The Instigator
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

The Fool will refute any argument for the existence 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 8 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,789 times Debate No: 21814
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (85)
Votes (8)

 

The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

Hit me with you best, there is lots to choose from.
KRFournier

Con

I accept this challenge. If The Fool™ can refute my argument, he wins. Otherwise, I win. I'll lay out my argument very simply and defend it in the next round.

Introduction

I am defending the Christian God of the Holy Bible, whose attributes can be best summarized as [1]:

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

God has all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases. In His sight all things are open and manifest, His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Argument

  1. This is a logical argument.
  2. Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument.
  3. In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal.
  4. Abstract entities are products of thought.
  5. Products of thought necessitate a mind.
  6. In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entitites, it must also be invariant and universal.
  7. In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial.
  8. If there is no God, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind.
  9. If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws.
  10. If there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is no objectively true refutation to this logical argument.
  11. Therefore, to objectively refute this argument, God must exist.
Conclusion

The Fool™ can only refute my argument if it is non-refutable. Ergo, will not be able to refute it.

Each premise in my argument follows from the one before. Thus, The Fool™ does not need to refute every premise since refuting one premise implicitely defeats the ones the follow. However, if I can defend all contended premises then The Fool™ has lost this debate.

Sources

  1. http://www.reformed.org...
Debate Round No. 1
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


Fooled by The language


Language is a complex set of physical symbols used to communicate our ideas. That is every word is a symbol which presupposes an idea. In order for communication to take place the ideas which the word relates to must be similar in the speaker and interpreters mind.


That is language symbolized reality. It could only at best describe reality. But you cannot define anything into reality. To define a word is simply to assign a set of words, to another. (You have only changed symbols around) Unless this set of world symbolized some reality its useless and even harmful, if you take it as reality.


That is, just to assign a set of symbols to a symbol is circular if they don’t actually symbolize anything. E.g. I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition. A subjective definition is useless because the purpose of language is to communicate objectively. Most people are not aware of what I am saying right now. This philosophy is as fresh as I speak it, its straight from the hill™.


The bible has no advantage. We don’t know what if any reality is being symbolized other than somebodies ideas. A definition of god is simply that, a definition of the word god. If any god exists it is independent of what anything defines him as. The book and the truth of god are completely independent.


Reality has its own attributes whether we like it, accept it, agree with it, believe in it, assert it, vote for it or not. All we do we can do with language is categories it and describe it. Reality could never be wrong but we could articulate it wrong.


Same with the reality of logic and the language of logic, only our articulation of it may fail. We don’t need to know the word “contradiction” to not be able to run opposite direction at the same time. Nor do we need to know it to use it.


A primitive man knows that to build an axe the Head of the axe must be logically related to the handle. (1:1 correlation) they must share the relation; Head<->handle. Or the head will fall off when he lifts it. As a matter of fact to be rational is to act in accordance with the logical relations of reality. The rational capacity is based on the ability to recognize such relation. This is not in the dictionary its straight from the hill™. ;) To think rationality is to keep in line with such universal rules, when reasoning.



A fool’s argument?


Sophist: This is a logical argument.


The Fool: I feel much better now that you have said that.


Sophist: You must use logical laws to refute a logical argument.


The Fool: it would be helpful with a successful refutation. Agreed!


Sophist: In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal.


The Fool: Why don’t you just lay down the laws of the universe all ready?!


Sophist: Abstract entities are products of thought.


The Fool: it was just a joke! They can be abstracted by material relations as just the same.


The Fool: we understand everything in a framework of thought but it doesn’t follow that they only exist as such.


Sophist: Products of thought necessitate a mind.


The Fool: Switch! The mind is the necessary condition of thought.


Sophist: In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entities, it must also be invariant and universal.


The Fool: we must share in the invariant relations, or we couldn’t be communicating learn mean an how to use them in a sentence if we didn’t share a similar mental framework.


Sophist: In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial.


The Fool: Kind of superfluous no? what else besides mind is immaterial? Immaterial says nothing in particluar about anything only bout what is not. But what is not doesn't exist.


Sophist: If there is no God, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind.


The Fool: Good luck in demonstrating that. God is what you need to prove, it can’t be in a premise. Come on now, do I really need to point this out?


Sophist: If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws.


The Fools: it does not follow. Logical relations can be derived from empirical experience. Aka Gravity is a relation of matter.


The Fool: Well you certainly get a B for boldness.


Review of the fool’s main arguments.



  1. I have demonstrated that logical relations are not necessary dependent on the mind. They can be abstracted physically.

  2. A definition of god is symbolization of what a word refers to but doesn’t necessary related to any reality.

  3. Certainty is needed for a proof and the bible is far from certain, it needs to be taken on faith as an infallible source of information.

  4. It has not been demonstrated that mind depends on god. Mind interacts with matter or else drugs could not affect our minds so the share a reality.

  5. The fact that we do have mind is objective, or we could not communicate if words didn’t relate to similar ideas. Some words like 1 and circle only have 1 possible interpretation.

  6. God needs to be demonstrated that god exist before the premise that god is necessary for mind can have any logical value. It’s plainly circular.


The 6 points mentioned are independent refutations and mutually exclusive. That is each one individually needs to be refuted. Plus there will be more to come, if my opponent doesn’t just forfeit.



Vote Fair Vote Fool!


KRFournier

Con

Let's examine the philosophies of The Fool™ and see if the height of The Hill™ he transcends mere mortals or just has his head in the clouds.

Fool's Gold

If it looks like gold and feels like gold, it must be gold, unless of course it's pyrite. Pyrite surely resembles gold, but anyone with any sort of training or experience in precious metals will quickly recognize the difference. That's why it was called fool's gold. Not because it looked and felt exactly like gold, but because "fools" were a little too quick—and perhaps greedy—to consider themselves rolling in the bling-bling.

Sometimes, reality does not coincide with our categories. The Fool™ is right: no matter how the fool wishes, desires, and believes that he holds his early retirement in his hand, it doesn't change the fact that his fool's gold is worth noting at all.

And so it goes with language. Language is a convention that symbolizes reality, and sometimes our terms are fool's gold, falling short of the reality of that definition. At least, that's the idea according to The Fool™. So what is the point of all this?

Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps The Fool™ wants to argue that we can't trust our language to correctly symbolize reality, in which case, The Fool™ can't refute my argument because he'd be using untrustworthy language to do so and I win anyway.

Perhaps he's just pointing out the obvious: that language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Such thinking, of course, is hardly Straight From the Hill™. That's just common sense. Any fool can see that this is just a tautology.

It'll be interesting to see whether or not this Rhetoric From the Hill™ actually bears any weight on this debate. For now, it remains either wholly inapplicable or damaging to his position.

The Fool™ Speaks

1. This is a logical argument.

The Fool: I feel much better now that you have said that.

The pleasure is all mine.

2. You must use logical laws to refute a logical argument.

The Fool: it would be helpful with a successful refutation. Agreed!

It's good to see that reason is deemed valuable and necessary on The Hill™.

3. In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal.

The Fool: Why don’t you just lay down the laws of the universe all ready?!

That won't be necessary. The laws of logic will suffice. At least you didn't deny logic's transcendental necessity.

4. Abstract entities are products of thought.

The Fool: it was just a joke! They can be abstracted by material relations as just the same.

ab·stract. adj. Considered apart from concrete existence. [1]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

abstract. adj. Having no reference to material objects or specific examples; not concrete [1]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Perhaps one requires a dictionary from The Hill™ to explain how an abstract entity can be material given the very definition of abstract.

The Fool: we understand everything in a framework of thought but it doesn’t follow that they only exist as such.

They can't be material, since that would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. So, what else could they be? Do they have their own independent existence? If so, might some philosophy Straight From the Hill™ shed some light on what else abstract entities might be?

5. Products of thought necessitate a mind.

The Fool: Switch! The mind is the necessary condition of thought.

The Fool™ has repeating my premise. The mind is indeed the necessary precondition of thought. All hail The Hill™.

6. In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entities, it must also be invariant and universal.

The Fool: we must share in the invariant relations, or we couldn’t be communicating learn mean an how to use them in a sentence if we didn’t share a similar mental framework.

Red Herrings are beautiful to look at, and I appreciate The Fool™ showing us one, but this is not about my mind, The Fool's mind, or any particular mind. If there are invariant and universal abstract entities, then the mind from whence they come must also be invariant and universal. Our minds can appeal to these entities, but that doesn't account for their nature.

7. In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial.

The Fool: Kind of superfluous no? what else besides mind is immaterial? Immaterial says nothing in particluar about anything only bout what is not. But what is not doesn't exist.

If a mind is necessary to account for invariant and universal entities, then it follows that it not be a part of this physical universe because this physical universe is constantly changing. Also, immaterial does not mean "does not exist." [2]

8. If there is no God, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind.

The Fool: Good luck in demonstrating that. God is what you need to prove, it can’t be in a premise. Come on now, do I really need to point this out?

I am proving God. Perhaps there are philosophy lessons on The Hill™ regarding propositional logic. This is prima facie true. If there is no God of any kind, then there is no immaterial, invariant, and universal mind.

9. If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws.

The Fools: it does not follow. Logical relations can be derived from empirical experience. Aka Gravity is a relation of matter.

If P, then Q. Q is definitely true if P is true because we already dealt with the transcendental necessity of abstract objects earlier. To defeat this premise, you must defeat any one of premises 1 through 7. This is another propositional statement that is prima facie true.

Review of The Fool’s main arguments.

1. I have demonstrated that logical relations are not necessary dependent on the mind. They can be abstracted physically.

This "demonstration" was a single sentence that contradicts the very definition of abstract.

2. A definition of god is symbolization of what a word refers to but doesn’t necessary related to any reality.

We can say the same for any word. This is a tautology.

3. Certainty is needed for a proof and the bible is far from certain, it needs to be taken on faith as an infallible source of information.

Indeed, God is the presupposition. The argument is that assuming God is the only way to refute the argument.

4. It has not been demonstrated that mind depends on god. Mind interacts with matter or else drugs could not affect our minds so the share a reality.

Just because our minds interact with matter doesn't mean all minds do. Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

5. The fact that we do have mind is objective, or we could not communicate if words didn’t relate to similar ideas. Some words like 1 and circle only have 1 possible interpretation.

Another tautology Straight from The Hill™, not a refutation.

6. God needs to be demonstrated that god exist before the premise that god is necessary for mind can have any logical value. It’s plainly circular.

This is not circular at all. It is a transcendental argument:

  1. The necessary precondition of Q, is P.
  2. P is true.
  3. Therefore, Q is true.

In this case, the necessary precondition of logical laws is a universal, invariant, immaterial mind. The presupposition that God exists meets that precondition. The presupposition that God does not exist fails to meet that precondition. Ergo, by process of elimination, God must exist.

Sources

  1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
  2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Debate Round No. 2
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro


Head in the Clouds


What I notice about all the people with god arguments always turn evil what getting in the midst of an argument. I don’t evil as an opinion, but as actions. They become more insulting and deceptive, then focusing on validation. Its gives creepy feel how does that change come about? What is that? It is definitely not the GOOD. For the first section of round two of my opponent is only to slander and distort what my position is. There is no attempt to argue or debate what so ever. It’s sad because it’s boring for me and viewers to have to see a reiteration of what has been said to counter distortion. I will not rewrite but encourage people to take what I actually said and not what my opponent says I say.


Sophist: language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality.


Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top?



Analytically Fooled


These few premises should be self-evidently suspicious, because a condition must have and antecedent and a consequent. Remember here we have words. But my opponent is trying to prove a reality. But these antecedents refer to the reality negative absolutes. That is, no god, no immaterial, and no abstract. But negative absolutes are non-existent. So since he is referring to non-existences .These are not logical. For, it is clear when I replace them with zeros.


Here are the obvious problems.



  1. If there is no God, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind.

  2. If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws.

  3. If there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is no objectively true refutation to this logical argument


Same with zero’s


1. If there is 0, then there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind.


2. If there is 0 then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws.


3. If there are 0 then there is no objectively true refutation to this logical argument


But nothing not-even claims follow from non-existence. Therefore they are not logical.


QED!!


See my opponent was intentionally insulting me by restating a basic conditional: If P, then Q. Q is definitely true if P. But the reality of his form is “( ->~Q)” it’s not even (~p->~q) which is what was intended in words, but not-god, and other absolute non-existences. Therefor they can’t be antecedents. And that is straight from the hill!!


I hope my opponent has the integrity to recognize that he has just been outclassed by the Fool!



Long live the Fool!


KRFournier

Con

A Fool™ By Any Other Name

It's disheartening to see The Fool™ resort to ad hominem. In one paragraph I am accused of:

  • Becoming evil
  • Becoming more insulting and deceptive
  • Inciting creepy feelings
  • Engaging in slander and distortion
  • Not attempting to argue whatsoever

This seems to me to be both totally inaccurate and hypocritical on his part. First of all, all references to term "The Fool" and "The Hill" where done tongue-in-cheek, and even then only because he uses those terms for himself. Moreover, he refers to me repeatedly as a sophist, which given his manner of speaking could easily be understood as "a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound." It seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black.

Secondly, I did respond to his arguments about language. I clearly pointed out a dichotomy when I said:

Perhaps The Fool™ wants to argue that we can't trust our language to correctly symbolize reality, in which case, The Fool™ can't refute my argument because he'd be using untrustworthy language to do so and I win anyway.

Perhaps he's just pointing out the obvious: that language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Such thinking, of course, is hardly Straight From the Hill™. That's just common sense. Any fool can see that this is just a tautology.

Then I pointed out that either conclusion fails to refute my argument. The Fool™ refuses to recognize my arguments, but that does not make them suddenly nonexistent. He must respond to my contentions on language if he wants his refutation to be taken seriously.

Notice that, even if he were right, that I am utterly evil in my argumentation, it does not actually prove anything in his favor. That is what ad hominem really means. It means he is arguing against me as a person and not my arguments. Is this how debate works on The Hill™?

Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top?

This is a completely arbitrary, absurd constraint. I can't use a definition of God until I've proved God? How is this nothing more than blatant question begging?

The Fool™'s Analysis Fails

The Fool™ accuses me of the Fallacy of Improper Transposition. [2] This occurs when failing to switch the antecedent and consequent upon their negation. So, premises 7, 8, and 9 have the form:

  • If not-P, then not-Q

I would commit the Fallacy of Improper Transposition if I made the following conclusion:

  • Therefore, if P then Q

Thankfully, I do not do that. You see, it is perfectly logical to negate the antecedent so long as you swap them, like so:

  • If not-P then not-Q.
  • Therefore, if Q then P.

That is exactly what I do with my argument:

  • If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws.
  • Therefore, if there are abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is an immaterial, invariant and universal mind.

If have not committed a logical fallacy, and therefore my argument remains valid.

The Fool™ keeps referring to negative absolutes as non-existent. However, he doesn't explain why anyone should accept such thinking. At every turn, he keeps arbitrarily saying that my terms don't exist, yet all his terms seem to exist just fine.

Well, non-existence is a negative absolute also, so I guess non-existence is non-existent as well, so his contentions all fail.

Conclusion

The Fool™ was apparently insulted by my use of propositional symbolism, as though I wrote them for his benefit. Sometimes, in order to be clearly understood, it's helpful to use such symbolism to help communicate my intentions to the reader.

After all his complaining and arbitrary hand-waving, he goes back to his usual conceit and says I've been outclassed.

Well, now I'm insulted. I spent a great deal of time contending each and every point of his single-sentence rebuttals in Round 2 only to be greeted with a giant dismissal of 80% of everything I said. His entire argument rests on a prolific use of ipse dixit. He does not explain why one should dismiss my negative antecedents. He does not attempt to answer my challenge that matter cannot account for abstract entities. He does not respond to my transcendental argument.

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." – Plato

Sources

  1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
  2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

Debate Round No. 3
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

“He refers to me repeatedly as a sophist, which given his manner of speaking could easily be understood as "a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound." The Sophist 2012


Sophism 101

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." – Plato

Etymology from English to ancient Greek: "wise man" means sophós.

Sophists were self-proclaimed wise men who would argue to appear right using anything they can such as rhetoric, appearances, deception and unsound reasoning. Here are some examples of sophisms:

1.“It seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black.”

2.“After all his complaining and arbitrary hand-waving, he goes back to his usual conceit and says I've been outclassed.”

3.“The Fool™ refuses to recognize my arguments, but that does not make them suddenly nonexistent”

4.“ That is what ad hominem really means. It means he is arguing against me as a person and not my arguments. Is this how debate works on The Hill™?”

5. “The Fool™ was apparently insulted by my use of propositional symbolism, as though I wrote them for his benefit.”

6. “Red Herrings are beautiful to look at, and I appreciate The Fool™ showing us one, but this is not about my mind, The Fool's mind, or any particular mind.”

7.“ That is what ad hominem really means. It means he is arguing against me as a person and not my arguments. Is this how debate works on The Hill™?”

The Fool: it is not ad hominem if I am warning the audience about how you are using deception rather the reasoning, to manipulate their perceptions. All representation of my position has been intentionally distorted in every example you give. Therefore it is fully justified. Therefor I am justified in using the term Sophist. And I will justify all accusations. The use of justification is how it works on the hill. ;)

For a Full sketch of sophism see the Sophist Fools gold section of round 2.

What is logical about God?

If there is a god we don’t understand such power, and so there is no way of deriving if or if not god has any logical relation to the world, for it is beyond our knowledge. So we could never know that for sure. But we do know for sure that the universe is the universe,(Universe=universe)

Just as we know that whatever is true must be true by tautology.

That is True=True. For if it is not true it is false. Thus the law of non-contradiction is born.(a logical rule)

Truth=/=false. Trivial, but tried tested and true, straight from the Hill! ;)

QED ;) again!

True colors part 1

“E.g. I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition.” The Fool. Round one

The actual Sophist response,

8.“I did respond to his arguments about language. I clearly pointed out a dichotomy when I said;

9.“Perhaps The Fool™ wants to argue that we can't trust our language to correctly symbolize reality, in which case, The Fool™ can't refute my argument because he'd be using untrustworthy language to do so and I win anyway.

The Fool: What is important to notice is how the Sophist uses the “Perhaps” to give an appearance that I actually did argue that we couldn’t trust our language, when I never said such things. By using “perhaps” he is able to give a false impression of my position to the audience. This also leaved him room to say that he didn’t make such claims of me later, but if you buy it he will use it;

“He must respond to my contentions on language if he wants his refutation to be taken seriously.” The Sophist

Secondly notice how he just used the word dichotomy and not a FALSE DICHOTOMY, which is needed to refute his own false impression of me. ;) By using perhaps he can later take back the claim that he never gave a false interpretation,

Live on with the Fool!

I think therefor I am! By I think I mean consciousness. Consciousness is awareness, awareness is of something. Something must be distinguishable from something else, and those two things must share a background from which they could be distinguished from, and so on and so forth. Let “I” be the label of that which is aware. A thought is self-evident by tautology let my awareness be called thoughts and sensations, I could never be wrong about my thoughts or sensations for they are self-evident. Let, that which I perceive to be based from sense information be called my external atmosphere. (The physical world) Let me call logic the relations of mind and matter that I experience. I am alive and I exist, And this is for certain! (Via Modernized cogito) Straight from the hill!™

QED! (justification of outclassed?)

True Colors part 2 (no color)

Another sophist technique is to take advantage of extra dimed quotations, this makes easier for the readers to not take as much notice, of what he is actually referring too. (11 Sophisms demonstrated.)

  1. And I Demand the Sophist now to make them as clear as all his statements.
  2. Secondly I demand that he use actually quotations of what I said and demonstrate what exactly he is referring to in my argument. Notice: I have remained faithful to this throughout all my debates.

11. “This seems (appears) to me to be both totally inaccurate and hypocritical on his part.” The Sophist

Note: The Fools accusation of that the Sophist intentionally uses distortion is justified.


You’ve been fooled™

Hook line and stinker: Get the Sophist to agree with something obvious which you will use later to bite him in the azz. (Socratic Method 101) ;)

Hook

The Sophist: ”he’s just pointing out the obvious: that language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Such thinking, of course, is hardly Straight From the Hill™. That’s just common sense. Any fool can see that this is just a tautology.

Line

P1. If the Sophist’s argument is logical, then it must be certain,

(Requirement for logical proof)

P2. The bible is not certain so the definition of the bible might not reflect a reality of God,

(The Bibles certainty is taken of faith but it does have inaccuracies. Round 2)

C3 Therefore the Sophist argument is not logical.


The big Stinker

P1. The Sophist now has to create a definition of God,

(via Line argument)

P2. You can’t define things into reality, so the reality of god must be demonstrated.

(Insultingly agreed as tautology by the Sophist)

C3. Therefor it is not possible for a logical argument for god.

QED! Has been delivered again as promised.

And you heard this proof here first. Straight from the hill! ™ ;)

Thus the Fool is justified in his claims, that the Sophist has been outclassed!

True Colors part 3

Look how the Sophist reacted to the first formulation of this argument:

Sophist: This is a completely arbitrary, absurd constraint. I can't use a definition of God until I've proved God? How is this nothing more than blatant question begging? :( (Sophisms count is at 12)

The Fool: well, when you argue for why it is arbitrary (for no reason in particular) absurd (contradicting or abnormal) and begging the question (circular) all at the same, then you could start working on the others. But until then, the Fool Rules! ™ (Note: The Fools justification of The Sophist not supporting his claims)

Logical argument: At least one conclusion supported by premise.

Soundness: The premise must be true and it must share a logical relation to the conclusion.

Across the Universe!

The universe is, and as it is such, whatever It’s invariance is universal. Since we are in the universe we are forced into whatever invariance the universe has. All we need to do is recognize such relations and we can know logic. The rest is superfluous to the matter! QED! (justification of outclassed)

Sorry Fool fans this is all I could fit here! The sophist may continue get darker, more insulting, more rhetorical, more deceptive or to even copy the Fool's technique. As always I will push for clearer and honest Arguments. No pointing and bold assertions!! logical arguments only!. The light Shines through on round three for the Fool!

Vote for victory vote Fool!!

KRFournier

Con

I'm going to ignore The Fool's plethora of allegations regarding my "intentional deception". The voters can judge whether or not I am misrepresenting his position. I'll focus on the charges against my argument instead.

What is Logical About God?

Fool: If there is a god we don’t understand such power, and so there is no way of deriving if or if not god has any logical relation to the world, for it is beyond our knowledge. So we could never know that for sure. But we do know for sure that the universe is the universe.

Fallacy: Question Begging.
One can only say that only the universe can be certain if in fact we are certain that anything outside the universe is not certain. But that's what this debate is about. The Fool™ must first win this debate before he can claim this "tautology."

The Nature of Language

Consider this tidbit from round 2:

Fool: The bible has no advantage. We don’t know what if any reality is being symbolized other than somebodies ideas. A definition of god is simply that, a definition of the word god. If any god exists it is independent of what anything defines him as.

And combine it with this:

Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top?

Fallacy: Argumentum ad absurdum
If something must be determined to be a reality before it can be defined, then any debate about the very reality of something is impossible. This includes debates on all abstract topics, such as morality, logic itself, and mathematics. How can anyone debate anything if they can't define it first?

Live on with the Fool!

The Fool™ is certain he exists. Did he define "I" before he was certain he existed, or was he certain he existed before "I"? If his existence is based on his thinking, how could he think about "being" before "I" had meaning?

Fallacy: Red Herring
This is not a refutation of my original argument.

Line

The Fool™ is hung up on this notion that the Bible cannot be certain about reality and, therefore, cannot be certain to reflect God. This does not refute my argument.

Fallacy: Special Pleading
My argument is setting out to prove God exists as defined. The source of that definition is irrelevant. I could define God as a block of cheese on Mars, and it would still be absurd to say that I can't use that definition until after we've proven it's existence.

If the definition of God is disallowed, then by the same logic, neither is The Fool's definition of Universe.

The universe, according to The Fool™, is synonymous with reality. Thus, this very debate determines the definition of Universe. Here are the possible outcomes:

  • The Fool™ Wins: Universe does not include God.
  • KRFournier Wins: Universe does include God.

So, The Fool™ must concede that the Universe is not certain in this debate until the debate if finished or else succumb to begging the question.

Stinker

P1. The Sophist now has to create a definition of God,
P2. You can’t define things into reality, so the reality of god must be demonstrated.
C3. Therefor [sic] it is not possible for a logical argument for god.

Fallacy: Circular Reasoning
P2 is contingent upon the truth of C3.

The Universe and Logic

Fallacy: Begging the Question
Given The Fool's™ definition of Universe, it includes logical laws. He says they are found in the relations within the universe. This, however, begs the question. There are two ways the term Universe can be defined:

  • Consisting of all of reality.
  • Consisting of our cosmos, i.e., this physical universe.

If The Fool™ relies on the former, then he commits the fallacies mentioned already. He's just saying that Logical Laws just exist. That is begging the question because it is the transcendental necessity of those laws that are being challenged. Thus, he must do more than just assert that they "are" because the Universe "is."

If The Fool™ relies on the latter, then he is tasked to provide a materialistic account for the necessary preconditions for Laws of Logic. He has not done this, so I he's either relying on the former definition or simply side-stepping this challenge.

Conclusion

The Fool™ devotes a great deal of his time to paint a picture of my character. He wants the readers to view me as some kind of miscreant looking to distort his every word. He says that he's not engaging in ad hominem when doing this, but I'm not sure what else to call it. The Fool™ is well within his rights to correct me where I am mistaken, but he chooses instead to pass allegations and then demand that I waste precious space answering them in turn.

I laid out my argument as plainly as possible in Round 1. I countered his Round 2 single-sentence criticisms. In rounds 3 and 4, I've exposed the serious fallacies of his views on language and definitions and exposed his circular reasoning with regards to his definition of Universe. It is imperative that The Fool™ explain his claims in the last round rather than just repeatedly assert them as de facto true. Specifically, I want him to explain precisely which premises in my argument are false.

Debate Round No. 4
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Pro

War!!

Remember all I have to is demonstrate logic without god, or show uncertaintly with 1 premise.

Elimination circularization

The process of elimination is logical process, which when you can’t figure out an answer you can always make up supernatural anything to answer your question. Con used this logical process to derive god to explain logic to him. This is what his whole argument rest on. Need I say more.;) QED! Circularity.

The fallacy is that a claim a supernatural by process of elimination does anything. It’s people making up what they want. QED!

If we are natural, so claims of supernatural beg the question. Thus any claim of supernatural what so ever beg the question. QED!

First strike

Cons argument;

P1 This is a logical argument.

The Fool: The logic of the argument depend its relations. But there is nothing logical about this premise. So I can reject it. Therefore p1 is out.

P2 Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument.

The Fool: This is false. The argument may be self-refuting or simply not logical to begin with. Or I may not accept all premises. So premise 2 is out.

P3 In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal.

1.The Fool: False, objective simply means that which exist regardless of what you think about it. If abstract of only of the mind then it has to rely on what we think about it. So P3 must be rejected.

2.As I have already shown, that an argument may be self-refuting or circular, a refutation may only be in the form of highlighting the obvious as I am doing right now. So again P3 is out! QED

3.Logical laws need only be universal, we may explain the as abstract or invariant but they are not the necessary conditions. I followed alone by universal that they are invariant. P3 is out! QED

4.Lastly logical laws it simply the relations of the universe, or we enter a premises in a logical system but the logic itself is simply the relational quantifiers. P3 out! QED!

Bombing run

P4 Abstract entities are products of thought.

The Fool: It is common to think of abstract entities as of the mind, but math is as abstract as logic. We apply both of these concepts externally as well. For math is simply the logic of quantity. For we understand most of the physical world with these tools.

Proof of logic being outside your mind is that your computer runs off logical systems, it is depended on physical logical encoding. So either logic rules exist outside your mind or you are not on a computer.

Therefore logical relations don’t depend only Supernatural QED

Rejection of definition of logical rules as only immaterial !(Such definitions are obscure) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Across the universe (anti-distortion)

The definer of a word could not be wrong about his own definition, So I will use the word F-universe to refer to all things that exist, for I mean nothing in particular, but whatever it may be that exist whether I find out or not let if bet that which falls in the category of F-Universe. If it is the case, that there exist universal relations, then all things in F-Universe obey such rules. Recogition of such invariant relations is to recognize how the F-universe works. Let these F-universal laws be logic. QED!

Transcendental Grenade charades

Sophist: This is not circular at all. It is a transcendental argument.

The Fool: Do you transcend the universe? No? then it’s circular. Secondly where is your certain source of transcendental information? You don’t have it? So it’s not logical then either. Transcendentally refuted QED! Similarly you cannot claim anything transcendental first. Any claim of transcendental begs the there is such entities claim this regardless of that question.

Logical Soldiers

Most creators of modern logic are anti-supernateral. Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein and Whitehead and other logicist’s of modern logic. Thus if they are certain enough to create then we only need be as certain as them to use it. NO supernatural explanation necessary. QED!

Since logicians have authority over there logic, we only need appeal to then for the understanding of logic. QED!

Live on longer with the Fool!

P5 Products of thought necessitate a mind.

The Fool: If P5 is granted then (Live long with the Fool!) follows by necessity and so I win QED. If P5 is rejected, the proof is self-refuting. Therefore I win either way. QED!

Sophist: “The Fool™ is certain he exists. Did he define “I” before he was certain he existed”

The Fool: I said clearly by exist I mean just consciousness and the rest follows via LLWTF! QED anyway. RED HERRING DENIED!! (arguments can’t be red herrings)

Troopers from the Hill!!

P6 In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entities, it must also be invariant and universal.

1 The Fool: it doesn’t follow by necessity, that it’s invariant maybe it varies and Produces the occasional invariant. P6 out!

2 Secondly, invariant was not a necessary condition for logic, universal it good alone. P6 out!

3 mind being is good enough . (via across the universe) P6 out!

The Foolish invasion!

P7 In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial.

The Fool: Firstly, mind is not material by definition, its apart of F-universe (all things that exist) thus it is subsumed under any invariant relations that exist in F-Universe(all things that exist)

2. It most only be universal (across the universe)

P8 If there is immaterial, invariant and universal mind then there is god.

The Fool: Firstly immaterial is superfluous to mind, immaterial is more vague(it’s just not material) which says nothing in particular.

If there is “mind”, invariant and universal mind then there is god.

The Fool: it does not follow that from mind and invariance that we get supernatural mind. So this must be rejected!! See ya! P8 out!!

That is the F-universe=F-universal. So if all minds being minds are in the F-universe will share the same universals anyways. (Occam’s) no supernatural needed.

The Fools march on!

P9 If there are abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is immaterial, invariant and universal mind.

The Fool: It does not follow that abstract, invariant and universal logical laws, lead to universal mind of any sort. Good

bye!!! P9 out!

You’ve been fooled again!™

Finishing move: Get the Sophist to agree with something obvious which you will use later to bite him in the azz. (Socratic Method 102) ;)

Super Hook

The Sophist: language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Such thinking, of course, is hardly Straight From the Hill™. That’s just common sense. Any fool can see that this is just a tautology.

Stronger Line

P1. If the Sophist’s argument is logical, then it the reality of god must be certain, (Requirement for logical proof)

P2. The bible is not certain so the definition of the bible might not reflect a reality of God

The Sophist: The Fool™ is hung up on this notion that the Bible cannot be certain” (beware nonsense fallacies)

The Fool: The bible has been translated and recopied and interpreted by hand for the first 1500’s years which is beside the fact of the pure faith origin mystery behind it. Thus is not 100% NO CERTAINTY NO LOGIC!

C3 Therefore the Sophist argument is not logical. special pleading stuffed!


THE BIGGER AND SMELLIER STINKER!!

Fake Circularity STUFFED!(there was nothing circular about it)

P1. The Sophist now has to create a definition of God,(which won’t be certain to the real god)

(via Line argument)

CP2. You can’t define things into reality, so the reality of god must be demonstrated.

(Insultingly agreed as tautology by the Sophist)

C3. So the Sophist has no real God to work with. QED!

Come on voters this is 100% sound!

IF my opponent doesn’t prove a 100% non-faith certain source for the reality of god. Con fails to provide a logical logic argument of the real God. Bop is on Con (beware of fake fallacy claims!)

Use your critical thinking caps. Vote fair vote Fool!

KRFournier

Con

I am sincerely glad The Fool™ filled his final round with lots of thoughtful contentions. I do believe Round 5 will be the most enjoyable for our readers.

P1. This is a logical argument.

Fallacy: Violates Law of Identity.

P1 adheres to the Law of Identity. It merely describes what this argument is: it uses logic rather than science, morality, etc. Therefore, Pro cannot logically reject this premise.

P2. Pro must use logical laws to refute a logical argument.

Fallacy: Self Refuting.

This premise is true so long as my argument uses only logic to make its case. The Fool™ uses logical laws to argue that logical laws need not be used. He says an argument may be "self-refuting or simply not logical to begin with." The only way to determine if an argument is not logical is to show that they violate logical laws.

P3. In order for the refutation to be objectively true, logical laws must be abstract, invariant, and universal.

Admittedly, this is a big premise. This is where I expected a lot of debate to occur, but that didn't happen until late into the game. As Pro rightly points out, to be objective means to be true regardless of what people believe. By reduction ad absurdum, we can determine the necessary qualities of logic.

  • Invariant: If the laws of logic can change, then a refutation might be true one day and false later. Thus, the refutation cannot be considered to be objectively true unless logic is invariant.

  • Universal: If the laws of logic do not apply to all rational beings in all places, then a refutation can be true in the Milky Way Galaxy and false in the Andromeda Galaxy. Thus, the refutation cannot be considered to be objectively true unless logic is universal.

  • Abstract: This quality is derived from the previous two, as the only things that are truly universal and invariant are abstract entities, such as numbers. I will have to refine my argument in the future to separate this particular attribute into its own premise, but that doesn't change the fact that there is rational support for it. Minimally, I have provided more rationale for this quality than Pro has offered for logic being concrete.

Logical laws cease to be laws when any of these qualities are denied, as doing so leads to absurdity. Let's looks at Pro's four contentions:

  1. Scope Fallacy. Abstracts occur in our minds, but it is fallacious to say that because our minds are subjective that everything we think about is subjective. If this were true, then Pro's arguments—having come from a subjective mind—must also not be objective, in which case his refutation is not objective.

  2. Refuted in P2.

  3. Bare Assertion Fallacy. Simply saying logical laws do need to be abstract or invariant is insufficient.

  4. Red Herring. Asserting that the laws of logics are "simply the relations of the universe" doesn't refute this premise's claim. What about this assertion proves they are not abstract, invariant, or universal?

P4. Abstract entities are products of thought.

Fallacy: False Analogy, Straw man

A computer performs mathematical computations, but it does not follow that mathematical entities, such as numbers, are not abstract. In fact, it was the abstract notions of mathematics and logic that lead to the computer's design in the first place. The computer is the application of abstract entities, not concrete proof of their external nature.

Pro also misrepresents this premise, which only argues that abstract entities are products of thought; the mind doesn't enter the picture until P5. Pro needs to show how abstract entities are not products of thought whatsoever, and at best, he argues that these things exist outside our minds. So what? This premise doesn't care about where abstract entities are in relation to our minds but where they ultimately originate.

This premise is practically axiomatic in its truth, for the very definition of abstract entities is those things that are not concrete. Consider the inverse: if there is no thought, then there are no abstract entities. Just because abstract entities describe concrete things, it does not follow that they are concrete or can be accounted for concretely.

Across the Universe

Fallacy: Begging the Question

The question is: can Pro refute my argument that God exists? F-Universe, if it contains everything in existence, will necessarily contain God also—if He exists. It is not yet decided that F-Universe includes God. Therefore, the F-Universe term cannot be used to refute my argument until the debate is over.

Transcendental Grenade

Fallacy: Equivocation.

Pro says I cannot use transcendental argumentation because I am not transcendent. The two uses of the term are not equivalent. The first use is a name given to a form of modal logic; the second use describes a being outside of nature.

Logical Soldiers

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Appealing to the conclusions of past thinkers' (no matter how respected) does nothing to refute my argument one way or another. Moreover, claiming they "created modern logic" is implies logic is made-up. Shall I do the same and just appeal to Christian thinkers for proof of the supernatural? Surely even The Fool™ would condemn me for such shenanigans.

P5. Products of thought necessitate a mind.

Fallacy: Double Standard

I labeled Pro's I-think-therefore-I-am argument as a Red Herring in my previous round because he did not clarify what premise he was refuting. Now that it's clear he is refuting P5, I have upgraded the fallacy to a double standard.

Pro says, "Consciousness is awareness." About awareness he states, "Let my awareness be called thoughts and sensations." How is this not another term to describe a "mind?" As Pro himself emphatically stated in Round 2, "I could define my computer as boot, but what was formally called computer remains the very same regardless of my definition." Pro can't have it both ways. If one cannot turn a computer into a boot by calling it a boot, then one cannot refute the idea of a mind by simply calling it a set of "thoughts and sensations."

P6. In order for a mind to produce invariant and universal entities, it must also be invariant and universal.

Pro offers three objections to this premise:

  1. Violates Law of Non-Contradiction. If there is an invariant mind, then by definition it does not vary. If it does so, then it's not invariant.

  2. Refuted in P3

  3. Refuted in P4

P7. In order for a mind to be invariant and universal, it must be immaterial.

Fallacy: Begging the Question.

I already showed how any appeal to F-Universe begs the question.

Premises P8 – P10

Fallacy: Begging the Question.

All of Pro's objections point back to F-Universe, which I refuted above. Furthermore, premises P8 – P10 are just substitutions of P1 – P7, so P8 – P10 are valid if P1 – P7 are valid.

Pro's Last Arguments

Fallacy: Circular Reasoning.

Pro's final two syllogisms focus on the idea that I can't provide an absolutely certain definition of God. I've exhaustively showed how this reasons in circles because debate requires we have a definition before we can move forward. To say I have to demonstrate the reality of God before I can even attempt to prove His existence is to render this and all debate meaningless.

Conclusion

IF my opponent doesn’t prove a 100% non-faith certain source for the reality of god. Con fails to provide a logical logic argument of the real God. Bop is on Con (beware of fake fallacy claims!)

This is an attempt to move the goal-posts. As the title makes abundantly clear, The Fool™ must refute my argument. My burden is to defend it. Therefore, voters would be within reason to vote for me if they determine that my defenses were superior to his attacks.

I thank both Pro and the readers for their time and thoughtful consideration.

Debate Round No. 5
85 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@jwesbruce
The Fool: How could you know what you dont know? Anyway I heard they were giving out free courses in philosophy at DDO's own Hill Top University.

Hill Top University. Discover youself.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by jwesbruce 5 years ago
jwesbruce
@The Fool Stop. Just stop. This loss is on you. Take responsibility. The viewers aren't little kids who can't comprehend your "fresh approaches." Your being insultingly pretentious. You'll never learn from life if you take the approach of 'well you just don't get it.' Learn from your errors and improve.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
@The Fool- Thats all we can do. DDO is more of a learning experience for me than actual debating. I learn from my mistakes in my reasoning and can only hope to do better next time. Next time though, you might want to make these "fresh approaches" reader friendly so that everyone can understand. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of debating if the only one who understands your argument is yourself. Hope you better luck on your next debate ;)
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
IFLYHIGH wrote:
: Next time though, you need to debate somebody more adequate to take this debate on such as
: larztheloser.

The Fool: I am happy with my performance. I was not expecting the vote. I take on alot of fresh approaches which I am not excepting most people to grasp first time round. I have learned alot.
Its just a matter of making it more DDO friendly.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
IFLYHIGH wrote:
: Next time though, you need to debate somebody more adequate to take this debate on such as
: larztheloser. People like me and The Fool aren't giving you enough competition....

I'm available.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
IFLYHIGH wrote:
: Next time though, you need to debate somebody more adequate to take this debate on such as
: larztheloser. People like me and The Fool aren't giving you enough competition....

I'm available.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Fool wrote:
: Shame on the readers.

XKCD wrote:
: Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
Good job KRFournier for doing another incredible job in defending TAG. Next time though, you need to debate somebody more adequate to take this debate on such as larztheloser. People like me and The Fool aren't giving you enough competition....
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
@KRFournier
The vote is only superficial. But we both know the truth! ;)
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Its genious!!! how coudl people miss it! Redd herring was a lie he changed what I said.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by IFLYHIGH 5 years ago
IFLYHIGH
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a incredible defense of TAG but a poor offense. Pro spent most of her time argueing that con was making logical fallacies, but the problem wasn't in his logic, it was in his premises. Overall, another outstanding job by KRFournier.
Vote Placed by Mestari 5 years ago
Mestari
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to adequately address Con's arguments until the final round of the debate, and even then had hardly convinced me of any flaws in KRF's arguments. Con however decisively dismantled Pro's arguments throughout the entire debate.
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 5 years ago
GenesisCreation
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: In rounds 2-4 Pro seemed to argue everything about the debate except Cons arguments. Finally in round 5 Pro addressed them which I felt was very weak and Con showed why. Pros arguments were circular, contradictory, and used a plethora of fallacies. While I am not sure I agree with all of Cons arguments Pro certainly did not refute any of them, so arguments is obvious. Pro used ad hominems, red herrings, and tried to shift the BoP at the end when a loss seemed inevitable, so Conduct goes to Con.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 5 years ago
popculturepooka
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
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: Con rebutted nearly all of Pro's contentions forcefully. Most of Pro's contentions were extraneous to the issue; they did not deal with the meat of Con's argument.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- KRF for not using ad Hominem attacks. S&G- Should be obvious why KRF gets it Arguments- Pro couldve refuted it and was on his way in round 5 to doing so but alas, too little too late Sourcing- More of a effort point rather than source point to pro for trying.
Vote Placed by Paradox_7 5 years ago
Paradox_7
The_Fool_on_the_hillKRFournierTied
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: Con successfully defended all of his premises. Pro took a very sharp approach, but did not penetrate deep enough to refute any of Cons premises. The entire dabte was well matched, but Pro dropped the ball by not clarifying enough, how the premises were wrong and instead kept reapeting they were wrong without sufficient explanation.