teleological argument

1. All designs imply a designer
2. there is great design in the universe
3. therefore there must be a great designer of the universe

3. Moral argument

1. there must be an objective universal moral law
2. this moral law did not originate with us
3. therefore there exists a moral law giver

4. Religious need argument

1. every natural innate need has a real object that can fulfill it
2. human beings have a natural innate need for some kind of spirituality
3. therefore god must exist
Danielle

Con

[[ Introduction ]]

Thanks, Pro, for beginning this debate.

Before we begin, I'd like to point out the obvious: nobody can really prove or disprove God's existence (how convenient). However, since Pro is the instigator, my role in this debate is to nullify all of Pro's arguments thereby negating his resolution, and of course offer a rebuttal as to why the existence of God is not probable or rather not proven by the Pro. The instigator must exemplify that his arguments for God prove God's existence. If I negate his arguments, then regardless of what you believe, you have no reason to vote for Pro.

[[ Re: Kalam Cosmological Argument ]]

Pro begins with the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Right away we can see the issue that Pro has no proof that the universe began; he cannot disprove the theory that the universe has just always existed. Unfortunately 'philosophical' evidence that the universe began is not tangible evidence relevant to this debate. As philosopher J.L. Mackie pointed out, "There is a priori no good reason why a sheer origination of things, not determined by anything, should be unacceptable, whereas the existence of a god with the power to create something out of nothing is acceptable" [1].

Additionally, the argument that nothing can begin without a cause is false when it comes to quantum fluctuation. In the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, for example, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously without a cause. In the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. Since the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang was as tiny as a subatomic particle (at singularity point), it could have been created with an uncaused quantum fluctuation that led to inflation which afterwards proceeded through the appearance of matter and structure [2].

Moreover, the uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again [3]. Scientists agree that electrons behave unpredictably on the quantum level, apparently popping in and out of existence at varying locations. They believe these quantum events seem to contradict traditional cause and effect relationships, thus defeating Kalam's causal premise [4].

As you can see, this argument has been defeated.

[[ Re: Teleological Argument ]]

Here we can see that Pro assumes that the universe is greatly designed, therefore begs a designer. However, there are examples of systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes - for example diamonds or snowflakes. Moreover, this logic does not follow as it implies an infinite regress. To put it simply, if EVERYTHING requires a designer, then who/what designed God? To say that God is not subject to the laws of the universe (requiring a designer) fails because it does not explain the improbable occurrence of the designer's existence in the first place, and does not combat the idea that if God can simply have just 'always existed,' then the same could be said about the universe.

[[ Re: Moral Argument ]]

Pro's moral argument could easily be combated by a quick perusing through 'Euthyphro' by Socrates. Ignoring the reality that many still reject the concept of objective morality in the first place, Pro should answer Socrates' question - Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

If something is only good because God says so, then that combats the idea of objective morality because God can 'decide' what is moral on a whim thus defeating the concept. The alternative is that God made his commands in accordance with transcendental facts that exist apart from God — exactly the types of facts that the theist is asking the non-theist to provide an account for. The argument is thus turned over on its head; the theist must account for the existence of these transcendental facts without invoking God. The non-theist can thus recognize the transcendentalism of moral facts and yet still reject the premises on the basis that a theistic hypothesis still leaves transcendental moral facts unexplained [5].

Further, Pro's 2nd and 3rd premises don't even follow. Even if we agree that morality is objective, how does that prove that morality isn't inherent or that it requires a law giver? Pro should answer these questions before we continue any further with this argument.

[[ Re: Religious Need Argument ]]

Finally I'll reject all 3 premises of Pro's last argument. The first states that every natural innate need has a real object that can fulfill it, and the second claims that human beings have a natural innate need for some kind of spirituality that explains God's existence. However, Pro cannot prove any of these 3 premises and I ask that he do so before I provide an adequate rebuttal. The reality is that no such "need" can be proven thereby negating the entire argument. Moreover, even if we did have a 'need' for spirituality doesn't imply that we have a 'need' for God as the reality is that we can just fabricate the idea of a God to suit that need. Such an issue was raised by Voltaire when he posited that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to create Him. Feuerbach and Marx had a similar ideas. Many throughout history have noted the benefits or uses of religion, but again the existence of religion or organized religion in no way proves that God exists.

[[ Conclusion ]]

As you can see, I have negated every last one of Pro's arguments that attempt to prove God. As such, you have absolutely no reason to vote Pro even if you personally believe in God. On my behalf, there is no empirical evidence proving that God exists. If you can use science to disprove a myriad of other possibilities (including a flying spaghetti monster), then the same logic can be applicable to God. Moreover, the problem of evil seems to negate the existence of an omnibenevolent God. Why would an all-good God create/permit evil, and why would an omniscient God thereby essentially condemn people to Hell?

Furthermore, the argument from inconsistent revelations posits that if God existed, theologians or believers would not have such a dramatically different perspective of what God was. The argument from non-belief follows suit, explaining that if God really existed and wanted everyone to believe in Him, he would have imposed a situation where people did not have a good reason to deny the existence of God. Instead, the Lord apparently wants people simply to have "faith" which is fine but does not prove a thing.

Yet another problem is the omnipotence paradox: Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? If you say, "It's not logically possible so even God can't do it" then you agree that God adheres to the laws of logic/nature. However, almost all of God's attributes transcend the laws of logic and nature, so again this explanation does not follow.

Good luck to my opponent in trying to prove that God exists.

[[ Sources ]]

[1] Mackie, J. L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism. Oxford: Clarendon.
[2] Edward Tryon. (1973). Nature, pp. 246.
[3] http://www.infidels.org...
[4] Reichenbach, Bruce. (2008). "Cosmological Argument: 4.1 The Causal Principle and Quantum Physics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

Re KCA

1. I am not even sure what you mean by its not tangible evidence how does that defeat my argument.
2. Also your argument about quantum fluctuation its not true that it applies to my argument. Because there are certain physical preconditions that must exist for the particles to come in and out of being uncaused as you say.

So for now this argument still stands.

Re TA

first your mixing this argument with the KCA. This argument is not about cause but design the question of cause is irrelevent to this discussion. Also you say there are systems that are ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes this doesn't help you at all. These natural physical processes themselves are example of great design. They were designed to order the universe to work the way it does. Kind of like we create tools and machines using our intelligence to help keep things ordered the way there supposed to be.

Re MA

Ah yes the 'Euthyphro' dilema is a false dilema. objective moral values are not determined by transcendental facts or by gods whimsical commands. But god gives us these objective moral values based on his nature which is good. And not his his will which can change but his nature which cannot. And the second premise follows because theres no good alternative theory of how they could originate from us. and if they can't they must have come from a law giver

Re RNA

so you want proof ok my first evidence is that virtually every civilization believes in some sort of spirituality there seeking something
Danielle

Con

[[ Kalam Cosmological Argument ]]

You'll notice that Pro has completely failed to respond to any of my claims. To clarify, by "tangible evidence" I mean that Pro must prove with empirical evidence (hard, scientific data or facts) that the universe came into existence. The reality is that Pro cannot prove this; the option of the universe simply always existing is still therefore a viable explanation and opposes Pro's claim. Moreover, my argument about quantum fluctuation is absolutely true and 100% applies to this argument. Pro, if you claim it's untrue, please attempt to prove that claim as I have instead of making a random false statement. This argument has been negated.

[[ Teleological Argument ]]

No, I am not mixing the TA with the KCA. The teleological argument as Pro has presented it states that all designs imply a designer, and since there is design in the universe, the universe must have a creator (God). So, when Pro says, "This argument is not about cause but design the question of cause is irrelevant to this discussion" then essentially he is making his own argument useless. Additionally, Pro continues to argue that the universe IS designed meaning he does believe in a designer meaning once again he is just arguing against his own premises in saying that the cause for design is irrelevant. Next time you copy and paste your first round, Pro, make sure you understand what you're saying.

[[ Moral Argument ]]

Pro states that the Euthyphro dilemma is false and explains that morality comes from a law maker (God) based on God's all-good nature. First, this is using regressive reasoning. Pro says that morality stems from God, but then uses morality to prove that God exists. This is logically flawed. Pro cannot prove that God exists and is all good, so he cannot prove that morality comes from God in the first place, nor can he prove that the existence of morality proves God. Saying that there are no good alternative theories regarding ethics are merely Pro's opinion. In fact, there are hundreds of theories regarding ethics that have little to nothing to do with God. For example: hedonism, stoicism, consequentialism, etc. In short, Pro has not proven that a moral law giver must exist.

[[ Religious Need ]]

As I pointed out in the last round, Pro cannot prove that human beings have an innate need for spirituality. In response, Pro says, "so you want proof ok my first evidence is that virtually every civilization believes in some sort of spirituality there seeking something." Not only is this statement grammatically incorrect, but it merely repeats his false assertion without one shred of evidence. Also, Pro completely ignored my argument noting that even if humans DID have an innate need to be spiritual, it doesn't imply that God is real - just that we want God to be real.

[[ Conclusion ]]

Pro failed to respond to the great majority of my rebuttal and all of my arguments. I find his blatant lack of regard for my points to be bad conduct. Please extend all of the arguments I brought forth in R1's conclusion, and the points I made in my rebuttal. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

Re KCA
1. Ok by your definition of tangible evidence you sound like an empiricist. In other words you only believe a claim can be proven is if its verified by science (scientism). Not everyhting can be proven scientifically and thats not the only type of proof.
2. No your argument about quantum fluctuation is useless because. When it comes to quantum fluctuation you still have to have physical preconditions in order for the particles to come in and out of being. You haven't responded to that yet so iam saying it again.

Re TA
1. alright fine but the question of who created god is not the point here. And you don't understand what the definition of god is by definition he doesn't need a cause. there must be an uncaused cause whatever that cause is.

Re MA
1. This not regressive reasoning whatever that is???? the argument just says that morals can't originate with us. So they must have originated with something outside us god. Because he's a personal force moral law giver
2. I didn't say anything about ethical systems which try to figure out what these moral values are. I said where did they originate.

Re RNA
1. The evidence is that there seeking spirituality. You know how many different religions there are in the world buddhism hinduism christianity islam to name a few. Thats evidence theres a need in us for something spiritual.
2. I never said we want him to be real i said we need him to be real you said that.

sources
1. Wikipedia contributors, 'Kalam cosmological argument', Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 18 March 2010, 20:27 UTC, <http://en.wikipedia.org...; [accessed 20 March 2010]
2. Reichenbach, Bruce, "Cosmological Argument", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu...;.
3. Dr Norman Geisler Cosmological argument pgs 160-165 Kalam cosmological argument pgs 399-401 Baker encyclopedia of christian apologetics 2007
Danielle

Con

[[ Kalam Cosmological Argument ]]

1. I don't know what kind of proof aside from empirical proof is relevant to this debate. In fact, the term PROOF implies that you can verify something with empirical evidence. Otherwise, it's not proof (and something like faith). Please explain to me what other kind of proof you speak of and how you can use it to make your case. Nevertheless, let's not get off topic here. This argument said that the universe must have had a beginning (therefore an instigator) and I said that this is not necessarily true; one argument claims that the universe simply ALWAYS existed and thus does not require a creator. If you can't prove that your theory is the more likely theory with empirical data, then the audience has no reason to accept that one over the other.

2. You said, "When it comes to quantum fluctuation you still have to have physical preconditions in order for the particles to come in and out of being." This is contrary to my point that in the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus, an alpha, beta, or gamma particle begins to exist spontaneously without a cause. I also said that in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. So, since the universe at the beginning of the Big Bang was as tiny as a subatomic particle (at singularity point), it could have been created with an UNCAUSED quantum fluctuation. Therefore your point about physical preconditions is incorrect. If you'd like to argue this point, perhaps providing some scientific data that supports your claim would be helpful.

[[ Teleological Argument ]]

You said, "the question of who created god is not the point here." Actually, that's precisely the point. If the argument is that everything has a creator, then there's no reason to accept that God need not a creator. You continued, "And you don't understand what the definition of god is by definition he doesn't need a cause. there must be an uncaused cause whatever that cause is." Well, since you've seemingly conceded this argument anyway, I'll respond with the simple yet true answer of that same explanation could easily be said about the universe itself (being caused by an uncaused cause) thereby not only negating this argument but the previous one as well.

[[ Moral Argument ]]

Okay, once again all you're saying is that morals can't originate with us. However, you have given no explanation as to WHY. You can't just post other people's arguments for the existence of God and not be able to defend them. You have given us absolutely no reason to accept that there was a "law giver" and that morality isn't inherent (again ignoring the possibility of subjective morality or nihilism, etc.). Also, you say that you don't care about ethical systems that try to distinguish morality and instead are focusing on the ORIGINS of morality. Well, the ethical systems I mentioned aim to find the same answer and again are irrelevant to God.

[[ Religious Need ]]

First, not everybody seeks spirituality. Second, religion has been used as a political tool in the past throughout history and even as a scientific explanation when people needed to understand 'why.' This in no way proves that we have a religious need, and again completely ignores my point that even if we had that need, then the creation of religion or organized religion as Voltaire pointed out would satisfy that need. We might want or need to believe in God, but that doesn't necessarily make God real.

[[ Conclusion ]]

Pro has still not addressed any of my arguments, and he posted MY sources as his own...?!
Debate Round No. 3
PreacherAndy18000

Pro

Re Kca

1. No evidence can be intuition experience testimony or scientific there are different types of evidence. I have given you philosophical evidence you haven't refuted. Except by getting off topic and saying scientific evidence is the only valid type. Until you refute this I am not giving you any more evidence.

2. Physical laws are a cause. Plus this doesn't apply to the big bang because before the big bang absolutly nothing existed not a singularity.

Re Ta

1. No I said design implies a designer how do you equate that to "If the argument is that everything has a creator, then there's no reason to accept that God need not a creator." No because the universe can't be the necessary being/desinger because the universe can't design anything.

Re Ma

1. Morality can't be relative because if it were all moral criticisms would be meaningless eg the nazis were wrong.
2. Well do you mind giving me some e.g.s. of what these moral systems say about the origins of morality so i can refute them???

Re Rna

1. The fact that not everyone always feels this need is pointless besides. I would argue all do maybe some seek it more than others.

2. So people use practically everything as a tool its what people do. But most are also sincerely seeking.

3. "This in no way proves that we have a religious need, and again completely ignores my point that even if we had that need, then the creation of religion or organized religion as Voltaire pointed out would satisfy that need. We might want or need to believe in God, but that doesn't necessarily make God real." this is ridiculous people don't just create needs they just realize them.

I apologize i didn't see your arguments before
1. The problem of evil.
you say that an all good god would not create evil well he didn't create evil but he must permit it to create moral creatures like us. Because morality implies we have free choice to do good or evil so he could destroy it. But we would not be creatures in his image anymore.

2. inconsistent revelations.
1. is completely irrelevant to this discussion .that would be for a debate about the truth of christianity not existence
of god.

2. omnipotence contradiction
1. god can do anything that is possible
2. its not possible to make a stone so heavy it cannot be moved
3. therefore its not possible for god to make a stone so heavy it cannot be lifted

and i didn't copy your sources i used two of the same websites but for different articles
Danielle

Con

[[ K. Cosmological Argument ]]

1. Pro is incorrect. First, intuition cannot be considered evidence. Similarly, experience is not evidence (in this regard). I can experience a lightning storm but that doesn't mean I can use that experience to prove that God was responsible for it, or prove He exists because of it. Also, Pro claims to have given me "philosophical evidence" that I have not disputed; however, I've explained why scientific evidence is necessary AND I have responded to each and every of my opponent's claims which is more than I can say for the Pro.

2. Pro has not given us any reason to believe that the Big Bang could not have resulted from an uncaused quantum fluctuation. Meanwhile, I have explained why this is possible regarding sporadic energy in the quantum microworld. Pro's response of "Pnysical laws are a cause" doesn't really say anything at all, and the fact that nothing existed before the Big Bang is irrelevant since once again I've noted that and explained how it is possible. Meanwhile, Pro has not explained how God existing without a cause is possible, therefore my explanation stands above Pro's and this point has been negated.

[[ Teleological Argument ]]

Pro has ignored all of my points regarding this argument. Please extend them.

[[ Moral Argument ]]

1. I've never argued against objective morality; this point is irrelevant.

2. Pro hasn't responded to my point about other ethical systems. He asks what they say, and I'd be happy to explain some of them at another time; however, what they say is not really the point of this debate. I was using them as examples to explain alternative origins or theories regarding morality aside from God.

[[ Religious Need Argument ]]

The only thing Pro really responded to here was my point that just because people might seek spirituality doesn't necessarily mean that they NEED it. Pro says that people don't invent needs; they just recognize them. However, in looking at my argument, I pointed out that several theories express a "need" for spirituality in the sense that it makes people feel good or makes it easier to understand and accept certain things. Thus, they don't actually NEED it but just like it or feel inclined to be drawn toward it. Whether this is good or bad, right or wrong is not for me to decide and quite frankly irrelevant to this debate. Why? Precisely for the other points I mentioned: not everyone feels this 'need' and people might mistake tradition and what they've been taught (or already believe) as a 'need' rather than what it really is: comfort.

[[ Rebuttal ]]

Ah, finally Pro addresses (briefly... very briefly) my arguments. Regarding the problem of evil, Pro merely states that God must permit evil in order to create moral creatures like us. How does that make sense? If one consistently acted immorally, wouldn't they be IMMORAL creatures? Plus, this doesn't explain why God does not destroy evil. Saying "morality implies we have free choice to do good or evil" doesn't answer it, and "But we would not be creatures in his image anymore" doesn't either. Unfortunately, I find the rebuttal to this argument to be entirely inadequate and must consider it another point won for the Con.

Next, Pro ignores my argument regarding inconsistent revelations and simply states that it's irrelevant. Pro writes that it would only be relevant if it were a debate about the legitimacy of Christianity - not God. However, this is not true at all. If God existed, why would he want people to believe different things or offer wrong claims about right and wrong? For instance, some religions think it's holy to do one thing while another might find the same action a sacrilege. Moreover, millions of lives have been lost and ruined due to religious beliefs. A benevolent God would reveal the truth instead of letting all of this evil result of His ambiguity.

Finally, Pro copied and pasted a rebuttal to the omnipotence paradox that I'm sure mongeese would approve of; however, unfortunately it does not negate my point and both debaters are wrong. Premise 1 states that God can do everything that is possible, and premise 2 notes that God cannot do what is IMPOSSIBLE. Obviously making a stone so heavy He cannot lift it would be impossible due to physics and the laws of nature. However, many traits about God don't adhere to the laws of nature at all (for instance, being eternally living)... So why should we not accept that God cannot do what is impossible? But if God can transcend the laws of nature and even do what is impossible, can He do that (create a stone so heavy He cannot lift it)? If the answer is no, then premise 1 fails thus negating the entire argument.

As a final note, I'd encourage the audience to look at Pro's sources. Not only did he not signify what information he took from what source, but many of the sources I do not even think he used. Overall, I have refuted all of Pro's presented arguments and he barely scratched the surface with mine. Regardless, I'd like to thank Pro for the swift and interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro's grammar and punctuation were so poor it was difficult following his arguments. Con won every contention.
Posted by Spaztoid 7 years ago
Spaztoid
That's not a fair way to score sorrow. The system is designed to remove personal bias from your scoring. Simply because you do not agree with his argument does not justify not allowing him any points where his points are due. Try to avoid allowing personal opinion to interfere with an objective scoring system.
Posted by Sorrow 7 years ago
Sorrow
I am sorry PreacherAndy, but it is hard to accept/deny something that does not exist without faith. Therefore, I must not allow you to have any points.
Posted by chrisallen 7 years ago
chrisallen
"Ah yes the 'Euthyphro' dilema is a false dilema. objective moral values are not determined by transcendental facts or by gods whimsical commands. But god gives us these objective moral values based on his nature which is good. And not his his will which can change but his nature which cannot."

this makes very little sense to me. can someone explain to me how it make sense to argue that "good is good because god says it is and god is good"? where is this last good coming from? telling us god has a goon nature is really making a moral value judgement, isn't it? so you can't use it to prove anything about the nature of morality. where does this morality come from, by which you are able to judge that the nature of god is good?
Posted by chrisallen 7 years ago
chrisallen
pro states that nothing existed before the big bang. this is, however, a common misconception.

the big bang theory does not state that 'there was nothing, which then exploded', rather 'there was something very small (i.e. a singularity) which expanded rapidly'

where this singularity came from or how it can into being is completely unknown. and, to an extent, it is impossible to reason about. the singularity contained not only all matter condensed into a super-dense micro-point, but also the laws of physics, and time itself. so firstly we don't have any parameters by which to reason about the nature of some hypothetical system in which this singularity existed (the laws of physics for our universe, being a property of that universe and wholly contained within the universe, may not apply over this whole hypothetical system). secondly, we don't have any time here. time, as i said, is a property of our universe itself, not of this system. so asking about a 'time before the universe' doesn't really make any more sense than asking about the size of yellow, the first integer, or the distance between london and england.

for all we know, this singularity came though a wormhole from a higher dimensional reality into our own. there are all sorts of possibilities. it just doesn't really make sense to reason about them, because we literally don't know anything about what we are talking about here - it is unknowable.

finally, think about a singularity. it is the smallest and simplest possible point. so, but it's very definition, it cannot contain any information about any preceding states - if it did, it would be possible to remove this information to create a simpler object, and so our object would not be a singularity.

so, to sum up, to try to reason about the universe before the big bang is to reason about a thing that contains no information within a system which may or may not exist about which we don't know anything within a reference in which time does not e
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
That's why I didn't take the debate, Cody_Franklin. :P
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Generally within Buddhism argumentation itself - those sects that are deemed to be religious in the classical sense of positing a deity itself are treated as 'new' or 'not in depth' readings of Buddhist literature. Kind of like waiting for the children to grow up and mature a bit. :)
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Reminds me of this debate: http://www.debate.org...

Lol. Thankfully, I chose not to put in quite so much effort. I think I have you one-upped in terms of time saved, L. :)
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Admittedly, Geo, I don't know nearly enough about Buddhism to have an intelligent response and you may be right. I know Vi took a bangin' philosophy of religion course last semester so I'll have to ask her tomorrow and get back to you :)
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
My RFD should be pretty obvious, but because I wound up giving myself 7 points I'll explain -- I easily won the arguments and s/g categories, and I gave myself points for conduct considering Pro ignored ALL of my arguments until the final round which everyone knows is bad debating conduct (and sometimes even inadmissible). I also gave myself points for sources since my references are more structured and reliable; Pro just sort of linked places where the arguments can be found which is kind of irrelevant, and doesn't even note which information he got where. Anyway a quick read through this debate or just Pro's rounds in general should make my vote evident.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by KodyHarris 6 years ago
KodyHarris
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by SirColton 7 years ago
SirColton
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by rbrownell 7 years ago
rbrownell
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pathos 7 years ago
Pathos
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by twerj 7 years ago
twerj
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by belle 7 years ago
belle
PreacherAndy18000DanielleTied
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