The Instigator
izbo10
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
BennyW
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

Kerrigan skelly made an argument for god in this debate

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
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: 8/15/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,364 times Debate No: 17926
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (12)

 

izbo10

Con

The Pro will start and state in syllogism form the logical argument that he thinks skelly made that won him the debate. I will counter if it is a logical fallacy. All pro has to do is since he thinks skelly won is show one syllogism that concludes god exists in this debate.
BennyW

Pro

I will accept this debate. Kerrigan Skelly in his debate against izbo10, made an argument for God by way epistemological argument for morality.
Said debate can be listened to here but I warn you it is fairly long. http://www.blogtalkradio.com...

I await my opponent's contentions.
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Con

In case my opponent missed it, he just wasted around his job was in syllogism form to present an argument for god that was done in this argument, in case he is unfamiliar with a syllogism: http://en.wikipedia.org...

So if he wants to present this god of the gaps epistemological morality god of the gaps fallacy he might want to try in syllogism form as the rules state. Oh by the way you will note I point out how this is a god of the gaps many times by bringing up alternate explanations throughout the debate like moral fairies and the ipu and morality is a brute fact. Come on Benny if you brain learns anything in this debate, let it learn the basic logical structure of a syllogism.
BennyW

Pro


You want a syllogism for the argument here it is


The atheist claims that we can know everything by our five senses


Our five senses cannot always be trusted


Therefore the atheist cannot trust what he thinks he knows.


The conclusion is that there must be something outside our senses which determines things.


If you want to talk about fallacies like God of the gaps, how is that any different than the fallacy of you creating strawmen deities to try to disprove Christianity? If Atheism is such a compelling argument shouldn’t it be able to stand on its own without strawmen like the flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns?


That is what it boils down to and izbo10 failed to address and disprove these points.


Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Con

All pro has to do is since he thinks skelly won is show one syllogism that concludes god exists in this debate.

How does that syllogism conclude that god exists, if the debate was how reliable are our 5 senses, then you have a point.

You in this debate had to make a syllogism that kerrigan made that said.

Premise 1

Premise 2

Conclusion: therefore god exists. This conclusion in no way shows a god exists. Sorry.

Therefore the atheist cannot trust what he thinks he knows.

I think I know the way you thought on this. You probably were thinking this is great. As this is what he was implying

Premise 1. Atheist can't prove their 5 senses work.

Premise 2 god is the only way they can work

conclusion god exists.

now as I point out in the debate this is an argument from ignorance, and a false dichotomy. The reason it is an argument from ignorance is we don't know why they work. I could assert premise 2 is maricacons is the only way your 5 senses work. It doesn't mean it is true it is just putting a blanket assertion in place of I don't know.

The really sad thing here is that by attacking 5 senses kerrigan has no way to prove anything anyway. He has to use them to make a case for god so at the end of the day he defeated himself. How does kerrigan know that his sense about god is right? Oh wait he can't answer that either. Sorry he was a logical fallacy machine, yes I was a little nervous on the debate and he may sound better, but when listening to a debate the important thing is the arguments and if he debates a topic that is not the actual topic it is a red herring by definition and an epic fail in intellectual debates.
BennyW

Pro


Originally I considered having you change the premise because the debate was about morality. However I realized that in the end it did boil down to a case for God. All I had to do according to your premise was prove that he made a case for God, there was nothing about how compelling or valid it had to be. You didn’t even say I had to show how he proved the Christian God.


Once again by bringing up maricacons to explain the 5 senses you are creating a strawman to avoid addressing the issue directly as you don’t actually believe in them. If you did believe in them then you would be debating whether they created the senses or the God of the Bible did, but that is not what was going on.


Kerrigan’s case for not being able to trust the five senses is not self refuting because it only applies to atheists. He can trust his senses because God has allowed him to whereas an atheist can’t know.


I urge the voters to vote pro.


Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
@Cerebral, really? Although I used to admire Cliff, I now think that his voting system is a bit bizarre and sometimes his views were outside of the majority...of the other voters on the same debate..
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Double_R, Izbo10 hasn't matured out of his larvae stage. While we are all more or less butterflies, he's still a puny caterpillar who's wrapped inside a couple of leaves, preventing any sort of thought to be processed within!
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Izbo, are you done sending me childish PM's yet?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Actually I am pretty certain he did!
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
At least Cliff doesn't judge someone based on their own beliefs.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Cliff stamp's voting was always a little... bizarre.
Posted by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
That is why cliff.stamp was so stupid he didnt even comprehend how you won a debate.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
Oh i was thinking you were newer here and I checked your profile, you were here long enough to know who cliff.stamp was.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
C_N, if you are torn on it, there was a user named Cliff.Stamp who would vote on debates not based on what the points represented but on how many points he thought someone deserved. You give good reasons so I am not criticizing you just showing one view on it.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
"Kohai my english is infinitely better then you logic skills, which have to be negative."
Izbo10, you're becoming a black swan among us agnostic and skeptical atheists...You're following the path to the old, slaughter hourse while we're just dallying back and forth through the reeds.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nate.DDOqa 4 years ago
nate.DDOqa
izbo10BennyWTied
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: Test vote
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
izbo10BennyWTied
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: Pro undertook to extract a syllogism (concluding that god exists) from a particular debate. He never did that.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
izbo10BennyWTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro as per Con's heinous behavior which was characteristic and thus unsurprising. Arguments however do go to Con as Pro seemed to misinterpret the opening round to think that he was not tasked with the burden to argue a sound argument for God's existence. Con mentions in the first round that "All pro has to do is since he thinks skelly won is show one syllogism that concludes god exists in this debate." Pro never did this and only argued that it was AN argument, not a SOUND one.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
izbo10BennyWTied
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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: What a horrible debate. Con wins in arguments since Pro never gave an argument, in the form of a syllogism that concludes that God exists. Benny however was far superior in terms of spelling and grammar, and conduct (which Izbo10's usual condescending attitude)...Pro also gains points for souces since he took effort to provide the actual radio debate that was the topic of this 'discussion'.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
izbo10BennyWTied
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: Pro, made a better case and as for conduct, pro was obviously the est candidate.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
izbo10BennyWTied
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: Terrible debate and bozo loses again. Learn basic English and quit conceding points!
Vote Placed by freedomsquared 5 years ago
freedomsquared
izbo10BennyWTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible debate. CON was incredibly condescending, which lost him points for conduct. CON also had atrocious S
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
izbo10BennyWTied
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: I will now await an abusive PM or a debate challenge from Izbo about how BennyW should not have won.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
izbo10BennyWTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Benny has a sick moustache, and Izbo doesnt. Honestly, how could I be expected to vote against that? The only person with a more legit stach than benny is teddy roosevelt and even that is debateable. No but really, Izbo whined on the forums about this debate, which brought me to it and Izbo loses the conduct vote for that.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
izbo10BennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: At First I thought that Con was actually right and that Pro did not state his own arguments, BUT Con did say Pro was using skelly's arguments.(I got a bit confused there) Pro arguments were solid and his did present a good syllogism for this debate. But another major isssue i had with this debate was, CON was abusive!!!