The Instigator
Magicr
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points

It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 16 votes the winner is...
Magicr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,017 times Debate No: 24964
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (93)
Votes (16)

 

Magicr

Con

I will be arguing that it is illogical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Judeo-Christian God will be defined as the perfect, omnipotent, omnibenovolent, and omniscient God described in the Old and New Testaments.

The BoP is on Pro to show why it is logical to hold such a belief.

Pro shall post his or her opening arguments in the first round, and will not post any arguments in the last round.

Drops count as concessions.

Good luck!
GenesisCreation

Pro

I will be arguing that it is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

Point 1 / Round 1– In the Judeo-Christian Context, Faith is not a choice

In accordance with the Doctrine of Calvin, as set for by the Synod of Dort and unfolded in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, the ability to believe is assigned by God to the elect in Christ. The doctrines dictate that:

1.> True believers cannot lose salvation and therefor assigned faith is permanent.

2.> Faith is granted by God. The person cannot choose to believe.

Conclusion

For the true believer, it is illogical to disbelieve because it is impossible to disbelieve. Once the “perfect, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God” brings you to faith, disbelief is no longer logical because it has been made
impossible. The heart is awoken to supernatural reasoning established by the highest personality in all existence. I make this point under the governing authority of the scripture, which my opponent concedes defines the nature of
God. I submit for evidence, the 5th doctrine of Calvin – “Perseverance of the Saints.” I supplement the doctrine
with verses of substance in regard to this doctrine.

The new creation in Christ – 2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

The irresistible call to faith – John 10:27 – “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

You must be called to believe –John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

References:

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith - http://www.student-preacher.com...

2 Corinthians 5:17 - http://www.esvbible.org...

John 10:27 - http://www.esvbible.org...

John 6:44 - http://esv.scripturetext.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Magicr

Con

As implied by the resolution, this debate concerns logic and logical reasons to believe in God. My opponent's one and only argument is highly illogical and mostly based in faith. Faith and logic are very different things, faith being a belief in something that is not proven, and logic being a rational way of proving things.

My opponent makes the huge assumption that God exists in the first place, without providing any reason to for this belief other than faith, which is not a logical justification.

So because he has the BoP to prove that it is logical to believe that God exists in the first place, and has not done so, his argument is irrelevant. God cannot cause people to have faith if there is no God.

Beyond his argument being irrelevant, it is illogical. My opponent argues that because something is impossible, it is therefore illogical. This is not a valid argument because something can be impossible and still be logical.

Beyond this, assuming that there is a God and his argument is valid, his arguments premises are not true.

Not all Judeo-Christian religions hold to the idea that humans do not have free will to decide what to believe. Judaism and Catholicism both teach that humans have free will [1].


So basically, it boils down to this:

My opponent assumes there is a God.
His argument is not valid as well as being untrue.
Therefore, he has not upheld his BoP.

My Case

My case is that until there is a logical (not faith based) reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian God exists, it is illogical to hold that belief.

GenesisCreation

Pro

Con Said:" As implied by the resolution, this debate concerns logic and logical reasons to believe in God. My opponent's one and only argument is highly illogical and mostly based in faith."

Rebuttal: My opponent wishes to play semantics through a myopic reduction of word definitions. As per the dictionary reference:

World English Dictionary

logic (ˈlɒdʒɪk) - n

1. formal logic deduction See also induction the branch of philosophy concerned with analysing the patterns of reasoning by which a conclusion is properly drawn from a set of premises, without reference to meaning or context

2. formal system Compare formal language any particular formal system in which are defined axioms and rules of inference

3. the system and principles of reasoning used in a specific field of study

4. a particular method of argument or reasoning

5. force or effectiveness in argument or dispute

6. reasoned thought or argument, as distinguished from irrationality

7. the relationship and interdependence of a series of events, facts, etc

8. chop logic to use excessively subtle or involved logic or argument

9. electronics, computing a.See also logic circuit the principles underlying the units in a computer system that

perform arithmetical and logical operations

b. ( as modifier ): a logic element

We can clearly see that logic cannot be reduced to exclude faith reasoning.

As per definition #1, I argue from a point of philosophy, concerned with the analysis of patterns set forth in scripture. The very same scripture (I remind my opponent) which was conceded in the definition to explain the very character and nature of God. My logic is not only relevant, it is drawn from a mutually conceded source.

As per definition #2, I argue from a point of axioms (subjects that are self-explanatory) and inferences, which are the process of arriving at a strict logical consequence based on assumed (unknowable, i.e.. faith) premises.

As per definition #3, I argue from a point of Theology, which is the reasoning and logic rooted in the study of the subjective deity and his revelation.

As per definition #4, I argue from a point of internal rationale, as my logic does not need to be understood by my opponent to have intrinsic rationale to others.(i.e.. relative understanding).

As per definition #5, I argue from a point of effective understanding of the nature of God. My opponent wishes to debate the logic of God without actually talking about God. That's illogical. A straw man, a polar dichotomy, a bait and switch, nay, it is poor conduct.

My opponent was hoping that my arguments are limited to #6, begging the atheist God of chance that I might be an idiot. Alas, my opponent has joined the ranks of the faithful.

As per definition #7, I argue from the chronology of scripture, which has been relatively successful in it's verification and substantiation. Places, people, events, calendars and methods are seem to conclude the Bible has viable content of fact. To my opponent's dismay, he will not be dealing with fairy tales.

Conclusion: I have not forsaken my burden, I have fulfilled it to the highest demand. Not only have I provided a mechanism for faith, I have provided a cause, a source, a limiting factor and supportive text.

It may not be the logic which satisfies my opponent, but it is logic as it satisfies 6 of 9 definitions. It is profusely sound reasoning and one does not require faith to understand it. Understanding and being in agreement are entirely separate concepts.

To meet my burden, I would only need to meet one definition. Therefore, my argument is extended and remains entirely unchallenged.

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

 

Con Said: "My opponent makes the huge assumption that God exists in the first place, without providing any reason to for this belief other than faith, which is not a logical justification."

Rebuttal: It is not my burden to provide proof of God. It is my burden to provide a logic for faith. My opponent is appealing to unspoken, unwritten rules which neither party agreed to.

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

Con Said: So because he has the BoP to prove that it is logical to believe that God exists in the first place..

Rebuttal: Wishful thinking. Again, my burden is to provide a logic for faith, not a logic for his existence.

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

Con Said: Not all Judeo-Christian religions hold to the idea that humans do not have free will to decide what to believe. Judaism and Catholicism both teach that humans have free will [1].

Rebuttal: Marvelous rebuttal, but my logic does not need to be universally accepted in order to qualify as logic. Otherwise your own logic would be disqualified since it also lacks universal support. Should I list a few organizations that disagree with your stance? Would that effectively cause you to forfeit?

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

Con Said: My case is that until there is a logical (not faith based) reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian God exists, it is illogical to hold that belief.

Rebuttal: Did you wish to perhaps establish this with a process of reason, rather than stating it axiomatically?

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

 

Point 2 / round 2 - Mathematical evidence of intelligence and order "The Golden Ratio".

Definition: "..the value (1 + sqrt(5)) / 2, which is approximately 1.6180339887, the ratio of a diagonal of a pentagon to its side; also called golden ratio, golden section, golden number, divine proportion." [5]

It is highly logical to conclude that the appearance of mathematical harmony in natural structures is a result of design. The incredible commonality of divine proportions can be seen in the biotic and abiotic. From the proportions of the human body to the structure of galaxies, the golden ratio is ever pervasive.

Would scripture support that God designs within the context of this phenomenon? Absolutely!

In Exodus 25:10, God provides the measurements of the Ark of the Covenant.

"You shall make an ark of acacia wood, two and a half cubits longs, one and a half cubits wide and one and a half cubits high"

In Exodus 27:1, God provides the measurements for the altar.

"You shall make an altar of acacia wood, on a square, five cubits longs and five cubits wide; it shall be three cubits high"

In Genesis 6:15, God commands Noah to build an ark.

"This is how you shall build it: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits and its height thirty cubits."

Conclusion: The Golden Ratio can easily provide a logic to the conclusion of faith. In fact, the Golden Ratio provides us with ample substance for faith.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com... [1]

Genesis 6:15 - http://www.biblegateway.com... [2]

Exodus 27:1 - http://www.biblegateway.com... [3]

Exodus 25:10 - http://www.biblegateway.com... [4]

Golden Ratio - http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]

Debate Round No. 2
Magicr

Con

My opponent seems to think he can justify faith as logic by looking at all of the definitions, but he is mistaken. None of the definitions say anything about faith in the slightest.

Definition 1. My opponent is not using formal logic deductions.
2. Inference does not equal faith.
3. Even in Theology, faith is not part of the system and principles of reasoning.
4. Faith is not reason.
5. "My opponent wishes to debate the logic of God without actually talking about God." Not true at all. I never said this debate was intended to not be actually about God. That was the original intention.
6. That is definitely not about faith.
7. "Places, people, events, calendars and methods are seem to conclude the Bible has viable content of fact." My opponent makes this huge assertion without any proof whatsoever. Until such proof becomes clear, we cannot regard the Bible as anything more than fairytales.

Definitions 8 and 9 were also conceded to be not about faith.

My opponent contends that he has met his BoP. He has not. To meet his burden of proof he must explain why it is logical to believe the Bible is accurate on the subject of God.

"It is profusely sound reasoning and one does not require faith to understand it."

One does need faith to understand my opponent's R1 article. One must have faith in the accuracy of the Bible to see the argument as logical. My opponent seems to think his axiom is the truth of the Bible, when it is not. We start from agnosticism.

"Therefore, my argument is extended and remains entirely unchallenged."

Untrue. I did challenge the argument as invalid. This charge was dropped, and thus conceded. Pro's R1 argument falls.

"It is not my burden to provide proof of God. It is my burden to provide a logic for faith."

It is illogical to believe in something if there is no proof for it. Thus part of providing logic for faith is providing proof for God.

"Wishful thinking. Again, my burden is to provide a logic for faith, not a logic for his existence."

Providing logic for faith and logic for existence are close to the same thing.

Pro dropped my charge that his R1 argument was invalid. Drops equal concessions. Therefore, his R1 argument falls.

The Golden Ratio

The existence of certain patterns appearing is not the result of design. All that it means is that those patterns are advantageous, so they develop in that way.

"The incredible commonality of divine proportions can be seen in the biotic and abiotic. From the proportions of the human body to the structure of galaxies, the golden ratio is ever pervasive."

My opponent provides no evidence that the golden ratio does appear. Not everyone agrees with this [1].

The golden ratio was first discovered by the Egyptians and the pyramids were built using aspects of the golden ratio [1]. So there are a couple of possibilities:

We could say that the Egyptian Gods were the real Gods.
or
My opponent has not given us reason to believe that the Bible had divine origins. If humans wrote the Bible, maybe they used common mathematical ratios of the time.

So the argument:

A pattern appears in nature.
It also appears in the Bible.
Therefore the Bible is accurate and God exists.

Just doesn't work. This logic is not sound because he makes the assumptions that:
1. The Bible is divine in some way.
2. The golden ratio could not occur by chance.

Conclusion:

So far my opponent has not justified faith in the Bible's accuracy on God. Pro attempted to show that faith can count as logic, but this was refuted.

He conceded his R1 argument as invalid.

His R2 argument's logic is also not sound.

The resolution is negated.

Source

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





GenesisCreation

Pro

Con said: ” My opponent seems to think he can justify faith as logic by looking at all of the definitions, but he is mistaken. None of the definitions say anything about faith in the slightest.”

Rebuttal: That’s another straw man argument. The definition does not say anything about building
a space shuttle either, are we to assume that engineering sciences are illogical? You cannot limit the application of the definition, simply because you are bothered by it.

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

Con said: “Definition 1. My opponent is not using formal logic deductions.”

Rebuttal: Incorrect. Formal logic is defined as the study of inferences with purely formal content. I can apply formal logic or modal logic to scripture and to God. Consider the Kalam cosmology [3], Formal proof for God [1], Gödel’s Ontological argument [2] and many more. Regardless, I’m not here to discuss the variety of
methods; I’m here to prove that a logic method can lead to faith.

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

Con Said: “Definition 2. Inference does not equal faith.”

Rebuttal: You are misinterpreting the definition. Inference is not equal to faith, but the inference can lead to faith. Faith can be (and often is) the logical conclusion drawn from an inference; or are you saying that logical conclusions cannot be rooted in inferences? See the example [1]:

Something Exists.

Whatever exists is limited or infinite.

Whatever exists is limited.

Whatever is limited requires an explanation for existence.

Whatever exists is explained by itself or another.

A limited thing cannot explain itself.

A limited thing is explained by another.

Another cannot be limited.

Another is infinite.


Is this formal logic leading to an inference
of God? Could this lead to faith? Absolutely, on both counts.

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

Con Said: Definition 3. Even in Theology, faith is not part of the system and principles of reasoning.

Rebuttal: As per the thesaurus, Theology is synonymous with faith. The two cannot be separated
from one another. Faith is intrinsic to theology.

Theology -
[thee-ol-uh-jee]: noun

  • Definition: religious theory or belief
  • Synonyms: belief, credo, creed, doctrine,
    dogma, faith, theism

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

Con Said: Definition 4. Faith is not reason.

Rebuttal: Wow. Just like that? No source argument? That’s a mighty protest my opponent has
provided. I’m going to ignore this little oversight and simply claim:” Argument Extended.” Or even better yet, allow me to answer in kind:” Yes it is.”

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

Con Said: Definition 5. "My opponent wishes to debate the logic of God without actually talking about God." Not true at all. I never said this debate was intended to not be actually about God. That was the original intention.

Rebuttal: Good. Establish your rebuttal with source and mechanism. I’m still waiting a refutation of the 5th point of Calvinism.

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

Con Said: Definition 6. That is definitely not about faith.

Rebuttal: I did not use #6. I argued 2/3rds of the definitions. 6,8 and 9 where never established.

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

Con said: Definition 7. "Places, people, events, calendars and methods are seem to conclude the Bible has viable content of fact." My opponent makes this huge assertion without any proof whatsoever. Until such proof becomes clear, we cannot regard the Bible as anything more than fairytales."

Rebuttal: Allow me to provide a list of Biblical characters that have been verified:

  • Ahab, king of Israel
  • Ahaz (Jehoahaz), king of Judah,
  • Artaxerxes, king of Persia
  • Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria
  • Azaliah, scribe
  • Azariah, grandfather of Ezra
  • Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah
  • Balaam, Moabite prophet
  • Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon
  • Benhadad, king of Aram
  • Cyrus II, king of Persia
  • Darius I, king of Persia
  • David, king of Israel
  • Esarhaddon, king of Assyria
  • Evil-merodach, king of Babylon
  • Gedaliah, governor of Judah
  • Gemariah, scribe
  • Geshem, Nabatean dignitary
  • Hazael, king of Aram
  • Hezekiah, king of Judah
  • Hilkiah, high priest
  • Hophra (Apries), pharaoh of Egypt
  • Hoshea, king of Israel
  • Jehoiachin, king of Judah
  • Jehu, king of Israel
  • Jehucal (Jucal), court official
  • Jerahmeel, prince of Judah……..(etc). [4]

As per archaeologist William F. Albright: “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

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

Con Said: My opponent contends that he has met his BoP. He has not. To meet his burden of proof he must explain why it is logical to believe the Bible is accurate on the subject of God.

Rebuttal: My Burden is to provide logic for faith in God. As stated:” It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.” My opponent keeps redefining the burden.

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

Con Said: One does need faith to understand my opponent's R1 article.

Rebuttal: No. One needs to read the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith. I don’t need to be an
atheist to understand secular reasoning. What kind of objection is this?

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

Con said: It is illogical to believe in something if there is no proof for it. Thus part of providing logic for faith is providing proof for God.

Rebuttal: Formal logic relies on inferences, not facts. As stated in the previous round, my opponent is myopically reducing the definition of logic.

in·fer·ence - noun

1. the act or process of inferring.

2. something that is inferred: to make rash inferences.

3. Logic
  • a. the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.
  • b. the process of arriving at some conclusion that, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.
  • c. a proposition reached by a process of inference.

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

Con Said: Providing logic for faith and logic for existence are close to the same thing.

Rebuttal: Right. Except one is my burden and the other is not.

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

Con Said: My opponent provides no evidence that the golden ratio does appear. Not everyone
agrees with this.

Rebuttal: As requested, the evidence.

Golden Ratio in Nature - http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Golden Ratio in the Human Body - http://milan.milanovic.org...

The Fibonacci sequence - http://people.hws.edu...

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

Round 3 / Point 3 – Personal Experience –Ontological Argument derived from Alvin Plantinga [6]

I submit to the voter, my 3rd point of evidence. The logical argument for a religious experience:

Premise #1 - If God is real, it is very probable that humans are granted a “cognitive faculty” that
supplements the others, commonly referred to as the “sensus divinitatis.“

Premise #2 - If mankind is equipped with a sensus divinitatis, then faith in God is supernatural and
foundational.

Therefore –“ If Christianity is true, (very probably) Christian belief can be justified,
without independent evidence.”

Over to you Con.

http://xianphil.org... [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_ontological_proof [2]

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... [3]

The Archaeology of Palestine, 1960 [4]

Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, 1969, p. 169 [5]

http://www.leaderu.com... [6]

Debate Round No. 3
Magicr

Con

In this round my opponent continues to engage in the semantics of the word logical, distracting from the actual arguments themselves. In the first two rounds, I challenged Pro's logic as unsound and my charges were dropped, thus conceded. I intend to do the same with the argument he has provided in this round.

Definitions of Logic

My opponent begins by saying that he can apply formal or modal logic to scripture or God to lead to faith. He apparently has misunderstood my argument. I am not saying that logic can never lead to faith (although I don't think it can), I'm saying that faith cannot be used as a starting point for logic. This stemmed from my opponent's R1 argument where he basically stated that God gives people faith, therefore it makes sense to have faith in the Bible. This circular reasoning begins with a faith that the Bible is, in fact, true. So while, I agree with my opponent that we cannot a priori rule out faith as the result of logic, we can rule out a priori faith as a solid part of logic. As I stated previously, this debate from a point of agnosticism, not faith, and it is up to my opponent to prove why faith is logical, without using faith as part of his logic to get there. Otherwise it becomes circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.

Pro continues to make statements saying that logic can lead to faith and how I've misunderstood the definitions. Again, I am not saying that faith as a result of logic should be ruled out a priori, I'm just saying that faith as the logic itself, i.e. the Bible is true because I have faith the Bible is true, can be ruled out a priori because it leads to circular reasoning. So to answer my opponent's question: I am saying that logical conclusions cannot be rooted in faith.

Next, my opponent presents some formal logic leading to an inference in God. While this could lead to faith for some, the logic itself is unsound because not all of the premises have to be true. Several of the premises should be rejected: "A limited thing cannot explain itself," "A limited thing cannot explain itself," and the rest until the end of the proof.

Con continues by saying answering my claim that "Faith is not reason," by simply saying "Yes it is." So until my opponent proves that faith is the same as reason and logic, my claim stands.

My opponent says "Good. Establish your rebuttal with source and mechanism. I’m still waiting a refutation of the 5thpoint of Calvinism." A rebuttal to his fifth point of Calvinism is unnecessary because his logic connected to that point was invalid. My claim of invalidity was dropped, and therefore conceded. I do not need to refute the 5th point of Calvinism, as I have already dismantled that argument.

Next, Pro presents a list of Biblical characters that have been verified. While I will not challenge the existence of these characters, I will challenge him to prove the existence of some very important characters:

1. God
2. Adam
3. Eve
4. Noah
5. Abraham
6. Joseph
7. Moses

So in order to conclude that the Bible is a content of fact, the unverifiable must be verified. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Bible is of factual content.

My opponent makes the claim that making an inference is the same as assumed premises in logical reasoning. The problem is, however, that if it can be shown that the premises are not correct and are merely rash inferences, then the logic can be deemed unsound and the conclusion can be rejected. So the assumed premises must be more than mere inferences, otherwise I could make the following argument based on my assumptions and inferences:

P1:When I place a tooth under my pillow at night, there is a coin there instead in the morning.
P2:Teeth don't magically disappear under pillows without a cause.
C:Therefore, there must be a tooth fairy that is making the change.

This is the kind of faulty logic that arises if we let inferences such as there must be a toothfairy come into logic.

Golden Ratio

While I appreciate my opponent's additional evidence for the golden ratio's existence in nature, he has not challenged my argument that his inferences regarding the golden ratio are too broad. Drops count as concessions, therefore, his second round argument falls as unsound.

Plantinga's Ontological Argument

Here we have more unsound logic. This entire piece of logic revolves around one word: If. "If God is real, then...," "If mankind is equipped..., then....," "If Christianity is true,...." In order for us to accept his logic, then those three things must be true: God being real, mankind being equipped with a sensus divinitatis, and Christianity being true.

Of course the logic could be turned around:

P1: If God is not real, it is very probable that humans are not granted a "cognitive faculty" that supplements the others, commonly referred to as the "sensus divintatis."

P2: If mankind is not equipped with a sensus divintatis, the faith in God is not supernatural and foundational.

C: Therefore, If Christianity is not true, Christian belief cannot be justified without independent evidence.

My opponent's argument proves nothing, unless we accept that God exists and Christianity is true. So in order for this logic to be accepted, my opponent must prove that God and Christianity are true. Until then, the argument is just as easily turned around to support the atheist cause.

Conclusion:

All of my opponent's logic that try to justify faith have been shown to be unsound. The first two arguments have been conceded as unsound.

Therefore, the resolution is rejected.

Your turn, Pro.
GenesisCreation

Pro

"I agree with my opponent that we cannot a priori rule out faith as the result of logic" - Opponent's first concession to the resolution.
"Again, I am not saying that faith as a result of logic should be ruled out a priori," - Opponent's second concession to the resolution.

"Next, my opponent presents some formal logic leading to an inference in God. While this could lead to faith for some," - Opponent's third concession to the resolution.

I have added the above quotes to show my opponent what a concession looks like. He has continuously made the assertion that I dropped arguments. Dear opponent, you spent the entire debate arguing something entirely different than the topic resolution. I do not have the burden to challenge invalid objections. In fact, I have no burden at all anymore, since you've openly conceded that logic can lead to faith. Your entire burden was to negate this premise. You've committed suicide.


That being said, I much appreciate the effort and fervor of my opponent. It was an interesting exchange, despite the overused theme. I hope we attract a modest audience, although I quite predict a lack of interest. Whomever you are, dear voter, you have my gratitude for reading my dribble.

Conclusive Review:


The Burden - "The BoP is on Pro to show why it is logical to hold such a belief" "in the Judeo-Christian God."

**Note** The burden does not demand a proof for God, a mechanisms for God, a logic for God or an understanding of God. The burden demands a logic for a belief. This point cannot be discussed, dropped or debated. My opponent is locked into the resolution, despite his best protest.


My Arguments -


Round 1 - In the Judeo-Christian context, faith is not a choice. This point provided a logic for faith based on formal reasoning. The premise is outlined in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. From this point, we can conclude that faith in God is logical because faith is granted by a supernatural mechanism.

My opponent has failed to challenge the logic. Instead, he chose an appeal to authority, claiming that "not everyone believes this". A pointless objection.

Round 2 - Mathematical constants suggest intelligent order. The Golden ratio, also called the divine proportion, is a number that repeats throughout creation. It governs the structures of living organisms and lifeless currents of wind. It is a logical conclusion to an observed pattern, that an intelligent order or structured creation mechanism is behind the pattern. Pay special attention to this premise. It is a sufficient logic to arrive at faith.

My opponent challenged this premise with disbelief. He demanded evidence. I provided the evidence in round 3. The opponent continues to avoid the subject by negotiating a "concession" or dropped argument. I did not drop the argument as the objection demands proof for God, not logic for faith. My opponent attempts misdirection. My argument stands unchallenged. Consider, I only need to provide a reason for faith, I do not need to discount other possibilities. That would be superfluous to my burden.

Also Round 2 - I provided six definitions of logic. While my opponent protests the application of the term, his problem is with the dictionary, not with me. If he wanted to restrict me that much, he should have put forth a better effort in his round one solution to define the debate terms. He would accuse me of semantics, yet it took almost no effort on my part to show the voter that my opponent is guilty of attempting to censor the definitions set forth by the American dictionary.

In addition, my opponent's persistent attempt to change the burden from the round one definition has cost me valuable space and fair access to the topic. I accepted the debate to exchange on the basis of the terms set forth in the resolution. It is not my burden to provide proof of God. My opponent wastes valuable character space with his flagrant lies.

 

Round 3 - Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument is not only acceptable, his credentials far exceed my opponent's expectation. The Philosophy News journal lauded Doctor Plantigna as one of the foremost living philosophers. He was admitted as being successful in making "theism safe for philosophy". In fact, his work is so highly respected, a super-atheist evolutionary journal supplied his arguments on "falsifying ID", stating that "Philosopher Alvin Plantinga Demolishes Part of Kitzmiller Decision." Quite the humble admission for such a biased resource. My opponent can rage against his formal reasoning with all his energy. In the end, Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument is not only sufficient to conclude to faith, it is groundbreaking and formidable.

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

Final Rebuttal:

 

Con said: I'm saying that faith cannot be used as a starting point for logic.


Rebuttal: Not part of the resolution. We resolved that logic can lead to faith, not that faith can lead to logic. Invalid.

===========

Con said: As I stated previously, this debate from a point of agnosticism, not faith, and it is up to My opponent to prove why faith is logical, without using faith as part of his logic to get there.


Rebuttal
: Show me where it states this in the resolution, or did you by chance add this later?

===========

Con said: "A limited thing cannot explain itself," should be thrown out.


Rebuttal:
Do you have proof for the origin of the universe?

==========

Con said:

P1:When I place a tooth under my pillow at night, there is a coin there instead in the morning.


P2:Teeth don't magically disappear under pillows without a cause.

C:Therefore, there must be a tooth fairy that is making the change.


Rebuttal: Disingenuous. Let's do this properly.

P1: When I place a tooth under my pillow at night, there is a coin there instead in the morning.

P2: Teeth don't magically disappear under pillows without a cause.

C: Therefore, a cause outside of myself is making the change.

Debate Round No. 4
Magicr

Con

To begin, my opponent presents three quotes of mine, saying that these quotes are concessions to the resolution. Far from it. I wrote that we cannot a priori rule out faith as the result of logic. My argument is that we can a posteriori rule out faith as a result of logic.

I fear there has been some confusion regarding the above bold terms. A priori (meaning from the earlier) is knowledge that does not need experience. A posteriori (meaning from the latter) knowledge is knowledge that is gained after experience [1]. My argument is that after experiencing the arguments for believing in God, we can conclude that it is illogical to believe in God because the arguments are unsound. This is ruling out the arguments after experiencing them, therefore is a posteriori.

Additionally, my opponent takes the third quote out of context. The full quote is "Next, my opponent presents some formal logic leading to an inference in God. While this could lead to faith for some, the logic itself is unsound because not all of the premises have to be true."

The reason I said this could lead to faith for some, is that not all people take the time to logically analyze something. But under closer scrutiny, the argument falls apart because the premises are not true.

Pro writes:

"Dear opponent, you spent the entire debate arguing something entirely different than the topic resolution. I do not have the burden to challenge invalid objections. In fact, I have no burden at all anymore, since you've openly conceded that logic can lead to faith. Your entire burden was to negate this premise. You've committed suicide."

Not so, my friend, not so. The topic of the resolution is whether it is logical to believe in God. It is entirely possible that an argument for the logicality of God could exist so we cannot rule it out a priori. My contention is that such an argument does not exist. This is completely in line with the resolution: I am arguing that no such argument exists, therefore it is illogical to believe in God. In no way have I surrendered.

BoP

My opponent is correct: His burden of proof is to demonstrate arguments that will logically lead to a belief in God. To do this he must present sound arguments, because it is not logical (by definition) to follow an argument that is not sound.

Pro's Arguments

Round 1-
Pro claims my only objection to his R1 argument was that not everyone believes this. This was not my main objection at all. My response to his argument was that it was not a valid argument. I wrote "My opponent argues that because something is impossible, it is therefore illogical. This is not a valid argument because something can be impossible and still be logical."

My charge of invalidity was dropped, and therefore, conceded. Pro's round one argument falls.

Round 2- Yet another case where my opponent has dropped my main objection to his argument, only in this case he attempts to revisit my objection after having dropped it in the previous round. I challenged Pro's logic as unsound because it is invalid: The conclusion does not come directly from the premises. His argument was that because something appears in nature and appears in the Bible, the Judeo-Christian God exists. This huge jump from the premises to the conclusion renders the argument invalid, and therefore, unsound. I argued this, and my argument was dropped.

While my opponent did answer part of my challenge in this argument, he did not answer my challenge that the argument was unsound. Pro now claims I am trying to misdirect from his argument. This is not true, he really did drop my challenge of unsoundness.

Voters: Go back and look through Pro's R3. Nowhere does he address my challenge of his Golden Ratio argument being unsound.

Round 2 continued- I don't need to respond to this. It boils down to this: Faith be the basis for logic. Go back and look through my analysis of the definitions. I am not "attempting to censor the definitions set forth by the American dictionary." It is my opponent, rather, who is misusing the definitions.

Round 3- Again, I found myself challenging the soundness of Pro's logic. And again, my challenge is dropped. Instead of responding to my reasoning on why his arguments were incorrect, my opponent focuses on the credentials of the person who came up with the logic.

I have no doubts that Dr. Plantigna is a wonderful philosopher. But his argument does not do what my opponent says it does. I explained very clearly why this was the case, and my opponent dropped those arguments.

Voters, take note. Rather than defend the argument he presented against my arguments, Pro simply goes over the qualifications of the person who invented it. My challenges were not refuted. And this feels like deja vu, but:

Drops count as concessions. My opponent dropped my challenge of unsoundness, therefore, the argument is conceded.

Final Rebuttal

"Not part of the resolution. We resolved that logic can lead to faith, not that faith can lead to logic. Invalid."

Exactly my point. Faith does not lead to logic.

"Show me where it states this in the resolution, or did you by chance add this later?"

In saying that it is logical to hold a belief, faith should not be used as a logical justification for faith, because that commits circular reasoning.

"Do you have proof for the origin of the universe?"

No, but I don't need to have proof for the origin of the universe. Pro is committing the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance [2]. He is saying because you don't have an answer, then my answer must be correct.

My opponent's criticism of my tooth fairy example proves my point exactly. He points out that I am jumping from something, to the tooth fairy. That was what I was trying to say.

That's the end of my opponent's rebuttals.

Conclusion
My opponent has provided three arguments for logicality in faith in the Judeo-Christian God. I have refuted all of these arguments as unsound and these refutations were never properly challenged.

I thank my opponent for this debate.

Voters: Please look through the debate and notice that when I say Pro dropped my argument, he really did drop my argument.

Vote Con!!

(Remember, Pro does not post any arguments next round.)

Sources:

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]- http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
GenesisCreation

Pro

As per the rules, no arguments are posted for the final round.
Debate Round No. 5
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
@Heirenberg

Semantics indeed :)
"It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God" I think that by demonstrating that it is possible fulfils the 'is' in the requirements. To me the only way for Con to win was to demonstrate that it is not.

"But Con did do this. Did you read all of the debate, or am I just misunderstanding you? Con pointed out that the Golden Ratio was used by the Egyptians, so Pro's assumption that the Golden Ratio was evidence for the Christian God's existence is incorrect. Then Pro did not respond to Con's assertion, making it a concede in favor of Con."
Con demonstrating an alternative does not negate Pros argument. Pro needed no rebuttal as Con did not effectively rule out Pros argument. Con would need to show that the Golden rule is not applicable with the Judeo-Christian God, not simply that the Egyptians used it as well.

I agree with your statement about Gods A, B, and C. Yet, no other mentioned deity or quazi-deity was offered even remote support. Pro offored arguments in the manner of ontology, archeology, etc.

Pro, R4:
"My opponent attempts misdirection. My argument stands unchallenged. Consider, I only need to provide a reason for faith, I do not need to discount other possibilities. That would be superfluous to my burden."
Con, R5:
"My opponent is correct: His burden of proof is to demonstrate arguments that will logically lead to a belief in God. To do this he must present sound arguments, because it is not logical (by definition) to follow an argument that is not sound."

From these quotes I see the 'Judeo-Christian God' clause was not meant to have the debate distinguish God from other Gods but to simply provide a 'segway' and example for the definition of God provided in R1 with the debate focused on whether it is logical to believe in said defined God.
Posted by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
"I don't see where its noted that Pro needed to demonstrate that it is logical that one 'would' believe in the Judeo-Christian God via logical reasoning as opposed to Pro demonstrating that it 'could'."

Forgive me, because I'm not good with semantics. But the debate topic is an 'is' statement. As in, it is currently there. There is a logical reason to believe in the Christian God. 'Could' is a statement that refers to possibility. 'Is' refers to definite. Pro would have to show there is a logical reason to believe in the Christian God, not that there could be but we're not sure yet. To show there is one, he would have to provide a logical reason, not say that there is a possibility for there to be a logical reason.

"Once pro submitted his evidence Con had every opportunity to offer evidence that could point the direction of the debate to that of other Gods but it never did."

But Con did do this. Did you read all of the debate, or am I just misunderstanding you? Con pointed out that the Golden Ratio was used by the Egyptians, so Pro's assumption that the Golden Ratio was evidence for the Christian God's existence is incorrect. Then Pro did not respond to Con's assertion, making it a concede in favor of Con.

""The cause may very well be a God, but it isn't logical to believe in the Christian God over any of the others when the others are just as likely." Why not?"

When a set of gods all have an equal possibility to exist, and one makes a clear, conscious decision to believe in one particular God from this set, then one is making an illogical decision. If God A, God B, and God C all have an equal chance to exist, and if one believes God A certainly exists while God B and God C do not, then that person is being illogical, not following the logic already set up where God A, God B, and God C all have an equal chance of existing. To logically justify believing in God A over God B and God C, one would have to show God A has a higher chance of existing.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
@heisenberg

I was aware of that tid bit.

I don't see where its noted that Pro needed to demonstrate that it is logical that one 'would' believe in the Judeo-Christian God via logical reasoning as opposed to Pro demonstrating that it 'could'. I don't see where it was determined in the debate that Pro needed to do this. The closest thing to would be in round one Con: "Judeo-Christian God will be defined as the perfect, omnipotent, omnibenovolent, and omniscient God described in the Old and New Testaments."

To further this:
R2 Con: "As implied by the resolution, this debate concerns logic and logical reasons to believe in God" there is no indication from this quote that the focus is on the Christian God as compared to other Gods but simply is belief in God (assuming the Judeo-Christian God) logical. The entire debate 'feels' centered around the assumption that it is on the Judeo-Christian God with no inclination of comparison to other Gods that is the topic of the debate. Once pro submitted his evidence Con had every opportunity to offer evidence that could point the direction of the debate to that of other Gods but it never did. Pro obviously is assuming the Judeo-Christian God as, 1) accepts the rules in round one, and 2) he quotes from the Bible. If the purpose of the debate was over whether one deity is more logical then another coupled with it being logical at all to believe in the Judeo-christian God then I suppose it would have been hinted at at least once in the debate. The closest thing to mentioning another 'god' would be the tooth fairy in the debate.

"The cause may very well be a God, but it isn't logical to believe in the Christian God over any of the others when the others are just as likely." Why not?
Posted by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
@joneszj

Forgive me if what I'm about to say you've already responded to, but the key I think you keep on overlooking is that what we're talking about is the Christian God.

"In order for Pro to have lost I think it needs to be shown that logic cannot in any way possibly lead to God."

No, that's incorrect. Pro needs to show how logic leads to the Christian God, not to just a God. It isn't enough to show that it is logical for a God to exist, or even to believe in a God. He had to show that the Christian God most likely exists out of all of the available options. I personally don't think he did this, but in any case, what you said above is incorrect.

The cause may very well be a God, but it isn't logical to believe in the Christian God over any of the others when the others are just as likely. Pro tried to make the Bible out to be a historical document and he brought up the Golden Ratio, but the historical document thing simply doesn't work (just because it has some historical documentation, doesn't mean all of it is historical or should be accepted as so), and Pro did not respond to Con's objection to the Golden Ratio argument, and since it was dropped, that acts as a concession.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
If it quantum fluctuations as 'a cause' is illogical then I think we would have to conclude tha the law of non-contradiction is also illogical. Effectually we would be saying that because we cannot definitively conclude any option then all options are illogical. I suppose then all is illogical, which is illogical (I think). Such equations would make Datas positronic core explode >< :p
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
@Magicr: I may have misread the debate but from what I gathered Pro argued that the order implied a cause hence in one of his rebuttals:

Pro, at the end of Round 4:
P1: When I place a tooth under my pillow at night, there is a coin there instead in the morning.
P2: Teeth don't magically disappear under pillows without a cause.
C: Therefore, a cause outside of myself is making the change.

Con took Pros rebuttal and attempts to use it against him by demonstrating that 'a cause' and 'God' is a jump. I believe Con is correct and I think Pro was conceding it, but I do not think it effectually discredits Pro's logic. It is no less logical then a multiverse theory, or quantum fluctuations, etc. If we are willing to conclude those 'leaps' as illogical then I could see how God would be an illogical conclusion. However, I do not think any of those are illogical conclusions because they 'fit' with current data, and I know of no one who would claim they are illogical. Pro did not need to demonstrate that logical reasoning 'would' lead to God but only that it 'could'. Once established that it could I think it was Cons turn to establish how it 'could not in any way' logically lead to God. In order for Pro to have lost I think it needs to be shown that logic cannot in any way possibly lead to God.

If one asserts quantum fluctuations as 'the cause' are they begging the question? Is it an illogical argument? Serious question as I am unsure.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Joneszj: The reason the golden ratio does not lead to God is the same as the tooth fairy example:

P1: My teeth turn into coins.
P2: Teeth don't turn into coins by themselves.
C: There must be something that is causing this to happen.

is similar to:

P1: There are patterns in nature.
P2: Patterns generally don't appear all by themselves.
C: The is probably a reason for those patterns.

But what Pro has done is made his conclusion: C: It was probably the Judeo-Christian God. It is the tooth fairy vs. some cause, God vs. some cause. And a cause does not necessitate a deity.

So we are not saying the same thing. He is saying that the order implies his God, whereas I am saying that the order implies some cause. I am not advocating for any specific cause in this debate, I am just saying it is not logical make the jump between some cause and God.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
Perhaps GC is guilty of begging the question? But with current proposed evidence the question could not be begged further.
Posted by joneszj 4 years ago
joneszj
@Magicr: Perhaps I am looking too deeply into it?

GC listed a few mediums that could lead one to believe in God possibly. Lets take design and the golden rule for example. It is possible that order in design is the result of an intelligent mind and it is possible that the design order is simply illusionary and the result of accidents. Although neither definitely can claim a position proved it does demonstrate that one could possibly believe in God because of a logical deduction of the observation. At this point Pro substantiated that one could via logic have faith in God. It is here where Con would have needed to demonstrate how the golden rule design theory could not in any way lead one via logic to believe in God. Con provided alternative theories on Pros golden rule but that does not negate Pros logic. I suppose, unless Pro's logic is disproved he can logically hold his position. An alternative does not disprove but should open the discussion to probabilities. Am I missing something or perhaps improperly judging?

Pro argued that design in the universe could be a result of an intelligent mind. Con argued that the apparent design does not necessitate an intelligent mind. BOTH of you are logically saying the same thing. You are making a claim, a leap, based off of current evidence. Neither of you are proven correct but are both possibly correct. But it suffices to show that one can via logic potentially because of logic believe in God.

Leaps in logic are necessary. Can we prove the law of identity without making a 'leap' of assumption? I think not, yet it is still logical. So it is necessary with many things to make 'leaps' when limited evidence is available.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Joneszj- I don't think he ever proved that it is logically possible to believe in God.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a terribly annoying debate to judge. Aside from discombobulated premises which poorly structured, the BOP is properly cast on PRO, given that he is in fact the one affirming the resolution. PRO cited various examples that, although perhaps interesting to consider, were largely tangential to the resolution. Because PRO's arguments were insufficient to address his BOP, CON wins. I strongly discourage both sides from quibbling over semantics in the future. It is tempting, but futile.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro undertook to show why it is logical to believe in god. He had the burden of proof, but he never even tried to make that showing. Instead, he claimed, without trying to justify the claim, that there are may be secret magical reasons for believing in god. Persuasion to Con. Conduct to Con too, because Pro accepted the debate with no intention of arguing on topic.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate. I think PRO did a good job showing much of the old testament is proven by archaeology. PRO also showed to those who believe in him are controlled by the supernatural. Pros rebuttal to cons not everyone believes in this stood. He showed those who really enter faith really cannot leave it. Also con kept changing the BOP. Conduct con for this: "Should I list a few organizations that disagree with your stance? Would that effectively cause you to forfeit?".
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 4 years ago
TheHitchslap
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con. The question was if it was logical or not to believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Pro's argument was generally 'it is logical due to faith' but as Con showed with ease, it is illogical to believe in it as Pro has to provide logic for faith, then biblical works, then objectively show God's plausible existence which Pro ran on an assumption. Also conduct to con due to the atrocious semantics committed by Pro which seemed to be used to side track the debate. Close debate guys!
Vote Placed by Axiom 4 years ago
Axiom
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments. (Also counter davidtaylor's ridiculous votebomb. Stop giving theists a bad name by voting with so much bias on all these debates. Descartes would be ashamed.)
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguements were definitely in favor of Pro. Much more detail and basically shredded the rebuttals and arguments of Con. Favorite was showing he doesn't have to prove God exists.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 4 years ago
KeytarHero
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro for obvious reasons. Pro obviously took this in a direction Con didn't want to go with it, but the terms established in round one did not preclude Pro's line of argumentation. Pro established a logical reason for faith which leads to belief in God. Even though I disagree with Calvinistic doctrine, this was a perfectly reasonable course to take.
Vote Placed by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: As stated in round one, agnosticism was the neutral position. We know this because the BOP rests with Pro, as stated in round one. Pro did not provide sufficient explanations that the Judeo-Christian God exists, and thus, it would be illogical to believe in it based on faith. Con had shown this through his refutation of a majority of Pro's arguments, leaving Pro with not a sufficient amount of reasoning to back up faith on an unfounded deity. Everything else is tied.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter the orator, it was not a votebomb. Neonix provided a valid RFD.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
MagicrGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Neonix VB. It's based on bias and logic like "He doesn't need to prove logic, just provide it".