The Instigator
buckIPDA
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Kalam Cosmological argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,336 times Debate No: 25109
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

buckIPDA

Pro

= Full Resolution =
The Kalam Cosmological argument is not a fun debate topic.

= Stuff =
two rounds to argue

4000 characters per round

Voting period of six months

No rules except that the first round is for acceptance only
InVinoVeritas

Con

I accept.

Moreover, let it be known that BoP is shared equally.
Debate Round No. 1
buckIPDA

Pro

= Greetings/Foreword =
A huge thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate! I look forward to a fun round about whether or not the Kalam Cosmological argument is not a fun debate topic.

Let it be clarified that this debate is not about the legitimacy of the aformentioned argument, but whether or not this debate is any fun to have.

I would also like to point out that the character limit for this debate is actually 8000 instead of 4000. Oh well.

= Burden of proof =
In my initial post I stated that the only rule was that the first round of the debate was for acceptance only. My opponent however, after accepting, also set forth the standard of a shared BoP.

My opponent has broken the only rule I set in place, that the first round be only for acceptance. I ask that the voters recognize this and let it be reflected in their voting via the conduct vote.

http://thefunnyplanet.com...

Aside from that, I invite my opponent to properly warrant a shared burden in his constructive arguments. I don't understand how this debate topic lends itself to any specific burden, let alone a shared one.

= Definitions =
The Kalam Cosmological[1] argument, hereafter KC, should be understood as the argument for God's existence which proposes that the universe muse have a 'first cause', thus God must exist to have brought the universe into existence.

Fun[2] should be understood as "Amusing, entertaining, or enjoyable"

Debate topic should be understood as a subject of academic discourse between two or more individuals.

= Framework/Plan of action =
1. What to expect-
a. An explanation of my purpose in instigating this debate
b. An examination of past debates on KC to show how it is neither fun to debate, nor to read.
c. A few constructive arguments to show that KC is not a fun debate topic

2. Voters should vote based on the content of this debate's arguments, not their opinions-
While what is fun may be subjective, I ask that the voters vote based on the arguments presented by the Pro and the Con, not their beliefs on the subject matter.

= Arguments =
1. This debate's purpose-
At the time I instigated this debate, there were two debates in their challenge period which wanted to debate whether not KC was sound. Both instigators (Stephen_Hawkins and Rational_Thinker9119) were Con and neither debate was accepted before the instigators deleted the challenge.

We can therefore take this to assume that KC is not a subject that people want to debate. It has been debated so much on this site that it's become a cliche.

2. Past debates-
In the last five debates regarding KC here on DDO, Pro has won only two times. Both of those wins have been the result of a forfeit on behalf of Con. (alright, so Contradiction was the debater in one of those rounds. But still!)
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

3. Why KC is no fun to argue-
a. It has been beaten to death here on DDO. For proof please refer to the previous argument. For further proof search 'Kalam Cosmological'

b. KC is inherently flawed, as it attempts to apply logic to the illogical. There is no evidence to prove God's existence, nor is there any evidence to prove he does not exist. I like what Joseph Dunninger said on the subject best "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation will suffice."

c. Prejudice, prejudice, prejudice. I mean seriously, who wants to have a debate when they know that a good number of readers won't vote based on the content of the round, but on their own opinion? It is extremely difficult to have coherent discourse between Theists and Atheists with the end goal of changing the other person's belief in person, doing so on the internet is a joke.

= Underview =
Ultimately, the heart of the issue is this; if you're going to debate on the internet, you should have fun doing so. here on DDO the Kalam Cosmological argument has been beaten to death. I personally cannot see in any way, shape or form how it is any fun to debate, or even discuss.
With that, I look forward to my opponent's refutations.

= Sources =
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] Google definitions
InVinoVeritas

Con

"I don't understand how this debate topic lends itself to any specific burden, let alone a shared one."
Let's get this cleared up: Every resolution-based debate has a BoP. The burden of proof here is equally shared, because of the subjective nature of the resolution that disallows one to judge absolute truth value of the resolution.

Refutations:
1. Purpose
The reason that people did not accept the aforementioned debates was that taking on the Pro position is difficult and causes one to take on the full burden of proof. Only a very skilled, dedicated debater would choose to take on that kind of argument.

The opponent follows by saying "We can therefore take this to assume that KC is not a subject that people want to debate." This is silly... Why would my homeboys Stephen_Hawkings and Rational_Thinker9119 take the time to set up the challenges if they were uninterested? It is definitely tough to take on the position of Pro effectively, but this does not mean that few people want to debate it. In fact, if you look through the site, you will see MANY debates on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, introducing different takes and arguments on the issue.

This argument does not directly advocate the opponent's claim regarding "fun."

2. Past Debates
Indeed, it is difficult for Pro to win. However, an effective debater can take on the Pro side of the argument. Contradiction, who has an impressive 30-1 record in DDO right now, very effectively took on the Pro position. In fact, his opponent admits that Contradiction's arguments have made him consider changing his mind about his position on the matter, even though he had quit under unrelated circumstances. This topic has a lot of versatility and many original, compelling arguments can be made.
http://www.debate.org...

This argument, too, does not directly advocate the opponent's claim regarding "fun."

3. No Fun
a. The topic is versatile. In philosophy, old ideas are typically recycled; but the significance comes from the new perspectives that are adopted. The argument is semantically and logically complex, and it is worth debating over. It is enjoyable, since oftentimes, new ideas are proposed and interpretations made.

b. The opponent should bring up his view that the "KC is inherently flawed" in another debate, since many would disagree. I, however, do not want to debate it with him right now, since our views of the validity of the KC argument are irrelevant to this debate.

c. Voter bias exists in every debate on DDO. A lot of, if not most, voters do not read the debates and vote based on their opinions. This is evident in many debates. This does not make the KC debate unique in any way.

Arguments: What makes the KC debate fun?

1. Versatility
The KC argument is extremely logically and semantically complex, and it questions our world view and logical reasoning. So many arguments and refutations can be made for each of its premises, which can lead to sub-syllogisms within the syllogism. Between two skilled debaters, this debate becomes very heated and tricky. Watch the debate with William Lane Craig and the late Christopher Hitchens; it had many fireworks.

2. The God Question
Humanity has been pondering about the God Question for thousands of years. Through logic, we strive to interpret the God concept and the reasoning behind it. This question has been very significant to humanity, and this argument directly addresses it, claiming to evidence the existence of a God. The importance of whether or not this argument is valid plays a huge role for the intellectual community, as well as the common man. This, in itself, contributes to the fun and thrill and partaking in the KC debate.

3. Questioning Atheist/Apologist Authority
Many modern intellectuals debate the KC argument. This is large-scale... We have renowned figures like physicist Lawrence Krauss on the Atheist side, and we have popular apologetic religious figures on the Apologetic side. The impact and large-scale nature of this debate acts as a foreground for small, 8000-character-per-round debates on DDO. We are pondering a question that philosophers and theologians battle over. Indeed, this is an exciting aspect to the KC argument that makes it far more fun and enjoyable for participants.

---

The opponent's arguments seem to, all in all, stray from the resolution. And those that do address the "fun" aspect of the debate are weak and have been refuted.

Because of the KC argument's versatility, the significance of the God Question that it addresses, and the large-scale nature of it, the KC argument is fun and will continue to be, as DDO members continue to battle over the existence of God and the KC argument's role in validating God's existence.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
buckIPDA

Pro

= Bop =
1. Regardless of who's argument's you buy regarding BoP, two things are important to note.
a. My opponent still made BoP arguments in the round meant ONLY for acceptance
b. I uphold the burden my opponent perscribes to me regardless

= Arguments =
Pro-
1. Purpose

What my opponent has said here proves my point fantastically. It is a skewed resolution and it isn't any fun to argue. The reason that people like Stephen_Hawkins and Rational_Thinker9119 do takes these debates are because they are easy for them to win and, as anyone would, they enjoy winning.

Are there a lot of people who have passionate views on this subject? Yes. Does that mean it's fun? Noooooo.

Whether it's because they know they can win them, not because they feel strongly people don't debate this topic because it's fun.

2. Past Debates

Contradictions debate here was forfeited. Aside from that, Contradiction is a skilled debater regardless; it doesn't mean he took the debate for fun.

3. No Fun
a. Interesting? Yes. Enjoyable? No. The debate has been done far too many times on this site and it's simply old hat.

b. I'll take this as a concession; vote Pro!

c. Lack of uniqueness doesn't destroy the impact here. People don't want to debate something they know they can't get a fair round on.

Con-
1. Versatiliy
Again, the KC Argument certainly is an interesting thing to study and talk about; but that doesn't make it any more fun. Especially not as a debate topic, and especially not here on DDO.

2. The God Question
When it comes to things like God, Religion and Philosophy, you either believe or you don't. The motivation that drives us to ponder and discuss issues like the KC argument, especially here on DDO, aren't desires to create truth; it's the desire to make others like-minded and hone our skills in defending our belief.

3. Questioning Athiest/Apologist Authority
Extend my argument on point 2; that which drives us to debate these things isn't for 'fun', but to make others think as we do.

Underview
The first part of my opponent's underview is nothing more than an attack on the validity of my arguments. I'm not making my stance or my arguments on a general basis, I'm making them specific to debates here on DDO.

I never deny that the KC argument is deep, or worth of discussion. I contend that it's not a fun debate topic.

= Closing words =
I made this debate short for a reason, I really can't be bothered to talk about this anymore than I already have. There's not a whole lot of depth to this debate, and we've said what can be said here.

I urge a vote for the Pro.
Thanks to InVinoVeritas for debate, and thanks to all the people who will vaguely skim this debate before voting!
InVinoVeritas

Con

BOP
I maintain that the BOP is shared and equal.

Refutations
1. Purpose
In a KC argument debate, it is, indeed, more difficult to take on this position as Pro, because the burden of proof falls on Pro. And since it is a difficult topic to wrestle with, we can say that the debate is easier for Con. When the Pro and Con positions are taken on by capable, knowledgeable debaters, interesting interpretations and ideas arise, and the debate becomes very fun and exciting.

The fact that people have such a great interest in the topic of this debate DOES contribute to how fun the debate is. No one thinks it is fun to talk about something that he or she is not interested in; it is far more fun to discuss a topic that is of great interest to both sides, and the God Question is one that humanity has been interested in and wrestled with for many, many generations.

2. Past Debates
The opponent's point was that debating this topic was futile, because the results were the same. This is, however, not the case, and I countered by presenting Contradiction's debate.
Another instance in which Pro defeated Con was this debate (in which I was Con):
http://www.debate.org...

And it was fun and close.

3. a. The opponent concedes that the debate is interesting. And fun can be derived from acting upon one's interests. The opponent ignores this basic phenomenon. And indeed, there are many debates on the topic, but many new points and interpretation are made, which contributes to the subject's versatility.
b. The opponent makes a strawman in this section of the debate, and he tries to prove that the validity of the KC argument. The resolution, however, questions whether or not the topic is fun (regardless of the opponent's skeptical views of the KC argument.) We could have a debate over whether or not the argument is valid, but it would be divergent from the matter at hand. This is certainly NOT a concession; argument 3b is simply not germane to the subject that we are debating here.
c. As I stated before, most votes are not made after a thorough read of the debate. Whether it is the KC argument or any other debate, many voters choose to vote based on personal opinions. That is the nature of the public voting system on DDO, and it has little to do with the KC argument. Moreover, we are discussing debating over the KC argument in general, not just in the DDO format; in other contexts, a relatively unbiased judge panel is used rather than public voting.

Arguments
1. Versatility
Once again, one can often derive fun from acting upon one's interests. The opponent concedes that the KC Argument is interesting; hence, fun can be derived from acting upon one's interest in it, specifically through debating.

2. The God Question
Truth is not "created." There is an objective truth of whether or not something exists, and this truth is a dichotomy; there is no evidence that partial existence can occur, especially by our current definition of "existence." Hence, God either exists or God does not exist. Arguments for and against God are used to answer this question affirmatively or negatively.

3. It is fun to try to "make others think as we do," since we derive pleasure from it.

---

Vote Con. Pro blatantly misses the point of the debate during his first argumentative round. And he does not provide adequate evidence in his second argumentative round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by buckIPDA 4 years ago
buckIPDA
Hey, I moved in to college today, so I may time-out. If so I apologize.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
The resolution is axiomatic.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: I will poop at you gates
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: Let me in!
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
I liked this because I agree with it 1000%, but it's not debatable... because it is unquestionably a matter of indisputable fact. Fvck the kalam.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
The Fool: You just say "I think its not fun" I don't think anybody will disagree that you think that.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Oh lol. Didn't see what the res was.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
You might as well just accept one of these. http://www.debate.org...

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by DakotaKrafick 4 years ago
DakotaKrafick
I don't seem to match your criteria :(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
buckIPDAInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Homeboy? 3. But in all honesty, I think that point 3 is a good enough reason. This debate was more about naming them than supporting them, though, and that's what it inevitably led to anyway.
Vote Placed by t-man 4 years ago
t-man
buckIPDAInVinoVeritasTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted Pro's arguements