The Instigator
UtherPenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
spacetime
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Resolved: God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
spacetime
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 628 times Debate No: 84129
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

UtherPenguin

Pro

Since the topic is already resolved I will not be taking ANY debate challengers. If you accept this debate, you must agree concede the debate.

I repeat, anyone who accepts this debate as Con will be given an automatic concession.
spacetime

Con

A preliminary note: Don't feel bad for Pro. He was trying to game the system to get a free win, so there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of his grammatical errors in order to turn it against him.

Let's take a close look at what Pro has told us in his opening round.

"If you accept this debate, you must agree concede the debate."

Agree concede the debate? What? That is incoherent. Ignore this statement.

"I repeat, anyone who accepts this debate as Con will be given an automatic concession."

Indeed. I will be given an automatic concession. By Pro.
Pro must abide by his rules and concede the debate next round.

None of what Pro has said makes any sense except for the last sentence, in which he clearly stated that I will be given an automatic concession by him. What he intended to say does not matter. The rules are what they are.

By promising me a concession, Pro has effectively conceded the debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
UtherPenguin

Pro

1:"A preliminary note: Don't
feel bad for Pro. He was trying to game the system to get a free win, so
there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of his grammatical errors in order
to turn it against him"

As above, Con has openly admitted to playing Semantics. Trying to find
a "technical" contradiction and misrepresent what I have said. I was
also not trying to "game the system". The resolution of the debate
explicitly said "resolved" and I had mentioned in my very first statement
"I will not be taking ANY debate challengers"

Even *if* I was doing what Con has accused me of, that doesn't ignore
the fact that Con had made a blatant violation of the very first rule of my
debate that being:

“I will not be taking ANY debate challengers"

. A rule was given, and done so quite explicitly, yet Con ignored it.

2: "Indeed. I will be given
an automatic concession. By Pro. Pro must abide by his rules and concede the
debate next round."

Con has ignored my statement and removed it from context. Let us look
at what I had said:

"If you accept this debate, you must agree to concede the
debate."

"I repeat anyone who accepts this debate as Con will be given an
automatic concession."

I stated firstly that you (Con, as he is the one accepting the debate)
must agree to a concession. Even if someone takes this statement from a semantic
viewpoint, the request was quite obvious. That being, the contending side must
concede to the debate, and agree in doing so. However, this is how Con reacted
to the first statement:"Agree concede the debate? What? That is
incoherent. Ignore this statement."The request was made clear as mentioned
previously, however Con decided to blatantly ignore this statement.

Furthermore, Con states:

"Indeed. I will be given an automatic concession. By Pro. Pro must
abide by his rules and concede the debate next round."

Yet look at what I said in my second statement:

"I repeat anyone who accepts this debate as Con will be given an
automatic concession."

The fact I said "I
repeat" in the beginning of the sentence implies that I am merely
reiterating what has been said previously. And what had I said previously?

This:

"If you accept this debate, you must agree concede the
debate."

Hence, it can be seen here that has committed the Straw man fallacy, by
misrepresenting my argument, and taking it out of context, Con has undermined
the chance of honest discussion in this debate.

In conclusion:

Con has broken multiple rules of the debate by:

-
Accepting the debate despite me explicitly requesting no one to do so.

-
Refusing to concede the debate

-
Playing semantics in an attempt to find a contradiction within my
argument.

-
Misrepresenting my argument and taking it out of context.

Therefore, in order for Con to follow the rules of the debate, he is
expected to concede in the next round.

Failure to do so is a violation of the second rule I had previously
made in the debate and hence an act of misconduct.

Vote Pro.
spacetime

Con

The purpose of debate is for both Pro and Con to have a thorough, evenly-balanced discussion on the resolution. Pro crafted this resolution specifically so that he would be the only possible winner. thereby making it impossible to have an "evenly-balanced discussion". He's *abusing* the medium of debate to score a free win -- ignore all of Pro's bullsh!t attempts at justifying these cheap tactics, and punish him with a loss so that he won't engage in such antics in the future. That aside, let's get back to the semantics game.

My opponent's main criticism is that I ignored the following line:

"Since the topic is already resolved I will not be taking ANY debate challengers."

Again, this is incoherent. He IS the "debate challenger" -- he's the one who instigated the debate, and left the debate as an open challenge in the challenge period. It makes no sense for him to refuse to "take any debate challengers" when he's the only debate challenger for this debate... we can safely ignore this nonsensical statement. Additionally, if the topic was truly "resolved" already, then there would be no need to start a debate over it. Therefore, simply the fact that he instigated this debate is evidence that the topic is NOT "resolved." Pro's statement is incoherent on every level!

Pro attempts to edit his "agree concede the debate" statement to make it coherent, but it's too late for that. The rules were set in stone as soon as he posted his opening round. The *only* part of his round that makes any sense at all is the last sentence, where he explicitly states that he will concede the debate. Clearly, he has not followed up on his promise. Hold him accountable to this rule violation and vote CON!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Jonbonbon// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Con should've reported the debate if he felt the debate was inherently flawed in a way that cheated someone else out of a win. Accepting this debate is accepting defeat. When you accept a debate, you accept its rules. That's why you have to dispute them in the comments, or report it if it's a debate like this. But con accepted, so I'm not reporting the debate out of pity. Con made a poor decision, and I'm going to award the points of a full concession to pro, as stated in the rules.

[*Reason for removal*] Considering Con made arguments specific to the rules, especially with regards to whom they apply and to what degree, the voter does have to at least address those points in their RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: LaughingRiddle// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Shameful display to try and avoid real debate by pro, and Con outsmarted him anyway.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Voter does not explain S&G. (2) Voter insufficiently explains conduct, failing to explain what in the debate was shameful enough to award this. (3) Voter insufficiently explains arguments. The voter has to explain how Con outsmarted Pro, and not merely state that he was outsmarted.
************************************************************************
Posted by mc9 11 months ago
mc9
In my vote I meant neither
Posted by AWSM0055 11 months ago
AWSM0055
So, what was the point of this whole debate if accepting just meant automatic concession? Kinda defeats the purpose of a debate.
Posted by Envisage 11 months ago
Envisage
Lol....
Posted by Reformist 11 months ago
Reformist
Con just b*tch slapped Pro using his own words

And I don't even feel bad for him

VOTE CON
Posted by AngryBlogger 11 months ago
AngryBlogger
I will vote con as like he said, pro tried to game the system so he could get an free win but made a huge typing error near the end (karma?)

Sorry pro.

Besides, the topic on god existing cannot be proven 100% at all. NEVER as of right now can it be proven without question, without doubt that god exist. (Pro probably realized this after he made the thread and tried backing out). You can't prove that god doesn't exist either, so it's never technically a win for either side in any of these god debates, but only can you provide the best evidence as to why you "think" if god is real or not. Personally, I would argue god doesn't exist cause I have some good arguments, but again, you can't prove that he doesn't or he does.

Creating a title like "god exists" is basically saying without doubt that god exist (opinion) and he could have worded it better.

Anyhow, vote con.
Posted by missmedic 11 months ago
missmedic
Can "god" be known? if yes please define the god you know.
I would argue that god can exist, but could not be known by humans, as it would be beyond our understanding.
I would further argue and more importantly so, the necessity of faith based belief, one need not own beliefs of any kind to establish scientific facts, observe and enjoy nature, or live a productive, moral, and useful life.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mc9 11 months ago
mc9
UtherPenguinspacetimeTied
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: Ok so this was a troll debate? But anyway I will say tied as I don't know the purpose of this debate and either side argued
Vote Placed by AngryBlogger 11 months ago
AngryBlogger
UtherPenguinspacetimeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The pro tried being getting a cheap win off this debate, but made a huge error mistake in the title of the debate. "God exists" is basically all up to the pro to prove god exist without doubt. However, I do not think that's possible as evident in the debate rounds. Con provided good arguments, and reasoning, and so therefore, my vote goes to con.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 11 months ago
Balacafa
UtherPenguinspacetimeTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a semantics argument and twisted around Pro's words when they were clearly attempted to be used for his benefit. This means I give Pro the conduct point. I award Con arguments simply due to the fact that agreeing to concede the debate is not correct English grammar as Con clearly highlighted - this is incoherent. Since Pro intertwined the fact that he was reiterating a point in response to Con's observation that 'Con was being given an automatic concession', I also buy the fact that this part makes no sense due to the fact that Pro's first statement also goes in Pro's favor. If Pro's second statement was a reiteration of his second then this also goes to Con. Since I buy this, I also buy that Con should be given an automatic concession. I vote Con on arguments based on this.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
UtherPenguinspacetimeTied
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: Ugh, this was bad. Honestly, it's really bad that I end up finding Pro, who clearly made this debate to garner himself a free win, to be engaging in less mischief than Con. Con attempts semantics from the start, where he mainly has to twist sentences and pretend that Pro has required that he concede. I don't buy it as written, since it doesn't specify who must concede and some poor grammar makes it less obvious. The Kritik Con provides in R2 comes both too late and too little, and the further analysis of challenger just seems like more twisted logic. I end up voting for neither side because I'm simply unconvinced as to who should forfeit, and all I'm getting after Pro's R1 are assertions of who it should be based on changes to the wording. Con, I get that you wanted to tear down Pro for creating an abusive debate, but this is not the way to do it.