The Instigator
NoMagic
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

It is more rational to believe the Easter Bunny exists than the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 714 times Debate No: 63911
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

NoMagic

Pro

The intent is to argue only about the beings themselves. The theology or assorted beliefs that go along with the beings is unimportant. The debate is intended to focus on the beings themselves and argue which being is it more reasonable to believe in.
1Credo

Con

1. Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

2. Burden of Proof

In this debate, the responsibility of shouldering the burden of proof will be on my opponent for the claim made in the resolution. My opponent must show that it is more rational to believe that the Easter bunny exists than the Abrahamic God. I invite my opponent to bring forward arguments and evidence.

3. Arguments

I will wait until my opponent brings forward arguments and evidence in favor of the Pro position before making a rebuttal and presenting arguments against my opponent's position.

4. Summary

In order to shoulder the burden of proof and win this debate, my opponent must show that the resolution (it is more rational to believe that the Easter bunny exists than the Abrahamic God) is true. Until my opponent is able to do this, he/she has not shouldered the burden of proof and as such has not won the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
NoMagic

Pro

First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the challenge of this debate. I will also be referring to the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims as Yahweh. There are thousands of claimed god throughout human culture. In order not to presuppose there existence away, I won't assume Yahweh to be the only one, I will use the name instead.

I would like to begin by acknowledging some cultural biases regarding this subject. The culture we reside in is clearly a theistic culture. Within a theistic culture, we hear a voice which states that the belief in a god is a rational position to have. We cannot avoid having this voice influence our thinking and how we view the subject in question. Our culture already is influencing the way in which we consider the question. I would like to ask those involved to try and put aside your cultural biases and just consider the argument I present. It will be tough, but give it a try.

I intend to argue that it would be more rational to accept the existence of the Easter Bunny over the existence of Yahweh based on what it is claimed that both beings are. I will be comparing the traits of both beings, in hopes of illustrating that the Easter Bunny is more likely to exist and therefore more rational to believe in.

Before I compare claimed traits, I would like to make a distinction between two types of traits. One I will label PT. PT represents known Possible Traits. These are traits that we know exist. Example, a person behind a door. Someone claims the person behind the door has naturally blonde hair. We know naturally blonde hair is a trait available to humans. The other trait category is what I will call QPT, Questionable Possible Trait. In this example, we change the claim of the women's hair color to naturally green hair. Since naturally green hair isn't know to exist as an option for humans, this trait is in question. In our comparison of the hair color, the claim of the women with green hair is weaker than the claim of the women with blonde hair since we cannot be sure that green hair is an option. If we can confirm green hair as an option, then the green hair prior position of a QPT graduates to a PT. PT are stronger than QPT since we can be certain that they are an option. QPTs are weaker traits because they haven't been determined to be available. I will argue that the Easter Bunny has fewer QPTs than Yahweh, therefore belief in the Easter Bunny is more rational. I will also argue, that with additional traits, any being or object becomes less likely.

Easter Bunn Traits, after each trait, I will place the trait into the correct category, PT or QPT. What is the Easter Bunny, what traits does the Easter Bunny have?
1. Animal, this seems fairly easy, yes PT
2. Smart, animals can be smart, we are a smart animal, yes PT
3. Hides food for children, this is a behavior, behaviors are personality traits, animals do hide food, but animals don't hide food for human children, that we are aware of, no QPT
4. Abnormally large for a rabbit. We don't have any confirmed rabbits of Easter Bunny size, no QPT
Hopefully I'm not missing any other significant Easter Bunny claimed traits. If we stop here on the Easter Bunny, we can say that half of the Easter Bunny's traits are traits that we know can exist.

Yahweh has gotten a fair amount of press over the years, so we have a few more claimed traits regarding Yahweh. I decided to go with the seven most common claimed traits. You can find a more extensive list on godonthe.net. Here are Yahweh's claimed traits.
1. Spirit, defined as a incorporeal living being, incorporeal defined as consisting of no physical material, do we know if it is possible for a living thing to exist despite being made of no material parts, no QPT
2. Eternal, do we know this is available to living things, no, QPT
3. Omniscience, do we know that a living thing with no material brain can even think, let alone know all things, no QPT
4. Omnipotent, do we know that a being made of no parts can be all powerful, no QPT
5. Omnipresence, do we know if it is possible for a single being to be everywhere at one time, no QPT
6. Independent from all things, do we know if it is possible for a living thing not to rely on energy input to live, this is also a violation of the conservation of energy, is that a know PT, no QPT
As with the Easter Bunny, I'm trying to focus on the primary traits of the beings in question. In the case of Yahweh, we have 6 primary traits. Unlike the Easter Bunny, there are no traits for Yahweh that are traits that we know can exist.

Multiplying traits. With each additional qualifier we add to any item, living or otherwise, the item becomes less probable. Lets see how this works. For simplicity sake, lets imagine someone behind a door with unknown traits. We are going to assign traits to them, in this example we will have only two options for each category, each option will be equally probable.
Person A is behind a door, sex-male, hair color-brown, eye color brown. Keep in mind these are all PTs. Now we wish to determine the likely hood that we are correct. male(.5)xhairbrown(.5)xeyebrown(.5)=.125 The likely hood that we have correctly determined the traits of person A is 12.5%. This is based on only a few traits, that are also known PT. Lets add a few more traits to person A, heights 6 foot, skin color black. For simplicities sake, we will continue to assume only two equally valid options for each category. What happens now? M(.5)xHB(.5)xEB(.5)xH(.5)xSB(.5)=.0312. With two PT add to person A, we see the likely hood of them having all traits drops to 3.12% as traits are compounded the probability of the item declines.
If we compare the claimed traits of the Easter Bunny with the claimed traits of Yahweh, we see that the Easter Bunny has fewer claimed traits, and if all other things are equal, this would make the Easter Bunny more probable. In fairness on this point, anyone could add more traits to either group and change the claim. I tried to stick with what is considered the primary traits and how additional traits reduce the probability of the claimed thing possessing all of them.

In conclusion, it is more rational to believe in the existence of the Easter Bunny then the existence of Yahweh for the following reasons.
1. Half of the Easter Bunny's primary traits are traits that we know can exist in our reality.
2. All of the traits claimed to exist in the being Yahweh are traits that we cannot confirm to be available traits in our reality, they may very well be impossible traits.
3. Yahweh has more claimed traits then the Easter Bunny, the more claimed traits the less likely it is that that being exists.

It is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny then the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims, Yahweh, because the Easter Bunny has few traits and some of the traits claimed to exist in the Easter Bunny are traits we know can exist. This places the probability of the existence of the Easter Bunny in a stronger position then Yahweh. Therefore it is more rational to believe the Eater Bunny exist than Yahweh.

I thank my opponent for taking the time to read my argument and look forward to their response. I would like to remind the responder that this is a comparison between the Easter Bunny and Yahweh. The responder doesn't need to argue that it is rational to believe in Yahweh, that may be true. The responder needs to argue that it isn't more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny than Yahweh. I believe I've presented an argument that confirms it is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny. Thank you.
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro. I will begin by addressing my opponent's points before moving on to present arguments of my own.

1. Rebuttal


I would like to ask those involved to try and put aside your cultural biases"

"I would like to make a distinction between two types of traits..."

I'll accept this distinction for now, although it seems to me that the distinction between "possible traits" and "questionable possible traits" can only be made with regard to human beings (perhaps animals as well) because we are in no position to distinguish between these traits with regard to beings like Yahweh or the Easter bunny. In the case of these beings, we can't be so sure of what a "natural" trait is in the same way that we can identify blonde hair to be a natural trait in human beings.

"PT are stronger than QPT since we can be certain that they are an option. QPTs are weaker traits because they haven't been determined to be available."

I disagree. If we are more sure that trait A exists as opposed to trait B, this does not make trait A "stronger" and trait B "weaker". It at best shows that trait A is more likely to exist. For example, let trait A represent 20 lbs of muscle and let trait B represent 500 lbs of muscle. Clearly, it is more likely that trait A would exist. However, we can see just as clearly that trait B is the stronger trait, if it exists. It does not follow that because a certain trait is less likely to occur, therefore that trait is weaker.

"I will argue that the Easter Bunny has fewer QPTs than Yahweh, therefore belief in the Easter Bunny is more rational."

Aside from the fact that claiming knowledge of Yahweh's traits as either questionable or not is clearly not within human capacity, I just showed that even if more QPTs did exist, it would present no issue. Furthermore, there are billions of "QPTs" for both Yahweh and the Easter bunny. Even if my opponent managed to spell out every single questionably possible trait for both beings, he/she would still have all of their work ahead of them in showing why this makes belief in the Easter bunny more rational than belief in Yahweh.

My opponent goes on to list a few traits (PT and QPT) of both entities. Aside from the fact that he/she has failed to list each and every PT and QPT (of which there are doubtlessly billions in number), my opponent fails to recognize that by definition all of Yahweh's traits must be "QPTs". Nothing about Yahweh is natural, and as such there are no "natural traits" held by Him. I readily admit this, yet I see no reason to believe that this fact somehow makes belief in God less rational than belief in the Easter bunny. On my opponent's view, it seems that he/she must have a difficult time believing in just about anything aside from the existence of human beings, as the only "natural" (to my opponent) traits are the ones held by others like him/herself. This line of reasoning is blatantly fallacious.

2. Arguments

In order for my opponent to show that the Easter bunny is more rational than God, he/she must refute these arguments and in their place put forward comparable arguments in favor of the Easter bunny's existence.

i. God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1: I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2: There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

ii. The very possibility of God implies His actuality.
P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
P5: If a maximally great being exists, in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
C1: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Defense of P1: In order to refute this premise, one would have to show that the idea of God is incoherent, such that the concept of God is as absurd as the concept of a square circle.
Defense of P2-P6: I have combined the defense of premises two-six because these premises are necessarily true so long as premise one holds true. If a maximally great being is even possible, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world (this does not imply a parallel universe idea, but by possible world I mean to say a way that the world could have been). But if this maximally great being exists in some possible world, then by its very nature it must exist in every possible world (otherwise it would not be "maximally great"). And if this maximally great being exists in every possible world, it follows that it exists in the actual world.

3. Summary

My opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea that in order to hold rational belief in something, that "something" must meet the requirement of a certain number of "natural" characteristics. Clearly, as God is by definition supernatural, He does not have a single "natural" characteristic. But how does it follow from God's having only supernatural characteristics that He therefore is irrational? This is something my opponent must explain in the next round, as this assertion is most certainly unwarranted.

In order to win this debate, my opponent must refute both of my arguments in addition to providing justification for his/her wild assertion that God's being supernatural somehow leads to belief in His existence being irrational. Until he/she is able to do these things, my opponent has failed to carry the burden of proof and has lost the debate.

Sources
http://now.tufts.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
NoMagic

Pro

Thank you Con for your response.

I will begin by addressing Con's Argument 2.
The topic of this debate is whether it is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny than Yahweh. Con's argument 2 doesn't actually address the topic of the debate. "God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe." Wrong topic. If the debate was, "Which is a better explanation for the universe, the Easter Bunny or Yahweh?" Then Con's argument would be on point. Unfortunately this isn't the case. I'm going to simply dismiss Con's argument 2 for not being the subject of the agreed upon debate.

Con's point 1
Here he acknowledges a difference between PTs and QPTs. But then later introduces these traits as "natural" traits and "super natural" traits. Con, "we cannot be sure of what are natural traits..." The source of the traits is also off point. The distinction that is being made is between traits that we KNOW can exist in the universe we live in and traits that we DON'T KNOW can exist in the universe we live in. There is an important difference here. Example, the man behind the door is 6 feet tall. We KNOW that male humans can be 6 feet tall. This is a PT for human males. Different example, the man behind the door is shaped like a perfect circle. This is a QPT. We DON'T KNOW that human males can be shaped like a perfect circle. The latter claim should be held in a more tentative position since the trait may not be available in the universe we live in. I've argued and demonstrated why PTs are in a stronger position than QPTs. Con at no point refuted this argument. I argued that since the Easter Bunny has at least a few (and many more if we wish to completely think about what makes an Easter Bunny) PTs that this places the Eater Bunny in a more probable position then Yahweh who consists entirely of QPTs. This valid point still stands. If Con wishes to refute this position he must argue Yahweh's traits place him in a stronger position. This has yet to be attempted.

I want to quickly jump back to Con's argument 2 for a moment. I think we could all agree that Yahweh does consist of traits that we cannot confirm as being possible (aka thought without a brain) in the universe we live in. It is very reasonable to think that only things with physical brains are capable of forming thoughts. We have no evidence to suggest otherwise. If this is an impossible trait, then Yahweh cannot exist. Therefore Yahweh cannot be the best explanation for anything. Con must first argue that Yahweh can have the traits that make up Yahweh. Con simply assumes that QPTs are available to Yahweh. This is a classic example of putting the cart before the horse mistake. Prior to Yahweh being able to exist, the traits that make up Yahweh must be able to exist. This hasn't be established to be the case anywhere on the planet. Therefore to claim Yahweh is the best solution to any question requires many QPTs assumptions. Of which Con hasn't argued for. Con assumes QPTs are available despite them being in question, the Q in the QPT is simply dismissed by Con without justification.

Con acknowledges a difference between PTs and QPTs. Then goes on to suggest that a QPT should be viewed as equal to a PTs. "If we are more sure trait A exists as opposed to trait B, this does not make trait A stronger and trait B weaker." He brings up weight here, which isn't the type of strength I'm referring to. My claim is that KNOWN trait options is a stronger position the UNKNOWN trait options, when we consider the probability of the being in question existing. Which is more reasonable? Women behind door is 5 feet tall. All known PTs. The women behind the door is 120 feet tall. 120 tall is a QPT. Which is more reasonable to believe in? First women or second women? I think Con would agree that the second option is less likely to be true. This at least for the moment, confirms my claim that PTs hold a stronger (not by weight or physical strength) probable position then QPTs. If Con disagrees, then I would like to hear Con explain and argue for why he is in disagreement.

Con's summary 3 is completely off base. Once again we are examining beings with claimed traits. We are also comparing known available traits to unknown available traits. Con brings back "natural" traits and "super natural" traits. The source of the traits isn't part of the discussion. A funny point here, Cons asserts super natural traits as being available. Has this been established to be the case? No. Super natural traits are also QPTs. Con ask a question also. "...how does it follow from God's having only supernatural characteristics that He therefore is irrational?" Two problems here. One, my claim is that it is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny. Both beliefs may be rational. I'm claiming one is more rational. Second, I never claimed Yahweh to be irrational. If the claims regarding Yahweh are true, then I would think Yahweh would be a rational being. Once again Con seems to be off topic.

A little math
Easter Bunny, (PT)(PT)(QPT)(QPT)=some level of possible existence
Yahweh, (QPT)(QPT)(QPT)(QPT)(QPT)(QPT)=less likely to exist then the Easter Bunny
Based on more claimed traits and that some of the traits that the Easter Bunny has hold a stronger probable position than that of Yahweh who consists of all QPTs.
Therefore the Easter Bunny is more probable and therefore more rational to believe in.

What I've essentially presented is an Occam's Razor argument. As I've shown in round two and three, the Easter Bunny is a much less extravagant being. The Eater Bunny is an Animal. Yahweh is a spirit. The Easter Bunny is made of physical stuff. Yahweh is made of nothing. The Easter Bunny cannot read minds. Yahweh can read all minds at once. The Easter Bunny uses a brain to think. Yahweh has no brain and thinks. The more reasonable being is clearly the Easter Bunny. Occam's Razor tells us which is more rational to believe in, the Easter Bunny.

In conclusion, I think the jury is in. I've presented clear well reasoned argument in support of the proposition, "It is more rational to believe in the Easter Bunny then the god of the Jews/Christians/Muslims." Cons first response has fallen significantly short of refuting my claim. Often slipping into off topic arguments or even claims that weren't made. If Con wishes to gain ground, and possibly present a superior argument, he must establish that Yahweh's claimed traits make him more probable then the Easter Bunny. The traits must be addressed by Con directly. I've made their respective claimed traits the backbone of my position, they must be addressed.

I would like to thank my opponent for his participation. I would like to thank those who've read these arguments as well. I would also like to encourage those who've read these argument to vote for the stronger of the two positions. Vote to support the Easter Bunny. Thank you.
1Credo

Con

1. Rebuttal

My opponent takes issue with the arguments I presented, suggesting that whether or not God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe is irrelevant with regard to our debate. My opponent goes on to state "I'm going to simply dismiss Con's argument". What my opponent fails to understand is that the argument itself is of complete relevance to our debate topic, which is "Is it more rational to think that the Easter bunny exists as opposed to Yahweh?"

God's being the best explanation for the origin of the universe is evidence of His existence. The argument I presented lends credibility to the rejection of my opponent's assertion that "it is more rational to believe the Easter bunny exists than God" because it demonstrates God's existence. In order to show that "it is more rational to believe the Easter bunny exists" my opponent must give some sort of sound argument in defense of this radical proposition as well as knock down any argument I propose which attacks the proposition, such as the ones I presented in the last round. It is wishful thinking on my opponent's part to think that he/she can "simply dismiss" any arguments without addressing the critical issues they present to my opponent's own argument.

Once again, to win this debate, my opponent must knock down each argument I give which shows that God's existence is more rational than the Easter bunny's existence (i.e. the argument that God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe) as well as present at least one sound argument of his/her own in defense of the claim made in the resolution. If my opponent is unable to do each of these things, it seems to me that he/she cannot win the debate.

As for my response to the faulty argument presented by my opponent in the previous round, it seems that each of the points I made were ignored by my opponent. Recall that my opponent's entire argument hinged on the idea that in order to hold rational belief in something, that something must hold a certain number of natural characteristics. I pointed out that it is impossible to judge God on this scale, as God is by definition supernatural. My opponent's idea of comparing God and the Easter bunny and deciding which being is more rational based on the number of natural characteristics is nonsensical. It is analogous to comparing a musical record and a portrait, and deciding the winner based on the quality of sound. This is clearly a poor scale to judge on, as portraits do not make sound. In the very same way, using the scale of "natural characteristics" to judge God vs the Easter bunny is clearly wrong, because by definition God does not have any natural characteristics. This seems obvious enough to me, but it is clear that my opponent does not understand the fault in his/her own logic.

2. Conclusion

Recall that in order to shoulder the burden of proof and win the debate, my opponent was required to justify his/her assertion that "it is more rational to believe the Easter bunny exists than God". In order to accomplish this, my opponent must have presented at least one sound argument in defense of the proposition in additional to knocking down any arguments that attacked the proposition. It is clear that my opponent has failed to do either. There has not been a sound argument provided by my opponent in defense of his/her position, and my opponent chose to ignore the arguments I gave which attacked his/her position. We can then reasonably conclude that it is NOT more rational to believe that the Easter bunny exists than God, and that my opponent has failed to shoulder the burden of proof in this debate.

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating and participating in this debate, and thank anyone taking the time to read it through. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
lol
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
mightymessed up. No. I speak in a language that your carnal mind could never understand, you speak unintelligent English.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Cheyennebodie, do you bark and squeal like an animal in Church too, like your Fuhrer, Kenneth Copeland?

Just for saying that, I'm going to buy a delicious frozen pizza with my food stamps bought with your tax dollars and I'm going to let the coyotes eat it! Hilary 2016! Hilary 2016! yeah!

I'll cook it first, of course. I believe coyotes should have cooked pizza on occasion.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
mightymessedup..... Speaking in tongues is biblical. Of course that makes for something for you to mock right there.And I do not apologise for anyone.And I guess you know more than the judge in that case that said Pastor Cho was not involved.Of course because of your hatred for wealth , you are quick to condemn.Kenneth Copeland said once, " There are only two times we should pray for someone, when they are right, and when they are wrong".Jesus said in Mark 10th chapter that he would bless finances, but beware there would also be persecutions that go with it.

After seeing your statements here, it would be best if you stayed away from wealth. God says that prosperity will ruin the fool.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
NoMagic, I love this debate. You are cool.

Cheyennebodie is a known apologist for the swindling embezzling South Korean preacher, Yonggi Cho (also called Yungi Cho). He is also a follower of Kenneth Copeland, who often barks on stage like a maniac, saying it is "speaking in tongues." I wonder if Cheyennebodie barks like a maniac, too, being filled with the Spirit?

I have posted a youtube video of Cheyennebodie's Kenneth Copeland's nuttiness:

As a side note, I don't think the Eastern Bunny exists, but I have seen very large Dutch rabbits. There about as big as a dog, but they are very stupid creatures.

Rock on!
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
What's with the hostility? I just want to present an argument for the position. If truth makes a difference, an argument should be something you would want to hear.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Whatever floats your boat. I personally never told those lies to my children. Just put the principles found in God's word to work, and they saw it was good and stayed with them.And now are teaching their children the principles and laws of faith God has written in his word.

Of course, you have to take by faith God is not there just as I have to take by faith he is there.
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
The debate seems rather arbitrary. Theology is all mixed up in whether or not it is rational to believe in God.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
NoMagic1CredoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro admitted to dropping one of con's arguments. On the other hand, con offered a rebuttal to all of pros arguments, so arguments to con. Con was the only one with a source, so sources to con.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
NoMagic1CredoTied
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: it feels like Con was arguing for a general God that "created the universe" rather than those three specific gods pro noted in the resolution. Pro proved, that with a simplification, Easter Bunnies are more rational than powerful Gods, as with Occam's Razor, and the fact that Easter Bunnies follow a simpler, and easier to prove, logic than the Gods..