The Instigator
ZBestDebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
V5RED
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Pascal's Wager is Infallible

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 4 votes the winner is...
V5RED
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 806 times Debate No: 80553
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

ZBestDebater

Pro

Now, I only have a few rules for this Debate.

#1- Only an Atheist can accept the CON side.

#2- No mocking or Appeal from Ridicule. (AKA don't bring the spaghetti monster here)

#3- No arguments from Ignorance

#4- No appeal to the stone

#5- Do not make arguments too long, at maximum they should be able to fit on one computer screen. (Do not use font size to minimize argument size, either)

#6- Don't be a Grammar Nazi

#7- Do not resort to vulgar language or insults. Do not try to use word tricks to your advantage.

If you forfeit, you are instantly disqualified. The first round will only be for acceptance and stating your position. The last round will be for Concluding your argument and clarifying everything to the voters. Thank you for reading.
V5RED

Con

I accept and await your argument.
Debate Round No. 1
ZBestDebater

Pro

Thank you for accepting. Now, The only argument that I've known against Pascal's Wager is reverse Ad Populus and "Dumb Christians use it, so it's fallible". The other argument i've seen is "It's just as probable that Atheits will go to heaven". But, if you think about it, it isn't. The Bible, believe it or not, Is proof of Holy activity thousands of years ago- or at least a hint to it. This makes it more probable that a God and/or Gods exist and will send Theists or Deists to Heaven, and Atheists to hell. Second, It's makes more sense to send someone to Hell for disobeying or not believing than Vice Versa. So please, provide your sid of the argument and tell me why you think Pascal's Wager is Fallible.
V5RED

Con

There are my rebuttals to the wager:
1) Thor.

The classic wager is as follows:
Christian God Exists and you believe it: Heaven
Christian God Exists and you don't believe it: Hell
Christian God does not exist and you believe he does: Nothing
Christian God does not exist and you don't believe he does: Nothing

This wager is incomplete because it ignores every other religion.
I propose that Thor exists and worshiping Christian God pisses him off even more than worshiping nothing at all. Additionally, he is more creative than Christian God, so his Heaven is better. Here is the wager including Thor:

Christian God exists and you believe it: Heaven
Christian God exists and you don't believe it or you believe in Thor: Hell
Christian God does not exist and you believe he does: Nothing
Christian God does not exist and you don't believe he does or you believe in Thor: Nothing
Thor exists and you believe it: Super Heaven
Thor exists and you do not believe in any gods: Hell
Thor exists and you believe in the Christian God: Super Hell

Thus it is very obvious that the best pick is Thor worship and the worst choice is Christian worship.

Now, when you include all the mutually exclusive belief systems that have existed, existed, or will exist in the future into the argument, you get a crazy grid and would need a supercomputer to calculate the best choice.

2) You falsely assume that there is no cost to Christianity. It wastes your time, promotes hate, and convinces people that their lives have no meaning since it is just a little finite thing compared to eternity.

3) You believe something because your burden of proof has been met, not because you choose to believe it. If God exists, he will know you were just faking it.

These are my responses to your post:

The Bible is as much a "proof of Holy activity thousands of years ago" as a comic book is proof of Spider Man. You can point to things in the Bible that we can find, maybe a city or some historical facts, but comic books about Spider Man take place in New York, a real city and they include descriptions of historic events too. This is of course ridiculous and it is obvious that the fact that a book exists has nothing to do with whether the contents comport with reality, so your claim that the Bible itself counts as evidence of God is fallacious.

Next, you said " It's makes more sense to send someone to Hell for disobeying or not believing than Vice Versa."
If you really believe this quote, I am seriously concerned about your mental state. You think it is okay to torture someone forever. You additionally think that an appropriate reason to do this is because they didn't believe in a guy who is playing a never ending game of hide and seek and using his magic to hide all evidence that he ever existed. What the actual f***?(censored for the site) Your God will torture me forever because I don't believe ridiculous stories with no evidence, but if Hitler believed those stories(and there is evidence he did), then he is in heaven. Quite frankly, anyone who thinks that this is okay has no sense of morality, and I could never worship a monster like that. I also can't see how anyone could enjoy heaven knowing that all their friends who didn't subscribe to the correct version of the correct faith are burning FOREVER.
Debate Round No. 2
ZBestDebater

Pro

I can tell you did not read the rule about argument size..

"This wager is incomplete because it ignores every other religion." No, it doesn't. It simply states that it is safer to be Theist than to not to be a Theist.

"Thus it is very obvious that the best pick is Thor worship and the worst choice is Christian worship." No it's not, because Thor is as equally possible as God, only God has thousands of years worth of Religion and worshiping that makes his chances of existing slightly bigger. Therefore, it is safer to be a Theist and believe in something like the Christian God or the Catholic God. Now, i'm not exercising Ad Populus, i'm simply saying it's probably a wiser choice to beieve in a religion that has existied and had books written about it for thousands of years, than a God that you literally just thought of.

"Now, when you include all the mutually exclusive belief systems that have existed, existed, or will exist in the future into the argument, you get a crazy grid and would need a supercomputer to calculate the best choice." True, but it is still safer to be Theist than Atheist, and that's as far as the Wager goes.

"2) You falsely assume that there is no cost to Christianity. It wastes your time, promotes hate, and convinces people that their lives have no meaning since it is just a little finite thing compared to eternity." That's your false view of it. It does not waste time, except for around 2 minutes of praying everyday and maybe a few hours at church on sundays. Christianity does NOT promote hate AT ALL, that's just propaganda made up by the Media and hateful Atheist. It does not convince people about their lives having no meaning, because they DO, since God will judge every single one of us and our souls will live on forever.

"3) You believe something because your burden of proof has been met, not because you choose to believe it. If God exists, he will know you were just faking it." Oh God..! I should've put "Rule #8- No Strawman". I NEVER, ever said I believed in God simply because of Pascal's Wager. I'm just saying it's an infallible argument and you are wrong to say it is.

"The Bible is as much a "proof of Holy activity thousands of years ago" as a comic book is proof of Spider Man. You can point to things in the Bible that we can find, maybe a city or some historical facts, but comic books about Spider Man take place in New York, a real city and they include descriptions of historic events too. This is of course ridiculous and it is obvious that the fact that a book exists has nothing to do with whether the contents comport with reality, so your claim that the Bible itself counts as evidence of God is fallacious." But.. BUT, the Bible was written thousands of years ago and is actually meant to be taken seriously. We have Physical proof against the fact that the Spiderman comics are proof of a real Spiderman, because we actually KNOW the people who made it and they have admitted it's for entertainment purposes only. The Bible is simply a hint towards something Theists would believe in, many years ago, We might not know exactly when or what, but it's a hint- which means that it's slightly more possible that a serious, normally portrayed God/Gods exist.

"Next, you said " It's makes more sense to send someone to Hell for disobeying or not believing than Vice Versa."
If you really believe this quote, I am seriously concerned about your mental state. You think it is okay to torture someone forever." And you think it's okay to torture someone who worships you forever. I'm just saying that it seems a bit more realistic for someone who is BAD to get tortured forever, instead of someone who is Good.

"You additionally think that an appropriate reason to do this is because they didn't believe in a guy who is playing a never ending game of hide and seek and using his magic to hide all evidence that he ever existed. " So, now you're the one to judge, right? You're changing the subject. You went from trying to disprove Pascal's Wager to Insulting God's morals. You aren't following the rules I gave you..

"Your God will torture me forever because I don't believe ridiculous stories with no evidence, but if Hitler believed those stories(and there is evidence he did), then he is in heaven. " Of course not, his horrible deeds are unforgivable and Hitler will never go to heaven for his terrible sins. You, however, could EASILY go to heaven, simply by repenting your disrespect and believing. That's it, no catch. It's really an amazingly good deal.

"Quite frankly, anyone who thinks that this is okay has no sense of morality, and I could never worship a monster like that. I also can't see how anyone could enjoy heaven knowing that all their friends who didn't subscribe to the correct version of the correct faith are burning FOREVER." Again, this is not the subject. You're LITERALLY admitting that you're talking about morals here, when the title specifically says what this argument is really about.
V5RED

Con

"I can tell you did not read the rule about argument size.." I read it and ignored it. If you want baby sized arguments, limit the character count.

"Now, i'm not exercising Ad Populus, i'm simply saying it's probably a wiser choice to beieve in a religion that has existied and had books written about it for thousands of years, than a God that you literally just thought of."
You literally just commuted the appeal to the populus fallacy after claiming you would not. Your argument is that lots of people believed it so it is true.

" True, but it is still safer to be Theist than Atheist, and that's as far as the Wager goes." You do not understand the wager. General theism does not satisfy the wager, only adherence to Christianity does. When Pascal wrote it, he flippantly dismissed all other religions, but this was a cheat and reveals the major hole in the wager.

You need to evaluate the prizes and penalties of all religions that ever existed and figure out which one is the best to even use it. If there is a tie, you run into the perfectly reasonable donkey problem and can't pick.

The wager is completely refuted by Thor. The wager is based on the idea that you cannot convince someone that Christianity is true using logic and reason, so you fake it until you make it. This would only work if the options were Christianity and atheism. Since there are other options, the wager is completely dead.

" That's your false view of it. It does not waste time, except for around 2 minutes of praying everyday and maybe a few hours at church on sundays. Christianity does NOT promote hate AT ALL, that's just propaganda made up by the Media and hateful Atheist. It does not convince people about their lives having no meaning, because they DO, since God will judge every single one of us and our souls will live on forever."
That is still time my dear fellow, time wasted praying to and worshipping a fairy tale. Then it wastes money on the churches. As to not preaching hate, read the Bible, possibly the most hate filled book ever written. If that doesn't work for you, think about Kim Davis, the crusades, the holocaust, general antisemitism, and the Westboro Baptist Church(a church that actually follows the Bible).

"Oh God..! I should've put "Rule #8- No Strawman". I NEVER, ever said I believed in God simply because of Pascal's Wager. I'm just saying it's an infallible argument and you are wrong to say it is." Tsk tsk, thou shalt not take thy lord's name in vain. Again, I can tell you never read the actual wager. Pascal very specifically says you fake belief until it becomes part of you. You are debating a topic you do not understand.

"But.. BUT, the Bible was written thousands of years ago and is actually meant to be taken seriously. We have Physical proof against the fact that the Spiderman comics are proof of a real Spiderman, because we actually KNOW the people who made it and they have admitted it's for entertainment purposes only. The Bible is simply a hint towards something Theists would believe in, many years ago, We might not know exactly when or what, but it's a hint- which means that it's slightly more possible that a serious, normally portrayed God/Gods exist." In thousands of years, people might say the same things about the Spider Man comics. Stop defending the assertion that something is true because it is in an old book. You are just being stubborn or trying to not "lose" as opposed to caring about what is reasonable.

" And you think it's okay to torture someone who worships you forever. I'm just saying that it seems a bit more realistic for someone who is BAD to get tortured forever, instead of someone who is Good." I think that torturing ANYONE forever or even for a brief period is wicked. You believe I will be tortured forever for not being gullible, and you think this is justice since you are a Christian, so in that sense, you are wicked.

"So, now you're the one to judge, right? You're changing the subject. You went from trying to disprove Pascal's Wager to Insulting God's morals. You aren't following the rules I gave you.." Your opening had nothing to do with the wager, so I felt free to pick it apart and show how disturbed of a mentality one must have to believe that nonsense. You are the one who started off by going off topic.

"Of course not, his horrible deeds are unforgivable and Hitler will never go to heaven for his terrible sins. You, however, could EASILY go to heaven, simply by repenting your disrespect and believing. That's it, no catch. It's really an amazingly good deal." It seems you also don't understand Christianity. I was a Christian for 28 years. The belief is that Heaven is not something you buy your way into with good deeds, you can only get in by accepting the "sacrifice" of Jesus. I can't believe in your fairy tail because there is no good evidence or logic demonstrating that it is true, and even if it were, your god is a monster.
Debate Round No. 3
ZBestDebater

Pro

You read and ignored it. Well, I did not realize you were so uncontrolable and childish to the point in which you actually need a character limit, instead of being able to simly NOT write a gigantic book. You should not have accepted this debate.

"You literally just commuted the appeal to the populus fallacy after claiming you would not. Your argument is that lots of people believed it so it is true." No I didn't, it's like using Eyewitnesses in a court. Both sides are equally possible, but if a lot more people believed and wrote books and prayed for thousands of years for one side, it's probably a bit more likely that side is correct. Sure, they could be lying about Jesus and all that.. But why?

"When Pascal wrote it, he flippantly dismissed all other religions, but this was a cheat and reveals the major hole in the wager." ahem where is your evidence for this claim?

"You need to evaluate the prizes and penalties of all religions that ever existed and figure out which one is the best to even use it. If there is a tie, you run into the perfectly reasonable donkey problem and can't pick." But then again, the Bible tells about Holy Activity years ago, meaning there's a 50-50 chance this is the truth, which slightly increases the chances of God existing.

"The wager is completely refuted by Thor. The wager is based on the idea that you cannot convince someone that Christianity is true using logic and reason, so you fake it until you make it. This would only work if the options were Christianity and atheism. Since there are other options, the wager is completely dead." This is not true, The Wager is still correct because the Bible exists and it's more logical to get sent to hell for doing bad, than for doing Good. So those 2 things increase the chances that Theism is safe, thus Pascal's Wager is Infallible.

"That is still time my dear fellow, time wasted praying to and worshipping a fairy tale. Then it wastes money on the churches. As to not preaching hate, read the Bible, possibly the most hate filled book ever written. If that doesn't work for you, think about Kim Davis, the crusades, the holocaust, general antisemitism, and the Westboro Baptist Church(a church that actually follows the Bible)." But then again, science labs and office buldings waste thousands of dollars more than speding 10 cents as an offering at the church. The Holocaust? This was carried out by a demented man, and just because he promotes hate does not mean that all of christianity does, don't just generalize people like that based on their religion.

'sk tsk, thou shalt not take thy lord's name in vain. Again, I can tell you never read the actual wager. Pascal very specifically says you fake belief until it becomes part of you. You are debating a topic you do not understand." I'm not taking God's name in vain? My belief in God is real, and it's not based on some wager, though. It's based on Faith- because God HAS helped me, Prayers HAVE worked, so I know he's real.

"In thousands of years, people might say the same things about the Spider Man comics. Stop defending the assertion that something is true because it is in an old book. You are just being stubborn or trying to not "lose" as opposed to caring about what is reasonable." Do we have proof that the Bible was not meant to be taken seriously? No. That means it's more probable for it to be true than for it to be false, like the Spiderman comics, giving God a higher chance of existing than Spiderman (Even if it's small), which proves it's safer to believe in God.

" I think that torturing ANYONE forever or even for a brief period is wicked. You believe I will be tortured forever for not being gullible, and you think this is justice since you are a Christian, so in that sense, you are wicked." The funniest part here, is that you're judging how the world should be like as if you're God, since you think you're the center of existence. It's literally asking ONLY for BELIEF, a simple little respect that's WAY less than you give to everyday people, and JUST for that, he will take you to eternal happiness and paradise. Is it SO hard?

" Your opening had nothing to do with the wager, so I felt free to pick it apart and show how disturbed of a mentality one must have to believe that nonsense. You are the one who started off by going off topic." The "Off topic" thing was simply to support my thoughts on the wager, but you simply are starting to "Pick apart" everything as if you're God. This is what I mean, you refuse to accept that you're not the superior one.

"It seems you also don't understand Christianity. I was a Christian for 28 years. The belief is that Heaven is not something you buy your way into with good deeds, you can only get in by accepting the "sacrifice" of Jesus. I can't believe in your fairy tail because there is no good evidence or logic demonstrating that it is true, and even if it were, your god is a monster." I never said good deeds. Just believe in God with your heart, that's it.
V5RED

Con

I think everyone can clearly see that you have no real defense for the wager. They can also see that you do not understand it. That said, I will reply to what you wrote.

"ahem where is your evidence for this claim?" Here is a link to the actual wager. Also, a quote where Pascal tells us to fake it till we make it. "That is true. But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions"http://www.stat.ucla.edu...

" But then again, the Bible tells about Holy Activity years ago, meaning there's a 50-50 chance this is the truth, which slightly increases the chances of God existing." I'm sorry, but I literally laughed when I read this. It is absurd and it still falls victim to my Spiderman argument.

" This is not true, The Wager is still correct because the Bible exists and it's more logical to get sent to hell for doing bad, than for doing Good. So those 2 things increase the chances that Theism is safe, thus Pascal's Wager is Infallible." Broken record ad infinitum fallacy? The Bible is not proof of God any more than a Spiderman comic is proof of Spiderman and not believing in a guy who, if he exists, has used all the magic at his disposal to erase any evidence for his existence is not "bad", it is not being gullible.

" But then again, science labs and office buldings waste thousands of dollars more than speding 10 cents as an offering at the church. " Science>faith when you are sick. Science has saved lives and has created the wonderful comforts we now enjoy like the internet, abundant food, and the ability to cheaply produce nice pillows for my head. The church has produced nothing, and the good people who use church funding for charitable acts would probably be just as charitable without religion, but they would be free from the bigoted baggage.

"The Holocaust? This was carried out by a demented man, and just because he promotes hate does not mean that all of christianity does, don't just generalize people like that based on their religion." I will go Hitchens on you here. In normal circumstances, a good person will do good things and a bad person will do bad things, but it takes religion to get good people to do bad things and think they are doing good. You ignored my other examples, but Kim Davis saw herself as a hero despite really being a bigot. This is based on the hate in your holy book that tells us to murder homosexuals.

"I'm not taking God's name in vain? My belief in God is real, and it's not based on some wager, though. It's based on Faith- because God HAS helped me, Prayers HAVE worked, so I know he's real." You used his name as an expression of frustration. That is taking it in vain. As to prayers, they might motivate people to do things and people do have selective memory so they tend to remember the times it "works" more than the times it fails, but prayer is noting but asking a fairy tale for help.

"Do we have proof that the Bible was not meant to be taken seriously? No. That means it's more probable for it to be true than for it to be false, like the Spiderman comics, giving God a higher chance of existing than Spiderman (Even if it's small), which proves it's safer to believe in God." No, it does not. The more reasonable explanation, if it was meant to be taken seriously, is that people came up with stories they thought people would believe so they could control those people. Historically, that is the point of religion. It is a tool to control the populus. That someone really, really, really, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally believes some crazy stuff they write or that others wrote has nothing to do with whether it is true.

"The funniest part here, is that you're judging how the world should be like as if you're God, since you think you're the center of existence. It's literally asking ONLY for BELIEF, a simple little respect that's WAY less than you give to everyday people, and JUST for that, he will take you to eternal happiness and paradise. Is it SO hard?" I can't believe in ridiculous nonsense that has no legitimate evidence. I also can't worship monsters. You sound like a street preacher.

"I never said good deeds. Just believe in God with your heart, that's it." Then Hitler is in heaven and the Jews he killed are in hell.
Debate Round No. 4
ZBestDebater

Pro

You know what... I don't even care anymore. I can tell you're only going to get more arrogant as time passes. Although Pascal's Wager is correct in saying that it's safer to be Theist than Atheist, it's fallible. I forfeit, but i'm not instantly disqualified, seeing as you've broken almost every single rule I gave.
V5RED

Con

Well, what we have seen is that Pro wanted to defend something he did not actually read or understand using many fallacies and telling me that if I can't accept his fairy tales, I deserve to be tortured and I must think I am god.

Pascal's wager is a dead and well rebutted argument. I prefer the Thor rebuttal which I used here to demonstrate that it is a useless apologetic because the wager really just tells you to bet on whichever faith has the best outcome.

I want to address Pro's last post where he accepted that the wager is flawed, but still thinks it favors theism. It does not, and I can very easily use the wager to "prove" that you should be an atheist.

If I modify the Thor rebuttal to say that Thor hates gullibility and cowardice, and he will only accept people into his kingdom who never let such things rule their minds, then you are now forced to conclude that the best stance is atheism, so you would be forced to try to be an atheist. This seems like the best wager to make since an intelligent god would be far more impressed by intellectually honest people than by people who try to force themselves to believe ridiculous nonsense out of fear.

By the way, Pro seemed to completely miss my points about belief. Belief is the state of having been convinced. You do not choose to believe, you are either convinced or you are not convinced.

As to rule violations, I only violated one rule, Pro's silly "fit on the screen" rule. Well, it was a ridiculous rule, and besides half of that space was just quoting Pro to add context to my comments.

Con has repeatedly thrown ad hominem at me and used appeal to the populus arguments. True, that is not appeal to ignorance, but it is very similar in spirit. He also accused me of going off topic when all I did was respond to anything he put out there. He also accused me of having a god complex. I am not the one claiming to have special knowledge or a magic thing or claiming that my opponent deserves to burn forever.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZBestDebater 2 years ago
ZBestDebater
I didn't really provide a real argument, not since the second you made your first argument. I know it's impossible to argue with a rude person, and I don't want to get Banned/Reported/etc. For being rude myself.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
It was too much work to handle my arguments because yours were so bad. I might be a jerk, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you relied pretty much exclusively on fallacious reasoning in our debate and instead of changing your position once it was shown to be baseless, you decided the problem must be that I am a jerk. The problem is that your positions are irrational, and they could never be rational because the Christian god is not real.
Posted by ZBestDebater 2 years ago
ZBestDebater
"Okay kid" I literally stopped caring about anything you said and however you mocked me at this point. I didn't care that much at the beginning, but now I'm not even trying anymore. Not even going to argue. You literally told me not to assume things and turned around and did the same thing. Rationality? No, you're not rational at all. You just stand there and mock people until they don't care and give up because it's too much work handling such an Idiot.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
Okay kid, don't be making assumptions about why I am an atheist. Unlike you, I understand Christianity, and I can see that it is all bollocks. You gave the worst arguments possible to defend a position based on an argument you had never read in an attempt to defend a religion based on a book that you have either never read or forgotten the contents of. My position is based on rationality and understanding. I don't see how you could possibly say the same.
Posted by ZBestDebater 2 years ago
ZBestDebater
@Lexus we're not arguing about whether or not God exists.
Posted by ZBestDebater 2 years ago
ZBestDebater
@Fascist_Ferret You do know what the Rule is meant for, right? It's supposed to allow us to carry out polite conversation, efficiently and quickly deciding the winner. But, like I said, the moment he broke the rule I stopped caring- I knew he was one of those "Rebellious" Atheists that refuse to be Theist because they don't want to not be in power. They don't want to follow rules, they're wild. That's why I knew that it would be impossible to argue with him. I'm not bad at Debate, i'm just not as aggressive as you people.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
I now believe in Thor.
Posted by Fascist_Ferret 2 years ago
Fascist_Ferret
Z, F your rules, just finish the debate. And FYI, you were already losing before you gave up
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
V5RED
That is an appeal to the populus.

What I did would only violate the appeal to the stone rule had I not also described how your arguments were flawed. I called your arguments ridiculous and then explained why they were ridiculous.

Here are a couple links you might find useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by ZBestDebater 2 years ago
ZBestDebater
*Appeal to the people

I simply said that if 2 equally possible things are believed to be true, but one of them has been believed in for thousands of years, then it's a bit more likely that the one that has been believed in is more likely than the one you just made up.

Second, you also broke Argument from Ridicule rule, which ultimately destroyed the intention of having a polite Debate. This was intended to calmly and shortly reach a conclusion by a polite argument, but you had to make it a flame war- therefore I gave up the moment you started mocking,
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
ZBestDebaterV5RED
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by boognish 2 years ago
boognish
ZBestDebaterV5RED
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
ZBestDebaterV5RED
Who won the debate:--
Vote Placed by soccerisfun 2 years ago
soccerisfun
ZBestDebaterV5RED
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never responds to SpiderMan (which is a pretty dumb argument, the correct respnse would be the authors made it as a comic, they din't think SpiderMan existed) and doesn't beat the different religions argument either. I didn't think Con violated any rules - the computer screen rule was terribly worded since a character limit was chosen by Pro - and Pro got a bit mad by the end. Con had better arguments and better conduct. Good job to both sides though.