The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
kingcripple
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The Christian God Most Likely Doesn't Exist

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 7 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,598 times Debate No: 25424
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (7)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Hello, here is the challenge that we agreed to. As the last debate the first round is only for acceptance.

God will be defined as follows: The all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing creator and ruler of the univers as said in the Bible.


~~Rules~~

1. No semantics

2. 8,000 charcters

3. 3 days to post arguments.

kingcripple

Con

Accepted. Though can you more specifically define semantics? Give some examples of what would qualify as semantics in this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Greetings, I thank my opponent and the voters for taking the time to participate and follow this debate. I hope it will be very productive . So on that note, lets begin.

I will be starting out with three contentions and might add more if the moment calls for I just ask that my opponent refrain from posting new arguments in the final round because that would be just plain unfair.

Contention 1: Lack of Extraordinary Evidence

I will begin with a fairly well-known quote by Carl Sagan:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [1].

With that said, I will now get to the point. There is no real nor extraordinary evidence for the existence of God. If there be any that I am not aware of then my opponent has the burden to present it. My opponent has the Burden of proof because it is always left to those claiming something exists to prove that the thing to which they referring to (in this case God) exists. For example: If I were to come up to my opponent and say to him that had seen a Unicorn and that they do exist, my opponent would have no reason to believe me unless I either show the Unicorn or the evidence that says the Unicorn exists. It would not be my opponent who had to prove that the unicorn didn't exist, it would be all up to me to prove that it does exist. The same that would apply to there, also applies to here.


Contention 2: The Impossibility of an Afterlife

My next contention really just speaks for itself. I will prove the impossibly of an afterlife. For this I will do a syllogism:

P1: Studies have shown that there exists a strong connection between mental events and brain events that neither can exist without the other.

P2: In a afterlife, there would occur mental events without brain events.

C: Therefore, An afterlife is impossible.

Now, I know what your thinking, if there is a soul then it doesn't require a brain to function. However, this is proven false by my first premise. There are certain injuries to the brain that if happened a person would have no mental state (they would be brain dead). While others destroy various mental capabilities. Which capability is destroyed is determined by which part of the brain was effected. So it is clear that we do not have a soul to carry out mental capabilities further then the brain we have now [2].

Contention 3: Omnipotence is Impossible

For my third contention I contend that omnipotence (or the state of being all-powerful) is in fact logically impossible. I will prove this by using a very old and well known method for do this. It is known as the Paradox of the Stone , and it goes like this:

If God is all-powerful, then he could create a stone that is so heavy that he could not lift it. However, if he does then he proves that he is not all-powerful.

Since omnipotence is a key aspect of God, and since omnipotence is a logical impossibly. Then God is impossible.

I will now await my opponent's response.

Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.infidels.org...
kingcripple

Con

C1: My opp says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. first, saying there is no extraordinary evidence of God requires extraordinary evidence that there is no God. My opp's analogy about unicorns is silly. People have reported seeing Unicorns which were later proven to be another specie altogether. There have been also numerous people who have claimed to see God and/or Angels and/or Jesus. None of thost reports have been aboslutly proven to be false.

Another thing that I believe ties in to my previous point is my own personal spiritual journey. When I was younger, I always felt God watching over me. I would look up to the sky and ALMOST see God and Jesus looking after me. When I used to go to church, I would feel His presence. I was also born with spina bifida and have had a few close calls. I have woken up during surgery. I have had an infection so bad I could've died. How can my opp argue personal experience without resorting to insults?

There is also Noah's Ark sitting on Mt. Ararat. I would ask my opp to explain how that (a story in Genisis, the first book of the Bible) got there? How is it the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered? More to the point about Dead Sea Scrolls, how were they not proven to be false? The burden of proof is now on my opp.

C2- The existance of the afterlife. Several people in both ancient and modern times have claimed to see Heaven and Hell. Most recently a sick child, who during a surgery, claims he went up to heaven and saw both heaven and hell. This account was written by his father in the book, Heaven Is For Real. This may not be extraordinary evidence, but there certainly is no extraordinary evidence disproving because as i have said, my opp would find it impossible to refute personal experience with out resorting to insults (hallucinations, etc)

C3- Omnipotence is impossible. My opp brought about the Paradox of the Stone. The simple answer would be why would God do that? To prove his omnipotence? Why would he have to do that? Why SHOULD He have to do that? I would ask my opp to explain creation then. He would immediatly start with the big bang, which in itsself is flawed. The deeper you delve into it, the more questions come up and the harder it gets to prove it. Same with evolution. I recall an interview that Ben Stein conducted with Richard Dawkins. Stein asked Dawkins to explain how the universe was created. It started out just fine for Dawkins. Stein kept asking the same thing of Dawkins after Dawkins explained something, "What caused that?". Eventually Dawkins said something about bacteria on crystals. When Dawkins replied, he said "I don't know. We are currently working on that." Even Richard Dawkins, an arrogant atheist, could not come up with Extrodinary evidence. This is why we have to acknowledge at least the POSSIBILITY of an all powerful creator. SOMETHING has to be at work to create the universe. There IS an explaination for creation. There is no concrete extraordinary explaination for the big bang. The question of what caused A, B, C and X, Y, Z ALWAYS comes up and there is absolutly no way anyone can come up with a finite answer with out acknowledging a all powerful creator
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

Defense: 1

First off, my opponent states that I have to prove that there is no god. However, this is false for the reasons I have already stated. My opponent has made claims with out evidence that goes by what people say rather then what can be proved in the natural world around us. I will be taking the stance of the late Christopher Hitchens who said: 'That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.' [1]. If my opponent is going to be able to get anywhere in this debate, he must do two things:

1. State specific scientific evidence that god doesn't exist.

2. Refute my other two contentions.

Until he does this these things he has no hope of winning this debate.

Defense 2

My opponent then brings up that some people claim that they have seen heaven and hell. However, I that these people didn't. Furthermore, I say I do not even need to disprove what has not even been proven. People of all religions claim to see things that their religion says are real but our contrary to the what the Bible and its god supposedly said. Take for instance Muhammad's "visitation" from a angel for example it is something contrary to the Bible, Joseph Smith's "visitation" from a angel, and Buddha's 'enlightenment', etc. They all claim that something supernatural has happened and yet they are all far from being similar to each other. Christianity is no different the others, and it's obviously a mental mishap or outright lies[2,3,4].

Defense 3

My opponent has completely misunderstood my third contention. It is not whether if he wants to or why wants to, it is if he can! I was pointing out the logical impossibility that my opponent just can't refute. therefore, my third contention still stands.


Refutation 1

What my opponent has stated about this so called 'ark' is a unproven claim. It hasn't been confirmed to be authentic. On the contrary many scientists and archaeologists say that there is a very big chance that it is a hoax. Scientists have found evidence that it could have been constructed by local Kurds (Kurds are mostly Christian) for the Chinese evangelicals who claim to have 'fount' it. The appearance is not enough, it must be confirmed [5.6].

Refutation 2

And now it is time for the exciting part of my refutation. The argument from design is literally the oldest of all arguments for theism. So, I shall prove why it is more probable that the earth and everything is 15 billion years old, and the product of what is referred to by the majority of modern cosmologists as the Big Bang. So I will start with the Big Bangs evidence, then I will prove why a god could not have done.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble, working at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars called Cepheids in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding.
Once scientists understood that the universe was expanding, they immediately realized that it would have been smaller in the past. At some point in the past, the entire universe would have been a single point. This point is of beginning is called the 'Big Bang' because there is no other reasonable explanation [7,8].

Now, I will state that there is no way that it could have been started by a creator. I will do this with this thing called Quantum Mechanics. It has been observed by numerous scientists where energy, neutrons, electrons, and protons can appear out of absolutely nowhere. This proves that one does not need a divine cause to make everything come into existence [9,10,11].

Furthermore, this world is not cdesigned because:

1. It took billions of years for this to happen, not six days.

2. It is not perfect and therefore, does not intell that it was created by an all-powerful god.

1. In defense of 1, I contend that the methods such as carbon dating, melecular dating, and radioactive dating are all quite reliable for determining that the Earth, and the universe is billions of years old [12,13,14].

2. And in my defense of 2, I contend that the biological lifeforms on this planet are not perfect in design, and neither is the universe. For example: we humans are proned to back troubles, and other problems [15]. Also, another in the rest of the animal kingdom is fist that are born with eyes that don't work [16] and the English Bull Dog is born with heart problems [17]. The universe is endlessly expanding into the never ending reaches and coldness of space to die out and us along with it. And even further, are galaxy the Milky Way his on a direct collision course with the Andromada galaxy which would also be the death of us [18].

With that done, I will now await my opponent's response.

Thank You.

Sources

[1]http://en.wikiquote.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.csmonitor.com...
[6] http://www.newser.com...
[7] http://skyserver.sdss.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://truthisscary.com...
[10] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[11] http://liberatedmind.com...
[12] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[13] http://www.botany.wisc.edu...
[14] http://www.lbl.gov...
[15] http://www.altmd.com...
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[18] http://www.nasa.gov...
kingcripple

Con

Response to your first defense- You did say that extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. Whether you are going to admit it or not, claiming there isn't a God (or most likely as you put it, but i'm not supposed to be nit picky), is a pretty extraordinary claim. Rather than this being be a defense on your part, We shall count this as a consession, therefore no more defense on my part is needed.

Response to your second defense- I stated twice that it is impossible to refute someone's personal experience without resorting to attacks. Which I was right and in this defense you appear to not make any attacks, which I commend you for. But wait.... you call it a mental mishap or an outright lie. I was right! you cannot infact refute this without resorting to attacks. I would ask you how you believe these things did not happen, however you stated that it was a mental mishap or a lie. Who are you to contend with these claims? You were not there. You did not experience these things. So what mental mishap was it? what happened to cause these delussions? Until you can come up with a finite answer to what caused this, we shall consider this defense a concession of my argument as well

Response to your thrid defense- You simply did not answer the question I posed to you. My response was why would God or why should God. Seeing as you did not even attempt to answer, we shall consider this defense you made a concession as well

That's three concessions my opp has made

I may concede the ark claim, I may not. I probably wont. But you never even attempted to refute the my argument on the dead sea scrolls. This shall count as your 4th concession

Biblical scholars and theologians have for years agreed that creation did not happen in days as we ourselves consider days. What "days" means is not literally Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. These people believe that "days" was actually, hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years. Some people believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. My question of "What happened next" or "what caused the Big Bang" has still gone unanswered. There HAS to be something in motion making these things to happen. Something HAD to cause the Big Bang. And something HAD to cause that. And so on and so forth. My opp cannot (again) come up with an explaination. This is his 5th concession.

My opp finalized this arguement that the lifeforms in the universe are not perfect. I'd agree but He presented no evidence as to why we are scientifically prone to malfunctions. I have evidence. Genesis 3:1-19 http://www.biblegateway.com... Even though this was in the same refutation as the 5th concession, we shall, for good measure, count this as my opps 6th concession

Since I am not yet willing to concede my opps claim about the ark, I will concede that the interveiw I was talking about with Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins where Dawkins claimed bactaria on the back of crystals, was not actually Dawkins. It was some other prominent British atheist who's name escapes me right now. However there IS an interveiw Stein conducted with Dawkins, in which Dawkins admitted he did not know exactly how the universe was created but was certain it was not by God.

Since this was not a serious infraction on my part, as I was partially right, We will count this as a 1/4 concession on my part

So folks, as you see, My opponent has made six (five if he is able to come with a finite answer to what caused people to have delusions of God) to my 1/4 of a concession. It's a really simple debate and my opp has helped prove my points more than he knows.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Defense 1

I would like to point out that my claim is not extraordinary. If one says something exists then it is up them to prove that it exists. My opponent says the god of the Bible exists, and yet he has not proven it exists, but rather talked his way around it, and stated a few claims without evidence and has even dropped a few of my arguments. My case still stands, the burden of proof is on my!


Defense 2

Claiming that someone is either lying or havinf mental issues or holussinations is not personal attack, it is the only thing that could explain it if they didn't actually see Heaven or Hell or anything like that. Furthermore, I can say that exact same question to you. Were you in Israel 2,000 years ago? NO! And my opponent has just helped me by asking this question. If my opponent is to be consistant with his veiws he must agree that all other religious claims of supernatural experiences are false, but he doesn't instead he defends them. So he contradicts hs own Bible and therefore, his own claims of the existence of God. But this again helps me in another way. I contend since this phenomina occurs in every religion it is a natural cause that is causing it, not gods and not spirits. My opponent fails.

Defense 3

My opponent is now saying that I did not attempt to answer his questions. But there is a problem here...do you know what it is? Do you notice it? Oh yes, I did answer it! And now i'll answer it again but in better terminology. No! I do not have to answer the questions he asked, because those questions do not get at the point of the " Paradox of the Stone". It proves that omnipotence is impossible. It is not whether or not if he should make a stone that he can not lift. It is that he CAN'T! And if he does he still disproves his own self. Omnipotence is impossible and so is the Christian god!

Refutation 1

My opponent has not responded towards my refutation of the ark, therefore it I will consider it conceded. Furthermore, I dismissed the dead sea scrolls because they are not evidence no more then the Sunna is evidence of Islam or the Book of Mormon is evidence that they are right. It is just not worthy of being addressed.

Refutation 2

I did answer my opponent's question. First, I proved that the Big Bang actually happened (he disagreed at first), and then I proved that god was not required for that by introducing him to quantum michanics (which he dropped by the way). And furthermore, i'll counter my opponent by stating if the universe had a cause and it did, what is God's cause? If he is all-powerful (already refuted that) and complex then he himself would have to have a cause. However, this is another refutation of his omnipotence, and it contradicts his biblical definition. Therefore, he can't exist.

He then accusses me of not presenting evidence when I presented evidence for it in the 'sorces' section of my kast round. He then gives Bible verses that have no reference in it for human defects.

Then his video and his point here at the end is really sad because he yet again makes the 'God of the Gaps' fallacy. I will state again, just because we don't have enough knowledge of something doesn't mean god did it.

AND I WILL STATE NOW THAT I DIDN'T CONCEDE ANYTHING!

Concluding Statement

In my conclusion, I have proven that the universe can come about with God, I have proven that the afterlife is a impossibilty, and I have proven that omnipotence is a impossibilty. My opponent has failed to provide adiquate evidence for the existence of God, and has given two lousey arguemnts without evidence, and has only given one source to back up his claims.

I thank those who took the time to read this.


kingcripple

Con

My opponent, while I respect him as a person and his beliefs, has lost his mind. He avoided answering my questions which for all intents and purposes is a concession. Then he went on to claim he never conceded anything. He would not refute any personal experiences I or anyone i talked about had without resorting to insults and in his closing argument round, he got waaaay to defensive for anyone's tastes. That in and of itsself is a clear showing of insecurity in his beliefs. When you have insecurities in your beliefs, no matter how much infallable proof you provide, makes you seem like you just do not know what you are defending.

Ladies and gentleman, that, is why you must vote for me to win this debate, regardless of your personal beliefs. If you are having someone who gets angry at refutation defending YOUR personal beliefs you must, I repeat, MUST start to question the socalled logic behid his defenses AS WELL AS your own beliefs. I presented inarguable facts which were failed to be refuted.

My name is kingcripple, and I approved this message
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zacmoo0007 4 years ago
Zacmoo0007
Well I would have voted except this stupid website thinks that only Optus Mobile is the only carrier in Australia! That means I cannot prove my identity and therefore can't vote!
Posted by kingcripple 4 years ago
kingcripple
Man-is-good, I refuted each of his arguments and rebuttals and he could no longer defend. When I said, this is a concession on his part, THAT was the consession. He was too proud to concede, but the mere fact that he failed to answer questions, arguments and rebuttals, means he conceded his points.
Posted by kingcripple 4 years ago
kingcripple
Zacmoo0007, not that it matters at this point as I am losing the debate, go vote!
Posted by Zacmoo0007 4 years ago
Zacmoo0007
This debate goes to kingcripple. It is hard to explain God or to prove his existence so I think this debate was pretty pointless. Pro needs to shut up and look for evidence himself. Go to a church (a christian christian church)! Read the bible! The Bible is there for a reason! Nobody would have gone to so much effort to make some fake religion! Ask Christians (christian christians) about their beliefs and their testamonies. I bet you that they will have lots to tell if you go to the right church! There is more to life than you know it! Richard Dawkins (an absoult turkey) believes in aliens or some crap that made us! There is this repeative question I ask him and to many other people who might think that human evolution is true: "How was that there in the first place?" "How did that come to be?" "How did this start out?"

I would also like to say that, as kingcripple said, you cannot argue about someone's personal experience about God. This is most certainly true and I've had a personal experience with God myself. Pro has totally gone off the line and has no understanding on the topic he is really dealing with here.

I will say again to everyone: "There is more to life than you know it!" We can't just have suddenly poped out of no where! There is surely somebody more powerful than us! Someone else behind scenes! We can't live for 80 odd years and die and that's that! Surely there's more to it don't you think? Coooome ooooonnnn!!!
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
And I have removed the point for conduct, kingcripple.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
"They were obvious concessions."
What are concessions, Kingcripple?

"Only someone who was already previously biased towards the Pro's side wouldn't see it. Sorry, facts are facts and I refuted his."
And how did a statement like that become a fact, lol?
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
The Pro case was undermined by failure to define the Christian God. A god that is omnipotent omniscient, and good is defeated by the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-belief. Pro used neither of those arguments.

The "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it?" argument is satisfactorily answered by quite reasonably defining "omnipotence" as the ability to do anything that is logically possible. That's a very old response.

The demand for "extraordinary evidence" was not specific enough. What would suffice? As posed, anything offered could be claimed to not be enough.

Pro equates Christianity with Young Earth Creationism. That's not a fair characterization. For example, the Catholic church officially accepts evolution.

The argument of an afterlife requiring physical brain activity is not convincing. The analogy is to copying a computer program -- the process survives the original physical embodiment.

Con's argument from personal experience is not refuted by claims that Con must somehow be mentally deficient. Unless God is first disproved, there is no proof that Con is wrong in his perceptions. I think the proper refutation is that similar arguments from personal experience can be cited for a great variety of different Gods, all equally sincere, and the debate is solely about the Christian God. Therefore the evidence from personal experience does not support the resolution any more than it supports contradictory resolutions for other Gods.

I'm negative about the debate logic, but the debaters did a good job of expressing their viewpoints. They've thought about the issues.
Posted by kingcripple 4 years ago
kingcripple
Man-is-good, I admit I laughed at my opps final statements and his conduct in that round, but over all, how can you say my overall conduct was poor? He clearly got on the defensive when I rendered his arguments in the previous round conceded. They were obvious concessions. Only someone who was already previously biased towards the Pro's side wouldn't see it. Sorry, facts are facts and I refuted his.
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
RFD:While I admit Pro's arguments could have been explicated, Con's arguments skirted around a direct address, often opting instead for misguided responses that do little but to poorly weigh his burden that he arguably shoulders. Con's performance was noticeably poor in conduct, choosing to only to undermine his opponent's security and conviction in the final round, and his categorization of his opponent's points as concessions amounts little more than a conceit, lol.

The arguments are relatively easy to judge: in upholding personal experience as a bastion to critique, Con ignores the underlying subjectivity, let alone the fallibility of human perception and instrument of reasoning, and attempts to instead state that Who are you to contend with these claims? You were not there. You did not experience these things." (This is a weak point, as the fact that Con seems to be bringing up a whole girth of spiritual or transcendental experiences which he was removed, temporally and spatially, and can easily be reversed, as Pro aptly notes in his response; Con's contention that somehow no one can disprove personal experience without resulting to insults or pejoratives is equally ridiculous and he instead--and ignores the fact that Pro intends to empirically absolve the issue of such a phenomenon--or his opponent's rebuttal...)

The "paradox of the stone" was poorly rebutted; the scenario obviously functions to demonstrate the supposed contradiction of omnipotence, and even the shortly-trimmed scenario offers no description of personal motive or even exertion (lol) to arrive at, making Con's inquiries useless; Con also mistakes the notion that an assigned burden of proof equates to answering all inquiries made, regardless of irrelevancy. The movement to the argument of design--which rests upon the admittedly ludicrous notion that one man's failure to explicate signifies the failure of a theoretical model to explain the beginnings of a world and instead, somehow,
Posted by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
indicates the conscious intervention of some deity, signaled a counter that was only barely demolished with Con's normal reiteration of his case and skirting around the imperfection of a world by relying upon the original sin. [Con forgets that the debate rests within the realms of uncertainty as its premise, with no assertiveness in regards to any systematic belief systems, which encompass the notion he proposes here.]
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: evidentse wins it for pro
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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: Evidence wins in the end, Pro's argumentation is formulated around evidence, while cons is based around speculation.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 4 years ago
Man-is-good
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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: See RFD in comments. This is a fairly-one sided debate, and Con's insistence on relying on personal experience and anecdotal barely relevant (at times) details...proves most detrimental to his cause here. EDIT: I have removed the point for conduct. I will only be granting conduct points for one side if the other makes flagrant remarks of "interest"...
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was so far off base, I'm saying it is a tie. See comments.
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually used evidence and logic for his argument. Con relied almost entirely on anecdotal arguments. (I think someone else already pointed this out.) Pro also wins conduct because of con's false accusations. Pro should also win sources, but I don't want to completely vote bomb.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 4 years ago
darkkermit
DeathbeforedishonourkingcrippleTied
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 used logical arguments such as the "stone paradox". CON used mainly anecdotal evidence to prove his claims.