The Instigator
Newb
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Theistic beliefs can be rational.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,136 times Debate No: 56056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (6)

 

Newb

Con

I will leave this first round for rules & parameter definitions.

Theistic beliefs shall be defined as a belief in the existence of at least one God.
The word 'rational' shall be defined to be defined to be something based on reason or logic.

Romanii is the only person I expect to accept this debate. Anyone else to accept this debate will forcefully end this in a tie.

I will be arguing against the notion that theistic beliefs can be rational.
My opponent will argue that theistic beliefs can be rational.

I look forward to a fruitful, wholesome (fruitsome?) debate.
Romanii

Pro

I accept!
Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
Newb

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Basically, my position is that Theistic beliefs are not rational. If I can show that in any way, I will have fulfilled my burden of proof.

Contention 1 : Theistic gods do not exist rationally, therefore those who believe in theistic gods (and subsequently theism) do so against the rational nonexistence of gods.
We have no proof that theistic gods exist. This is one of the theist's primary burden of proof in proving that his or her theistic belief is true. Upon utter lack of proof, theistic gods and consequently their respective theistic belief do not exist by rational (logical) thinking. Therefore, since those following theistic beliefs do not follow this rational/logical thinking, they are not being rational/logical in their adherence. Theistic beliefs can then be said to be not rational.

Contention 2: It isn't rational to follow theistic beliefs
Statement 1 = It is rational to doubt theism.
Statement 2 = It is not rational to not doubt (therefore follow) theism.
(Applying a double negative to statement 1 will result in the statement 2.)
Provided Statement 1 is true, it follows that Statement 2 is true.
Statement 2 is an iteration of my side of the resolution.

Both my contentions alone are sufficient in fulfilling my burden of proving that theistic beliefs are not rational.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Note: upon reviewing this round, I find that the resolution I am arguing doesn't exactly correlate with the resolution I am supposed to be arguing. I have been arguing that theistic beliefs are not rational, but the resolution tells me to argue that theistic beliefs can be rational. The difference is trifling, but enough to semantically undermine everything I've said. I hope this doesn't become a semantic debate and pray my opponent will let this violation slide. If not, what would be left for me are 2 straight rounds of rebuttals. Anywho, let this be a lesson to me in being wary of 'can' and 'could' debates.

On to my opponent!
Romanii

Pro

Thanks to Con for his argument.
I will be arguing in favor of the resolution that theistic beliefs can be rational.
I will assume that this round is for opening contentions only, since that is what Con has done, as well.


C1) Suggestive Evidence

I will argue that there is suggestive evidence for the existence of God, thus making belief in God rational.

1. Cosmological Arguments-
We have no evidence that the universe can create itself out of nothing; all that we have is baseless theoretical frameworks for how that could possibly have happened. One perfectly plausible idea that takes away the need for the universe to create itself out of nothing is that some sort of intelligent, metaphysical force (i.e. God) caused the big bang and brought the universe into existence. Of course, this does not discredit possible explanations for how the universe could have come about from nothing, but the point is that the God hypothesis is just as rational and believable as any other cosmological hypothesis at this point. All are equally lacking in evidence, and all are equally feasible.

2. Fine-Tuning Arguments-
We have observed a large number of cosmic coincidences with no feasible materialistic explanations behind them. These include the disparity in the amount of matter and antimatter in the universe, the rate of the universe's expansion, and the proton to electron mass ratio, to name a few. If any of these constants had been even slightly off, the universe would most likely have been radically different to the point that life couldn't have even evolved. One perfectly plausible explanation for this phenomenon is that an intelligent force (i.e. God) fine-tuned the universe specifically to allow for life to evolve.

There do also exist some other arguments that suggest God's existence; I will not be able to delve into them here due to their complexity, but among them are the Introspection argument (concerning the nature of the human consciousness) and arguments from Quantum Mechanics (concerning potential explanations for the weirdness of certain quantum effects).
The point of all this is that while no argument can really claim to prove God's existence, many of them do lend quite a bit of plausibility to the existence of God, and thus, it is rational to believe in him.


C2) Spiritual Experiences

Throughout history and around the world, millions of people have reported spiritual experiences- instances in which they were able to witness God's presence, be it through visions, sensations, miracles, or fulfilled prayers.
Of course, those are all anecdotal in nature, and we cannot simply accept them to be true. However, I will assert it is perfectly rational for someone to *personally* believe in God based on *their own* spiritual experiences.

It is rational in the same sense that it is perfectly rational for a man to believe his friend exists, since he has been seeing him and interacting with him over long periods of time.
The man's conviction that this friend exists would be even more strengthened if a large number of people could confirm that friend's existence via their own interactions with him.

In the same way, it is perfectly rational for a theist to believe that God exists, since he has been regularly seeing and interacting with God over long periods of time (i.e having spiritual experiences), and it is made especially so because millions of theists all around the world can affirm that they too believe God exists based on their own spiritual interactions with him.


CONCLUSION

I have shown that, not only is their ample suggestive evidence for the existence of God, but that spiritual experiences are a rational basis for a person believe in God, especially given the large amount of external confirmation from other theists.
Theistic beliefs can definitely be rational.

I hand the debate back over to Con.

Debate Round No. 2
Newb

Con

I will reserve this round for rebuttals and more arguments if they crop up in my head.

I would like to being with the rebuttals starting with my opponent's C1, which claims suggestive evidence based on two arguments that claim to rationally lead to the conclusion of the existence of God and/or other theistic deities. This in turn leads to my opponent declaring that the God hypothesis is rational. This is the same as saying that this particular theistic belief is rational and that theistic beliefs can be rational. I will attempt to disprove both theories (and any other theory my opponent seeks to bring up).
I will begin this with a rebuttal of C1's first argument, the cosmological argument, by questioning the necessity of the conclusion of some theistic god(s) existence(s), which I will consequently hold to be unnecessary and therefore illogical.
1) Counter cosmological argument:
The cosmological argument basically says that since we exist contingently dependent on other contingent beings whose existence is similarly dependent, infinitely regressing this series of contingencies would ultimately end up at a source. In my opponent's argument, this source is the beginning/creation of the universe. My opponent then makes the giant leap toward the conclusion that God is the source. My argument will be simple. If God exists, how does God exist. Who created God? Who created God's creator? Who created God's creator's creator? (ad infinitum)
One explanation would be to say 'God just is'. However, saying that 'God just is' would be creating a double standard. If 'God just is', then why not 'the universe just is'? Why can the universe not have been 'just is' since time immemorial? This discrepancy in turn negates the use of God as an explanation for the universe's origin; God becomes an unnecessary explanatory entity.
2) Counter Fine-tuning argument:
My opponent's argument bubbles down to this:
P1) if the universe didn't follow the laws that it does, it wouldn't have been able to sustain life.
P2) The universe does follow the laws that it does (i.e. laws of physics)
P3) There is no feasible materialistic explanation as to why the universe follows the laws it does.
C) God, being a possible explanation of universal laws, can be conclusively declared the author of these laws.
There are a few things I'd like to say about this line of logic.
First, I believe the leap from Premise 3 to the conclusion to be unsubstantiated. Even if it were true, that feasible material explanations do not exist just as easily points to the possibility that there is no explanation for the universe. The universe just is; the universe has existed infinitely before in a pre-big bang state and will exist infinitely after in a post-big bang state.
Second, i believe P3 is an unfair dismissal of all other explanations in arbitrary favor of theism. The introduction of God as the only feasible solution to the universe would be like me explaining the existence of flying pegacorns (unisus?) as the only feasible explanation for any random assortments of events/entities. God as a solution is unnecessary and irrelevant.

I would like to dedicate the remainder of the round to writing out both a counter to my opponent's C2 and anything else that may crop up in my head.
On the subject of spiritual experiences, this is the first I've ever heard of such a thing (sounds like a whole lot of crock to me, to be perfectly honest). Millions? Where does this statistic even come from? Why should we lend these people any credibility? How do we even know these 'miracles' are really miracles? Even if, for the sake of this argument, these people do believe they have witnessed miracles. This belief is subjective. The experience may be subjectively miraculous (or it may be a lie, who knows?), but an event's being miraculous doesn't make it necessarily a miracle. I also believe that there is a deluded connection being drawn from the subjective miracle to God.
The argument is thus:
a)I believe in God.
b)Something that usually doesn't happen to me happens (or something coincidental)
C) God is the one who made that happen and God exists.

There is no rational or logical connection between b and C. Thus contention 2 fails.

By maintaining the position that theistic deities, God among them, doesn't exist, I am able to maintain the validity of my first contention. My second contention has yet to be mentioned but I suspect my opponent will address it in his rebuttal round.

(note of curiosity: I know that, based on the resolution, all you have to do is prove the rational existence of one theistic belief to fulfill the statement that theistic beliefs can be rational, but why monotheism? Why should we credit creation to one being? Why not many beings? In fact, why must these beings even be supernatural? I think back to a character from star trek named Q who, due to the highly advanced technology he and all other residents of the Q continuum enjoy, is, for all intents and purposes, a god).

This ends my round. I will now pass the baton on to my opponent. Have at me!
Romanii

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his arguments.
I would use this round for rebuttals, like my opponent, but it seems that my own opening contentions serve as a direct rebuttal to Con's first opening contention (that there is no evidence), and his second opening contention doesn't really make any sense... hopefully my opponent will elaborate on it next round...


R1) Suggestive Evidence

Con has missed the point of this contention. I wasn't trying to prove God's existence... I was merely showing through example that there do exist scientific and philosophical arguments that *add substantial plausibility* to the idea of God's existence, thus making it rational to hold theistic beliefs.
Now to apply this idea to Con's specific rebuttals...

1. Cosmological Arguments
Con's rebuttal here is basically a straw man.
Again, I am not suggesting that God *must* be the universe's first cause... I am arguing that God being the first cause is just as plausible as any other cosmological hypothesis, including cyclic universe models; I am not arguing that the universe couldn't be cyclic/eternal while God could be, but that God is just as likely an explanation for the universe's existence as those cyclic models.

2. Fine-Tuning Arguments
Again, Con's misunderstanding of my intentions with this entire contention lead him to straw man my argument. I never claimed that God is the only feasible answer to the universe's cosmological coincidences, but that God is a very plausible answer to those coincidences, especially in relation to alternative explanations.


R2) Spiritual Experiences

First of all, it is not my fault if my opponent has never heard of the term "spiritual experiences" before. It is quite a well-established concept...
http://www.spiritual-experiences.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent decides to try attacking this contention by arguing that there are materialistic explanations for all supposed spiritual experiences, and thus it is not rational to believe in God because of them. However the only time he elaborates on this point is in saying that there is no logical reason to assume that a coincidence is a divinely inspired miracle.
I generally agree that many supposed miracles can be explained upon closer inspection of the circumstances, but that point still does not really rebut my contention, as It only deals with one type of "spiritual experience". Aside from miracles, there are also visions, sensations, fulfilled prayers, and other things of the like which all have much more obvious and direct links to something divine.


CONCLUSIONS

-- Con misunderstands the entire point of my first contention; it is not an attempt to prove God's existence... it's an attempt to prove that the existence of God is plausible enough for it to be perfectly rational to believe in him

-- Con's rebuttal only partially addresses my second contention regarding spiritual experiences, and thus my point still stands that, for the most part, spiritual experiences can serve as a rational basis for belief in God.


The resolution is affirmed; theistic beliefs can be rational.
I hand the debate back over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
Newb

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for inciting this debate and whatnot. Alright, enough with the courtesies. Let's get cracking!

Since this is the final round, I will only use it for to rebut whatever my opponent put up in the previous round and to solidify my pre-established positions.

Allow me to quote my first contention: "Theistic gods do not exist rationally, therefore those who believe in theistic gods (and subsequently theism) do so against the rational nonexistence of gods."
What my contention 1 sought to argue was that there is no rational reason to adhere to theistic beliefs because there is no rational reason to believe that theistic god(s) exist(s). I immediately caught on to the fact that my opponent's C1 functionally seeks to negate my C1.
I will elicit another quote, this time from my more recent round: "I would like to being with the rebuttals starting with my opponent's C1, which claims suggestive evidence based on two arguments that claim to rationally lead to the conclusion of the existence of God and/or other theistic deities."
In other words, my rebuttal were made not with the ultimate goal of disproving the existence of God absolutely as my opponent seems to be suggesting, but to prove that there is no rational connection in the arguments' premises to God or that the argument itself is irrational. With a bit of hesitation, I will quote my 'note of curiosity': "I know that, based on the resolution, all you have to do is prove the rational existence of one theistic belief to fulfill the statement that theistic beliefs can be rational"
With that said, I'm faily sure my position was clear. There was no strawmanning involved. The point of my opponent's establishing his C1 is both to show that there is a rational reason to believe God exists ergo there is a rational reason to adhere to a God-related theistic belief. This, going by what my opponent is shooting for, ultimately proves that theistic beliefs are rational.

I will reiterate my rebuttal in declaring that the premises for the arguments made to rationalize God's existence that my opponent has introduced are faulty. Drawing from the fact that these premises are faulty, it follows that the conclusion is faulty and therefore irrational. Even if the premises weren't faulty (oh they are, good sir, they are :)), God as a solution is unnecessary and irrelevant. The connection between the premises and the conclusion is not rational. God therefore does not rationally exist (neither does any other assortments of theistic deities). It then follows that theistic beliefs are not rational, effectively negating the resolution (whew, this response became rather long-winded, hope you got it all! :)).


Now that I've got that matter cleared up. I will not continue the round with, you've guessed it, more rebuttals to the spiritual experience contention! (Yay)
I read a few of the accounts of spiritual experiences written on the non-wikipedia page that my opponent links to prove his point, and I've come up with two verdicts. One, the submissions are lies made with some intent or purpose unknown to the reader (maybe to solidify people's adherence to religion, spirituality, morality, etc.?). Two, the accounts are real, at least on the personal level of those experiencing them, but accrediting these experiences to the supernatural is ignorant and irrational. Spiritual experiences have been proven many times by the scientific community to have originated from an array of brain conditions caused by schizophrenia, physical trauma, etc.
https://www.youtube.com...
The video I am linking depicts a woman going in detail over her spiritual experience which was caused by a massive stroke she had at the age of 37. To sum up her experience quickly, a blood vessel in the left part of her brain bursts, and her spatial cognizance disappears. In other words, the woman, Jill, is unable to recognize the position of her own self relative to the space around her. This results in an experience which I will quote directly from the written transcript of the video. I suggest the full video be considered before going into the specific passage I'm about to quote (because it's a cool, insightful video :)):
"..my mind was now suspended between two very opposite planes of reality. Stimulation coming in through my sensory systems felt like pure pain. Light burned my brain like wildfire, and sounds were so loud and chaotic that I could not pick a voice out from the background noise, and I just wanted to escape. Because I could not identify the position of my body in space, I felt enormous and expansive, like a genie just liberated from her bottle. And my spirit soared free, like a great whale gliding through the sea of silent euphoria. Nirvana. I found Nirvana. And I remember thinking, there's no way I would ever be able to squeeze the enormousness of myself back inside this tiny little body..
..I pictured a world filled with beautiful, peaceful, compassionate, loving people who knew that they could come to this space at any time. And that they could purposely choose to step to the right of their left hemispheres and find this peace. And then I realized what a tremendous gift this experience could be, what a stroke of insight this could be to how we live our lives. And it motivated me to recover."
[1]
This second article I'm about to quote from outlines a striking parallel between Jill's experience and that of monks in states of meditation. Doctor Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania conducts conducts a study in which he captures the images of the monks' brainwaves as they meditated. Here is the excerpt from the article:
"Newberg found increased activity in the frontal lobe, which deals with concentration; the monks obviously were concentrating on the activity [source: Vedantam].

But Newberg also found an immense decrease of activity in the parietal lobe. The parietal lobe, among other things, orients a person in a three-dimensional space. This lobe helps you look around to determine that you're 15 feet (4.6 meters) away from a bathroom, 6 feet (1.8 meters) away from a door and so on. Newberg hypothesizes that the decreased activity in the brains of the meditating monks indicates that they lose their ability to differentiate where they end and something else begins [source: Paulson]. In other words, they become at one with the universe, a state often described in a moment of transcendence."

One thing that cannot be denied is that Jill's experience and its causes correlates exactly with those of Tibetan monks entering their realm of spirituality. To me, this parallel is powerful. The conclusion I present will hopefully undermine my opponent's entire second contention: Since spiritual experiences can be mapped down to a science, down to simply a manipulation of the left side of the brain hemisphere, then spiritual experiences, since they can be manipulated and brought about at will by people, cannot be credited to a supernatural source. My opponent's C2, which is based on spiritual experience, is thus negated.


Now, let me finally leave the world of rebuttals and return to my original contentions. With my opponent's C1 negated, and my opponent's C1 being the only objection to my C1, my C1 stands yet, affirming the negation.
My C2 is based on logic:
Q = It is rational to doubt theistic beliefs. <- I hold this as a base assumption
!!Q (not not Q) = Q, !!Q is therefore true.
!!Q = It is not rational to not doubt theistic beliefs = It is irrational to believe theistic beliefs.
In other words, the totality of theistic beliefs are not rational, which functions as a negation to the resolution (I think. . _.)

CONCLUSION
I have shown through logic (C2) and argumentative reasoning (C1) that my contentions, which negate the resolution, stand. Therefore, I win. Vote me (Con)!! :)

[1]http://www.ted.com...
[2]http://science.howstuffworks.com...;

Romanii

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his final round argument.


== MY CASE==


C1) Suggestive Evidence

"...my rebuttal were made not with the ultimate goal of disproving the existence of God absolutely as my opponent seems to be suggesting, but to prove that there is no rational connection in the arguments' premises to God or that the argument itself is irrational."

I realize that my opponent is not attempting to disprove the existence of God. However, what he WAS trying to do was show that my arguments do not logically prove the existence of God.
Yet again, I was never trying to prove the existence of God... I was simply showing that God's existence is plausible enough to rationally believe in.
Con has not shown that the arguments I presented do not add plausibility to the existence of God...

I have already explained in depth why a metaphysical cause is just as plausible as any other baseless theoretical framework for what could have caused the Big Bang, and I have already explained why an intelligent designer of sorts is a perfectly plausible explanation for the universe's numerous cosmological coincidences. These arguments DO make God's existence plausible, thus making theistic beliefs rational.


C2) Spiritual Experiences

Ah, it seems that Con has finally decided to rebut my contention for real, this time :P
Con asserts that spiritual experiences are all lies or have materialistic causes.
I will not pretend that there aren't some reported incidents of spiritual experiences that are complete lies, but I will argue against the notion that all of them have materialistic causes.

"One thing that cannot be denied is that Jill's experience and its causes correlates exactly with those of Tibetan monks entering their realm of spirituality. To me, this parallel is powerful. The conclusion I present will hopefully undermine my opponent's entire second contention: Since spiritual experiences can be mapped down to a science... [they] cannot be credited to a supernatural source."

There are many problems with this line of thinking...

1) It is an example of correlation/causation fallacy. Two experiences seeming neurologically similar is not a valid basis to believe that they both shared the same cause, especially since the observed monk wasn't having a stroke, which was the sole cause of Jill's experience.

2) Even if that specific correlation did equate to causation, to assume from there that ALL such "out-of-body" experiences are caused by that neurological effect would be making an incredibly broad generalization from a very small sample size, which is logically fallacious no matter how you look at it.

3) EVEN if all "out-of-body" experiences had materialistic explanations, that would not translate to all spiritual experiences having materialistic explanations because "out-of-body" experiences are just one type of spiritual experience. There are visions, other types of sensations, fulfilled prayers, and plenty of other things of the like that would serve as a rational basis for theistic belief.

I have shown that Con's method of arriving at his conclusion from his cited example is logically fallacious at every level. He has failed to show that all spiritual experiences are likely to have materialistic causes.
Thus, it is not at all irrational for theists to attribute seemingly-spiritual experiences to the divine and base their theistic beliefs off of them.



== CON'S CASE ==


R1) Lack of Evidence

Con concedes that my contentions serve as a direct rebuttal to this argument; all it would take is one of my contentions being affirmed to refute it this, and I have affirmed both. Therefore, this argument is completely refuted.


R2) Logic Argument

Thanks to Con for his clarification of this argument.

"Q = It is rational to doubt theistic beliefs. <- I hold this as a base assumption
Q = It is rational to doubt theistic beliefs. !!Q (not not Q) = Q, !!Q is therefore true.

!!Q = It is not rational to not doubt theistic beliefs = It is irrational to [follow] theistic beliefs."

This argument's flaw is in its final statement...
"It is not rational to not doubt theistic beliefs" =/= "It is irrational to follow theistic beliefs".
"not doubting" =/= "following". One can follow theistic beliefs while still doubting them every once in a while (i.e. maintaining a healthy skepticism)
"not doubting" = "unquestioningly following", and "unquestioningly following" =/= "following".
Con's argument from logic does not hold up to scrutiny.



== CONCLUSIONS ==

Both of my contentions affirm the resolution.
Con's first contention is refuted as long as one of my contentions hold true, and both of them do.
I have refuted Con's second contention.
Thus, Con has not upheld his BOP, while I have.
Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
In general I did not think this debate was a very good debate, however Romanii clearly takes the win here. While I would have highly criticized the use of "spiritual experiences" as an argument here Romanii did hold his own. Also in general I did not really get any good rebuttals from Newb, this is besides the point the Newb actually took some burden upon himself, he failed miserably in trying to fulfill that burden, it was sad. Overall I was gonna give a longer critique but seeing how Newb has closed his account anyways, let this be enough.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
RFD cont.:
Whereas Con's arguments seemed to talk past Pro's to a certain degree, not presenting focused attacks on Pro's contentions. It was hard for me to come to this conclusion, because there is a difference between which side I agree with and which side did a better job of arguing.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Lol I'm not a resolution sniper :P
Posted by Newb 3 years ago
Newb
It's been fun. You didn't argue this the way I thought you would (thank GOD!!).
Posted by Newb 3 years ago
Newb
It's funny. I seem to always have trouble arguing absolutes without feeling like I'm lying to myself and all those who bother to read.
Posted by Newb 3 years ago
Newb
I accept your challenge!!
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Lol I'm totally fine with either of them.
Posted by Newb 3 years ago
Newb
Oh lord I know exactly how you're going to argue this.. :(
Maybe I should accept the moral nihilism one.
Posted by Newb 3 years ago
Newb
Since your first choice, theistic belief can be rational, isn't ridiculous or one-sided, I will accept that. just let me revise the debate info.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
your choice.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
NewbRomaniiTied
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: Con's C1 was essentially pointless, stating that a lack of information and experience is proof of irrationality. However, Con does convince me that Pro's C1 has faulted reasoning, which, while Pro disputes, he never shows me how his logic works in a rational way. Hence the C1's just go away. Con's C2 is fallacious, and I think Pro points this out in R4 when it's fully explained. He's equating the negative statement with the positive statement, which simply doesn't make logical sense. Pro's winning this debate on his C2. Pro defends it well in R4, whereas Con's attacks seemed relatively weak and circumstantial. They didn't hit at the central point about experiences, and specifically shared experiences, being a source of rationality. Even if those experiences are false, that doesn't remove the rationality of all theistic belief, it just removes the rationality of some beliefs. Con simply phrased the resolution poorly, and it ended up biting him.
Vote Placed by Ajab 3 years ago
Ajab
NewbRomaniiTied
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: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
NewbRomaniiTied
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: My vote was originally supposed to counter a vote-bomb. That person's vote was removed, so I am readjusting my vote as well.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
NewbRomaniiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate to vote on and let me elaborate why. Con could have produced a much stronger argument than was presented. Overall Con presented a very good case, however the language usage made it difficult to understand. As such I am giving argument points to Con and S&G to Pro. Regarding Source, this i where Con could have tied up the debate win easily, however the sources to YouTube and a Ted Talk are not the most reliable source. For this reason I give Pro source. For this reason Con should just win this vote according to my calculations. I thought conduct was equal for this debate, and am not going to let the points go either way. Edit: Turns out my calculations were wrong and it's a tie, oh well all the better.
Vote Placed by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
NewbRomaniiTied
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: I'll vote on this later lol.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
NewbRomaniiTied
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: CONDUCT goes to Con for Pro's quip in R4 "It looks like he's rebutting this for real this time" or something to that effect. I feel like a bit of a stickler for this, but in the end it gives Con more civility, and thus the conduct point. If Romanii wants to talk me out of this part I'll hear his case. ARGUMENTS go to Romanii because even though I don't buy any of the arguments he puts forth, they are better formulated than Con's. Pro presents rebuttals that actually focus on the idea behind his opponent's contention, whereas many of Con's rebuttals get a bit off topic and end up being him presenting reasons to think a god existing is irrational, without being specific to the contention at hand. Perfect example is his rebuttal in R2 to Romanii's first contention. So, overall, while I did not find Pro's side as logical, his arguments were better thought out and presented, and his second contention made me think a little bit. RFD cont. in comments