The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
yuiru
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

The Fool: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,302 times Debate No: 25085
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (4)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic.


1. Arguments must be intellegentally defended by the Debators.

2. Appeal to authorty or references are NOT replacements for Arguments.

3. Principle of Charity=Conduct

4. The Debate is for Intellectual truth value rather then debate value.


Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator.
-giving the best representation of opponest arguments.
-Assume your opponent to be rational and intellegent.
-Vague language is to be avoided.


No Loop whole wins:
-sementic Games.
-playing to the definition(playing to the a particular definition of a word and not the reality of what the debate is about.


Definitions rules!
The Most informative, precise and reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.

A contradiction, is a FATAL blow. No believes, or convincings, or seems like, or shouldness Votes about it.

My claim that there has never been a sound argument for the existence of God.
So I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument for the existence of an actual monotheistic God. For people who are really intrested in proving the existence of God.

yuiru

Con

B'obo is real because of this...
Moon is made of cheese, it is his supply of cheese for his cheese sandwiches.

Look here: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com...

We know B'obo is using this cheese because of various scoops on the moon!

Where do you think grilled cheese sandwiches come from?

Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


The Fool: Ah well Con has directly violated, Conditions of acceptence. Which was NO games! Intellectual value and honest. Competitors.

Please be Fair. Vote Fool.
yuiru

Con


Where in round 1 does it state a "Condition of Acceptence" I have violated??

Rather, I see this as an ad hominem attempt to avoid confuting the given argument because you are unable to.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator. aka Honesty

:Where in round 1 does it state a "Condition of Acceptence" I have violated??

The Fool: You tell me, I am the Fool here. I don't see lions and tiger, or clown bears. But something cannot come nothing, so any argument from nothing would be false. And thus it is proved UNSOUND. QED


:Rather, I see this as an ad hominem attempt to avoid confuting the given argument because you are unable to.

The Fool: Well show me where you see this? I want to see too.

yuiru

Con

"Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator. aka Honesty


:Where in round 1 does it state a "Condition of Acceptence" I have violated??

The Fool: You tell me, I am the Fool here. I don't see lions and tiger, or clown bears. But something cannot come nothing, so any argument from nothing would be false. And thus it is proved UNSOUND. QED"

:Okay, nowhere! Good to hear, I am choosing not to argue from nothing.

":Rather, I see this as an ad hominem attempt to avoid confuting the given argument because you are unable to.

The Fool: Well show me where you see this? I want to see too."

:I will never show you where I see it because I am too lazy to!!


My next argument:






      • The attributes of nature are too complex to have arose by chance





      • These attribute show the distinctive characteristic of a fashionable design





      • This design suggest that there is in fact a fashion designer





      • Therefore nature is a product of an intelligent fashion designer





      • Therefore B'obo






A completely sound argument.
Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


The Fool:
It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; which is not a God.


Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator.
-giving the best representation of opponest arguments.

So I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument(1) for the existence of an actual monotheistic God. For people who are really intrested in proving the existence of God.

GO away! Boboo

Vote Fool!
yuiru

Con

Your argument:
"It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god."


Yes, constitutes to evidence, not asserting B'obo(God) exist.

"But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; which is not a God."

Let's break this argument down:
1. It is claimed regularity in nature is evidence for the existence of god.
2. The logically necessary consequence of claiming God exist is that "phenomena occur in certain sequences"
(there is requisite regularity in nature[?])
3. Therefore claiming God exist is equal to claiming requisite regularity in nature exist.
4. Therefore regularity in nature is not evidence for the existence of god.

This is a non sequitur. At what point do you logically go from whether regularity in nature is evidence for god, to claiming god exist being equal to claiming regularity in nature exist? My argument never says anything about what God existing entails!

There is a big difference between what would be *asserting* 'evidence' for the existence of God and what would 'entail' for *asserting* God to exist.

This does not refute the argument. In fact, it ignores most of the argument, and only partially addresses the first two premises!


You could have easily pointed out multiple false premises, fallacies, and paradoxes...

But instead you chose to make an almost equally flawed argument... Kinda odd...

No Loop whole wins:

"So I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument(1) for the existence of an actual monotheistic God. For people who are really intrested in proving the existence of God."

Oops!!! Looks like you played a semantic game.
What ever happened to No Loop whole wins?

"No Loop whole wins:
-sementic Games.
-playing to the definition(playing to the a particular definition of a word and not the reality of what the debate is about."

Clever, you knew that I would possibly bring up the fact that you didn't even attempt to refute my first argument; so in order to evade the repercussions you tried to manipulate and distract, both the focus of debate, and context of your claim.

Well, English doesn't work like that, and neither do honest debates, especially ones for intellectual truth.

This is the actual resolution: I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God

This is your claim (edited): I will refute any rational/logical aka sound argument(1) for the existence of an actual monotheistic God.

Your claim:

When you say, "any" you mean ANY.

Any:
one,a,an,orsome;one or morewithout specificationor identification
http://dictionary.reference.com...

And that is respecting the most likely meaning of the debater, mind you.
The Most informative, precise and reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.

Also, even using your new context, you still didn't refute my FIRST argument. Yet, you are still saying ANY argument, whether or not just 1.

Resolution:

I will refute any argument considered a sound proof of God.

That said, respecting the most likely meaning of the debater, you mean what you are writing.

Just because you claim something different in a debate doesn't alter the actual debate topic.

By necessity, I contend that you will not refute any argument.

I think originally you wanted to distract from the resolution in a way that would give you the upper hand.
Alas, it seems you ultimately distracted yourself.


-You have played definitions of words.
-Missed the point of the debate.
-You have failed to refute any one of my arguments, therefore you have not held up your position in the debate.


I rest my case.







Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
yuiru
"Stop trying to smear the lines. you are open and in the clear."

Thanks for more vague sentences. You are a navi and exposed as such.
Posted by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
"We are good by nature"

Care to debate that?
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: Justice prevails <(8J)
You spoil the image of people. We are Good by nature.

Stop trying to smear the lines. you are open and in the clear.
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
yuiru
That's cute Fool
where is there a quality of being fair and reasonable, when fallacious thinking makes decisions? The specious prevails, there really is nothing to spoil in the image of people.
I enjoyed debating regardless.
And however you're fervor for winning, that is all it will ever be.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: Justice prevails <(8J)
You spoil the image of people. We are Good by nature.
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
yuiru
Actually sound refers to it being sensible or substantial. Something can be considered sound by one person and differently to another.

"By your standards debates would be impossible for I could say that every single word wasnt defined."
That's already how debates are.

"No there is nothing about Boboo that entials God. I assumed the most likley meaning."
No there is everything, and you clearly understood as you just said.

"Doesn't matter anyway there is only proof in a logical or mathematical sense. So sound proof could not refer to anything else. Your burned any ways."
No, proof is evidence sufficient enough to establish a thing as true or anything that serves as such. It does not have to be based on a logical or mathematical sense. Meaning it actually can refer to a lot of things. There still exist flawed logic anyway.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: Sound is "word" that refers to a criteria. There is not such thing as sound to someone. If this was true. Then somebody is avoiding communication.

@Yuiry
That is just an excuse, you said 'any argument considered a sound proof of God'
Sound proof mean specifically that the premises are true and the and the conclusion can be deduced from the premises.
There are only proofs in logic of mathematics.

No there is nothing about Boboo that entials God. I assumed the most likley meaning. I actually followed the rules.

By your standards debates would be impossible for I could say that every single word wasnt defined.
Doesn't matter anyway there is only proof in a logical or mathematical sense. So sound proof could not refer to anything else. Your burned any ways.
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
yuiru
"It the delibrate intention to avoid the most liklly interpretation of anything mentioned. It obvious that I don't want waste time with such nonsense. You are delibratly wasting my time and others to have to bother reading something so insignificant. Its not neutral, it affects others negativly."
That is just an excuse, you said 'any argument considered a sound proof of God'
I did not use any "intentional deception", you simply chose not to refute an argument because it wasn't significant enough for you. And that is nothing near nefarious, it is just a debate and that is a paltry complaint.

"You did, for both reasons. General consistencies in nature=/=God"
That did not refute my argument, nowhere did the argument state anything of the sort. That is only a misrepresentation of the original.

"Secondly you never argued for actual monotheistic God. Boboo is a meaningless 'word' without a given reference or definition. But by assuming the most likly meaning according to debate ethical standard given in round one."
Nothing in the resolution states an "actual monotheistic God" and B'obo is an actual monotheistic God.
B'obo is just another name for God, it is obvious by the context and you clearly understood it.

And none of these reasons are given in the votes, only a trolling bulverism.

"Even to be a logical syllogism Boboo relation needs to be shown in the premise. Therefore is not even a mere syllogism.
To be sound the Bobo must be contained in true predicates. Therefore you didn't even present a argument."
Actually not, it only has to be considered sound by anyone. And that doesn't define "argument".
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@fool
:Exactly what did I do that was evil?

The Fool: Intential deception. It the delibrate intention to avoid the most liklly interpretation of anything mentioned. It obvious that I don't want waste time with such nonsense. You are delibratly wasting my time and others to have to bother reading something so insignificant. Its not neutral, it affects others negativly.

:I simply rather lose for logical reasons. Is that wrong?

The Fool: You did, for both reasons. General consistencies in nature=/=God
Secondly you never argued for actual monotheistic God. Boboo is a meaningless 'word' without a given reference or definition. But by assuming the most likly meaning according to debate ethical standard given in round one.

Otherwise its meaningless, therefore no argument was given in relation to the resolution.

Even to be a logical syllogism Boboo relation needs to be shown in the premise. Therefore is not even a mere syllogism.
To be sound the Bobo must be contained in true predicates. Therefore you didn't even present a argument.
Posted by yuiru 5 years ago
yuiru
@The fool

so you are essentially saying I lack moral integrity because of (what?) something. I just don't see what that has to do with anything of importance.

Frankly, it is obvious I am already amoral, so why do you need to announce obvious things?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
The_Fool_on_the_hillyuiruTied
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: As others have mentioned, CON was trolling and did not offer an argument until the third round for PRO to refute. CON offered no arguments until the third round, thus making this a pointless exercise. Conduct to PRO, thusly. 6:0/PRO.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 5 years ago
davidtaylorjr
The_Fool_on_the_hillyuiruTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct definitely goes to Pro, although even that is a stretch. Con was the only one who gave a reference, and his arguments for intelligent design win that vote for me.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
The_Fool_on_the_hillyuiruTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: trolling a serious debate
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
The_Fool_on_the_hillyuiruTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was essentially trolling Pro. I can't give arguments as there was no actual debate.