The Instigator
Combatofawombat
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AgnosticDeism
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Is it reasonable to be Agnostic?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
AgnosticDeism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 209 times Debate No: 72629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Combatofawombat

Con

Do you accept?
AgnosticDeism

Pro

I'm Agnostic and being neutral in any situation in life is pretty much reasonable. My agnosticism springs from a lack of evidence from both sides.
Debate Round No. 1
Combatofawombat

Con

God exists so being a Agnostic isn't reasonable
AgnosticDeism

Pro

There is no proof God exists or not. Therefore it's best to be Agnostic on the situation.
Debate Round No. 2
Combatofawombat

Con

Circular reasoning fallacy, I win by default!
AgnosticDeism

Pro

No it's only logical to make that conclusion. Based on a lack of evidence it is reasonable to be neutral about the premise of God. You just seem desperate for a win.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ChickenBakuba 1 year ago
ChickenBakuba
You sure like saying "Circular reasoning fallacy" don't you?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blazzered 1 year ago
Blazzered
CombatofawombatAgnosticDeismTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro, con was showing desperation to win while pro was actually putting up a debate. Con misused fallacy's and had punctuation errors while pro knew logic and had no grammatical errors. Pro is the only one who put up any real argument. Con made claims but did not back them up. Neither pro or con used sources.