The Instigator
Khons
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
squonk
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

That God is real

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 1 vote the winner is...
squonk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 625 times Debate No: 95750
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

Khons

Pro

You start off this debate my friend
Me a Prophet of God
vs. you
squonk

Con

Ooh, I'm debating a Prophet of God. What fun.

There is no compelling reason to believe that God actually exists.
Debate Round No. 1
Khons

Pro

CON said that there is no compelling reason that God exists. I am going to say, Yes there may not be as much hardened evidence that there is a God, that is true. But there is also things that are not compelling on there non-Christian side, as that the humanoid figure named Lucy was faked there was a baboon bone in the skeleton.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
squonk

Con

This is a debate about the existence of God. The burden of proof in on PRO, who claims "that God is real" (as per the debate title). I do not claim to know that no deities exist. All I'm saying is: we have no good reason to think that they do exist. Therefore, we shouldn't believe in them.

The whole "Lucy" issue is irrelevant. For all I care, this debate can proceed under the pretense that evolution is false. Even if evolution is false, we still have no compelling reason to believe in God.


Debate Round No. 2
Khons

Pro

Truthfully the only way that i can give you compelling evidence is to give you all of the feelings i feel when i am praying or worshiping, no person can understand each and every thing in the universe, the only real evidence that i can give is all of the countless books that are not christian text that show that Jesus was real, who people believe is God, but you could argue that there could have been a Jesus but there is no evidence, there is the book of Isaiah prophesied many many years before.
squonk

Con

I have nothing more to say.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tonyrobinson 7 months ago
tonyrobinson
My last word on it then as it does not seem to be sinking through. The original need for moderation on a site as this is to eliminate trolling and blatantly biased voting. You however delete valid votes and discourage the use of this site.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
Khons is right: we shouldn't be having this conversation in the comments section of his debate. I'll say one last thing on the matter and then, if you wish, we can shift to PMs.

I don't believe I am using much in the way of discretion. I'll admit that there is always some discretion employed in the reading and interpretation of standards, but the standards as we have them were written by one of our co-moderators, and approved by me and the head moderator. I apply them the same way to every debate, and if there is uncertainty on a vote, I tend to err on the side of keeping it up. I don't think there has been a vote of yours where that has happened.
Posted by Khons 7 months ago
Khons
if you are going to debate do not do it in my comment section
Posted by tonyrobinson 7 months ago
tonyrobinson
You are using a greater amount of discretion in how you interpret the current guidelines than what I am asking for. The subjectivity you are already using seems biased on the side of when in question delete.

So the deletions comes only after a report of biased judging, ok.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
tony, your version of common sense and mine are likely very different, and particularly when it comes to debate, two different people can easily view an argument in very different ways. The kind of discretion you're telling me I should use would introduce a good deal of subjectivity into the process.

We read all reports regardless of who does the reporting.
Posted by tonyrobinson 7 months ago
tonyrobinson
The judgement would be a common sense judgement, something that has not exhibited by the moderators in the past. As a said case by case basis. Also are all of the deleted votes reported by someone who felt they were unjustly judged or do the moderators read all of them regardless?
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
Requiring that you state that one side's argument is incoherent and state that the other side's argument was and manages to either affirm or negate the resolution isn't asking much. That's all you're required to do: state what was incoherent about one side's argument, and why the other side won the debate as a result of their points or BoP. You're right, we could take that requirement away. The problem is that I've seen RFDs that attribute incoherence or non-resolutionality to arguments that aren't clearly correct in their assessment. At what point do we decide to allow that sort of reasoning in an RFD without any support, and at what point do we require support? If you have an alternative that doesn't require my stepping in and basically rendering my own verdict to determine whether or not the vote was sufficient, then I'm happy to hear about it.
Posted by tonyrobinson 7 months ago
tonyrobinson
I have no problem with the guidelines just your strict interpretation of them. When a person posts no argument I really can not address their argument, yet I did get a vote removed for failing to do so, and have saw others get votes removed for the same thing. When a debater is incoherent in their argument no detailed explanation should be necessary however the moderators do not judge each vote on a case by case basis. I am not saying moderators can not be a benefit to this site, I think they could be of a great benefit, just not the current moderators in their overzealous deletion of valid votes.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
tony, you're claiming things about the guidelines that I don't think are accurate, so yes, I'm offering to go through it with you. I'm not questioning your reading comprehension, but if one of us is wrong on this, I'm hoping to establish that to be the case and clarify the situation. Perhaps we didn't include it, but I recall including it in the standards.

I do see potential problems with debates being decided by 1 or 2 voters. I also see numerous problems with allowing a wide variety of RFDs that range from good analysis to very poor analysis. A lot of people have come and gone from the site because they've been mobbed by votes that are overly biased, threadbare, and/or just plain incomprehensible. You don't personally have to like moderation, and there are people who share your views that it's not helpful to the site. But we've been through a low moderation system before, and I know quite a few people who are very much against returning to it. You're welcome to your opinions about whether that moderation does more harm than good, but this isn't a clear issue.
Posted by tonyrobinson 7 months ago
tonyrobinson
Do you not see a problem with most debates being decided by 1 or 2 voters? That is assuming there are any votes at all? My reading comprehension is just fine, so I do not need you to read me the guidelines and explain them to me. the moderators such as yourself are ruining this site. Which is really sad as I really like the format of this site and I think it has lots of potential to be a really good site, it won't be though.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by distraff 7 months ago
distraff
KhonssquonkTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Round 2. Pro says that evidence for God is lacking but that some random fossil is an ape so that is somehow not a problem. Con points out the burden of proof is on Pro who is claiming God exists and that this fossil is irrelevant to God's existence. Pro then says God exists because of feelings he has when praying, and he knows God exists because no one understands everything, and there are supposedly a bunch of books showing Jesus is real, and that he fulfills a bunch of unnamed prophesies. The last two points are at least a little convincing but there is a complete lack of details so I had no problem with Con just dismissing this. Suggestion to Pro. Go into detail about these books showing Jesus is real and the prophesies.