The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Grape
Pro (for)
Winning
91 Points

It is rational to place faith in the invisible pink unicorn.

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,258 times Debate No: 17170
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (338)
Votes (17)

 

izbo10

Con

You start the debate: You can not add anything in the last round. The rule is simple you must defend this being a valid argument for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I will say it is not. Since you agreed with this fo god, you should have no problem with this for the invisible pink unicorn.

My opponent declares that appealing to faith when committing to the reality of Invisible Pink Unicorn, regardless of religious affiliation, is irrational and fallacious. I intend to show that, quite to the contrary, reasoning from faith is far from special pleading. First, I will present some definitions

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.1

Reasoning: 1. Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments. 2. Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation.2

Argument

How do we know something is indeed true? We back it up with another known truth. Furthermore, that other known truth must also be backed up with yet another known truth, and so on. This is what philosophers call the infinite regression problem, and here it is in syllogism form:

  1. Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
  2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
  3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
  4. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
  5. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
  6. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2
  7. But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
  8. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
  9. and so on, ad infinitum.

Being that humans are finite in their capacity to do anything, which includes reasoning, the only way to resolve the regression is to allow it to come to a stopping point. That is to say, at some point, we choose to believe in a truth without justifying. That is, we take it on faith. Let's look at several approaches to resolving the regress problem to see if they can avoid the problem of faith.

1. Foundationalism3

Foundationalism is perhaps the most straight forward solution. It simply asserts that all justified true beliefs will ultimately be justified by basic beliefs, or presuppositions. These basic beliefs are not justified, but assumed, without logical proof or material evidence, i.e., faith. Thus, foundationalism solves the problem by explicitly relying on faith.

2. Coherentism3

Coherentism attempts to solve the problem by allowing justified true beliefs to ultimately be justified by themselves. At first glance, this appears to be begging the question, and indeed, circular reasoning is the whole point. Coherentists would say that so long as a system of belief is internally consistent, then the beliefs therein constitute knowledge.

However, the problem of faith remains. Coherentism replaces a foundation of unproven beliefs with an unproven system of belief. It is quite possible to have a set of beliefs that all cohere quite well together but are all untrue. Therefore, acceptance of any coherent system implies faith in that system as a whole, so Coherentism relies on faith as well.

3. Reliabilism4

Reliabilism attempts to solve the problem by changing the mode of justification altogether. Instead of a belief being justified by another justified true belief, the reliabilist argues that a belief is justified if it is formed using a reliable belief-formation mechanism.

The obvious problem is: how do we know what is reliable and what is not reliable. In short, the reliability of belief-formation mechanisms themselves are beliefs and must be themselves justified. In short, reliabilism does not solve the problem as much as dress it different clothes. The same regress problem presents itself albeit with different wording. Each reliability mechanism must be justified by another reliability mechanism ad infinitum. The only solution is to accept one's reliability measurements on faith.

4. Infinitism3

Infinitism simply acknowledges the regress problem and makes no effort to resolve it, arguing instead that there will never be adequate justification for knowledge. The problem with infinitism is that it has no practical application. If employed in debate, it will either lead to skepticism or be subconsciously abandoned. Either way, the infinitist will turn to faith.

In the case of skepticism, the infinitist will insist that nothing can be known. But how can the skeptic know that nothing can be known. Skeptcism is ultimately self-refuting, since it can only be true if it is false. Therefore, commitment to skepticism requires faith.

The infinist who rejects skepticism is in a philosophical bind also, since simultaneously rejecting skepticism and acknowledging the regress problem is logically incompatible. Therefore, the infinist will have to rely, consciously or subconsciously, on one of the other solutions to the regress problem. Since I have already shown the other solutions to rely on faith, skepticism-free infinitism relies on faith also.

Conclusion

All this is to say, humans rely on faith in all their reasoning. So, whether one is committed to IPUism or atheism, they are reasoning from faith. To put it succinctly, to use faith as one's reasoning for one specific Invisible Pink Unicorn is not irrational. It's inevitable.

Thank you.

Grape

Pro

Introduction:

Thanks to my opponent for foolishly challenging me to this debate. I will provide some background for the debate and add in some clarifications to account for the fact that Con doesn't have a clue what's going on.

Con is challenging everyone who voted against him in this debate [1] to defend the argument that KRFournier used to demolish him. However, he is changing the details of it a bit, perhaps by mistake because he still doesn't understand anything, in a way that makes the debate unnecessarily stupid and confusing.

The above argument, which I am to defend as valid, contends that it is necessary to use some degree of faith to believe anything. While this is not the argument I would have used from KRF's position and indeed I think there are some problems with it, izbo10 did not come remotely close to dealing with it in the previous debate. I'm not going to go into this debacle in much detail because we will shortly see that it does not matter for the purposes of this debate.

Izbo10 attempts to change the rules in the middle of the game by asking me to defend this argument as a valid proof of the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. The original debate asked KRF to defend the idea that it is acceptable to use faith in your reasoning to believe in one specific god. These are different resolutions, so the same argument cannot be expected to defend both of them. I will still argue that it is a valid proof of the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, but I will add the conclusion on to the end to account for the fact that the original debate was not about that. This does not change KRF's argument at all, it just formally specifies what Con is asking me to defend.

Definitions:

Because Con doesn't know what words mean, I'll help him out a little bit:

Valid – in logic, an argument is valid if the conclusion logically follows from the premises [2]

Do not let Con weasel his way out of this. He has been trolling the forums insulting people for their alleged failure to understand philosophy [3]. If he doesn't understand philosophy well enough not to misuse use the jargon in a way that puts him at a serious disadvantage, he shouldn't have been running his mouth.

Arguments:

You can read KRF's entire opening argument above. It doesn't end with the conclusion “The invisible pink unicorn exists” because that was not the point of the debate. As I said before, I have to append the additional step needed to reach that conclusion, which does not change the argument, in order to adapt the original argument to this debate. Formally stated:

Let the entire above argument by KRFournier be called K
Let the invisible pink unicorn be called P

P1. K
P2. K → P
C1. P

This is sufficient for me to win the debate. Remember, Con specifically said, “The rule is simple you must defend this being a valid argument for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I will say it is not.” Remember voters: He did not say it had to be a sound argument; he said “valid.” He cannot take back the rules of the debate now in order to gain an advantage.

The argument for the invisible pink unicorn that I made above is clearly valid. It is simply a case of modus ponens [4]. KRF's argument is true, KRF's argument implies the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, therefore an invisible pink unicorn exists. Validity in logic does not deal with whether or not any of this is true. KRF's argument may be false, his argument may not imply the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, and an invisible pink unicorn may not exist. None of this matters for the purpose of determining whether or not the argument is valid.

Credit to J.Kenyon for pioneering the tactic of exploiting the incorrect usage of the word valid against a rude opponent [5].

References:

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.wisegeek.com...
[3] http://www.debate.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

My opponent is claiming it is valid, but lets look at what it means to be valid.

In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.

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


Now, lets seriously look at the argument

Premise 1: All humans use faith to judge eveything.

Now this is blantantly false as faith means belief without evidence

faith

NOUN:
  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
http://education.yahoo.com...

Premise 2: God is part of everything.

Coclusion: It is rational to believe in god because of faith because we use faith to judge everything.

Now, first of all this doesn't address why it is rational,

My opponent is claiming it is valid, but lets look at what it means to be valid.

In logic, an argument is valid if and only if its conclusion is entailed by its premises, a formula is valid if and only if it is true under every interpretation, and an argument form (or schema) is valid if and only if every argument of that logical form is valid.

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



Now, first of all this doesn't address why it is rational:

rational
Having or exercising the ability to reason. Of sound mind; sane. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers. A rational...

Rational means logical and when something is a logical fallacy it is by definition not logical.

So now with this said I am going to do a syllogism, I know, I know you guys have no clue what one is but you will see,

Premise 1. To be rational is to be logical by definition.
Premise 2. A logical fallacy is by definition not logical.
Premise 3. KRFourniers argument used the logical fallacy of special pleading.
Conclusion: KRFourniers argument is not rational.


So, an argument has to be true for every form of the argument is true, so unless he wants to say that he believes in pinky the invisible pink unicorn because of my argument it is not valid.

The argument is also not rational as it is special pleading, if you take this argument you have to say that anything anybody can think of is rationa to believe. So my opponent really needs to think is this really what he wants to argue. Does my opponent really think that if you insert bigfoot. fairies, vampires, elfs, and martians they are rational to believe in. When you see that this argument can "prove" anything rational you see it is not a good argument nor valid. It is clear that the argument does not do what it claims you need more to get to rational. Its pretty obvious that to believe something rationally, that belief should actually most likely be true so lets take a look here. This argument will prove many mutually exclusive( hand holding time again, mutually exclusive means if one is right none of the others can be) ideas "rational" such as: Jesus, Allah, Yahweh(jewish),ipu(as only god), flying spaghetti monster(as only god), thor(as only god), trickster(as the one true god), Mythra(as the only god), Hercules(as the only god), Zues(as the only god). Since this argument does not establish any distinction in probabilty. It leaves each one as a equally valid position. Being such each one has an even chance of being right. Taking the assumption that this is the full dichotomy( it is not,but merely used for illustration(can't believe i felt the need to walk people through that but the readers here aren't too bright)) Each one has a 10% chance of being right. Understanding that the opposite of right is wrong. That means(still can't believe i have to hold your hands through this one) that they have a 90% chance of being wrong. So to choose any option as one you think is right is irrational because it is clear that based on this argument alone you will be wrong 9 out of 10 times. Now, I know what you are thinking, but wait there is evidence for god. Well guess what that means the argument fails as faith alone is all one should need and faith again is belief without evidence.

By the way nice try at semantics grape. It still fails.


Grape

Pro

Introduction:

Thanks to Con for courageously putting up a fight. Alas, his attempt at invalidating modes ponens is not likely to succeed. I will go through Con's various objections to my case and demonstrate that they do not prove that my argument is invalid. Con's case is extremely disorganized so I will go through it and extract the relevant parts again.

Premise 1: All humans use faith to judge everything

There are two problems with Con's challenge to this premise:
  1. It does not appear in my argument
  2. The premises of my argument do not have to be true

If we are generous and assume that this is Con's interpretation of my premise K, point 2 still applies. Finally, Con's objection to premise is weak anyway. He says it is false because faith means belief without evidence. So what? It could be the case that everything we believe must rest on some amount of faith. For a detailed argument to back up that conclusion, see what Con posted in Round One.

Premise 2: God is part of everything

The same problems that applied to his objection to Premise 1 apply to this. Once again, we will grant that this is a weak interpretation of what K entails. This sentence contains some linguistic ambiguity (is God a component of all things or is God in the set of all things?). Clearly, KRF's argument contained the obvious implication that God is part of the set of all things. This is also true of the invisible pink unicorn. If Con wishes to assert that a given thing is not a part of the set of all things, he is free to do so. Instead, Con does not challenge this premise but merely lists it, which helps my case by demonstrating that K → P is true. However, not of the premises need to be true so it is mostly beside the point.

Con then moves on to attack K in more detail...

Defending K

Con spends a lot of time telling use what the dictionary says logical and rational mean. kthanx

Con says that K commits the fallacy of special pleading. Let me post an extremely simplified version of KRF's argument so we can see if it commits the fallacy of special pleading.

Let R be the regress problem in epistemology
Let S be the case that the set of solutions to the regress problem in epistemology is not empty
Let N be the case that humans have knowledge
Let F, C, Re, and I be all possible solutions to the regress problem in epistemology
  1. R
  2. N
  3. N → S
  4. F or C or Re or I
  5. ~ C, Re, and I
  6. F

In KRF's argument, F is Foundationalism, the belief that all knowledge ultimately rests on faith. C, Re, and I are other solutions which he contends are insufficient. R is established by the nine step argument that you can see in Round One. That N is the case and that N → S should probably not need to be explained. Thus, KRF's argument appears sound and valid. Con cannot attack KRF's proofs of 1 or 5 because those are premises and do not pertain to validity.

Now, where is KRF demanding special considerations that differ from a set of rules he normally accepts? I see no example of this fallacy anywhere in this argument. Con is just infatuated with the idea that having faith in one god commits the fallacy of special pleading. Unfortunately for him, Pro didn't argue anything remotely close to the “I have faith in my God but not in others because trolololol!” case that he was expecting. He presented a very legitimate case for foundationalism as a solution to the regress problem in epistemology which does not commit the special pleading fallacy.

Actually, I think there are some problems with KRF's case. Does foundationalism entail faith if the presuppositions can be shown to be logically necessary? I'm not sure about this. However, it doesn't matter at all.

The entire above argument was just for fun. The conclusion of KRF's argument was taken as a premise in my valid proof of the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. It doesn't matter if the argument leading up to it is entirely invalid, all that would do is made my premise K false, which again does not matter.

Con's Block of Text

Con goes on a long rant to let us know that a set of mutually exclusive things cannot all be the case. kthanx. He then tells us that if we were to randomly pick what God to believe in, our odds of picking the right one would be really low because there are lots. kthanx. That's not what KRF was arguing. He was arguing that no matter what we believe, it will have to be based on faith to some extent.

This also has nothing to do with validity, only soundness. Look at the logical form of my original argument:
  1. K
  2. K → P
  3. P

Suppose there are 10 things that P could be. If you believed any one of them, you would have a 90% chance of being wrong. Still, the proof would be valid for 100% of them and if you believed in none pf them you would have a higher chance of being wrong (100%). If the various possible P's are mutually exclusive, that means that either a premise is wrong or there is an antinomy. Neither possibility means that my argument is invalid.

Conclusion:

Modus ponens is logically valid. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

"Suppose there are 10 things that P could be. If you believed any one of them, you would have a 90% chance of being wrong. Still, the proof would be valid for 100% of them and if you believed in none pf them you would have a higher chance of being wrong (100%). If the various possible P's are mutually exclusive, that means that either a premise is wrong or there is an antinomy. Neither possibility means that my argument is invalid"

Wow did my opponent really just say this, he confuses 10 completely seperate beliefs as one, really, is he that ignorant. Yes I guess so. Since only one can be right by disbelieving all i will have 90% of my beliefs right. Where as by guessing one right i have a 90% chance of all my beliefs in this subject being wrong. Remember the point of being rational is to have the most true beliefs. I have the better chance by believing none.

Lets do a chart:

God don't believe chance of being right Believe chance of being right

Allah 90% 10%
Yahweh 90% 10%
Thor 90% 10%
IPU 90% 10%

I think we get the picture. You have to judge each belief on its individual chances of being true. You want to secure the most possible true beliefs.


Now that i picked on him for being a complete moron, to further prove this argument invalid, while the morons cream themselves over poor arguments. Lets create a contradiction by using this logic he is defending. since the definition of validity is:

An argument is valid if and only if the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to affirm the premises and deny the conclusion. The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a logical consequence of its premises.


If the conclusion can lead to a contradiction it is not valid because then the conclusion does not logically follow. Can this argument lead a person to contradiction lets see. Imagine you replace IPU with Allah, allah for the idiots here is the muslim god, who is defined as the one true god and no other gods exist he is mutually exclusive. He cannot have a son, that is a very basic muslim belief, so no son Jesus, Jesus was merely a prophet, that is edumacating you morons as i would bet none of you knew that about islam.

So we have proven that this argument demonstrates that it is rational to place faith in allah.

So we have this:

If allah exists no other gods exist
Jesus/Yahweh/Holy spirit combo pack is another god.
The person rationally has faith that allah exists.
This through a basic rule of logic means that it is rational to believe Combo pack christian morons god does not exist.

But wait the same ratinal person now using the Argument for Combo Pack god, so its now rational for this person to both believe combo pack god exists and does not exist. His faith is now contradictory, but for an argument to be valid this must necessarily be true if the premises are true. But it doesn't lead to this at all.


So lets use his his own syllogism against him here:

Everything is based on faith
Belief that a argument is invalid is part of everything
conclusion: It is rational to believe their is no way his argument is invalid.

Sorry had to do it, this argument is so retarded it can disprove itself. How can this argument now both be valid yet invalid?

At the end of the day my opponent tried to play a retarded seantical battle, looking like an idiot. He agreed with the argument and voted for it, he implied that the argument was both sound and valid, but his vote makes him so uncomfortable he has to retardedly conflate the issue of the use of the word valid as a layman's term vs the philosophical or logical term. This is the type of intellectual dishonesty we see on this board. I made the rules, I was using it in layman's his entire attempt at semantics is a straw man of what the argument was about so it fails.

Somebody want to bet that my opponent wouldn't agree with the idea of letting all non-violent mental patients out because their beliefs are part of everything, so they are only being rational. If you don't think its a good argument you don't vote for it. Thanks for reading please vote for him because you jackasses fall for logical fallacies to easily, so if you vote for me, I will be concerned that I am being illogical here.

Grape

Pro

Introduction:

Con continues to thrash with all the finesse and efficacy of a fish out of water. Unlike a hapless trout instinctively flopping in an attempt to resist its capture, Con actually believes that he is winning. If my observations are correct, a fish is at least smart enough to know when it's fried. This is unfortunate for him: one must be at least as intelligent as a fish to be me in a debate.

Because Con does not have any particular method of organizing his arguments and prefers to mindless rant format, I'll pick through them myself and attempt to organize them into some coherent structure so that it can be rebutted.

Probability and Belief:

Consider my argument
  1. K
  2. K → P
  3. P

Con points out that given what is meant by K and K → P, there are multiple possible P's. This is not in itself an issue. Suppose that K means “it is raining.” P could mean that the road will be wet, or P could mean that the game will be canceled. The fact that there are multiple possibilities cannot itself invalidate the argument.

However, Con specifically refers to the case of multiple mutually exclusive possibilities. First, remember that this fails automatically. I can just fiat that KRF's argument only implies the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. If this is not the case, that would falsify premise 2 or it means there is an antinomy. The problem would not pertain to validity. However, it is worth taking the time to demonstrate just how wrong Con's objection to this is. Consider these two problems:

I. The invisible pink unicorn (assuming it has only the properties implied by the words “invisible”, “pink”, and “unicorn”) does not conflict with the other deities Con thinks are implied by KRF's argument. There is no inherent logical reason why the invisible pink unicorn cannot be Jesus' trusty steed.

II. Con's handling of probability is epistemological nonsense. Consider that P is the set of mutually exclusive cases A, B, and C. The set can be of any size, but we will limit it for convenience. Formally:

P → (A, ~B, ~C) V (~A, B, ~C) V (~A, ~B, C)

Any of these could be the case if P is true, and there is no reason to choose one over the other. We should be agnostic as to which is true, and if forced to pick we should select one at random. Con is proposing that instead we accept (~A, ~B, ~C). It is proved that this solution cannot possibly be the correct one. He argues that we should select it anyway because we will on average have the most true beliefs. This line of reasoning cannot because if applied more widely it leads to beliefs that contradict reality. Consider this argument.

I will write the argument out informally because I don't know logic or set theory well enough to do it formally. (:-P)

I know that this is poorly set up and has way more steps than necessary. Ideally someone familiar with formal logic can teach me how to do it correctly.

Assume a thing refers to an object.
  1. All things are possible (ignore logically impossible things for the purposes of this argument).
  2. There are possible things.
  3. If there are possible things, there is a set of possible things.
  4. There are existent things.
  5. If there are existent things, there exists a set of existent things.
  6. The set of existent things is a subset of the set of possible things.
  7. The set of possible things is infinite.
  8. The set of existent things is finite.
  9. An infinite set contains infinitely more elements than a finite set.
  10. The set of possible things contains infinitely more elements than the set of existent things.
  11. The number of possible, nonexistent things is infinitely greater than the number of possible, existent things.
  12. We do not know for sure which things are possible and nonexistent and which things are possible and existent.
  13. We seek to maximize our number of true beliefs.
  14. We believe that all things are possible and nonexistent
  15. It is false that all things are possible and nonexistent.
  16. We believe that which is false.

Basically, the logical consequence of Con's argument is that, all else being equal, we should never believe anything without absolute evidence. Unless he can solve the regress problem, this would require us to believe that nothing exists. It is plainly false that nothing exists (if it were the case that nothing exists than epistemic principles would not be of much use), and so his argument cannot be correct.

Antinomy

While it is logically and physically possible that there exists a fish that understands the concept of antinomy, it is the case that Con does not.

Con asserts that if a valid argument leads to a logically impossible conclusion, the argument is logically invalid. For instance, assume A, A → B, A → C, B V C. It cannot logically be the case that all of these assumptions are true, but if they are it does not invalidate the conclusion B ʌ C. It means that there is an inherent problem in logic. This would mean that there is an unresolvable problem. I don't think that this is the case; it is actually the case that a premise is wrong. If a premise is false than an argument can still be valid.

This resolves all Con's arguments from contradictory conclusions.

Conclusion

Con says that I debated using semantics because I don't think KRF's argument really was sound and I'm just too cowardly to defend my real view. I'm not sure if KRF's argument is sound, but Con did not successfully rebut it in his other debate. However, the main issue is that Con was asking me to do something different than what the original argument was intended to do. KRF's argument was that all true beliefs are based on faith, so if we believe in one specific god there must be at least some faith involved. Con's interpretation of this argument was that it is rational to believe in anything based on faith alone with no other considerations, and he asked me to defend that conclusion using an argument that was not even intended for that purpose. With only very minor adjustments to the conclusion of KRF's argument, I was able to demonstrate that this conclusion can be shown to be valid based on the premises provided by Con.

Remember that I am not the one using semantics. Con is the one ranting about how everyone here understands philosophy so poorly, so it should be understood that as an expert in philosophy he means to use the terms correctly. I took the most rational interpretation of what Con meant and he asked use to use the word differently than how we normally would to help his case (special pleading anyone?).

Voting Points:

Conduct: Con is a jerk. He regularly insults me and the reader throughout the debate on the basis that we do not understand his arguments. We do understand them and he is wrong about anything. I also make fun of Con, but my jokes are funnier and he deserves it. Vote Pro on conduct.

Spelling and Grammar: Con regularly uses run-on sentences, misspells words, does not capitalize, and makes other elementary mistakes. I have a few minor typos missed in editing throughout the debate. My sentence structure and vocabulary are much more advanced then Con's. Vote Pro on S&G.

Arguments: I refuted all of Con's arguments in much more detail than was required. Con is wrong on so many levels he will never understand all of them. He also makes the debate very unfair on purpose and manages to get destroyed anyway. My arguments have philosophical issues that need ironing out, but these issues are way above Con's head. Vote Pro on arguments.

Sources: Didn't really impact this debate. I urge no vote on sources, or you can give the vote to me because 1 point is not enough for how badly Con failed at conduct and S&G.
Debate Round No. 3
338 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
War is still in the air.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Bozo... as I said... don't want to be beaten by loop holes, write better resolutions.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
He never actually proved that. That is the problem and that is a straw man of the actual resolution, loop hole searching here rather then addressing the actual resolution is the name of the game.
Posted by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
Still going at it, I see...lol
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Actually the resolution was "To use faith as your reasoning for one specific god is irrational."

He disproved it by showing that if you have belief in anything (whether it is one specific God or the IPU) that it is rational to use faith as a reason for that belief.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
the resolution was it is rational to place faith in one specific god, he failed to even come close to address this resolution, my argument specifically addressed this. He didn't even get his argument to it is rational to believe there is a god let alone a specific one.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
It isn't a red herring to exploit a legitimate weakness in your opponent's argument. You want to avoid it... write better resolutions.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
thanks loop hole jim, aka retarded arsenal, semantics is a way of looking for loopholes because you know the actual point and you know your f'n wrong so you try to red herring your way out of it.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Who's the "person accepting the challenge"?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Hint: Arsenal is just a last name. Making insults based on names is incredibly uninventive, especially if you wrote "the world's most impressive military". And gosh, how stubborn can you be: you seem to underestimate us and mischaracterize us as not being able to understand your own argument.

You know, Izbo10, if you are so cocky and wish to show your superiority over me, why not accept the debate I send you? Or maybe, it'll be another "epic backfire"....
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 6 months ago
KingDebater
izbo10GrapeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: lol
Vote Placed by Hierocles 2 years ago
Hierocles
izbo10GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Grape made the strongest arguments
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
izbo10GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Boobs are great
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "Thanks to my opponent for foolishly challenging me to this debate." Indeed.
Vote Placed by Freeman 5 years ago
Freeman
izbo10GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I put my RFD in video form. I worked really hard on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
izbo10GrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Even though the argument pro had to work with was from another debate subject, he still affirmed the resolution. Con was unable to refute it.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
izbo10GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It is true that both didn't have great conduct, but Izbo insulted me and every other reader which loses him the point. Also, this was pretty much no contest. Pro destroyed Con's arguments. I'll sit back and wait to be challenged by Izbo again to defend my vote.
Vote Placed by Sieben 5 years ago
Sieben
izbo10GrapeTied
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 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: I'm voting for izbo just so he'll be like "what?", read this message, and realize he lost the game.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
izbo10GrapeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Epic backfire continues to be epic.
Vote Placed by Procrastarian 5 years ago
Procrastarian
izbo10GrapeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Although they both had bad conduct, Grape's was indeed funnier and more accurate. S/G is obvious. The resolution as stated in the title seems pretty easy to defeat, but izbo shoots himself in the foot when he tries claiming that grape/KRF's argument is invalid. Grape correctly argued modus ponens and that was all that izbo made him do.