The Instigator
JaxsonRaine
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Physik
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, Deism logically precedes Theism.

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 2 votes the winner is...
JaxsonRaine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,900 times Debate No: 20561
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

JaxsonRaine

Con

I assert that Theism isn't logically preceded by Deism in this regard, but that Deism and Theism are equally basic possibilities. For the purpose of this debate, we will assume that the Big Bang is the factual way in which the universe was created/formed. It is also understood that the resolution is not discussing chronological or historical emergence of either concept.

Deist is understood to be a God who created the universe but doesn't intervene in the course of events.
Theist is understood to be a God who created the universe and directly intervenes in the course of events.

R1 - Acceptance
R2 - Opening Arguments
R3 - Rebuttals/New Arguments
R4 - Rebuttals/Conclusion
Physik

Pro

I accept, good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
JaxsonRaine

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.


-----Introduction-----

The resolution is in reference to the creation of the universe, with the understanding that the Big Bang is the method of creation. As with anything that happens in the universe, the law of cause and effect states that every effect must have had a cause. This means there must have been something that caused the Big Bang to happen.

So what caused the Big Bang? Nobody knows, but we can use our knowledge that there must have been a cause to come up with possible explanations. It is also important to note that we have no means of scientifically testing any of these hypothesis, as there is no way to create the same environment artificially that we know of. The temperatures and energy levels can only be described as 'near infinite'. That being said, it is important to still approach the problem as scientifically as possible, meaning we look for explanations that could fit with our current understanding of nature, and also that we not exclude any explanations due to non-scientific measures.

As a brief tangent, I will explain what I mean by non-scientific measures. I consider common sense to be non-scientific. Common sense says that two clocks, perfectly synchronized, flying around the world in opposite directions, should both show the same time when they meet again, but that idea has been shown to be incorrect. Common sense didn't suggest thousands of years ago that solid stone was actually made up mostly of empty space, and tiny particles that didn't actually touch each other.


-----Possible Causes-----

Note that this is by no means meant to be an exhaustive list of possible causes, but rather a demonstration that all possible causes must be given the same consideration, and all possible causes are just as likely as any other until they can be objectively, empirically tested.

We know that there must have been a cause for the Big Bang, and I propose that we can split possible causes into two categories: Natural and Artificial.


Natural Causes

Natural causes are causes that come about in and of themselves, according to the laws of nature. In other words, there is no 'conscious' being or energy directing things. One example of a natural cause would be gravity. It is possible that before the Big Bang, there was a universe much like our own. Unlike our universe, this universe was contracting, instead of expanding. Gravity pulled the galaxies, stars, planets, rocks, and dust closer together. As the matter became more compact, gravity became stronger, and the rate of contraction increased. This continued until all of the matter and energy in the universe collapsed in on itself, colliding at nearly-infinitely violent levels, and exploding again.

Another natural cause would be more in line with advanced theoretical physics, such as string theory, where a tiny ball of extreme energy phased from one dimension, or one universe, into a place of emptiness, and quickly expanded, creating a new universe.


Artificial Causes

Artificial causes indicate intervention, typically by a being with consciousness. There are many possible explanations in this category.

First is a Theist view. Details of this view can vary significantly from religion to religion, but the basics are the same. There is a God, whether a force, energy, or being, who caused the Big Bang to happen. Whether by condensing energy into a small point, pulling energy from another dimension or universe, or any incomprehensible way, this God intentionally cause the universe to be created. As part of the Theist view in this debate, this God has the characteristic of being involved directly in the course of events in this universe.

Next is a Deist view. Again, details of this view can vary, but the basic premise is the same. There is a God, whether a force, energy, or being, who caused the Big Bang to happen. As part of the Deist view in this debate, this God has the characteristic of not being directly involved in the course of events in this universe.

Other possible explanations can be thought of, but these suffice for the purpose of this debate.


-----All Possible Explanations Are Equal-----

Until we develop a method of empirically testing any given possibility, that possibility(as long as it doesn't contradict any known laws) is just as likely to be true as any other. We must not allow 'common sense' to cloud our judgement, as that prevents us from objectively approaching the problem. From a scientific viewpoint, the idea of the Theist God actually being a Unicorn with capabilities of creation would also be equal.

As a reminder of why this is so important, we can look at the structure of matter itself. To a person thousands of years ago, they could look at a polished rock and see a smooth, uninterrupted surface. Looking very closely, it would still appear smooth. Common sense would suggest that if you were able to look more closely, it would look the same. Now, of course, we know that in actuality, smooth stone is mostly empty space, and the rest is tiny particles that don't actually touch. Common sense gets in the way of true science.

For these reasons, it is exactly as likely that a Theist God was the cause of the Big Bang as a Deist God.


-----Deism Precedes Theism?-----

My opponent is arguing that Deism logically precedes Theism in this instance, and that somehow the Deist idea is more basic, and the Theist idea is based off of the Deist idea. However, we can clearly see that neither idea is actually based off of the other, they are all equally-likely possibilities. In fact, the ideas only differ on whether or not God intervenes in the course of events of the universe. Theism says God does intervene, and Deism says God doesn't intervene. These ideas are simply two sides of the same coin, with neither being based on the other, nor being more likely than the other.
Physik

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him the best of luck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

I would like to begin by restating the precise question that is being debated. This question being; “In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, Deism logically precedes Theism.” Being the affirmative, I must obviously demonstrate that this is the case.



Point One


Firstly, I would like to emphasize that the broad range of possibilities mentioned in the resolution can be classified under two categories, namely; Natural, or Supernatural.

Natural – Occurs within the laws of the universe.

Supernatural – Exists outside of these laws, and indeed, despite them.


This categorization leads into my main point, which shall take the form of a logical progression.

1. We have established the need for a cause, namely for the big bang theory.

2. Any proposed cause shall come under one of the two aforementioned categories. For the purposes of the resolution, we are moving forward with the assumption that the cause is supernatural by nature.

3. As, for arguments sake, we have proceeded with the assumption that a supernatural force/entity is subsequently responsible for the creation of the universe, we have now arrived at deism.

4. We shall now ascribe the supernatural force responsible for the creation of the universe with the traits associated with a ‘personal’ god. These may include, but are of course not limited to; an entity which cares about our sex lives, an entity that cares about what we eat, an entity that cares about what we say and believe, and in general an entity that concerns himself with the affairs of human life. This is the overlying concept of theism, and is what differentiates it from deism.


I would draw your attention to the resolution at hand, which states that “deism logically precedes theism”. It is clear that, following the logical progression that gives us grounds to present possibilities for the creation of the universe, deism presents itself at step three. Another step, one that derives from deism, is required in order to reach theism. This takes the form of step four. It therefore resoundingly obvious that 'deism logically precedes theism'.



Point Two


I would remind everyone that my opponent’s assertion includes the phrase “that Deism and Theism are equally basic possibilities”. This is obviously not the case.

The affirmative position of that statement indicates something along the lines of;

1. We need a cause for the creation of the universe.

2. This cause could be a supernatural force or entity.

3a. This force or entity is personal, cares about the actions of humanity, and suspends natural laws with the purpose of intervening in humanities affairs.

3b. This force or entity is impersonal, does not cares about the actions of humanity, and does not suspend natural laws with the purpose of intervening in human affairs.

This is obviously fallacious, as it ignores the crucial step of ascribing the entity or force with the characteristics of a personal god, which would produce theism. It also ignores the fact that an impersonal god is inherently the default position, and as such logically precedes any alternative.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I look foward to the continuing debate, and wish my opponent the best of luck.

Debate Round No. 2
JaxsonRaine

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

I would correct my opponent about the definitions of natural and supernatural.

Supernatural: (of something’s cause or existence) not able to be explained by the laws of science.[1] Supernatural doesn't mean outside of the laws of the universe. Supernatural means outside of our current understanding of the lawns of the universe. The plague used to be considered supernatural, but as mankind learned of what it was, it changed from the realm of supernatural, to natural.

So, I propose the following definitions as more correct:

Natural - Occurring within the laws of nature as we understand them.
Supernatural - Occurring outside the laws of nature as we understand them.

Now, I will refute my opponent's main point.

1 - We have established the need for a cause of the Big Bang. This is fine.
2 - For purposes of this debate, we are assuming the cause is supernatural. Mainly, Deist God vs. Theist God. This is fine.

3 - This is where my opponent diverges from logic. He claims that a supernatural force creating the universe is Deism. The problem here is an improper definition of Deism. In truth, a Theist God would also be considered a natural force, so both types of Gods would be subsets of 'supernatural force' as shown:
  • Supernatural Forces
    • Theist God
    • Deist God
Deism is defined as:the belief in a single god who does not act to influence events, and whose existence has no connection with religions, religious buildings, or religious books, etc.[2]

Indeed, the main distinction between Deism and Theism is whether or not God acts to influence events directly. A Deist God created the universe and let it function on its own according to the laws of nature. A Theist God created the universe and directly influences events(such as answering prayers, speaking to his children, performing miracles, etc...)

What my opponent is attempting to present as his argument is that a God with the characteristic of being an interventionist is predicated upon the idea of a God with the characteristic of being non-interventionist. Here, my opponent erroneously tries to claim that a God would have the 'default' attribute of being non-interventionist, and adding the characteristic of being interventionist is an added step.

The reason my opponent presents this argument is because he confuses non-interventionist with the concept of not having the characteristic of being interventionist. Let me clarify.

We have a God that created the universe. In its' simplest form, this is some simple force or being, with no characteristics at all. Any time we add a characteristic, we are logically building off of the previous idea of God. So, we have this basic God, and we can then debate whether or not this God would intervene with the course of events in the universe. The progression would look like this:
  • God
    • Interventionist or Non-interventionist
Either way, we are attributing a characteristic to this God, being one or the other. We can continue with adding possible characteristics in other areas:
  • God
    • Interventionist or Non-interventionist
    • Physical or Spiritual
    • Being or Force
    • Human or Non-human
Either side of a characteristic is just as logically 'basic' as the other. As such, we can clearly see that a Deist God doesn't precede a Theist God, nor vice versa. The concept of God precedes both.

I will point out my opponents error once more as it was presented in Point Two:

"This is obviously fallacious, as it ignores the crucial step of ascribing the entity or force with the characteristics of a personal god, which would produce theism. It also ignores the fact that an impersonal god is inherently the default position, and as such logically precedes any alternative."

The problem with this argument, is that 'impersonal' is not the default position. Impersonal is the opposite side of the coin from 'personal'. The basic idea of God wouldn't contain either characteristic. Each characteristic would be a possible subset of the base, therefore on the same heirarchal level.

[1] - http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
[2] - http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Physik

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

R1 – Use of the word supernatural.


I would like to begin by clarifying my opponent’s misconception on the use of the word ‘supernatural’ in this debate. I would remind him that we are operating under the premise that the big bang was the method for the creation of the universe, and as such, we are operating under the premise that the laws of nature that enable the big bang are also true. To use the word supernatural in this context is to say that the supernatural entity exists outside the laws of time, space, gravity etc.


R2 – Criticism of my first and second points.


For clarity, my first point was a logical progression, and was as follows;


1.
We have established the need for a cause, namely for the big bang theory.

2. Any proposed cause shall come under one of the two aforementioned categories. For the purposes of the resolution, we are moving forward with the assumption that the cause is supernatural by nature.

3. As, for arguments sake, we have proceeded with the assumption that a supernatural force/entity is subsequently responsible for the creation of the universe, we have now arrived at deism.

4. We shall now ascribe the supernatural force responsible for the creation of the universe with the traits associated with a ‘personal’ god. These may include, but are of course not limited to; an entity which cares about our sex lives, an entity that cares about what we eat, an entity that cares about what we say and believe, and in general an entity that concerns himself with the affairs of human life. This is the overlying concept of theism, and is what differentiates it from deism.

I would draw your attention to the resolution at hand, which states that “deism logically precedes theism”. It is clear that, following the logical progression that gives us grounds to present possibilities for the creation of the universe, deism presents itself at step three. Another step, one that derives from deism, is required in order to reach theism. This takes the form of step four. It therefore resoundingly obvious that 'deism logically precedes theism'.


My opponent agrees with the first and second premise, yet raises concerns in regards to the third. These concerns essentially amount to denial of my assertion that deism is the default position, the assertion that theism and deism are equally basic possibilities, and the misconception that an absence of a characteristic is in itself a characteristic. These criticisms are repeated in his response to me second point. As these points are all intrinsically linked, I will address them in the following response.



Response


The absence of a trait is not in itself a trait, therefore deism is the default position for a supernatural creator, and, as such, the concepts of deism and theism are not equally basic, with deism logically preceding theism.

My opponent has repeatedly asserted that, by observing the absence of previous characteristics, I am ascribing the creator with new ones. This is false.

In step three of my initial point, all we had got to was a supernatural creator. That is it. We don’t know what this creator looks like, what colour he is, or if he intervenes in human affairs; all we arrived at was that there is a supernatural creator. This is accurately described as deism. The absence of any such traits is the most basic form of a supernatural creator, in that there is just a supernatural creator. We have not asserted that he is purple, or that he has long hair, or that he intervenes in human affairs. All we have done is assert that a supernatural creator exists, this is deism.

Now, if we attempt to ascribe our supernatural creator with additional traits, we make the leap to theism. Say, for example, that I give the creator the trait of being blue. I have given him this trait seemingly randomly, for no reason that can be gleaned from the original premise. To point out the previous premise that the creator was colourless (had a complete absence of colour) is not ascribing the entity with a new trait, it is making the observation that the original concept did not contain any concept of colour in the first place.

It is the same thing for an interventionist deity, which would result in theism. If I point out that our previous idea of a supernatural creator (deism) originally had no concept of interventionism, it is not ascribing him with a new trait to therefore say he is non-interventionist, as that was the original concept.

For the premises we are working by, to which my opponent agreed with by agreeing with premise one and two of my initial argument, a supernatural creator with a complete absence of other traits is the most basic supernatural creator, and as such is the default position. It just so happens that this is called deism. Any additional traits that are imposed upon this base in order to create theism are expanding upon the basic understanding of a supernatural creator, are ascribing said creator with new traits. As such, it is clear that deism, as the most basic possibility for a supernatural creator, logically precedes theism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I thank my opponent for the continued debate, and wish him the best of luck.

Debate Round No. 3
JaxsonRaine

Con

I will start by showing the problem with my opponent's main logical progression.

1. We have established the need for a cause, namely for the big bang theory.

2. Any proposed cause shall come under one of the two aforementioned categories. For the purposes of the resolution, we are moving forward with the assumption that the cause is supernatural by nature.

3. As, for arguments sake, we have proceeded with the assumption that a supernatural force/entity is subsequently responsible for the creation of the universe, we have now arrived at deism.

The problem is at 3. My opponent asserts that a supernatural force/entity being responsible for creation of the universe refers to Deism. In other words, Deism is the belief in a supernatural force/entity which created the universe.

However, this is an incorrect definition for Deism as I have shown. Deism is the belief of a creator who doesn't directly intervene in the course of events in the universe.[1] Without the characteristic of non-intervention, we simply have the belief in a creator. Theism is the belief in a creator as well, so Deism and Theism both fit the bill for argument 3.


-----Absence of trait vs. trait-----

My opponent mistakenly thinks that non-interventionist isn't a trait, but is the absence of the trait of being interventionist. The fact of the matter is, without any trait, God would be neither interventionist, nor non-interventionist.

Let's look at this from the point of view of another trait. A person can be kind, or unkind(simplification, but it works for illustrative purposes). You can say that being unkind is simply the absence of being kind, but an unkind person has the trait of being unkind.

Similarly, a non-interventionist God has the characteristic of being non-interventionist.

My opponent re-asserts that a supernatural creator = Deism, but has done nothing other than state it as fact, with no basis or source. I have shown this to be false, so this claim must be rejected.


Deism positively asserts that God isn't certain things. God isn't an interventionist, so Deism has defined one trait of God: non-interventionist. A Deist could learn that God is blue, and still be Deist. But, if a Deist learned that God is an interventionist, the concept of Deism would no longer apply, and that person would be a Theist. Therefore, Deism is founded on the principle of non-interventionism.

In conclusion, Deism and Theism both fulfill the need of a supernatural creator that my opponent has proposed in his own arguments. As such, Deism and Theism are on equal ground, and neither is predicated upon the other in this sense.




[1]http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Physik

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

R1 – My use of the word supernatural.


My opponent has not addressed my response regarding his concerns on my use of the word supernatural. As such, I will consider this point ceded.



R2 – My opponent’s final post.


This response will consist of clarifying several misconceptions my opponent has presented, reinforcing my own arguments, and pointing to an instance where I believe my opponent has contradicted his position.



Point One



Firstly, I will address my opponent’s comments on the logical progression I initially presented, which was:


1.
We have established the need for a cause, namely for the big bang theory.

2. Any proposed cause shall come under one of the two aforementioned categories. For the purposes of the resolution, we are moving forward with the assumption that the cause is supernatural by nature.

3. As, for arguments sake, we have proceeded with the assumption that a supernatural force/entity is subsequently responsible for the creation of the universe, we have now arrived at deism.

4. We shall now ascribe the supernatural force responsible for the creation of the universe with the traits associated with a ‘personal’ god. These may include, but are of course not limited to; an entity which cares about our sex lives, an entity that cares about what we eat, an entity that cares about what we say and believe, and in general an entity that concerns himself with the affairs of human life. This is the overlying concept of theism, and is what differentiates it from deism.

I would draw your attention to the resolution at hand, which states that “deism logically precedes theism”. It is clear that, following the logical progression that gives us grounds to present possibilities for the creation of the universe, deism presents itself at step three. Another step, one that derives from deism, is required in order to reach theism. This takes the form of step four. It therefore resoundingly obvious that 'deism logically precedes theism'.


His latest response to this is as follows:

The problem is at 3. My opponent asserts that a supernatural force/entity being responsible for creation of the universe refers to Deism. In other words, Deism is the belief in a supernatural force/entity which created the universe.

However, this is an incorrect definition for Deism as I have shown. Deism is the belief of a creator who doesn't directly intervene in the course of events in the universe.[1] Without the characteristic of non-intervention, we simply have the belief in a creator. Theism is the belief in a creator as well, so Deism and Theism both fit the bill for argument 3.


My opponent is warping the definition of deism, or at the very least, not providing all the information. A principle element for defining deism is an absence of interventionism and other traits, but that is only a simplistic way of discerning it from theism. The lack of interventionism is simply a by-product of the initial concept, which is that a supernatural force or entity created the universe… end. Deism in its purest form is simply that, and it is from that base that theism derives. I would encourage a reading of the introduction of this article [1].


Point Two


Secondly, my opponent has attacked my assertion that an absence of a trait is not in itself a trait. This was done in the following way:

My opponent mistakenly thinks that non-interventionist isn't a trait, but is the absence of the trait of being interventionist. The fact of the matter is, without any trait, God would be neither interventionist, nor non-interventionist.

Let's look at this from the point of view of another trait. A person can be kind, or unkind(simplification, but it works for illustrative purposes). You can say that being unkind is simply the absence of being kind, but an unkind person has the trait of being unkind.

Similarly, a non-interventionist God has the characteristic of being non-interventionist.


I would firstly like to establish that my opponents use of the word 'god', while in a sense accurate, is implying a conscious mind, and when speaking in terms of deism, this is not necessarily asserted. Force/entity would perhaps be a better choice.

I would like to apply your kindness metaphor to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. This asteroid was by no means kind, and had an absence of kindness, but that did not make it unkind. It simply had an absence of any concept regarding ‘kindness’, but that in itself is not a trait that we are giving it, that is a trait that we are observing it already possessing.

The same is true for a supernatural creator of the universe. We begin with a supernatural creator, and only a supernatural creator. This is deism. You then ascribe traits such as interventionism to this supernatural creator, thereby creating theism. However, as interventionism has no basis on the original premise, I am not ascribing the supernatural creator with a trait when I say it is non-interventional. I am making an observation of what it previously was, which is required in light of your new presented trait.



Point Three


My opponent’s final point, in which I believe he contradicts his position, is as follows;

Deism positively asserts that God isn't certain things. God isn't an interventionist, so Deism has defined one trait of God: non-interventionist. A Deist could learn that God is blue, and still be Deist. But, if a Deist learned that God is an interventionist, the concept of Deism would no longer apply, and that person would be a Theist. Therefore, Deism is founded on the principle of non-interventionism.

I would specifically like to point to the last two lines which are:

But, if a Deist learned that God is an interventionist, the concept of Deism would no longer apply, and that person would be a Theist. Therefore, Deism is founded on the principle of non-interventionism.


In regards to the first sentence, my opponent asserts that should a deist discover that god is an interventionist, he would then become a theist. This is absolutely right; however, this actually supports my stance on the resolution. This assertion is strongly indicating that deism is the initial premise, the default, and that the acquisition of additional information is required to progress to theism. My opponents own words are stipulating that deism therefore precedes theism.

In regards to the second sentence, I simply remind my opponent that I made a case for deism being the default position in my last post, and that he failed to address it.



Conclusion



In conclusion, I believe I have adequately demonstrated the accuracy and validity of my own arguments, most aspects of which have gone unanswered. I have pointed out flaws in my opponents own arguments, and these criticisms have again. for the most part, gone unasnwered. I have also pointed out a precise instance in which my opponent contradicts his position, and makes an assertion that supports my stance on the resolution.

In light of these facts, I feel the outcome of this debate is relatively obvious, and that deism does indeed logically precede theism.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thank my opponent for this exciting debate, and wish him the best of luck in voting.

Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
Leeeerrrrooooyyyy Jeeeeeeeeeennnkkkiiiinnnzzzzz
Posted by JaxsonRaine 5 years ago
JaxsonRaine
I put it at the end of the first paragraph.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
Include "With the agreement that the resolution is not discussing chronological or historical emergence of either concept.", and I think we're set.
Posted by JaxsonRaine 5 years ago
JaxsonRaine
We need to clarify this. I'll put in that note as well.

Theism generally refers to the belief in a God. I could use non-deist to clarify, or you could suggest definitions for the terms(but that seems like it would go against standard usage so I'm not really keen on that).
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
Deism is not a subset of theism.

I'm willing to debate that, as long as "With the agreement that the resolution is not discussing chronological or historical emergence of either concept." is included.
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
"In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, deism precedes theism in a logical sense."

With the agreement that the resolution is not discussing chronological or historical emergence of either concept.

----------------------------------------

That is what I proposed. After I said that, you pointedly ignored it and repeatedly challenged me to a debate, so don't claim that you were willing to discuss it.

Also, that is not what we were discussing.

We were discussing whether, according to the argument you used to postulate god as the creator of the universe, that deism precedes theism.
Posted by JaxsonRaine 5 years ago
JaxsonRaine
I found where you are talking about, I missed that comment when I was posting myself.

So, you would be willing to debate if I changed it to

"In regards to possibilities for the creation of the universe, deism precedes theism in a logical sense."?

Or should I clarify deism/non-deism, as deism can be considered a subset of theism?
Posted by JaxsonRaine 5 years ago
JaxsonRaine
Feel free to correct me, I offered to discuss the resolution with you.

I have said that a personal God is just as likely as a non-personal God... isn't that what we are discussing? Would you prefer I substitute personal/non-personal for deist/non-deist?
Posted by Physik 5 years ago
Physik
I am not debating your straw man. This is not the resolution I proposed, nor is it related to what we were discussing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
JaxsonRainePhysikTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. The challenge in judging this debate was that both sides were arguing different concepts of Deism. Pro argues that Deism stops with the belief that God created the universe, taking an agnostic approach from that point. However according to the definitions accepted in round 1, Deism does take an extra step to assume that god does not intervene. This according to the arguments established in this debate affirms Cons argument that the two are logically equal.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
JaxsonRainePhysikTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I am confused as to which side has the BoP; I can assume that both sides are sharing. Pro only used one source; sources goes to Con. Pro's third point in round four seems to wrap up the debate in his favour, along with a few other points. Great job to both sides though.