The Instigator
DudeStop
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
GodChoosesLife
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Is The Christian god real?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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...
GodChoosesLife
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,599 times Debate No: 44567
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (94)
Votes (3)

 

DudeStop

Con

Round one is for either acceptance, or opening arguments. If Pro chooses the latter, he/she cannot respond in the fourth round and must instead put: "Nothing"

The goal of the debate is to show why or why not the Christian god probably exists or probably does not exist.

FF's are fine, do not take off points for them. The one who commits the FF loses an entire round of arguments as a punishment.

No new arguments shall be made in around Four. (Obviously)

Just don't be stupid, and this should be a good debate.


I await my opponents responses.

PM me or post a comment on any questions.
GodChoosesLife

Pro

Hello to my opponent and I gladly accept this debate. This should be interesting. Thanks for the opportunity!
Debate Round No. 1
DudeStop

Con

I'd like to begin by extending my warmest of welcomes to both Pro, and our viewing audience. Hopefully this shall be an exceptional debate.

I have several contentions about the existence of god. I'll put some more down next round as well...
Contention 1: Pointless Evil

This simple argument is probably the most well known.

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenovolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is omnibenovolent, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore a being such as god cannot possibly exist.
For the purpose of the debate, Pro and I agreed in a previous PM that evil shall be defined as pain and suffering.



Contention 2: Argument of Lust and knowledge:
1. God is supposedly all knowing and morally perfect.
2. Having a lust for someone is a sin according to the bible. [1]
3. If god is all knowing, he should know what lust feels like.
4. If god knows what lust feels like, he has sinned and is not morally perfect.
5. If god doesn't know what lust feels like, he is not all knowing.

This is also a very widely known atheistic argument.

Contention 3: The mechanics of the universe can be explained without god.
This argument goes as such:
1. In order to prove that god exists, there must be a need for one to explain the mechanics of our universe.

2. There is no need for a god in order to explain the mechanics of our universe.

Conclusion: Therefore, god probally does not exist.

I shall now put out a plausible way the universe could come to be without god, and how It could be this "Intelligently Designed" in order to support premise two:
Cause of the universe 1: Simultaneous causation:
This cause of the universe occurs as such:
Three states of the universe come into being at the same time, State A causes B, which causes state C, which causes state A; all at the same time. The cause and effect exist simultaneously, all having causal explanations.

Why accept God over simultaneous causation?
L.A. Mitchell came up with this, I deserve no credit for it whatsoever.

The Theory of a Multiverse:
The multiverse is the idea that we had so many different universes, with so many different combinations, that it made the perfect conditions for us to live in.
Why accept god over the multiverse?

Contention 4: Then instead of asking where our universe came from, ask where God came from.

If we are to say that god is real, then we also must solve where he has come from. Otherwise, saying this is the solution to the universe is just opening a new book of questions. You have two options here:
A: He doesn't have a creator.
This would mean that humans do not need a creator as well. Or in other words, an intelligent designer. If the all mighty, perfect, most intelligent being in the universe doesn't need one, why do we?
B: He does has a creator.
This then is flawed because god couldn't be the most powerful being in the universe if he had a creator. It also opens the unsolvable question as to who made the god, and that god, etc. It basically opens an infinite loop of gods.


Now I shall stop and allow our debate to grow. I think I have spread very reasonable doubt about the existence of god, and thus I have met my BoP. In her round, Pro must refute all these arguments and erect some of her own. Until that, I contend that you all have good reasons to reject the Christian god.
Yet again, thank you for accepting the debate.

[1] http://biblia.com...
GodChoosesLife

Pro

Thank you very much for putting this debate up to accept. And as well, I hope this debate is exceptional.

Contention 1: Point of Evil (Pain and Suffering).

1.

Omnipotent, All-Powerful: Genesis 1:1- “In the Beginning GOD, created the Heavens and the Earth.”

Omniscient, All-Knowing: Proverbs 15:3- “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding; the evil and the good.”

Omnibenevolent, Perfect- Goodness: Mark 10:28- “…Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

Let us look at these individual definitions as well as these simple verses that imply of God’s Attributes, if indeed He does exist as my opponent suggests He does not. Why would a simple verse suggest that God was in the Beginning if He is in fact, non- existing? Why would the following suggest of His Eyes seeing everything whether good or bad? And why would one consider himself so low under a God being so good, “if” God does not exist?


2.

In Genesis it talks about Noah, his family and every two type of animal was saved by an ark only because God chose them to be saved and eliminated all other creatures because of how great sin was. Ever wonder why He does not eliminate everyone today? What about Lot and his two daughters? They were saved from the city Sodom and Gomorrah? Why only them and not everyone, Because God eliminated all who were sinning. There are so many examples, but I will stop for now.


3.

Yes, as mentioned before, Proverbs 15:3, God does see all. He knows all. Nothing that happens is without His knowledge. Quick summary of the Book of Job is a perfect example of this. He was a wealthy man and had everything. Unfortunately, the enemy wanted to prove that Job would curse God. God permitted it to happen. Everything was taken from Job, including his family. God SAW it all and He knew and yet permitted it to happen. In the end, Job remained faithful and still trusted God regardless. So in regards to this example, God is in fact, omniscient and permits suffering (evil) and pain to happen merely for specific reasons. Who are you to question this then?


4.

As again, stated above, God does desire to eliminate all evil. Does He yes, but not always in the ways we would expect them to.


5.

Of course evil (suffering and pain) exist. If it did not exist, then how would we learn? How would we mature? How would we know what to do in order to help others? God permits suffering for our benefit, so that we might gain the growth into helping others around us.


6.

Since God does exist He does have the power to eliminate evil (which he does), He knows very well that evil exists and does in fact desire to eliminate evil.


7.

A claim such as this is very bold, yet blindly considered for the sake of choice.



Contention 2: Argument of Lust and knowledge:


2.

Yes, lust is considered sin because it is known as adultery in the heart.


3. “If god is all- knowing, he should know what lust feels like.”

I’m sorry, but that is ridiculous.

4. “If god knows what lust feels like, he has sinned and is not morally perfect.”

Why would God give commandments to follow when He is Holy, Perfect, Righteous, Flawless, Sinless and Pure?? He makes no mistakes; however, we as humans do, so therefore; we are the ones who need’s the commandment to follow for not lusting.


5. “If god doesn't know what lust feels like, he is not all knowing.”

Again, God is holy and cannot lust. But in honestly, this is irrelevant.

This is also a very widely known atheistic argument.



Contention 3: The mechanics of the universe can be explained with God.


1.

What more of an explanation does a person need in order to believe except what’s already provided which you reject?


Conclusion: Therefore, God does exist.

“Why accept God over simultaneous causation?”

Why not accept God over simulation assumptions?


Contention 4: Then instead of asking where our universe came from, ask where God came from.

Genesis 1:1- “In the Beginning GOD…”

John 1:1- In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Why is it easy to deny/reject wilfully the existence of God just to make excuses for our lives and actions?


“If the all mighty, perfect, most intelligent being in the universe doesn't need one, why do we?”

The same reason why a school needs a principal, a building need’s a builder, a church needs a pastor, etc… Without ONE there is chaos... There will not be structure, correction, discipline, approval…


B:

God is who was and is and is to come.

If there is no God, then where does everyone go after death?? Where is the meaning of life if there is no God??

Thanks again for the opportunity to take on this debate.



http://www.blueletterbible.org...

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

http://www.biblegateway.com...

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Debate Round No. 2
DudeStop

Con

Well I hardly know where to begin, though I suppose this is a start. I think I'll remind Pro that this is the last round to post any new arguments, and she must show that the Christian God is probably real.

That being said, I'll start with the rebuttals she had for my arguments and get into hers.

"Thank you very much for putting this debate up to accept. And as well, I hope this debate is exceptional"

I'm glad about that.

Also, my opponent decided to out some definitions out about omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent, which I'm grateful for. However, by Omnibenevolent I meant to say only morally perfect. [1]

"if indeed He does exist as my opponent suggests He does not Why would a simple verse suggest that God was in the Beginning if He is in fact, non- existing?"

I think this argument is asking why someone would write a verse if the god did not exist. I would have no idea, but as many other people have written books about different gods (In example, the Quran) it has obviously happened before, and will probably happen again. This is just one of those said books.

I suppose the intention might have been to answer questions they feared, but I am not the one to say.

"Why would the following suggest of His Eyes seeing everything whether good or bad?"

Again, I cannot be certain. To scare people into following their religion? It could be compared to Santa Claus. If you're good and believe in him, you get presents. If you're bad, you get coal. The only difference I could see is that Santa gives you coal, but does not attempt to turn you into it.

"And why would one consider himself so low under a God being so good, "if" God does not exist?"

It's my arguments. I found a contradiction (That you have yet to still refute)

"Because God eliminated all who were sinning. There are so many examples, but I will stop for now"

There are plenty of families that have prayed and still have their child die of cancer. If you're saying we still have pain and suffering because god is only giving it to the evil people, that's really inaccurate.

"So in regards to this example, God is in fact, omniscient and permits suffering (evil) and pain to happen merely for specific reasons"

Yet again, I require you to give these reasons. And you don't think god could've thought of a better way to prove his point?

"Who are you to question this then"

I'm Nathaniel Christensen, but my friends call me Nate. I'm able to question gods reasons if I'd like to. Similar to how you are entitled to question why Santa delivers presents all around the world.

"As again, stated above, God does desire to eliminate all evil. Does He yes, but not always in the ways we would expect them to"

Argument still stands. Why would he let any evil be here if he is pure?

"I'f it did not exist, then how would we learn?"

Through schooling, and college. I've never seen anybody whip or hurt a child and claim that it was for there own good be revered in the community for helping him or her learn. Usually, it gets them I trouble with the police[1].

"How would we mature?"

Puberty. [2]

"How would we know what to do in order to help others?"

Camps for teamwork is a great way. Or you could just use your objective morals. Obviously, if there was a god we would not have those problems. If there wasn't everything would still be here (As it is).

"God permits suffering for our benefit, so that we might gain the growth into helping others around us"

And who receives this greater good? The sick and dying children around the world? The tortured victims, the dead prisoners? Why can't god think of a better way to achieve these things?

"Since God does exist He does have the power to eliminate evil (which he does), He knows very well that evil exists and does in fact desire to eliminate evil"

You've already admitted that evil exists, so your argument is in fact faulty. You also did not show any scenarios or evidence in which he does this, so you cannot assert this.

" "If god is all- knowing, he should know what lust feels like."

I"m sorry, but that is ridiculous"

Of course it is, so then the opposite would be that he hasn't felt It and therefore he is not all knowing. This video explains our argument quite well, please excuse its vulgarity.

"Why would God give commandments to follow when He is Holy, Perfect, Righteous, Flawless, Sinless and Pure?? He makes no mistakes; however, we as humans do, so therefore; we are the ones who need"s the commandment to follow for not lusting"

Obviously god has broken the commandment, therefor he is sinful. You need to prove this wrong, which you failed to do.

When asked about this problem, Pro says god is perfect. I showed a contradiction for him being perfect, so really her argument is now invalid.

As far as the eye can see, Pro decided to dodge this argument...

"What more of an explanation does a person need in order to believe except what"s already provided which you reject"

You haven't provide any arguments, so ai can't reject anything. I suppose some sort of evidence would be a start.

"Why not accept God over simulation assumptions?"
In this argument, I asked my opponent the following question:

"Why accept god over simultaneous causation?"

She has not answered the question, so we can assume she does not have any reason to accept god over simultaneous causation. I will however, answer her question, although it's not the response I was looking for.

God was made when we humans had not a clue about the world around us. It was our first attempt, but also our worst. Humans to create gods when they cannot explain something, such as Zues to explain lightning. Eventually, as we find more rational explanations for these things, those gods are dismissed.

I see no reason not to dismiss this one as well. Simultaneous causation is indeed possible[3], and Pro has not given any reason to accept god over simultaneous causation, and she ignores the bit about the multiverse.

Even if we pretended I had not given a reason, Pro failed to do so as well in that hypothetical world. It isn't really probable therefore.

"Why is it easy to deny/reject wilfully the existence of God just to make excuses for our lives and actions?"

I never said it was easy. I do not reject it, rather I say it is improbable. I never said it was just to make excuses for my life or actions even once in my arguments.

Also, please remember:

In this argument, I asked my opponent to answer the following question:

"Then instead of asking where our universe came from, ask where God came from"

She obviously has yet to to answer it.

"There will not be structure, correction, discipline, approval"

Pro yet again dodges my arguments. It doesn't answer where the god came from, but rather it's an argument on why we need one. Pro has given no information on why there would be chaos, nor has she answered the original question.

Also, our world is a big mess if you hadn't noticed. [4]

"If there is no God, then where does everyone go after death??"

Usually people tend to burry the dead, but some have different traditions such as putting the ashes into an urn. [5]

"Where is the meaning of life if there is no God"

Surviving and reproducing I suppose. Living a happy life with success is what most people want. Different people have different goals and ambitions, so I can not speak for all.

Pro also provide a video to attempt to refute simultaneous causation. The video actually outlines what it is, but never says why it's wrong.

About two minutes into the video, (See comments) it only says it is logically impossible, outlines what simultaneous causation is, then says it' illogical.

It does not however, give any rational for this.

Even if we assumed it was impossible, we could say that retro causality created us. [6]

It's the idea that the cause can come after it's effect.

Why accept god over retro causality?

"Thanks again for the opportunity to take on this debate"

Of course.

Pro found a way to dodge almost of my arguments/answer barely any of my questions.

Until she does, I believe that everyone reading this has a good reason to think the Christian god is improbable.

I also remind Pro that the BoP is shared.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.collinsdictionary.com...

[2] http://kidshealth.org...

[3] http://thinkingmatters.org.nz...

[4] http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org...

[5] http://www.pbs.org...

[6] http://plato.stanford.edu...
GodChoosesLife

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for his refutes and his reminder of this being my last round r=to post anymore arguments. Thank you.

My opponent seemed to misunderstand my question. I was merely suggesting to Con that if God did not exist than a simple verse as the one I mentioned above, would not have been the first one mentioned in the Scripture, neither; mentioned at all for that matter. God had to have been in the Beginning to even receive any form of knowledge in the text of Scripture. Here is an example; when people build a building, they usually receive some form of acknowledgement to let everyone know that they built it. Or if someone makes a new style of clothing, the designer almost ALWAYS receives the acknowledgement and praise for it; yet God does not receive any praise, credit or acknowledgement simply because someone/s does not want to believe that He in fact, does exist?

"I suppose the intention might have been to answer questions they feared, but I am not the one to say."

Fear of what though??

"To scare people into following their religion?" U92; really??

Well, as a Christian, the idea is not to share this to get people to be afraid, but simply to reveal that just because someone cannot see into our hearts, minds or even souls for that matter; does not mean someone else does not know. It is not to initiate fear, but to bring a person to realize how vile of human beings we are. Because we are, but in our own ways, yet we try to cover it up.
(I. Samuel 16:7- But the Lord said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but theLord looks on the heart.")
http://www.biblegateway.com...

On Con"s account of, "santa claus", he was formerly known as St. Nicholas and was in fact a Catholic; who dedicated his life to serving God, by giving to the needy and the poor. He was a real person, not just a figment of our imagination. Although as time progressed in age, people have tended to try and imitate what he did, not realizing the whole intention he had behind his life and doings was for God.
http://www.stnicholascenter.org...

"If you're saying we still have pain and suffering because god is only giving it to the evil people, that's really inaccurate."

My opponent did not understand my question. No, God does give evil to anyone. God allows evil to happen only because of our sin. It is not God"s fault that we WILLINGLY choose to sin. Evil also is permitted on account of people (everyone) to grow from the experience.
For example, Con used a cancerous type of evil or suffering, if God only permitted evil to happen to a person that does not obey Him then that would make Him a cruel God altogether and result of Him not actually being God. But since, God permits suffering and pain to all people, it is always for a purpose. (Ecclesiastes 3:1- For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:..." Psalm 115:3- Our God is in the Heavens; He does all that He pleases!)
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.biblegateway.com...

"Why would he let any evil be here if he is pure?"

Well, why not? I mean, if we were without flaw then, yes, I would see and believe there would be no reason for pain and suffering in our lives, but we as the human race, have brought all the pain and suffering upon ourselves. God just allows it because He wants us to acknowledge Him, turn to Him and let go of our OWN evil ways.

"Through schooling, and college. I've never seen anybody whip or hurt a child and claim that it was for there own good be revered in the community for helping him or her learn. Usually, it gets them I trouble with the police[1]."

I am sorry, but schooling and college does not always have the answers to life situations. It is beneficial to learn, yes, but it is not the ultimate key to understanding life. Knowing knowledge is great, but what good is it in the end once your dead??

Discipline does not always resort to spanking a child, but since my opponent has pointed that out; there is a great difference between beating and spanking a child. I do not condone to beating a child, but there is nothing wrong with spanking a child. When a person commits a crime, do they get a cookie or an award for it? No, they are usually put in jail, prison or death penalty depending on the crime. So to say, that spanking is not a necessary disciplinary action; is to say that, criminals should be just left free and wild? Is that correct?

"you could just use your objective morals. Obviously, if there was a god we would not have those problems. If there wasn't everything would still be here (As it is)."

My opponent is suggesting that it is possible that we are here, just by chance simply because he does not believe there is a God? He also suggests that we have the ability to obtain knowledge on our own. But even in education it is learned. We would not know what morals are or know what to do to helps others if it had not been for knowledge from God.

"And who receives this greater good? The sick and dying children around the world? The tortured victims, the dead prisoners? Why can't god think of a better way to achieve these things?"

Con neglects the fact, that everyday Christians are dying for their mission work in other countries to provide for the needy, the poor and give the message of God as well.
God is always working in many different ways, if it was not for God using the people He chose to help others, then those people would surely be dealing with this all the time as my opponent suggests they are with no help at all.
Example, there is a ministry that is called, "Compassion International" in which, they collect donations, or monthly payments from people who are willing to offer their time. It is to sponsor children and even parents from all over the world; food, clothes, able to attend school, shots for illnesses, supplies for school and can even interact with those whom have been able to help them through letters or in person. So if God did not exist, then there would be no goodness of heart to service or offer to help others in need even coming from an unbeliever. Goodness happens only because of God. God uses the negativity in the world to manifest His Glory and just to prove who is REALLY in control.
http://www.compassion.com...

"Of course it is, so then the opposite would be that he hasn't felt It and therefore he is not all knowing. This video explains our argument quite well, please excuse its vulgarity."

I am sorry, but that video is an animated cartoon and does not give evidential proof to God not being all- knowing just because He does not condone to the evilness of lustfulness as we do. If God is God, then He does not, or will not condone to pure evil. It is against His very Nature. My opponent is suggesting a very rational expression that God is not all- knowing because of a "creative" mocking video?? Okay"

Holy- set apart from sin; pure.

Because God is Holy, He cannot be lustful. But that does not mean He does not know what lust is. If He did not know what lust was, then why on earth would He provide a commandment for us to follow; Exodus 20:14- "You shall not commit adultery." And as also recorded in Matthew 5:28- "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Therefore, if God is Holy, (which He is), then His heart is Pure and thus cannot be lustful for it would make Him an adulterer at heart. Man and woman is quick to do these things" That is why we have the commandment because He sees right through us like glass" He knows our hearts are desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9) and is very capable of lusting.. We are not holy and pure as He is..
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://biblia.com...

"Why accept god over simultaneous causation?"

Simultaneous causation is erroneous because something cannot form itself into existence. Something has to create something for it to become something. It cannot just form on its own. If that is the case, I could simply say that, a building is built without a builder, food is made without a cooker, clothes are designed without a designer, etc" And knowingly, you might find this a contradictory because then you would need a reason to ask, well then who made God, but it is not a matter of who made God" It is a matter as addressed above that He is Self-Existent= meaning He just was already there from the Beginning and before the Beginning.

"I never said it was easy. I do not reject it, rather I say it is improbable. I never said it was just to make excuses for my life or actions even once in my arguments."

My apologies for misunderstanding your point and thank you for correcting me on it.

"Also, our world is a big mess if you hadn't noticed."

Yes, absolutely, the world is a BIG mess. It is the human-races fault too for it.

"Usually people tend to burry the dead, but some have different traditions such as putting the ashes into an urn. Surviving and reproducing I suppose. Living a happy life with success is what most people want. Different people have different goals and ambitions, so I can not speak for all."

So, that is it then? Just burials? There is no purpose if all you do is be born, live life however, die and just be buried in the ground. That seems worse than the thought of going to heaven or hell.

"Even if we assumed it was impossible, we could say that retro causality created us."

How??

"Why accept god over retro causality?"

How can casualty form itself though? It MUST take someone to form it into existence.

Thank you for your replies CON. And hopefully you understand my answers.
Debate Round No. 3
DudeStop

Con

DudeStop forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
94 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
I'm done.

However, I find it very sad the he won't admit he lost and doesn't know what "irony" means.

I am still not sure of his age. His profile states 14, but in one of his arguments he states:

"Through schooling, and college. I've never seen anybody whip or hurt a child and claim that it was for there own good be revered in the community for helping him or her learn. Usually, it gets them I trouble with the police[1]."

Let"s overlook the first four words with a period at the end, which is grammatically incorrect because it is not a sentence because it lacks a verb, but a sentence fragment. And, the fact that college is schooling. Then in the second sentence he uses "there" to show possessiveness instead of the possessive determiner "their."

Overlooking all that, Con implies he has finished college or been in college, which unless he is a child prodigy, his age would be 18 to 21.

Although I would love to spend hours more dissecting Con"s hodgepodge of meaningless arguments and illogic, I must move on.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
I'm not going to post another argument to you even though I wrote one... I'm sure God Chooses Life is not enjoying these notifications.

I'll just call for peace...

If you still want to argue or prove your point, then fine. But honestly, these arguments aren't going anywhere.

BTW: Irony is not a big word.

I knew the definition of it.

Those statistics are what I expected.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Guys, how long is this gonna go on?? :/
Posted by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
Lol, the comments section is more entertaining than the debate itself :-)
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
DudeStop, Part I

Why would you give "kudos for being to most ironic person ever," which is grammatically incorrect.

I guess you meant to say,

"So kudos to you for being the most ironic person ever."

But, why are you calling me ironic?

Do you even know what "irony" means?

irony
noun
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, "How nice!" when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature.
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Maybe before you use big words with big meanings, you should first look them up.

I don"t debate at this site often because it is pointless because of confirmation bias, in-group (friend) bias and too few voters. My last two debates, were just to make sure I had 3 debates under my belt so I could vote. I turn down most all debates and will continue to do so.

I started a forum on confirmation bias titled "Confirmation Bias Cannot be Beaten!" It is one of the most popular forums at DDO with 629 posts. My post #1 gives links to studies done on confirmation bias and how it can"t be beaten. Here is the link to my forum
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
DudeStop, Part II

Here are some of the links that explain the studies.

"Confirmation Bias"
http://rationalwiki.org...

"Science Daily " Your source of the latest research new " Confirmation bias"
http://www.sciencedaily.com...

"You are not so Smart " Confirmation Bias"
http://youarenotsosmart.com...

"Evolution of in-group favoritism"
http://www.nature.com...

Many members did not like my forum "Confirmation Bias Cannot be Beaten!" because they like to think they are great debaters; but, most are not.

Ranking members on how many debate they have won at this site, IMHO, is too funny for words, because of confirmation bias and too few voters.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
DudeStop, Part III

I did a random sample of 1,000 debates for the purpose determining how many members voted.

I did this to prove how worthless debating is at this site; these debates prove nothing because too few vote and, confirmation bias and in-group bias are huge.

The average number of voters in these 1,000 debates was 2 voters

The Median or number in the middle of these 1,000 debates was 1 voter

The Mode or most frequent number of voters was zero or no voters.

Here is a breakdown by number of voters:

376 debates or 37.6% had 0 voters
214 debates or 21.4% had 1 voter
152 debates or 15.2% had 2 voters
95 debates or 9.5% had 3 voters
58 debates or 5.8% had 4 voters
40 debates or 4.0% had 5 voters
27 debates or 2.7% had 6 voters
16 debates or 1.6% had 7 voters
11 debates or 1.1% had 8 voters
4 debates or 0.40% had 9 voters
5 debates or 0.50% had 10 voters
1 debate or 0.10% had 12 voters
1 debate or 0.10% had 14 voters

The fact that members are ranked on the number of debates they win is a joke.

Winning debates at this site proves nothing. It does not prove you are a better debater. Most of the debates that are won are won because of confirmation bias and or in-group (i.e., friends voting for friends) bias.

Most of the members reading this don"t believe it because they want to believe that their winning a debate is real, like in the big time debates in live high school and college debates in tournaments, well, the debate here are not. The debates here are not even close. Especially with all the silly rules making the instigator gets to make in the first round.

In professional debate, the rules are set by committees, all of whom are usually over 18. The debaters do not get to set rules; and the first round it not for acceptance or definitions, which is totally silly.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
You know those people are trolls who relish people like you who have hissy fits and wet themselves when they see anything vulgar?

Nah...

Yet again, you refuse to act professional. I'm just going to stop arguing with you now, as others have informed me that you're stubborn and won't listen to any logic...

I also notice you said I'm a terrible debater, while your debates aren't even debates. They may be titled as debates, but the voters seem very reluctant and say that you really haven't given any arguments in them...

So kudos for beng to most ironic person ever.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
DudeStop,

If you think my vote is unfair, there is a mechanism at DDO for you to report it. It is under the section "Debates" per the FAQs page:

"What do I do if I witness vote bombing or unfair voting?"

"If you witness your or another member's debate being vote bombed, please post a link to it here. Doing so assists in obtaining counter-votes for obvious vote bombs, and makes the Debate.org President aware of unfair voting conduct so he can take appropriate action if necessary."

Go for it! My RFD is right on the money and I cited valid reasons for my Reasons For Voting Decision.

The site-Presdent, Airmax1227 is very busy, but for you, I am sure he would take a look at my vote and RFD. Who knows, he might agree with you.

Again, I don't believe God or gods exist, and I rejects all her arguments; but she presented her arguments, and evidence better than you did. And, she was smart enough to used spell check, and she did not use a childish vulgar video that should have been banned. I bet you though it was cute and funny with "the line of coke on a whore's butt..." Are, you related to imabench or MassiveDump? That is the BS that those too immature folks might use in their arguments.

Better debating and luck next time.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
You never responded to the fact that your entire vote is based on conduct and grammar. The other half was already disproven, so you chose to not respond.

You also thought it'd be nice to list your unneeded credentials and insult others so you can attempt to achieve a sense of superiority over others... So more so that you can feel OK about yourself.

I'm sad to see that an infant was dropped by his mother so many times, and that one time he happened to land on the keyboard...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
DudeStopGodChoosesLifeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See RFD inComments
Vote Placed by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
DudeStopGodChoosesLifeTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Very Hard debate to decide on. Very interesting debate structure on both sides. Both sides cited (tie). Both sides had reasonable conduct (Con said FF was ok, so tie). Pro had good points, but con rebutted most of them. Pro, as a Christian, has a better knowledge of the Bible, which benefited her in rebutting most of Con's contentions. Good debate!
Vote Placed by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
DudeStopGodChoosesLifeTied
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: I was waiting for this debate to get interesting. The only points I could award was for a few compelling arguments that con made that pro failed to answer. Pro spent most of the early rounds just educating us about random facts in the bible. Unfortunately in order for pro to get my vote when debating God is to think outside the box because inside the box (the bible) is why atheists have a problem with the Christian God!