The Instigator
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Balacafa
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

because god is not real, morality exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Balacafa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 86017
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

vi_spex

Pro

even with the biggest army and a castle, actions have consequences
Balacafa

Con

I accept the full BOP lies on Pro. I await their arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
vi_spex

Pro

you are con
Balacafa

Con

I know I'm Con however you are Pro and are affirming the resolution therefore you must prove it beyond reasonable doubt to be true. This is called your burden of proof. As Con my role is to negate your arguments and therefore I await them patiently.

My opponent believes that morality exists because God doesn't. This is false. Due to the fact that iGod (in Christianity) gave us the 10 commandments this ultimately means that we got our morals indirectly from God and directly on to Moses. Without God we never would have had these morals.
Debate Round No. 2
vi_spex

Pro

i dont have a burden of proof.. this is a debate, you are con, anti.. am i wrong? or are you not con

so prove the bible is true then, but you still dont have a case, god negates morality.. and becasue there is no god an assissin can kill you in your castle even no matter how many men you have, possibilties like this exist
Balacafa

Con

This debate isn't on the truth of the bible. But nevertheless, I'll provide a quick argument for the existence of God.

The Kalam Cosmological argument or the first cause argument states that everything has a cause and therefore the Earth and the Universe has a cause. As a result of this, we can ultimately conclude that something must have caused the universe. That something is most likely God since in order to create the universe it would require an immense amount of energy and power which could easily be achieved by an omnipotent figure.

It is more specifically the God of the Bible because Christianity has the most followers out of any religion which therefore gives it greater credibility. A lot of people believe it because they believe that it is rational and true. If people believed that it was irrational and probably not true then they wouldn't believe in it.

My opponent's example is that an assassin can kill you no matter how many men you have. This does the opposite of helping him. It shows that God cannot be on your side if he doesn't exist and therefore by killing people it is not immoral because nobody will necessarily find out. My opponent's example helps my position and makes their burden of proof higher.

I have fulfilled my BOP by proving the universe to be created by God and proven that it is most likely the God of the Bible. My opponent has failed to negate my arguments or fulfill their BOP

This is an easy vote for Con based on these premises.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 points to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con made his arguments in the last round, thus preventing refutation. Neither side makes any line of argumentation till the last round- Con says God is the basis for morality via the ten commandments, but Pro challenges the assumption that God exists and says Con has the burden to prove God, which is under-justified but could have been expanded on. I vote Con on the BoP issue- the burden of proof in such a resolution does lie with Pro; since Pro didn't clearly establish why the burden to prove God is on Con, I default to Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote is sufficiently explained, examining arguments from both sides of the debate and providing reasonable justification for conduct.
***********************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Conduct, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems really confused on what he's supposed to do. He never actually argued anything. I don't buy the "blitzkreig" comment made previously. Pro offered absolutely nothing to debate. Con practically begged in arg 2 for anything of substance to discuss. No arguments were convincing. Points on conduct and S&G to con for attempting to draw a premise out of pro.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter insufficiently explains both conduct and S&G. Neither of these points are justified solely on the basis that Con tried to do something substantive with the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Grandzam// Mod action: Removed<

4 point to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fulfill BOP, and also had bad grammar, with capitalization and punctuation errors.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Merely stating that one side did not fulfill their BOP is not sufficient for explaining argument points. The voter has to address actual arguments made in the debate. (2) S&G is insufficiently explaiend. Unless the debater's arguments were actually difficult to understand as a result of these errors, this point should not be awarded.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: kkjnay// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I'll admit I don't fully understand the assertion Pro is presenting, and I'm not sure he does either. Pro did not argue his point in any round, or refute Con's arguments, and so did not fulfill his burden of proof. Con also had better spelling and grammar.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) A lack of understanding of the arguments given in the debate doesn't obviate the need to directly assess them. The voter has to at least point to one argument per side and explains why it does or doesn't matter within the debate. (2) The voter has to do more than simply say that one side had superior S&G. That's just a restatement of the point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
My mistake, posted that incorrectly. Here's the actual decision.

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Kirigaya-Kazuto// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: This is an excellent example of a "final round blitzkrieg". Con gives a large amount of arguments in the final round meaning Pro cannot refute any of them. Other than that no one fulfilled their BoP as the last round is null and void due to the blitzkrieg. No sources were used and S&G were very similar.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter is allowed some discretion when it comes to awarding conduct, and if they view final round arguments as a substantial conduct violation, it's not up to moderation to determine whether that is a good enough reason. So long as it's explained, it is viewed sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Kirigaya-Kazuto// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: This is an excellent example of a "final round blitzkrieg". Con gives a large amount of arguments in the final round meaning Pro cannot refute any of them. Other than that no one fulfilled their BoP as the last round is null and void due to the blitzkrieg. No sources were used and S&G were very similar.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is allowed some discretion when it comes to awarding conduct, and if they view final round arguments as a substantial conduct violation, it's not up to moderation to determine whether that is a good enough reason. So long as it's explained, it is viewed sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
it is true
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
My opponent believes that the only reason that morality exists is because God doesn't exist.
Posted by SquirrelFaces 1 year ago
SquirrelFaces
what exactly are you guys debating? 'Because god is not real, morality exists'? I don't understand what this means.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
vi_spexBalacafaTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con made his arguments in the last round, thus preventing refutation. Neither side makes any line of argumentation till the last round- Con says God is the basis for morality via the ten commandments, but Pro challenges the assumption that God exists and says Con has the burden to prove God, which is under-justified but could have been expanded on. I vote Con on the BoP issue- the burden of proof in such a resolution does lie with Pro; since Pro didn't clearly establish why the burden to prove God is on Con, I default to Con.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
vi_spexBalacafaTied
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 had the BOP but he provided no arguments to support this resolution which pro pointed out. Pro had the BOP and he therefore loses by default by not proving what he was obliged to prove.
Vote Placed by Kirigaya-Kazuto 1 year ago
Kirigaya-Kazuto
vi_spexBalacafaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This is an excellent example of a "final round blitzkrieg". Con gives a large amount of arguments in the final round meaning Pro cannot refute any of them. Other than that no one fulfilled their BoP as the last round is null and void due to the blitzkrieg. No sources were used and S&G were very similar.