Soldier127 basically just presented contingency argument combined with causation and design argument, failed to make his reasoning in premises form, all while making unproved claims such as ""specific design" (if there is any design at all) cant come from non-intelligence". These arguments aren't even his own arguments, they are thousand years old arguments which were disproved a billion times by now, and things like B theory of time if true even disprove contingent things existing at all along with causation. Just because something which exists can either be made by something or not made by anything, doesn't prove God. Logic isn't made by anything we know, yet logic is not God. Likewise, saying that there must be a first cause isn't saying that cause is God or even proving that there is first cause as opposed to infinite regress. Soldier127 may be mentioning things like beginning and dependency, but such don't prove God because no deductive logic was used to explain why it has to be God. And for those not familiar with deductive logic, "A because of B" is not deductive logic. That's just assumption reasoning, and since Soldier127 didn't prove his claims with observation or with logical laws, they fail.
Con wins because sonar panels do not exist.
Only Pro makes reasonable and logical arguments for his position.
Full forfeit.
Con says that definition of atheism provided for this debate sets out atheism as a mental state, not a physical thing we can hold in our hands. Con has shown its existence through everyday logic, the blank slate starting point of human minds, and with overwhelming empirical data of millions of internal observers telling us their internal cognitive terrain lacks belief in gods. Con's logic is superior to Pro's.
While protected speech can include offensive or controversial viewpoints, limits exist for speech that incites imminent violence, constitutes true threats, or involves defamation. Free speech is important because it fosters open dialogue, innovation, and accountability. I believe Remy is using innovation in his comments , so I am voting for Con.
Logic is a fundamental subject that shapes the way we think, reason, and argue. It goes far beyond being a mere tool for solving problems or making decisions—it’s the very foundation of clear thinking. Whether you’re debating with friends or analyzing complex philosophical questions, logic is always at work. At its core, logic is about distinguishing between valid and invalid arguments. But this seemingly simple definition encompasses a broad range of interpretations, as various thinkers have sought to describe the essence of logic in their own terms. The subject has evolved over centuries, from the ancient Greek philosophers to contemporary scholars, with each offering unique perspectives on what logic truly is. Con does not use logic in his round so you cannot understand his statement. This proves that logic exists. My vote goes to Con.
Full forfeit.
Since this is a meaningless debate, the votes for each person should be equal.
