The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wiploc
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
wiploc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,785 times Debate No: 24097
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (4)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

The Fool: That is people who think BOP is equally on the non-existence of God, do so irrationally.



Rational: coherence with logic.

Atomic Law of Truth(Must be accepted!): Truth=Truth 1=1 (a entity itself is itself)


Acceptence:
-No semantic games.
-the most likely interpretation of opponent is to be respected.
-the most clear and distinct definitions are to be taken.



Lets resolve this dispute once and for all or at least for a while!

Note:this is a philosophical debate, citations still need to be defended with the actual arguments
wiploc

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

It’s so Fresh its Ancient

A very good reasons it’s important to study the ancients in philosophy is because of their innocence’s and simplicity. It is common among for a casual philosopher to assume that because the ideas are old, that chances are they have been refuted, for that is mostly why they are over looked. It was once said by Whitehead that “the history of philosophy is footnotes to Plato,” in that much of philosophy since then, had often been reiterations of what Plato’s work but in different word. It was not long after for his very successful student and Philosopher in her own write, G.E.M Anscombe responded saying that all philosophy is footnotes, to “Parmenides”.


Difficult Simplicity

The Fool: I bring up Parmenides, often, just because the basic set of Rules to reasoning are so plainly put. They are so simple, that is makes it difficult to believe, that they are so power, have never been refuted, and also set down the entire Ontology a philosopher ever needed. Philosophers who have tried to make it more difficult have just spun off track. The technique here will simply to let Parmenides speak for him and The Fool will support the argument.

Parmenides

The Fool: Ladies and gentlemen give a hand for the legend, the Ancient Parmenides!!! (Applause)

Wiploc: Hooray!!!! Woohoo!

The Fool: okay shh, now!

Parmenides: “ the Goddess received me kindly, took my right hand in hers, and addressed me with these words: Young man, accompanied by immortal charioteers, how reach my hour by immortal horses which bring you. Welcome since it was not and evil destiny that sent you forth to travel this road but right and Justice, There is need for you to learn all things—both the unshaken heart of well-rounded Truth and the opinions of mortals, in which there is not true reliance,.

But nevertheless you will learn these too—that all things appear must genuinely be , being is always, indeed, all thing.

Come now, I will tell---and bring my story safely when you have heard it—the only way of inquiry there are to think: the, one, that is, and that it is not possible for it not to be, for this is the path of persuasion which attends upon Truth. (1=1) (1=/=0) (is = 1)

The other, that is not, and that it is necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you, to be the path of the completely un-learnable, for neither may you know that which is no, for it is not to be accomplished, nor may you ever declare it. For this is the same for thinking and of being.

But gave upon things which although absent are securely Present in thought (aka IDEAS, absent in correspondence)

For you will not cut off what is from clinging to what is, neither scattered everywhere in every way throughout the Kosmos (Absolute Universe)

That which is there to be spoken and thought of MUST BE. For it is possible to be, but not possible for nothing to be.

The Fool: There is a lot more but I think these are the necessities I need, and I will defend them in the next round and we will see how things fold together. Forever and always you’re Fool.

wiploc

Con

I notice that Parmenides, as quoted by Pro, makes no more sense than Pro himself.


Pro's argument:

Pro undertook to show that it is irrational to think that the burden of proof is on atheism. I read all the words in his post, but I don't see an argument. He made no case. Therefore, since Pro has the burden of proof, Con should win this debate.

Pro may introduce an argument in later rounds, and that will be fine. I'm not asking for a forfeit or conduct points. I'm just pointing out that people ought to introduce their arguments in round one. It is impolite to just post gibberish and hope people will keep reading.


My argument:

I don't have the burden of proof, and Pro hasn't posted an identifiable argument, so I need not post an argument of my own.

But I have one anyway:

Pro undertook to show that it is irrational to think the burden of proof is on atheism. Is that irrational? No, because many people (most people, in fact) think that atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. That is, it is a positive belief, not the mere absense of theism. This is not my preferred definition (I would call that "strong atheism") but it is a definition with currency: it the most popular meaning of the word, and it is a meaning in the dictionaries.

Therefore, it is not irrational to use "atheism" with this meaning. It is not irrational to use a word with the meaning that most people and most dictionaries agree with.

Given this meaning---atheism is the belief that gods do not exist---it follows that atheism has as much burden of proof as theism does.

Theism is a positive belief (the belief that gods exist), therefore theism has a burden of proof.

Atheism is a positive belief (the belief that gods do not exist), therefore atheism also has a burden of proof.

This may not be the only way of looking at things, but neither is it an irrational way.

Vote Con because:

1. Pro has failed to make a case.

2. Pro has the burden of proof.

3. Con has shown the resolution to be false.

Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


The philosopher Code


The Fool: One thing I could never wrap my head around is why, would anyone would be motivated to argue for the sake appearance. As a philosopher, the method of falsification is the logical refutation by others; that is you want to find the best possible refuter you can. Thus if your argument holds you can feel more confident of the strength of you arguments. It is not useful to argue with someone who doesn’t have the necessary skills to refute you well. Secondly you want to make sure you follow the Principle of Charity, a chivalry of reason, which is to presuppose the most rational articulation you partner, has argued. It is a sign or respect and it is to you benefit, because if you know you the opposing argument as well as you could, you know exactly, where to target it if there is a whole. A third reason is that the worse thing possible is to get a false affirmation. That is to feel more confident in your argument, because of and irrationally error that you opponent wasn’t able to point out. But they most important thing rather when winning is to accept refutation when a contradiction have been shown. That is the only way you can know where you need to adjust your model/theory, if you know anything about science, that you know this is the heart of the scientific method. Where the ideas is you have much more knowledge then we think we do from the experience that we have had. All, experiences. I mean all in that every conscious recognition what so ever is an experience. (not the physicalism understanding in that experience is only sense data. ) That is our Absolute Experience all that we experience. Are best humanly assets like “language” can also be our biggest curse. For the worse thing to do is to confuse our language with the reality it is meant to DESCRIBE. But never ever commit the rational sin of defining something into existence or out of existence. For we can all recognize clearly that I may use the word “computer” to refer to the idea of a “hat” But NO MATTER what I change the ‘Word’ to refer to(aka definition) It does not affect what was previously LABELED my “computer”.. That is you may mislabel/misrepresent reality with poor definition or words that don’t refer to anything but an irrational ‘idea’ but absolute reality itself can never be wrong.



I have presented the most simplest a yet one of the most powerful arguments of philosophy. But why must our self-bias be so high that we would assume so hastily that because we don’t understand something it follows that the other person, is irrational. Even though the other person, said specifically that the argument is there. Do they think I am A FOOL!!


The argument was simply this “THERE IS ONLY EXISTENCE”, that which is non-existence is not even there to talk about. That is the very fact that we understand the difference between unicorns and leprechaun, presupposes a necessary existence from which we can tell the difference NO MATTER HOW WE LABEL IT. A better use of language would be to say that we do not recognize any physical correspondence to the ‘idea;’ of a unicorn. For all physical knowledge is dependent upon the correspondence, of our ideas and sense data. If we did not have the “idea” of something there would be nothing to verify a correspondence in the first place.


Parmenides “But gave upon things which although absent are securely Present in thought”


It does not matter whether we label ideas as “abstract;” which may refer to having no real existence” it will never be the case that they have no real existence.



Up on the Hill!


Here is something to think about, let’s stop for a second and think about that fact that we call sense data as concrete “real” yet we are much surer that 1=1 or 1+1=2 then we are sure if we are dreaming or awake. The Problem which confuses us about is that we are so used to thinking in terms of things existing in Space. It may intuitively sound absurd to think of exist which are not space related. (it took me a long time to grasp this concept clearly) But we can feel more grounded when remember that emotions are not felt in a spatial context. Nor do other logical intuitions, depend on it.


Secondly, we all have an intuition of a contradiction. In psychology we call it Cognitive Dissonance. That is the uncomfortable feeling when our ideas are in opposition. I call it the Philosopher intuition. But this intuition does not depend on a spatial context. But logical intuition supersedes space conception and all experiences.


As we begin to grasp the idea of pre-spatial experiences, you may be prepared to notice that there is not as much in a visual-spatial context as you thought. In fact all there is in space are MOVING BODIES. All other things we know are apprehended in other forms. But I think I am getting to complex now. Much respect if you were able to stay with me on that. If you don’t get it you mind want to try another read later.


Earth


So let get back down to earth and see how the argument amounts to.


Parmenides “The other, that is not, and that it is necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you, to be the path of the completely un-learnable, for neither may you know that which is not(for it is not to be accomplished, nor may you ever declare it. For this is the same for thinking and of being.”


That is only the existence of something can be evidence or proven. Because existence is all there IS! Aka The Absolute Universe


Moreover non-existence=/=non-existence because it’s not there to even equal itself.


Even if you try and predication something with non-existence for let God equal X 0(X) =0


It does not make a difference to change the language to no God, or not, because the language does not change the reality of anything. For all you will be doing are playing “language games.”


One last and very point to take away is doing not confuse the concept of negative and positive. In that there a negative depend on a positive, but no negative exist. It is only in relative explanations, where positive and negative are relative to a standard. We can just take the “Absolute value” of the negative which gets rid of the positive and negative.


Actually, on last think, be very care not to confuse Recognition with Existence. In that because we can’t recognize something it does not exist. (This is the only thing left I haven’t cover clearly)


Now, as a Fool I am well practiced to dealing rigorous analysis. So I have trouble telling how far from the norm I am going. But if you can grasp all of this, it is pretty Cool!


VOTE FOOL!


wiploc

Con


Suppose an atheist tells you there are no gods. Should you say, as you would with any other assertion, "Why should I believe that?" Or should you say, "Hey, that doesn't make sense to me, but I guess you're right since you have no burden of proof"?


Should atheists back up their assertions with logic and evidence? Or should they get a free pass?


The resolution is that it is irrational to think there is a burden of proof on atheism.


But, obviously, it is not irrational.


Atheists should back up their claims the same as anyone else.


Nobody should get a free pass.


-


Pro's argument, assuming I understand him, goes like this:


1. You can prove things, but nonexistence isn't a thing.


2. Therefore, nonexistence can't be proven.


3. Therefore, the nonexistence of god can't be proven.


4. Therefore, people who believe in the nonexistence of god don't need any support for their belief.


That's so wrong.


First, it's a non sequitur. #4 doesn't follow from what came before. Pro's "case" isn't an argument so much as it's wishful thinking.


Second, it's not fair. We don't give theists a pass just because they can't prove their claims, so we shouldn't give atheists a pass unless they support theirs. We should treat atheists like anybody else.


Anyone who makes an assertion should be able to back it up if challenged. If you have a belief, it should be reasonably well founded. Pro has given us no reason to think atheists should have a special exemption.


If Pro is right about us atheists being unable to support our beliefs, then we ought to change our beliefs. We shouldn't get a free pass. We don't want a free pass. We want to be held to the same standards as anyone else.


If we did claim, as Pro tries to do for us, that we had no burden of proof, that would be grounds for other people to assume our beliefs are unfounded, unsound, unjustifiable, flaky, or, to borrow a word from the resolution, irrational.


That's a stay-off-my-side quality argument. I'd rather that Pro joined the other team. Let him point out that theists can't prove their case, and then claim a free pass for them.


Conclusion:


1. Pro undertook to prove it is irrational to think atheists have a burden of proof. But the truth is that anyone making an assertion has that burden, regardless of whether the assertion is atheistic. Therefore, the resolution is false.


Vote Con.


2. In the first round, Pro's argument appeared to be gibberish. It did not support his resolution. In the second round—-to the extent that I understand what he wrote—-Pro's claim is that atheist beliefs are so hard to support that we shouldn't have to support them. That's messed up. It does not tend to support the resolution. Pro had the burden of proof, but he did not shoulder it.


Vote Con.


3. Lucidity and cogency make a debater persuasive. Pro borders on incoherent. His second post was troublesome, hard to read. His first post was opaque. You cannot be persuasive if your readers don't understand what you're trying to say.


Vote Con.



Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

As long as a bit of insight remains, no one would think to hide under (ignorance).When what is exposed in the day of light as an appeal to opinion of the multitude, of whose applause the Philosopher is ashamed, but the popular charlatan glories and boast in it.

Immanuel Kant in the prolegomena to the critique of pure Reason

I have recognized a very different approach to philosophy then others, for this is the PHILOSOPHY category. And with that in mind The Fool admits, he is not here to agree with the majority, for if that was the case, it would serve no intellectual purpose. For I am not ready to sink to the level and assume the audience completely stupid, by abandoning, all intellectual truth value of the argument in place of an appeal to an Ideology of the masses. Which includes oversimplifies everything, INCREASING the size of my letters, assuming that the philosophy I display is to confusing, to be captured by other, thus, depending on the mere repetitive utterings of clichés as though people are to be conditioned like parrots or some other animal locked in SKINNER BOX, for that maybe the nature of the political debate. And in such a category is where they should stay. I admit, I do expect intellectual effort on the side of opponents and the voters, in this section.

What is a Skinner Box? http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Method of this argument on: ‘It is irrational to think BOP is on atheism’

For I need not even appeal to anything of religious or atheism of Theism, for all I have to do is show the limits of where the BOP can be applied to or not. The only function of adding Atheism to the title is giving it more controversial interest!

For the Fool is for the Form of the GOOD. This may be interpreted by many as God. So I don’t consider myself either or.

In the simplicity of Wiploc’s appeals to a Moral ideology of “shouldness”. He has forgotten to mention one of the simplest rules of them all. That is A SHOULD IMPLIES A COULD!


Now let’s go over the core of my argument, in all its simplicity.

Part 1

We think in terms of non-existence because of the irrational use of language.

  1. The language can only describe reality, not create it, manipulate it, or destroy it.
  2. The language has been used irrationally to define things in or out of existence.
  3. Language can and has failed to represent reality, via mislabelling.
  4. Reality cannot fail to be itself. 1=1
  5. We have adopted the language.
  6. ‘Language games’ like theory have caused us to confuse the difference between the language and reality.

C1 We think in terms of non-existence because of the irrational use of language.

QED, (what was to be proven had been demonstrated.)

Part 2

  1. There is only existence. Aka absolute universe.
  2. BOP is burden of proof. (the shouldness of Proof)
  3. A SHOULD implies a COULD!
  4. BOP cannot apply to that which is not there to apply too.
  5. Thus BOP could only be on something.
  6. It is irrational to expect a should without the possibility of a COULD.
  7. Non existence is not something.

C2 therefore, It is irrational to think BOP and the non-existence of something. (Resolution)

P1 this includes, no God.

C3 Resolution: It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

QED .. is demonstrated.

VOTE FOOL!

wiploc

Con

Conduct Points:

I ask for conduct points. There is no reason I should have to put up with these insults in order to have a philosophical discussion.

- In the comments, Pro suggests that I'm ignoble for not conceding.
- Pro opens round 3 with the suggestion that I argue in bad faith.
- Pro closes round 3 by saying how remarkable it would be if I could do rigorous analysis like him.
- Round 4 opens with the suggestion that I am a charleton who glories in his ignorance.
- In round 4, I am compared to a parrot repeating cliches without understanding them.

I ignored these until he resorted to insulting me from the comments thread while the debate is still ongoing. I will block him. I will not debate him again. But voters should let him know that he's over the line, that his conduct is not appreciated.

Vote conduct points to Con.


Source Points:

As Pro himself pointed out, this is a philosophical debate. It shouldn't depend on sources. We should defend our positions with reason.

But does Pro take his own advice? No, he goes after the source points by citing irrelevancies:

- He cites Wikipedia on skinner boxes, which have nothing to do with burden of proof.

- He quotes, or misquotes, Parmenides as saying, " the Goddess received me kindly, took my right hand in hers, and addressed me with these words: Young man, accompanied by immortal charioteers, how reach my hour by immortal horses which bring you. Welcome since it was not and evil destiny that sent you forth to travel this road but right and Justice, There is need for you to learn all things—both the unshaken heart of well-rounded Truth and the opinions of mortals, in which there is not true reliance,." Not only does this have nothing to do with the burden of proof, but Pro never closes the quote. We have no idea where the irrelevant incoherence of Parmenides bleeds back into Pro's own irrelevant incoherence.

- He quotes Kant saying that popular charletons glory in and boast of their ignorance. This could be relevant to presidential politics, but it isn't worth any points in a debate on burden of proof.

Why doesn't Pro cite something relevant to the burden of proof? I assume that this is because there's nobody to quote. Nobody supports his position.

Wikipedia says, "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim." Period. There's no exception for atheists in there. [1]

Rationalwiki says, ""Burden of proof" is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it." No exception for atheists there either. [2]

Iron Chariots wiki says, "Burden of proof is the position, in argumentation theory, that the individual making a claim that something is true is required to support the claim with evidence or sound argument sufficient to warrant acceptance of the claim by the other party. If the claimant cannot provide sufficient evidence, the other party is allowed to disregard the claim without having to disprove it." Again there's no exception for atheists, even though the authors are atheists. [3]

The Flat Earth wiki says, "The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic." Always. No exceptions.[4.]

Answers.com quotes the American Heritage Dictionary. The burden of proof is, "The responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation." No exception for atheists. [5]

That's the top five Google hits for "burden of proof" (not counting additional links to Wikipedia, links aimed specifically at law, and links like saintsrow.wikia.com, microformats.org, and heartbeat.wikia.com, that don't offer a definition). I could go on, but there's no point. Nobody reading this thinks I'll find anyone making an exception for atheists.

None of Pro's sources support his "case." The appearance is that he trying to win source points by citing irrelevancies.

Do not support source-slutting. Do not vote points for irrelevant citations.


The Burden of Proof in This Debate:

Pro undertook to prove that atheists don't have a burden of proof. Even if he is an atheist, he has the burden of proving this.

Don't let Pro use incoherent irrellevancy as a weapon. If you can't tell what he's trying to say, vote against him.


What is Pro's Actual Case? What Is He Trying to Say?

I can only guess whether there is an intent hidden in Pro's gibberish. When I see something that might be relevant, I interpret it as generously as I can. So, while I may be wrong---and I apologize if I am---I think his argument is as follows:

Things can be proven. Non-things can't. Nonexistence isn't a thing. Therefore, people who believe in the nonexistence of god have no hope of justifying their position. Therefore---for some reason---they shouldn't have to. Atheists should get a free pass. Atheist beliefs should never be challenged. They should be accepted without evidence or logic.

That's perverse. That's saying that we should believe something because it is unsupported. That principle would lead to intellectual chaos.

In his final post, Pro offers this suplementation: "a should implies a could." Interpreting this as charitably as I can, I think Pro is saying that atheists have no obligation to support their claims, because their claims are unsupportable.

That argument is so bad as to be self-parody.

The goal is to increase rationality. To seek truth is to hanker after well-founded beliefs. Making an exception for beliefs that are unsupportable is perverse. Counterproductive.

Atheists should have the same burden as anyone else. If our beliefs are truly unsupportable, we should change them. If we recognize that a belief is supported by neither logic nor evidence, then we can abandon that belief.

And that is doable. Pro says a should implies a could, but we can alter our beliefs if they are unsupported. And we should.


Conclusion:

Pro assumed the burden of proof.

Those asserting a position have the burden of justifying that position. There is no exception for atheists. Pro has not effectively defended such an exception. If athiest beliefs really aren't supported by logic or evidence, then we should change our minds and believe believe something else.

Vote Con.

Thanks.




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

2. http://rationalwiki.org...

3. http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

4. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...

5. http://www.answers.com...







Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
You have been exposed..
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Le fou:C'est la vraie raison, non??---> http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@Bomb
The Fool: Do you really think non-existence/nothing=existence/something Aka 0=1. You really want bite this bullet???

Thus, non-existence is a positive trait in something's position in the cosmos (whether it exists or does not exist).

The Fool: is 0 really a positive thing. Really, can non-existing be a property of something. aka 0(1x)=0 <--You would openly deny this?

Note the similarity The car is Red. -> a Red Car 1(Red(car)
VS
There is no red cars -> 0(red(cars) -> 0
no comprenda??
Posted by rosafarnandis 4 years ago
rosafarnandis
Nice post and very creative too.
business items
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@The Bomb. Now lets forget about voting purpose. I am actually interesting on just discussing the topic. Lets talk about it in personaly messages.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
In other words, non-existence is in existence. Thus, non-existence is a positive trait in something's position in the cosmos (whether it exists or does not exist). Therefore, if you assert something does not exist, you are asserting a positive characteristic about something and you have the BOP.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
The_Fool, you are basically arguing that if someone claims "x does not exist" they do not have to back up their assertion.

Your first premise is faulty, because nothing is something. If you assert everything exists, nothing to exists. But, nothing is the state of non-existence. So non-existence, is in fact, in existence.

Something that should happen, can happen. Yes obvious. But, the Burden of Proof can apply to something which does not exist. Because non-existence exists simply because existence implies the existence of non-existence, which means it exists. If non-existence did not exist, then everything that could possibly exist would be in existence, which is plainly not the case. So since non-existence exists, your entire argument fails.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Remember I am not playing the same game. I am actually giving philosophical arguments. You can use logical deductions on them. I don't want you to 'believe' anything I say. All that matters is if it logically follows or not. I am sorry but this is as simple as this argument gets!

Part 2

P1 There is only existence. Aka absolute universe.
P2 BOP is burden of proof. (the shouldness of Proof)
P3 A SHOULD implies a COULD!
P4 BOP cannot apply to that which is 'not' there to apply too.
P5 Thus BOP could only be on something.
P6 Non existence is not something.
C3 It is irrational to expect a 'should' without the possibility of a COULD.

Its a logical deduction. As good as 1+1=2. That it, thats all! (as we Frenchmen say)
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@Bomb.
There is nothing which is that condencending in my portion of debate. Nor do 'I" claim to be more special then anyone. 'You' may intuitite that but that is not in 'My argument.' The First section is the exact copy, of the actual Parimides text. I said it was his own words. That as simple as it gets, its not an insult. That IS the text. Its a fact. That the 'rock bottom' that is as simple of greek literature as you are going get. That is nothing compared to Kant or any original philosophical text. Its takes practice of interpretation which comes in time. Its not my opinion or and insult. Its a fact! Its not special to me, nor did I say it was. I give quotes from famous philosophers like Kant. They are not evidence for anything. Its not science. And I applaud Wiploc for his wit, and debate skills. He is appealing to your ego's. Saying 'look he thinks hes better'. He is taken advantage of people with faith, because he knows they we be bias to agree with him. By appealing to simplicty he is assuming that you won;t get it. Don't you notice that he increased the size of his letters. I said nothing but fact. You been had! If you can bypass a direct contradition. It must be pretty convincing.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
The_Fool_on_the_hillwiplocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed Pro had trouble properly communicating his actual case. From my own interpretation though and from Con's summary, it would appear his case revolved around the lack of the atheists ability to epistemically warrant their claim. Pro makes some sort of leap from this fact to his conclusion about where the BoP actually lies. Con successfully countered with the opposed notion of BoP as the need to warrant positive claims and since Pro never defined atheism, Con's strong definition passes.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
The_Fool_on_the_hillwiplocTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I had to rely upon Con's interpretation of Pro's argument to understand...Pro's argument. I honestly was not reading that gibberish 100 times. Pro never really made an argument which followed, Con's argument was simply, assert something back it up. Pros argument (according to Con) was assert something you can't back up --> not having to back it up. Obvious Con win.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
The_Fool_on_the_hillwiplocTied
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: Pro insulted the Con and made his arguments hard to understand, so conduct goes to Con. Pro's grammar was prety bad, so I gave that to Con as well. Pro never met his BoP, so Con had to take the arguments vote.
Vote Placed by Paradox_7 4 years ago
Paradox_7
The_Fool_on_the_hillwiplocTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The fool's argument was very hard to follow (had to read it several times to understand what he was saying). Overall, the BOP was not met, and Con provided a much simpler, and reasonable argument. If you believe something, and wish others to consider it, you must provide proof.