Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

RFD for Christian God Debate

whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 7:19:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
This is an RFD for the debate between SkepticalOne and Jerry947 given here: http://www.debate.org...

Ugh. This one was painful to read, guys. Both sides made a lot of errors, and this debate easily could have swung either way up through the final round based on where either side emphasized these problems. I've got a bunch of overviews to go through, and then I'll get into my decision.

1. Sourcing

If this had been under the 7-point system, Con would have received conduct. Pro, your sources are not extensions of your argument. Anything in them that you don't directly state or at least clearly reference in the text of the debate shouldn't be taken as part of the debate. There are multiple examples of you presenting sources as arguments and responses. That's an attempt to expand your argument beyond the character limits of the debate, and in the final round, you even say that "I didn't have enough characters to address the matter" of stoning, which shows that you were attempting to circumvent the character limit by presenting sources as extensions of your arguments. Given that I cannot award conduct, the way this plays out is that I ignore a great dea lof these sources. Excepting those instances where Pro uses his source as a means to support an argument he's actually making, rather than using it to make the argument for him, I will disregard these sources entirely.

2. Prove

Not sure why theere was discussion over this. Not even sure why Pro presented a definition of "to prove," as that seemed to expand his burden substantially. Pro defined it as merely showing, and showing would have been a whole lot simpler than proving. If Con had actually thought to employ this definition and examine what suffices as evidence in more detail, the way this debate progressed may well have been very different. But I'll get to that on the arguments.

3. Personal God

...Seriously, guys? This actually became a large topic of conversation in this debate? Why?

The word personal is mentioned for the first time in R1 by Pro, where he merely talks about a personal agent. Con attempts to define what a personal god is, then Pro argues that there's a different definition of personal... and this just spirals from here. I don't see why it mattered in the debate at all. It was part of a conclusion to the Cosmological argument, was somehow applied to the burdens of the whole debate, and then just became the focus of this ridiculous back and forth that went nowhere and mattered not in the slightest to the debate as a whole.

Focus on the resolution, guys. It doesn't say personal. Pro's burdens certainly don't require any personal god, just a Christian one. That's all he needed to affirm.

4. Metaphors and Analogies

These are usually meant to simplify arguments. It should be straightforward and clear what you mean and why I should view them as apt. That's now how they were often used in this debate. I suppose that was the goal, but so often the comparisons to lawgivers, firing squads, drivers licenses and a lottery were just distracting. Much of the debate centered on these comparisons, and they were really and truly unnecessary. The concepts you're presenting are not that difficult to understand. Focus on them.

Alright, now that many of the general issues are out of the way, let's focus on the arguments. I'm going to group these into two separate categories:

1) Arguments supporting the existence of a deity

This... probably should have been a minority of the overall debate, and yet it became the chief focus. Con argues and Pro admits that none of the first 3 contentions he goes for actually affirm the resolution. In fact, the last argument supports the existence of a god and that that god is Christian (more on that later), so this all seems superfluous. Maybe the reason we're spending our time here is that the philosophical arguments are all here, but none of them suffice as evidence. They're all just logic claims. That's fine, but it seems unnecessary and distracting, as so much of this debate was.

A) The Axiological Argument

All of these arguments were pretty terribly explained, to be perfectly honest. This argument assumes objective moral values exist because there's a general consensus that certain things are moral. That seems awfully strange, since the argument appears to be that moral principles are objective because most people agree that certain things are immoral. That doesn't prove objective morality, any more than any generally held subjective view should be treated as objective. It's a weak argument, and one based in an appeal to the majority that could easily have swung either way.

But Con doesn't attack this claim... which baffled me. What he attacked is the claim that, without a god, objective moral values would not exist. That's fine " a naturalism argument may well have been a good rebuttal to Pro's points. What Con failed to do was establish that naturalism is objective. Pro tells me that naturalism is based on an evolving framework and that it would therefore be subjective to claim that any point along that evolving framework is objectively correct. I don't find this response to naturalism to be particularly compelling, though Con ends up morphing his argument into an "evolution decides morality" point, which does fall victim to this point. Con is never responsive to this argument.

The only response Con gives that really strikes at the core of Pro's argument in a solid way is the statement that animals present some form of morality. However, it's never explained why this is a deathblow, though Pro seems to assume that it does some harm to his case. It's unclear why animals having morality negates the view that objective morality comes from God. Perhaps this supports a more natural view of where objective morality comes from, but as this point doesn't clearly reduce the likelihood of Pro's arguments being true, and as Con's evolution-based points present with more questions than answers, Pro's argument is still standing.

B) The Teleological Argument

This is poorly presented. Pro gives me a very large number, tells me that it represents the very low likelihood that the universe would be created based on chance alone, and doesn't tell me why. Ever. No analysis whatsoever of why the likelihood is so incredibly low (that argument from Penrose didn't come from nowhere). And based solely on this number and the... feeling that this really low probability makes it... rigged somehow, the universe couldn't have been naturally created and instead was created by a designer.

I've seen this argument before. I know what it looks like when it has its warrants and evidence to back it up. This one's lacking in those respects. A point like this requires a lot of both, not to mention at least SOME anlaysis of why a creator would deal with the probability problem.

Not that Con is very effective in his responses. He doesn't explain why Pro's number is wrong or use the lack of support as a reason to dismiss it. Instead, he argues that low likelihood is not itself reason enough to dismiss the possibility of chance inception of the universe, which has some merit. It's useful to argue that low probability doesn't dismiss chance as an option, and since Con'argument is that chance is absolutely dismissed and therefore leaves solely the possibility of a creator, it has some merit. Pro isn't directly proving a god exists through this argument, just that the lack of reason to believe in an alternative suggests that a creator must exist.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 7:19:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
It's not particularly well-explained, though. I need some clear idea of how the universe could have been created by chance, and while the argument for unstable nuclei may have been a start, it did require further analysis than what I get in this debate. It doesn't matter how low the probability of chance creation of the universe may be, but only if I have reason to believe that there's a means by which that probability would likely not matter. This might be that means, but it requires analysis of how it can potentially deal with that likelihood. I don't see it.

So I'm buying that the low likelihood suggests... something. Not sure what it is, and I'm not sure that that something is a deity of any sort, but it suggests that naturalism is not enough to explain how the universe came to be... maybe.

C) The Cosmological Argument

It feels like there's a huge chunk of analysis missing here. There's no explanation for any of the points in the argument, which is particularly important when Pro's first point is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence." That's a big claim, and it has no support, throughout the debate. Pro does later argue that the universe must have begun to exist at some point, as he talks about red shift and expansion, but this explanation implies that the universe began from nothing and was therefore created by something external to it. None of those assumptions are ever supported.

The basic argument that there is no scientific explanation by which the universe could have originated is just patently absurd. Of course theories exist, and of course those theories have some logic to them. Con presented the beginning of one through these virtual particles, though he doesn't provide any evidence, warrants or analysis as to how these particles work.

So both sides suggest quite a bit through claims alone, but never make sufficiently supported arguments to win anything substantial here. Con does eventually suggest that concerns about where the universe began invites questions about where God began, but that argument appears for the first time in Pro's final round, far too late to make any difference in the debate.

As I see it, each side is making too many assumptions and assertions here to be garnering anything throughout all this.

2) Arguments supporting the existence of a Christian deity

Even if I'm buying all of the above to every degree Pro wants me to, that's certainly not enough to affirm. I need to see evidence of the Christian deity, and as such, all I'm getting from those first 3 points is reaon to believe that some deity exists. That doesn't mean it's Christian.

So, now we throw the basic logical explanations out the window and focus on the evidence. Evidence that Jesus existed is conceded, so the only question is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus was also a deity. Personally, I would have questioned whether proof of Jesus's godhood would be sufficient to affirm the full trinity, but since Con seems to allow that assumption, I'm forced to allow it as well.

Con's initial response goes nowhere. The bias in sources matter only insofar as that bias is employed to make arguments in the link and those arguments are used to advance points in the debate. That's not the case here, as Pro argues using specific quotes from what he deems to be contemporary sources. So Con's initial responses fall flat.

Where things get interesting is in R3, where Con argues that the "evidence" Pro is presenting isn't evidence. It's not argued particularly well because Pro's claim is not circular. He's arguing that eye-witness accounts by multiple people giving the same perception of those events suffices as evidence. Now, I'd personally disagree with that assessment for three reasons. One, as Con suggests, many of these sources either collaborated or copied from one another, meaning they're not independent. Two, this assumes that the sources were doing their best to be objective, providing only what they saw without any incentive to produce a fantastic portrayal of a situation, which history has proven is often the case. Three, eye-witness accounts invariably get distorted with time and aren't necessarily factual to begin with, so using them as the sole evidence of Jesus's godhood seems more than a little problematic to me.

But Con only gives the first of these points, and he doesn't do enough on that to explain why that reason alone suffices to dismiss Pro's evidence. It would have to have been applied to all of the examples Pro cited, and it wasn't, as he drops a great deal of them. Con would also have had to explain why that overlap makes these sources' claims incredible beyond belief. If even one contemporary said that Jesus resurrected, why shouldn't I view that as evidence of the Christian god's existence? I can think of several reasons why not, but they had to appear in the debate itself. They didn't.

Con does introduce a new argument in the final round that might have swayed me if it had appeared earlier, which resides around the second and third points I stated above. He even presents another possibility, which is that distance from the time of Jesus's life may have created a distorted image of what Jesus actually was, meaning that the sources were more likely to be fantastic beyond reality.

Sadly, it does come too late. Without appearing before R4, I can't take this into account, and the lack of analysis in previous rounds as to why Pro's evidence didn't suffice leaves me with not much to go on.

Conclusion:

Pro's arguments all read like extremely short and threadbare versions of the arguments for a deity and for a Christian God. They all lacked basic warrants and evidence, the logic was often missing in large chunks, and many of these points were insufficient to affirm. In fact, were it not for the assumptions from Con, all of them could have been insufficient to affirm.

But presenting a poorly supported argument doesn't automatically lose you the debate. The other side has to point out where these problems lie, and explain why they're important to the debate as a whole. Those responses need to appear before the final round, and they simply didn't. Maybe if Con's R4 was his R3 and his R3 his R2, this would have been different. But that wasn't the case, and I can't do much with what I'm given.

Hence, despite my greivances with Pro's arguments and tactics, I'm given little choice but to vote for them.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 7:45:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Conclusion:

Pro's arguments all read like extremely short and threadbare versions of the arguments for a deity and for a Christian God. They all lacked basic warrants and evidence, the logic was often missing in large chunks, and many of these points were insufficient to affirm. In fact, were it not for the assumptions from Con, all of them could have been insufficient to affirm.

The only assumption I allowed was that an historical Jesus existed. That's fairly well accepted. However, that assumption is not a concession of the debate. Pro needed to show the Christian god existed, and that requires more than a man named Jesus in the first century.

But presenting a poorly supported argument doesn't automatically lose you the debate. The other side has to point out where these problems lie, and explain why they're important to the debate as a whole. Those responses need to appear before the final round, and they simply didn't. Maybe if Con's R4 was his R3 and his R3 his R2, this would have been different. But that wasn't the case, and I can't do much with what I'm given.

Why does it matter where my arguments fall in the debate, so long as my opponent has the opportunity to respond? Is there some debate protocol I'm not familiar with?

Hence, despite my greivances with Pro's arguments and tactics, I'm given little choice but to vote for them.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 7:53:40 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 7:45:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Conclusion:

Pro's arguments all read like extremely short and threadbare versions of the arguments for a deity and for a Christian God. They all lacked basic warrants and evidence, the logic was often missing in large chunks, and many of these points were insufficient to affirm. In fact, were it not for the assumptions from Con, all of them could have been insufficient to affirm.

The only assumption I allowed was that an historical Jesus existed. That's fairly well accepted. However, that assumption is not a concession of the debate. Pro needed to show the Christian god existed, and that requires more than a man named Jesus in the first century.

I didn't say that that was the concession that won Pro the debate. I didn't even say that you conceded anything that won him the debate. I explained why his arguments won him the debate, and why your lack of response cost you.

But presenting a poorly supported argument doesn't automatically lose you the debate. The other side has to point out where these problems lie, and explain why they're important to the debate as a whole. Those responses need to appear before the final round, and they simply didn't. Maybe if Con's R4 was his R3 and his R3 his R2, this would have been different. But that wasn't the case, and I can't do much with what I'm given.

Why does it matter where my arguments fall in the debate, so long as my opponent has the opportunity to respond? Is there some debate protocol I'm not familiar with?

It matters quite a bit. You clearly understood that your opponent presenting new arguments in the final round is problematic because of a lack of ability to respond. Whether it's your final round or his, it's the same problem. Just because he had a round after your final round doesn't mean that you're free from the same basic restriction he has on what he can present in his final round.

For the most part, a new argument in the final round is not accepted. It's not something generalized to the whole site, and others might disagree. But I feel that it matters, particularly when you were saying that your opponent shouldn't be engaging in the same behavior.

Hence, despite my greivances with Pro's arguments and tactics, I'm given little choice but to vote for them.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 7:54:36 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 7:23:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why do people use forums for RFD's?

Because, when they're long like this, I'd rather not post them in 2000 character segments in the comments.
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,011
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 8:34:26 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 7:23:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why do people use forums for RFD's?

When their rfds are too long for the comments section.
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 8:43:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 7:54:36 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 2/21/2016 7:23:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why do people use forums for RFD's?

Because, when they're long like this, I'd rather not post them in 2000 character segments in the comments.

I always felt that being concise was the key to a useful RFD. Long drawn out explanations focus on such details that the bigger picture gets lost.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 8:45:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:43:30 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2016 7:54:36 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 2/21/2016 7:23:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why do people use forums for RFD's?

Because, when they're long like this, I'd rather not post them in 2000 character segments in the comments.

I always felt that being concise was the key to a useful RFD. Long drawn out explanations focus on such details that the bigger picture gets lost.

I disagree. While I feel that concise RFDs can give quite a bit of effective feedback, I think that long RFDs can give much more specific details about what each debater did right and wrong. The former gives you a great overall picture, but usually little actionable information. The latter may be overwhelming to some, but it offers the most opportunity to garner information about how to improve.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 8:47:39 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
What's mind boggling is not so much the fact that Pro used the same tired, old, demolished arguments that were refuted when they were first penned, which is very lazy, of course, but the fact that anyone would actually vote in favor of the use of those arguments in a formal debate. Quite puzzling.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Posts: 146
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 8:55:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Unbelievable you made it all the way through AND analyzed it.

I came away with:
1. Both sides argued a lot that God exists.
2. Both sides agreed that Jesus existed.
3. It also filled that whether Jesus was God or not, he had a pretty big impact.

I can't wrap my brain around the logic that because there is a God, and really recently (on a Universal scale) Jesus appeared and did good things, that the Universal God is defined as a Chrsitian one. Much like a contractor who builds an entire house, and at the end, puts in a really nice wall sconce, he is not a Wall Sconce contractor. The wall sconce may save people from dozens of falls due to the illumination, but really it was one of the last things the contractor put it. It's just such a small part of the house, no matter how many people say, "that light guides me and keeps me safe". All praise the wall sconce, it was made in the Architect's image.

I can't vote. This whole debate went in circles.
SNP1
Posts: 2,406
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:14:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 7:19:30 PM, whiteflame wrote:
This is an RFD for the debate between SkepticalOne

I just realized...
I always called him (in my head) SkepticAlone, not realizing it could be SkepticalOne...
Damn, I'm and idiot.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:41:31 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:47:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
What's mind boggling is not so much the fact that Pro used the same tired, old, demolished arguments that were refuted when they were first penned, which is very lazy, of course, but the fact that anyone would actually vote in favor of the use of those arguments in a formal debate. Quite puzzling.

I didn't read the debate, but based on his RFD I do see where he is coming from. It's not the voter's job to refute the argument so if Con was unable to do that then he should get the loss. And it makes no difference how bad Pro's arguments are, the easier they are to refute the less of an excuse Con has for failing to refute them.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:42:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:14:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/21/2016 7:19:30 PM, whiteflame wrote:
This is an RFD for the debate between SkepticalOne

I just realized...
I always called him (in my head) SkepticAlone, not realizing it could be SkepticalOne...
Damn, I'm and idiot.

Don't feel to bad, I was doing the same thing lol
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2016 10:46:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:14:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/21/2016 7:19:30 PM, whiteflame wrote:
This is an RFD for the debate between SkepticalOne

I just realized...
I always called him (in my head) SkepticAlone, not realizing it could be SkepticalOne...
Damn, I'm and idiot.

WTF Same goes for me...
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 12:39:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 10:41:31 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/21/2016 8:47:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
What's mind boggling is not so much the fact that Pro used the same tired, old, demolished arguments that were refuted when they were first penned, which is very lazy, of course, but the fact that anyone would actually vote in favor of the use of those arguments in a formal debate. Quite puzzling.

I didn't read the debate, but based on his RFD I do see where he is coming from. It's not the voter's job to refute the argument so if Con was unable to do that then he should get the loss. And it makes no difference how bad Pro's arguments are, the easier they are to refute the less of an excuse Con has for failing to refute them.

I suppose you're right, DR.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:32:41 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 7:53:40 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 2/21/2016 7:45:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Conclusion:

Pro's arguments all read like extremely short and threadbare versions of the arguments for a deity and for a Christian God. They all lacked basic warrants and evidence, the logic was often missing in large chunks, and many of these points were insufficient to affirm. In fact, were it not for the assumptions from Con, all of them could have been insufficient to affirm.

The only assumption I allowed was that an historical Jesus existed. That's fairly well accepted. However, that assumption is not a concession of the debate. Pro needed to show the Christian god existed, and that requires more than a man named Jesus in the first century.

I didn't say that that was the concession that won Pro the debate. I didn't even say that you conceded anything that won him the debate. I explained why his arguments won him the debate, and why your lack of response cost you.

No, you didn't say that, but you are discounting my rebuttal because of assumptions I allowed. Assumptions which are not controversial and still leave Pro needing to show that that man (Jesus) was the god of the Bible.

But presenting a poorly supported argument doesn't automatically lose you the debate. The other side has to point out where these problems lie, and explain why they're important to the debate as a whole. Those responses need to appear before the final round, and they simply didn't. Maybe if Con's R4 was his R3 and his R3 his R2, this would have been different. But that wasn't the case, and I can't do much with what I'm given.

Why does it matter where my arguments fall in the debate, so long as my opponent has the opportunity to respond? Is there some debate protocol I'm not familiar with?

It matters quite a bit. You clearly understood that your opponent presenting new arguments in the final round is problematic because of a lack of ability to respond. Whether it's your final round or his, it's the same problem. Just because he had a round after your final round doesn't mean that you're free from the same basic restriction he has on what he can present in his final round.

To be fair, I didn't present new arguments in the final round. I expanded on what I had already said earlier in the debate: WLC is clearly biased, and the gospels need corroboration. I grant that I went more in-depth in round 4, but it was nothing new.

For the most part, a new argument in the final round is not accepted. It's not something generalized to the whole site, and others might disagree. But I feel that it matters, particularly when you were saying that your opponent shouldn't be engaging in the same behavior.

Hence, despite my greivances with Pro's arguments and tactics, I'm given little choice but to vote for them.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:50:21 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
I didn't say that that was the concession that won Pro the debate. I didn't even say that you conceded anything that won him the debate. I explained why his arguments won him the debate, and why your lack of response cost you.

No, you didn't say that, but you are discounting my rebuttal because of assumptions I allowed. Assumptions which are not controversial and still leave Pro needing to show that that man (Jesus) was the god of the Bible.

...Where did I say I was discounting your rebuttals because of assumptions you allowed? I'm not even sure how that makes sense, to be perfectly honest.

It matters quite a bit. You clearly understood that your opponent presenting new arguments in the final round is problematic because of a lack of ability to respond. Whether it's your final round or his, it's the same problem. Just because he had a round after your final round doesn't mean that you're free from the same basic restriction he has on what he can present in his final round.

To be fair, I didn't present new arguments in the final round. I expanded on what I had already said earlier in the debate: WLC is clearly biased, and the gospels need corroboration. I grant that I went more in-depth in round 4, but it was nothing new.

You did. You said that the original sources he'd used were biased in previous rounds, and you said that there were some problems with some of the gospels. I took all of that into account, and explained why each of those points wasn't enough to win you the debate. The argument you made in the final round may have been an extension on that general theme of points, but they were new points nonetheless, never stated before. Just because you vaguely alluded to them before doesn't mean they're not new.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:53:08 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:47:39 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
What's mind boggling is not so much the fact that Pro used the same tired, old, demolished arguments that were refuted when they were first penned, which is very lazy, of course, but the fact that anyone would actually vote in favor of the use of those arguments in a formal debate. Quite puzzling.

Would you care to explain how my decision was wrong, or vote yourself for that matter? I agree that his points weren't good, but that doesn't mean I would have been right to dismiss it off-hand.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:53:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Man, have I forgotten over the years I've been gone...

RFDs are your explanation as to why you scored the contenders the way you did, right?

And what's RFD stand for again?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:55:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/22/2016 2:50:21 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I didn't say that that was the concession that won Pro the debate. I didn't even say that you conceded anything that won him the debate. I explained why his arguments won him the debate, and why your lack of response cost you.

No, you didn't say that, but you are discounting my rebuttal because of assumptions I allowed. Assumptions which are not controversial and still leave Pro needing to show that that man (Jesus) was the god of the Bible.

...Where did I say I was discounting your rebuttals because of assumptions you allowed? I'm not even sure how that makes sense, to be perfectly honest.

"Pro's arguments all read like extremely short and threadbare versions of the arguments for a deity and for a Christian God. They all lacked basic warrants and evidence, the logic was often missing in large chunks, and many of these points were insufficient to affirm. In fact, were it not for the assumptions from Con, all of them could have been insufficient to affirm."

It matters quite a bit. You clearly understood that your opponent presenting new arguments in the final round is problematic because of a lack of ability to respond. Whether it's your final round or his, it's the same problem. Just because he had a round after your final round doesn't mean that you're free from the same basic restriction he has on what he can present in his final round.

To be fair, I didn't present new arguments in the final round. I expanded on what I had already said earlier in the debate: WLC is clearly biased, and the gospels need corroboration. I grant that I went more in-depth in round 4, but it was nothing new.

You did. You said that the original sources he'd used were biased in previous rounds, and you said that there were some problems with some of the gospels. I took all of that into account, and explained why each of those points wasn't enough to win you the debate. The argument you made in the final round may have been an extension on that general theme of points, but they were new points nonetheless, never stated before. Just because you vaguely alluded to them before doesn't mean they're not new.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:55:27 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/21/2016 8:55:28 PM, diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid wrote:
Unbelievable you made it all the way through AND analyzed it.

I came away with:
1. Both sides argued a lot that God exists.
2. Both sides agreed that Jesus existed.
3. It also filled that whether Jesus was God or not, he had a pretty big impact.

I can't wrap my brain around the logic that because there is a God, and really recently (on a Universal scale) Jesus appeared and did good things, that the Universal God is defined as a Chrsitian one. Much like a contractor who builds an entire house, and at the end, puts in a really nice wall sconce, he is not a Wall Sconce contractor. The wall sconce may save people from dozens of falls due to the illumination, but really it was one of the last things the contractor put it. It's just such a small part of the house, no matter how many people say, "that light guides me and keeps me safe". All praise the wall sconce, it was made in the Architect's image.

I can't vote. This whole debate went in circles.

Yeah... it was a rough one. I promised a vote, and I just decided to slog through it. Completely understand that you're not interested in doing it.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2016 2:59:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
...Where did I say I was discounting your rebuttals because of assumptions you allowed? I'm not even sure how that makes sense, to be perfectly honest.

"Pro's arguments all read like extremely short and threadbare versions of the arguments for a deity and for a Christian God. They all lacked basic warrants and evidence, the logic was often missing in large chunks, and many of these points were insufficient to affirm. In fact, were it not for the assumptions from Con, all of them could have been insufficient to affirm."

That's an interesting interpretation of that line. I said that your rebuttals ended up including basic assumptions about Pro's burdens and what he was required to do that actually set his burdens lower than I would have by default. That's not me stating that I discounted your rebuttals as a result of your assumptions. That's me stating that you made the job more difficult for yourself and thus required that you produce more substantial rebuttals as a result in order to knock out Pro's case.