Agnosticism is more rational than atheism.

Please quote exactly. Do not rephrase or reinterpret. Answer all questions directly. Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit. Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.

Round 1

1 of 5

Mal

Pro #1

Greetings.

Agnosticism is more rational than atheism on the stance of the gods of theism.

The agnostics that say they don't know about the existence of the gods of theism, the reason is because of no "known" evidence either way.

For some reason people have been swayed into theism or atheism.

When people get to a stage of their lives of maturity where they have rationalized, theorized, reasoned, postulated, learned,observed and concluded, they will have made a decision about the gods of theism existing or not.

There are those that have definitively asserted a stance as if they know for sure.

Then those that have decided upon a belief based on no "known" evidence but some concept, some subjective experience, secular experience and so forth.

Commonly, the atheists will decide to take the stance that the gods of theism don't exist due to no "known" evidence.

However, due to no "known" evidence that they don't exist, this is where the rationale falls short.

This is where the rationale is negated which makes their stance on the shortsighted side.

This is where agnostics pick up the rationale and extend it further and say "there's no "known" evidence for the positive or negative, so there is no basis to sway into either gear but remain neutral.

But to remain stuck, undecided, indeterminate, inconclusive, etc.

So there's no confusion, we won't be conflating categories here.

When I say agnostics, that's agnostics period.

The categories are alphabetically agnostic, atheist and theist.

A theist is not an atheist, an atheist is not an agnostic.

An agnostic is not an atheist, an atheist is not a theist.

Which seperates the agnostic and theist.

Now I've attempted to make this as straightforward as possible.

Hopefully it is as clear as possible.

Lunatic Administrator

Con #2

Thankyou for your opening arguments.

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings. (1)

Agnosticism: a person who holds that the answers to the basic questions of existence, such as the nature of the ultimate cause and whether or not there is a supreme being, are unknown or unknowable. (2)

Contention 1: Doubt VS Plausibility

"However, due to no "known" evidence that they don't exist, this is where the rationale falls short."

My opponent gestures towards the understanding that the universe is large, and there are many unknowns that we can't possibly quantify. And while this is true to a major extent, it doesn't refute what atheism stands to oppose. Simply saying that their is more to the universe than we might ever grasp in our lifetime, maybe even a thousand lifetimes, is probably a measurable and quantifiable argument. However where atheism makes a stronger point than agnosticism, is that definitionally it is contingent on the word "dis-belief" or "lack of belief". It is perfectly reasonable to doubt or even dis-belief in something of which there stands no good evidence to support. If I were to say I don't believe in Santa Clause, Bigfoot or the Boogey Man, it wouldn't be a big shock. These are urban legends and myths that are propelled into many human cultures The same applies to the existence of a God, it just has a major uptick in popularity compared to the examples I used.

So when we talk about dis-believing in something we aren't saying that the thing doesn't exist; Atheism partially embodies agnosticism that way. We are just going one step further to say "I don't believe this thing exists based on the evidence available", which is the same as essentially saying "I doubt this thing exists". If sufficient proof were to ever develop to sufficiently rationalize the existence of God, Santa, Bigfoot or the Boogey Man, this rationale falls apart. Obviously this proof would have to be pretty major, in God showing himself to humanity somehow (in something other than feelings, dreams, and prayers).

Sub A: An elephant in my pocket

Why Agnosticism is the weaker argument of the two here, is that it is kind of a cop out argument. If I tell you something profoundly ridiculous like that I have hidden an elephant in my pocket, your default answer should be dubious in nature. Based on your understanding and perception of the general size of elephants, it would be ridiculous to hypothesize that there is an Elephant, even a baby one inside my pocket. It wouldn't make sense for you to answer me by saying "You could have one in your pocket. Maybe you do or maybe you don't. I cannot know which so I refuse to choose an answer."

Where as it is irrational to believe the that there is an elephant in my pocket, someone would be more justified logically in taking the stance of "I dis-believe that you have an elephant in your pocket"..

Contention 2: The Burden of Proof relies on the claim maker

Burden of Proof: the duty of proving a disputed assertion or charge (3)

Now maybe you dis-agree with my elephant analogy, and think that agnostics response was the more reasonable of the two. The agnostic, plays from safety and doesn't have to answer "why", he just says he doesn't know and doesn't have to care, and proceeds to think this position trumps all known aspects of the argument.

Imagine a society that felt that way about everything, though. Scientific progress would be nothing. Being unable to substantiate or quantify an argument on the basis of not knowing, would set humans back centuries. Why does the sun rise and fall every day? Don't know don't care. Is the earth round or flat? Don't know don't care. Agnosticism doesn't provide an answer to everything, but not everything NEEDS an answers. However by asking the right questions and being suspicious of every claim we hear, we can use science to substantiate a large number of our beliefs. Theists cannot provide adequate proof for God, the same way Big Foot believers cannot substantiate his existence. It does not make sense to question the logic of an insane claim, and to not support it. The stronger belief here is to not believe everything you hear, just because it has a large cult following, like religion does. All atheism does is hold the claim maker to their burden of proof, and require them to substantiate the thing they are trying to argue. This should be a baseline requirement for any claim. The agnostic takes the lazy way out, and with an agnostic mindset, we never answer any questions, or challenge people for their beliefs. What would our society be without challenging beliefs?

Sources:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/Agnostic
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burden%20of%20proof

Round 2

2 of 5

Mal

Pro #3

"If I were to say I don't believe in Santa Clause, Bigfoot or the Boogey Man, it wouldn't be a big shock. These are urban legends and myths that are propelled into many human cultures The same applies to the existence of a God, it just has a major uptick in popularity compared to the examples I used."

Ok so let's start here. We have some false or unfair equivalencies already. All the figures mentioned here except one has been proven to be false. I believe one although I don't have that much information on may be just an enigma.

But the gods of theism have not been proven false. That is the first thing we have to get in order . Now if the opposite side disagrees with that, then I kindly ask and request the opposing side to provide proof that these gods of theism don't exist. If the opposite side cannot do this, congratulations in celebrating the truth, which it remains unproven and inconclusive.

So granting that truth, the question is, why do atheists believe no gods of theism exist without evidence????????????

Really can rest my case on that.

I'll respond to more points here though.

But that question really shuts it down. It's where the rationale falls short.

"So when we talk about dis-believing in something we aren't saying that the thing doesn't exist;

Atheism partially embodies agnosticism that way. We are just going one step further to say "I don't believe this thing exists based on the evidence available", which is the same as essentially saying "I doubt this thing exists". "

Oh that's what you mean. Well let me give you what I mean according to my position and what I'm arguing about. My position is concerning those that believe the gods of theism don't exist. Now they're called atheists. If you the opposite side, do not agree with the label of atheists on those folks, tell me what term you will refer to them as and I'll use that term to put in quotes and the the audience will know we're referring to the same folks under different labels. Good deal.

"If sufficient proof were to ever develop to sufficiently rationalize the existence of God,"

Truncating the statement as the following to the statement does not equate.

"Obviously this proof would have to be pretty major, in God showing himself to humanity somehow (in something other than feelings, dreams, and prayers)."

Why isn't there as much demand for the sufficient proof to rationalize the non existence of the gods of theism?

So because this question is presented, this is the question where the agnostics take it a step further in rationality where the atheists don't ask because they stopped in rationale before presenting this in spite of the opposing side saying "We are just going one step further".

The "We" has not gone far enough.

"It wouldn't make sense for you to answer me by saying "You could have one in your pocket. Maybe you do or maybe you don't. I cannot know which so I refuse to choose an answer." "

Another false equivalency folks. I don't know about the opposite side but I'm referring to the agnostics on the gods of theism which don't equate to elephants.

The logical position of agnosticism is based on the non evidence of the existence/non existence of the gods of theism.

The gods of theism are in no way comparable to anything of this reality we experience day in day out. So we have to start with that and not deviate. What is the evidence? Do you believe or not believe in the gods of theism? Why?

All these questions once answered honestly will explain the rationale disparity pointing to one having more than the other. The opposing side continues to draw parallels with inappropriate things to try to make a solid sound point . But each one does not follow due to poor analogous representation.

If we just stick to why atheists believe what they believe, we can see if consistency holds up as being the most sound position on the gods of theism.

Then we can ask about agnostics. Why won't agnostics say they believe this or not believe that ?

Is there a basis? What is the basis for the atheist that disbelieves in the gods of theism?

Very important necessary questions putting the atheist under scrutiny on trial.

No further questions your honor.

"Where as it is irrational to believe the that there is an elephant in my pocket, someone would be more justified logically in taking the stance of "I dis-believe that you have an elephant in your pocket".. "

Unless the elephant is an ornament on a keychain.

"Theists cannot provide adequate proof for God, "

Like atheists can't provide as it seems adequate proof for no existence of the gods of theism. As it seems. Maybe there's some out there I haven't met that have it. I don't have to generalize them altogether like the generalization made about theists .

So the agnostics see, why believe in either side?

So therefore don't identify with either. Both are actually belief systems. One believes in the positive. The other believes in the negative.

"All atheism does is hold the claim maker to their burden of proof, and require them to substantiate the thing they are trying to argue. This should be a baseline requirement for any claim."

The same will apply to the atheists that make positive claims. Just like there's a topic on discord that starts with "God isn't real, prove me wrong".

"God isn't real" is a positive claim. It is saying something IS the case. It is conveying it is the case that God is not real. Then the fallacy is trying to have others falsify the subjected asserted claim. No, you made the claim, you made the mess, you fix it up, you clean it up .

"The agnostic takes the lazy way out, and with an agnostic mindset, we never answer any questions, or challenge people for their beliefs. What would our society be without challenging beliefs?''

I don't know what agnostic you're talking about. But the one I'm talking about is whom that asks the atheist why what is believed or rejected, would be just the opposite of the theist .

So therefore it is just as shortsighted. Both are faiths. The agnostic I'm talking about knows based on this positive reality, we have no empirical draw to conclude any data, information or details of the negative nature that is attributed to the gods of theism.

So rationally there's no basis, at least in secular terms to believe or disbelieve on account of evidence, which is what either side will espouse, so no swaying to either side, it is inconclusive.

That is the most rational and one side is is not negated by a standard, the same one used for the other side .

Thank you.

Lunatic Administrator

Con #4

Rebuttal 1: False Equivalency?

My opponent dismissed my argument against Santa, Bigfoot, and the Boogeyman as false equivalency. He claims these have all been proven false while the existence of God has not. While this simply isn't true, there is a myriad of evidence to suggest all of these things including the existence of God aren't true, that doesn't necessarily mean that "proof" can be widely agreed upon. My opponent asks me for proof, and the basic concept of evolution is the standard go to for Atheists. The "theory" of evolution is a scientifically agreed upon conclusion that blatantly negates creationism, and has for decades. Human DNA is compromised of evolutionary DNA from multiple species that evolved over time to eventually create what we are now. (1)

My prime rebuttal here however is that the burden of proof is not on the Atheist. My Contention 2 deals with this directly. If someone makes an absurd claim, it is on them to substantiate said claim. Atheism rejects Theism purely based on lack of proof. Ancient texts like the Bible or the Quran, or supposed sighting of God, are no more acceptable proofs than History channel Documentaries about Bigfoot, or the the claimed sightings of Bigfoot.

"If the opposite side cannot do this, congratulations in celebrating the truth, which it remains unproven and inconclusive."

Even if there wasn't a scientific consensus that dis-agreed with the fundamental existence of God, it is not absurd to doubt an absurd claim. If you tell me you don't believe I have an elephant in my pocket, you would not logically be concluded to be an imbecile by the masses.

Rebuttal 2: Dis-agreement on what atheism is

My opponent says argues that atheism is an outright rejection of God. This is simply not accurate, and is why I was careful to cite the dictionary definition for atheism in my argument. The lack of belief in something isn't an outright declaration that a thing can't exist, it's simply the refusal to believe in it. This is the obstacle many theists and agnostics alike run into with atheism, is that they constantly try to change the definition of what atheism is, and its why more people are hesitant to actually come out as Atheists. Being an Atheist simply is embracing the idea that something is unlikely to exist until significant proof offers itself up to exist.

Matt Dillahunty from the Atheist experience consistently gets callers who share this ideal (2). This is a cheap scoring tactic for many theists and agnostics, but it tends to take away from the actual conversation rather than add to it. Despite the fact that atheism is clearly definitionally defined to be a lack of belief, somehow people try to twist it into an active stance against a God existing, which is simply not the case. Not believing in something is not the same as outright rejection of something. Doubting something is not a declaration that something does not exist, its a simple statement that such a thing cannot be believed until it is substantiated. This in particular makes atheism a more powerful stance than agnosticism which chooses to "stay out of it entirely" based on the fact that they don't know. Staying out of something doesn't make a thing a better position, it makes it the lazier position. Atheism calls doubt to theism and has significant scientific basis for it's stance.

My opponent dismisses my elephant in my pocket argument as false equivelency but doesn't seem to understand the argument. He says "we aren't talking about elephants". Well my friend, if I write a big book with stories about how I transformed an elephant to a size that was able to fit in my pocket would that substantiate the existence of an elephant in my pocket? What if I claim that the book was written by tons of people who were their and claimed to have seen the elephant go in my pocket? Clearly you can't know, since you weren't there, so rather than rejecting this idea outright you say it is best to take the easy road and say you don't know. But since when did textual accounts of things people claim to have witness ever substantiate a thing? The same way this book I wrote about all the people who say they saw the elephant go in my pocket can be dismissed as nonsense, so should biblical texts.

"Unless the elephant is an ornament on a keychain."

In this example I am claiming it is a physical live elephant. So are the people who were there to see it go in my pocket. It's super believable right? Or you can't know because you weren't there so it's better to just say out of it?

"Like atheists can't provide as it seems adequate proof for no existence of the gods of theism. As it seems. Maybe there's some out there I haven't met that have it. I don't have to generalize them altogether like the generalization made about theists ."

Except atheists can and do prove Theism wrong all the time through science and basic logic.

""God isn't real" is a positive claim."

Again, definitionally this is not true for atheism. Atheism stance is "God is unlikely to be true". Refer back to my definition and the meaning of "lack of belief". Lack of belief isn't outright rejection.

Sources:

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/theory-of-evolution/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y&t=1262s

Round 3

3 of 5

Mal

Pro #5

"He claims these have all been proven false while the existence of God has not. While this simply isn't true, there is a myriad of evidence to suggest all of these things including the existence of God aren't true, that doesn't necessarily mean that "proof" can be widely agreed upon."

Really doesn't matter. Let's not complicate this . It's either the subject is proven or not. We're not playing this in-between. What I said all of which the opposite side tried to equivocate is proven false except for one I'm not sure has been . As far as I know, it's an enigma.

The opposite side has to realize what has been proven false unlike the gods of theism.

My position is only arguing from what is true and false. No in-between with the "suggest this" or " may be that". Not getting into all that mess of entanglement.

"My opponent asks me for proof, and the basic concept of evolution is the standard go to for Atheists. "

I don't believe I asked for any proof in this topic. I've just explained and demonstrated what I have that has not been debunked.

"My prime rebuttal here however is that the burden of proof is not on the Atheist. My Contention 2 deals with this directly. If someone makes an absurd claim, it is on them to substantiate said claim. Atheism rejects Theism purely based on lack of proof. Ancient texts like the Bible or the Quran, or supposed sighting of God, are no more acceptable proofs than History channel Documentaries about Bigfoot, or the the claimed sightings of Bigfoot."

As long as the atheists don't make any positive claims such as the gods of theism don't exist, they won't have an onus of proving that true.

However, atheists decide ultimately to believe gods of theism don't exist without evidence is short-sighted. It would be more rational for atheists to meet with other atheists that make the positive claim that actually have evidence supposedly, then decide to take the belief towards holding the knowledge.

"My opponent says argues that atheism is an outright rejection of God. This is simply not accurate, and is why I was careful to cite the dictionary definition for atheism in my argument. The lack of belief in something isn't an outright declaration that a thing can't exist, it's simply the refusal to believe in it. This is the obstacle many theists and agnostics alike run into with atheism, is that they constantly try to change the definition of what atheism is, and its why more people are hesitant to actually come out as Atheists. Being an Atheist simply is embracing the idea that something is unlikely to exist until significant proof offers itself up to exist."

We don't have to argue and we're not going to argue definitions. Just cooperate with the following and we can progress.

I'll reiterate again the following:

"Well let me give you what I mean according to my position and what I'm arguing about. My position is concerning those that believe the gods of theism don't exist. Now they're called atheists. If you the opposite side, do not agree with the label of atheists on those folks, tell me what term you will refer to them as and I'll use that term to put in quotes and the the audience will know we're referring to the same folks under different labels. Good deal."

Do we have a deal?

"Staying out of something doesn't make a thing a better position, it makes it the lazier position. Atheism calls doubt to theism and has significant scientific basis for it's stance."

The opposite side is just not getting it. I like the opposite side to ask questions concerning my position. It is the only way to get proper understanding instead of misinterpreting it.

"My opponent dismisses my elephant in my pocket argument as false equivelency but doesn't seem to understand the argument. He says "we aren't talking about elephants". Well my friend, if I write a big book with stories about how I transformed an elephant to a size that was able to fit in my pocket would that substantiate the existence of an elephant in my pocket? What if I claim that the book was written by tons of people who were their and claimed to have seen the elephant go in my pocket? Clearly you can't know, since you weren't there, so rather than rejecting this idea outright you say it is best to take the easy road and say you don't know. But since when did textual accounts of things people claim to have witness ever substantiate a thing? The same way this book I wrote about all the people who say they saw the elephant go in my pocket can be dismissed as nonsense, so should biblical texts.

Sure you can know. You can show me whatever it is and I can question you. Is it robotic? Is it animatronic? Is it a physical live recording? Is it a recently conceived being in its early stages of development that you somehow got into your pocket?

Whatever. This does nothing to show agnosticism is not more rational on the stance concerning the gods of theism.

"Except atheists can and do prove Theism wrong all the time through science and basic logic."

Show me any atheist that has proven the gods of theism don't exist. That's what would make them more rational to believe they don't exist as opposed to agnostics.

"Again, definitionally this is not true for atheism. Atheism stance is "God is unlikely to be true". Refer back to my definition and the meaning of "lack of belief". Lack of belief isn't outright rejection."

We're not arguing over this. Just recognize the atheists I'm talking about that do make positive claims

and reject or disbelieve the gods of theism.

Lunatic Administrator

Con #6

I am struggling with this debate because my opponent keeps openly dismissing what an atheist is at its core. We are not arguing semantics, I am simply telling you what an atheist is. Changing the goal post about what you want atheism to mean doesn’t change the fact that you aren’t debating semantics.

Fairly should be a fairly simple thing to debate. Is it more intellectual to doubt a wild, unproven theory or is it more intellectual to simply shrug your shoulders? That’s all we are debating and all we should be discussing. I think there may also be a language barrier between my opponent and I because I am struggling to understand some of his less coherent points.

At the end of the day, my opponent consistently fails to address the fact that an outlandish claim like an elephant existing in my pocket, shouldn’t be taken at face value. There should be proof and substantial evidence to support a claim

like this otherwise it should be taken with a grain of salt. Simply saying “I don’t know” is more of a cop out than saying “yeah I doubt that’s true, why don’t you prove it?”

Therefore atheism is a better position than agnosticism.

Round 4

4 of 5

Mal

Pro #7

It appears the opposing side has given up on responding to my counterpoints. I've dealt

with the opposite side's points. I have made my counters. The opposing side has chosen this round not to supersede with further counter points

which translates to forfeiture.

Now we do have a couple more rounds. I

encourage the opposing side to try to make more effort.

Just saying "Therefore atheism is a better

position than agnosticism." is not only

irrelevant but is mere opinion.

The topic is not about what is better but

what is more rational.

This is what the opposite side has to

address or concede to. I'll use the basis that the

opposing side will relate to and apply to

atheism.

Is it more rational to lack the belief in something due to no evidence known or actual evidence that substantiates the basis of disbelief?

Which one would be a stronger basis or weighs more to sway into a greater confirmation and reason of the stance?

Is it the most or more of a rational stance

when it comes to belief and evidence,

to believe something is true without

evidence ?

Is it less rational to believe the subject is

true without evidence?

Now if the opposing side can just answer

yes or no to those questions as well as selecting one of the binary options asked in addition, I'll demonstrate and

solidify based on the responses and yes that is with the assistance and cooperation of the

opposing side.

But the opposing side has to be willing to

participate or it is indeed a forfeiture of an

engagement on the topic from the opposing side.

Lunatic Administrator

Con #8

My opponent is accusing me of forfeiture, but has actually refused to respond to any of my points. He STILL hasn't responded to my core arguments and STILL hasn't argued against the elephant in my pocket argument. My opponent has instead focused on arguing semantics and trying to spin and change the definition of what atheism is. These are cheap tactics and I hope the audience recognizes this.

Just saying "Therefore atheism is a better

position than agnosticism." is not only

irrelevant but is mere opinion.

I've substantiated my argument with more than this. I specifically pointed out that a baseless claim that God exists is a reasonable position to doubt without significant evidence. My opponent asks for proof that God doesn't exist, when the onus for proof of God doesn't rely on the atheist, it relies on the person making the claim. I've repeated this round after round and my opponent refuses to acknowledge this. However Atheism does reject that lack of proof and it is why the argument for theism fails.

Is it the most or more of a rational stance

when it comes to belief and evidence,

to believe something is true without

evidence ?

Belief in something without evidence is called being fooled, or being conned.

The definition of being conned: relating to, or being the victim of, a swindle, scam, or trick.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conned

Many religions and theists rely on donations, or ask for tithings (basically an income tax) in some religions. The mormon religion for example expects its members to pay 10% of all income made to the church. Theists usually have something to gain from swindling its members into religion and belief of God. While this doesn't apply to theists across the board, this is a generality in many religions in the world. Some religions require services instead of money, time dedicated to doing specific things in the name of a God for example. It's all quid pro quo at the end of the day, and when you become smart enough to realize that nothing in life is free, you will eventually learn this also applies to God. Atheism at it's core encourages skepticism with things like this, where as agnosticism is fine turning its nose away in ignorance. They don't know, or have to care, essentially, where the atheist is actually asking questions.

Is it less rational to believe the subject is

true without evidence?

Yes, it is completely irrational to believe in something with 0 evidence to support it. Saying you don't know and therefore shouldn't have to care is just a cop out.

Round 5

5 of 5

Mal

Pro #9

FORFEITED

Lunatic Administrator

Con #10

With the forfeit, I would extend my previous arguments. With 5 rounds of debate we've both repeated our stances enough at this point, I'll leave the official decision up to the judges. Thankyou for your time.

Lunatic Administrator

#23

Name one thing specifically I rephrased you keep saying that but not supporting it

melcharaz

#22

--> @whiteflame

I mean he rephrased alot of what instigator said, the rules were clear to "please quote exactly"

Everytime contender didnt quote exactly, he failed the rule.

On the contrast, instigator did the same thing.

I can give side by side comparison if you desire.

They also both rephrased each other pretty consistently, again, i can give side by side comparison.

Every time there is lack of direct quote, a rephrase of a quote, statement or arguement, or a reinterpretation of a quote, statement or arguement, that breaks the rule.

"Failure to comply with all this is an automatic forfeit."

They both failed to comply. So its assumed they both forfeit, therefore, tied vote.

If i present clear objective evidence of failure of both sides to meet the rules, then i can vote a tie. If not, then you undermine and disrespect the rules stated in description, and fundamentally interpret the debate based on your own rules.

Lunatic Administrator

#21

How can I rephrase something that was never phrased lol

whiteflame Global Moderator

#20

--> @melcharaz

I see arguments from Con about who bears the chief burden in the debate. Those seem pretty clear. I wouldn't call that rephrasing, since he's not altering the resolution to get there. It's up to you whether you buy that argument, but if you're going to vote on burdens, you have to at least engage with it in your RFD and explain why it is insufficient to establish burdens. Simply stating this is rephrasing isn't a clear reason to dismiss what is the only attempt to establish burdens in the debate.

melcharaz

#19

--> @whiteflame

If they agree on what bop is, i dont mind. But it should be stated clearly, not implied by lack of contesting.

I dont see that in this debate. I see rephrasing.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#18

--> @melcharaz

…and if it isn’t clarified there, then BoP should be arguable within the rounds of the debate. I’d agree with that extended statement. It doesn’t seem like you would.

melcharaz

#17

--> @whiteflame

I understand now. I should have been clearer. The STANDARD of BoP should be in description. Does that clarify what i mean?

whiteflame Global Moderator

#16

--> @melcharaz

You should, unless it’s clearly spelled out in the description, be allowing some debate over what BoP is. If you think the topic invites a very different version of what the BoP is than the one they discuss, then it’s valid to discuss that as part of your vote, but assuming that it must necessarily be confined to a given space, whether that’s the description or the first round, is a perspective that requires people to effectively check off specific boxes at specific times to even have a chance at getting your vote.

Your standard is unjustified because it effectively nixes any debate of BoP and definitions as meaningful to the outcome, something that happens with regularity on this site and elsewhere. It’s fine if you don’t like it, it’s not fine to impose a new standard for debates based on your perspective on how these debates should be structured.

melcharaz

#15

--> @whiteflame

I didnt ignore your question. Your question was "And is there no room at all under your view for any debate of the definitions or BoP in such a debate?If there is not a specific BoP laid out in the description, do you consider that debate an automatic tie?"

And i said the bop is in the description. And yes, i do consider a lack of bop to be a tie.

And if the description is not bop, then what is? The OS? If its debatable when there is no bop in description, then how is my standard unjustified?

whiteflame Global Moderator

#14

--> @melcharaz

So you're just fine with ignoring my questions. Got it.

I understand that you have very strong opinions on BoP, definitions and the rules of a debate. However, I think the way you're imposing them on debates does not meet with basic voting standards. You're essentially requiring that all of these be clarified in the description, and anything that is provided in the description, no matter how little it resembles any of them, automatically becomes the BoP/definitions/rules of a debate. That's not a standard we can impose on the debaters, so it's not one that you can use for establishing BoP.

If BoP is clarified in the description, it's normally done clearly and stated as such. Same with definitions. Same with rules.

If it isn't defined there, then the BoP and definitions are debatable, since they become part of the arguments of the debate.

That's the standard for how these work. You can disagree with that, but you can't just impose a different standard.

melcharaz

#13

--> @whiteflame

Not with a title so vague. I try to interpret title as well. But yes, i see bop as in description.

whiteflame Global Moderator

#12

--> @melcharaz

At this point, you're conflating "rules" and "BoP," and the two are not the same.

But setting that aside for the moment, this isn't responsive to most of what I just said. If there is not a specific BoP laid out in the description, do you consider that debate an automatic tie? And is there no room at all under your view for any debate of the definitions or BoP in such a debate?

melcharaz

#11

--> @whiteflame

You almost got it. Yes, i hold descriptions as bop and the rules of a debate.

So if a person says "dont mention cookies" in a description and either side does, i consider that a failure.

In a similar way, contender reinterpreted what instigator says.
If it were backwards, id still vote a tie.

I do recommend mal to have a different description though!

whiteflame Global Moderator

#10

--> @melcharaz

...you know, I think I understand something about your perspective now, but I don't comprehend why you believe it.

The instigator writes what is present in the description. That is solely what they present as part of the debate. If it doesn't contain any mention of BoP, as this doesn't, is it your view that BoP effectively doesn't exist in the debate? Because that would mean that every debate that doesn't explicitly spell out BoP is, effectively, an automatic tie. No one can win. In this case, there is no BoP in the description. It does not say anywhere what either side needs to do to win this debate beyond just be educational with their arguments. So, in your opinion, was this debate automatically tied the moment it was made? Because I don't know what other metric you would use to establish BoP, and you keep telling me that the description is the sole means by which it can be established.

What I see Con doing here is explicitly spelling out the definitions and BoP in his R1. Pro didn't do that, either in the description or in his R1. Your response to that, apparently, is to tell him that he was violating established rules of the debate by rephrasing or reinterpreting the debate, so you give him no means to win. Since Pro failed to define and establish BoP in the description, Con was wrong to try to clarify.

What's more, I see you arguing that anything that Pro says in R1 is, effectively, unarguable for Con. Any position he establishes for himself, any definition he provides in that first round, is automatically gospel and cannot be challenged. So Con is not allowed to argue any definitions and he's not allowed to present any differing views on BoP, even if none of that is spelled out in the description. Do I have that correct?

melcharaz

--> @whiteflame

Yet again, i have to explain i determine bop in descriptions. Do you see anywhere in descriptions of what either is trying to prove when they say agnosticism is more rational than atheism? No.

Con failed description and attempted to rewrite it. Description says do not reinterpret, he reinterpreted.

"An agnostic is not an atheist, an atheist is not a theist." Instigator said in OS (opening statement) or #1.

Contender says in his OS or #2 "So when we talk about dis-believing in something we aren't saying that the thing doesn't exist; Atheism partially embodies agnosticism that way."
To partially embody sounds like they are SIMILAR.

You need to tell me im wrong in saying the bop is in description. Otherwise i cant be more clear.

Just because someone defined some terms, doesnt tell me what the bop is.

whiteflame Global Moderator

--> @Lunatic, @Mal, @melcharaz

>Reported Vote: melcharaz // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Voted for: tie
>Reason for Decision: too-vague
>Reason for Mod Action:
As with other votes of yours that we've already covered, the issue here is a lack of clarity on the central reason why a tie was awarded: namely, burden of proof. Assuming that neither side mentioned BoP (ctrl+f says otherwise), it's not like this debate completely lacks any burdens and the voter saying he, "as a neutral audience, [was] not swayed either way by this debate" doesn't provide any clarity on how he viewed burdens or why. If you're going to ignore Con's framing of the BoP (again, I can see it), then explain why you think the BoP should be different, especially if you're going to choose to award a tie on the basis that neither side met their BoP.

And the same holds true for definitions. If you don't like the definitions provided by Con, then point to the definitions that function in this debate. What did Pro present that Con is rephrasing or redefining? Were there definitions to redefine?

whiteflame Global Moderator

---melcharaz's former vote---
Voted for: tie
Due to conduct, repetition of a metaphor that seems to be misunderstood by pro as a proper analogy of agnosticism vs atheism. And that the sources provided focused more on atheism.
The description says plainly to not rephrase or reinterpret, con did both of those in his arguements concerning pro's reasoning and definitions. Con must learn to agree with the description proposed by op, wether flawed or not. Otherwise dont assume position of opposition in the debate.
That being said, lets look at the points about if agnosticism was more rational than atheism.
Round 1. Pro: Definitions of atheism and agnosticism are clear, but there is no definition for rational. This makes me to believe that there was a level of seriousness, but oversight on pro's part.
Con however argued in bad faith and attempted to both rephrase and redefine the opening statement of pro, which, again, is against the description. Con further gives metaphorical example of elephant in a pocket, which pro later disagrees with, and refuses to reclarify via another metaphor or a different metaphor.

Between both of them ive seen no statistics or links to give prove of what rational even means in application or any burden of proof. As a neutral audience, i am not swayed either way by this debate.

I recommend both pro and con make sure to define things very clearly, and if something is misunderstood or rejected, to either try another example or to post statistics. Especially if the claim can have empirical evidence (not that rational has any in this debate, as it wasnt defined, but i hope you both understand what i mean)

Summation: lack of defining, poor burden of proof, antagonistic setting, redefining, rephrasing and ignoring of descriptions sunk this debate. I believe it was serious (based on effort) but ultimately devolved and nothing Good came of this.

Lunatic Administrator

"Con must learn to agree with the description proposed by op, wether flawed or not. "

One was not provided by pro that's the thing. And I feel like definitions are very important in accomplishing what this debate is trying to accomplish.

"Con however argued in bad faith and attempted to both rephrase and redefine the opening statement of pro, which, again, is against the description."

In what way? Please make that make sense.

"I recommend both pro and con make sure to define things very clearly"

Wait didn't you just say I set a definition and that I was wrong for doing so? Make up your mind, am I allowed to define things or not? lmaooo

Lunatic Administrator

Don't know what the hell your talking about Mal.

Mal

I guess it was worth it missing a round. The opposing side didn't answer the questions but made responses to suit the opposing position.

Of course atheists are not going to agree so the bias is there like how I told another individual from another debate.

PhilosophicalJay

--> @wylted

Eh, I mean, that depends entirely on what definitions of agnostic and atheist are in use.
By in large, within philosophical works, atheism is the view that there are no Gods while agnosticism is the view that whether God(s) exists is unknown, or unknowable, without a commitment one way or the other.
In that context, one cannot be both an atheist and an agnostic.

Mal

For those that are confused, this is agnostics versus atheists. We're not combining the two together. There's a separation of the two that makes a difference. Let's not give into folly.

wylted

--> @wylted

one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. silly debate topic

Kohai Administrator

Criterion	Pro	Tie	Con
Winner

Reason:

The burden of proof is shared in this debate. Pro needs to prove that it is more rational to be an agnostic and con needs to prove that it is more rational to be an atheist. This is where the first problem of this debate begins: rational was never defined and a criteria was never given to determine if something is more rational than something else. In addition, this debate seemed to have gone all over the place and it was extremely difficult for me to follow. I'll try and break this down by rounds

Round 1:
Pro begins by laying out the main differences between an atheist, theist, and an agnostic. A theist is a person who believes in a god(s) based on known evidence, an atheist is a person that disbelieves in the existence of god(s) based on known evidence, and an agnostic is a person who does not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclusively state whether or not a god or gods exist. The problem that Pro had in this round is that he never explained *why* it was best to remain uncertain in face of the lines of evidence for and against god. What Pro really needed to do here was to lay out a few arguments that theists and atheists make and argue that both make valid points, both have strong arguments, and thus we are warranted to remain neutral until a decisive argument comes along that tips the scale in the balance of theism / atheism.

Con's round 1 is significantly stronger. Con defines atheism as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or a supreme being or beings. IMO, definitions are something that should been done in the description and laid out before the debate even began, but I digress. Con presents two major arguments: (1) That we are warranted to disbelieve in gods based on the current available lines of evidence and (2) The BOP lies on Theists to make a positive argument for their beliefs, and as of this date they have failed to do so. Con lays out several analogies to bolster this argument such as bigfoot, Santa, or the Boogey man. Con is correct to point out that we are warranted to disbelieve in those claims *because* of the lack of evidence in favor.

Immediately after round 1 con is significantly ahead. Con effectively shows that active disbelief is more rational than staying uncertain because the evidence strongly points against the existence of God(s).

Round 2
Pro questions the analogies that Con gave by arguing that all of the examples given have already proven to be false but God has not yet been proven to be false. The problem is Pro never actually shows this. IN addition, Pro fails to adequately rebut the primary contention that theists have the BOP and thus far they failed to meet that BOP. Pro claims that the statement "God does not exist" is a positive claim. However, con completely shuts down this argument and shows this is definitionally not true. Once again, con hammers the fact that the lack of belief isn't outright rejection. Con wins this round.

Round 3-5
Not much to analyze here. Pro forfeits the 5th round and the same exact stuff is repeated ad nauseum. The definition changes that Pro attempts is exactly why there ought to be definitions BEFORE the debate even begins so there is a clear definition and a clear scope of what is being debated. Con correctly points out that con keeps moving the goalpost about the definition of atheism.

Summary/TLDR
This debate was a complete mess because there was no definition of rational and no criteria to determine what makes something more rational than another. Ultimately, the debate came down to con showing that there are rational reasons to completely reject Theism on the basis of Theists not providing enough evidence for their point of view, something that pro fails to adequately address.

Advice to Pro
My advice to you is to really define what you are arguing for before the debate begins and to have a clear criteria on how to meet each side's burden of proof.

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

Round 5

New comment