If the idea of God is rational, then the idea of Cybertron is rational
Debate Rounds (3)
If God is stupidly thought as rational, then it's stupider to think Cybertron is rational.
Cybertron is more irrational if based on the stupid assumption that "God is rational".
In a case where God is thought as rational, Cybertron is still an irrational idea if you don't have evidence for Cybertron's existence!
You can't justify flying faeries with God.
To conclude, "if the idea of God is rational, then the idea of Cybertron is rational", is an improper statement. They aren't mutually exclusive; God and Cybertron must be proven to be rational - because one is rational it doesn't make the other rational.
A man in stupor may as well think that Cybertron is logical,, is still promotion of stupidity.
It's a case of two wrongs don't make a right.
If we're being mature, Pro is incorrect. It doesn't justify a belief in Cybertron [in reference to my Round 1 and Round 2 arguments].
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dtien400 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied - Con's mature vs immature statement wasn't exactly very sportsmanlike, but wasn't out of line either. Spelling and grammar is tied - both had problems. Sources are tied - none were used. Arguments go to Pro. Pro had his opening stance; Con rebutted by saying there could be evidence for God but not for Cybertron, or vice versa; Pro rebutted by saying there is no evidence for or against the two, which means currently if you believe in one, that line of thinking should lead you to believe in the other; Con didn't properly rebut; Pro repeated his point; Con didn't properly rebut. In fact Con's last argument was mystifying, as it wasn't made clear what definition of "immature" he was using. Either way, simply dismissing your opponent's claim and referencing your already-debunked arguments doesn't constitute as a rebuttal; it behooves one to elaborate on one's points and understand which ones are no longer relevant. Pro wins.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.