full forfeit
full forfeit
Full forfeit = case closed
This is a tie because neither side met their bop.
PRO R1: Compares homosexuality to things like putting on shoes on the wrong foot and toasters. The thing that is missing is why does misusing a bodily function translate into a mental disorder? This was never actually presented.
Con R1: This was completely irrelevent to the topic. The topic is about homosexuality, not asexuality.
R1 Pro correclty points out that con failed to engage with their arguments
This is a tie becacuse neither side actually met their burden of proof.
full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
full forfeit
Full forfeit = auto loss
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full forfeit = auto loss
Full forfeit
Obvious
This was a really painful debate to read. Ultimately I believe the winner is PRO. In round 1 PRO begins with a syllogism:
P1. God is able to decide about everything
P2. Being able to decide about everything means owning everything
C. God owns everything.
Whenever you are faced with a syllogism in a debate you have to interact with it. You need to prove that either one of the premises are false or that the syllogism does not logically follow.
Con never challenges either premise. The only thing that con does is attempt to redefine God and show that he fits the definition of God.
Pro in round 2 states the following: "By site rules, once you accept the debate, you agree to debate's description." This is actually false as there is no such rule; however it is taken as site standard. In addition, there are times in which arguing with the definitions is valid. However, con never challenges this statement and thus I count this as a drop. Because this is dropped I'm forced to agree with Pro that the definitions in the debate are final and binding. This means that con's attempt to show he meets the definition of God is invalid.
the final nail in the coffin is pro's restatement of the syllogism
P1. A equals B
P2. C equals B
C. A equals C
There is no way to disagree with logic of the argument, as conclusion logically flows from premises. And since premises werent challenged either, argument was conceded to.
Again, neither premise was challenged.
TLDR: Pro made a valid syllogism and neither premise was actually challenged hence pro wins. Advice to con: What you should have done is directly challenge the premise or show how the syllogism is not valid. There were many ways to challenge this syllogism without semantics
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
I did Nazi the full forfeit coming.
Full forfeit
This was extremely painful to read and there was so much wrong with this debate. Let’s begin with the title: “ Pantheism is the most unique faith which demonstrates atheism”. The title alone is bad. Pantheism demonstrates atheism in which way? Does it demonstrate atheism is true, false or something else? Unfortunately we simply do not know.
With an unclear debate resolution it is also unclear on who has the BOP and what that BOP is.
Pro’s r1 is extremely confusing. They don’t address the core problems this debate has and just responded to a few objections to pantheism. Again, what’s the resolution? In which way is pantheism unique? How does it demonstrate atheism in any way shape or form? This was never addressed in any of the rounds.
Con’s arguments were mostly objections to pantheism and upheld traditional monotheism. That’s the problem: Judging from the title this debate has nothing to do with traditional monotheism.
Summary: Neither side met their BOP as the BOP was completely unclear from the start. In addition none of the arguments presented had anything to do with polytheism demonstrating atheism. As such I’m forced to tie this debate.
Advice to pro: I’d really be interested in reading more debates on pantheism. However, you need to have a very clear resolution and a clear burden of proof.
Forfeit
This debate suffered badly due to the lack of clear definitions from the start. In addition, the burden of proof is clearly shared. Con needed to argue that the Bible does not teach a flat earth while Pro has to teach that it does teach a flat earth. Immediately we have a huge issue: In none of the rounds did Con come even close to meeting their burden of proof. Con never provided a single Bible verse showing that the Earth was a sphere. Immediately it becomes clear that con failed to meet their burden of proof.
Con's R1 completely misses the point of the debate. Con opens up with "Until you provide evidence of a flat Earth, we have no reason to believe it. For most of history, no one believed in a flat Earth." This misunderstands the exact scope of this debate. This debate is not whether or not the earth is flat, but rather whether or not the **Bible** teaches the Earth is flat. Con opened up stating that most of history no one believed the Earth was flat but never shows that the Bible itself teaches that the Earth is not flat.
This is where the lack of definitions become detrimental to Con. Pro provided multiple Bible verse and commentaries showing that the Earth is flat. He provided sources that show that the earth is a flat disk and others that show that it is a flat square. Con's only criticism of this is that pro can't decide if it's round or square. Again, that misses the point of the debate. Pro needs to show that the Bible teaches it is flat, in one way or another. It does not matter if it teaches the earth is a flat square or a flat disk. All pro needs to do is show that it teaches one or both of these ideas.
TLDR: Pro met their BOP by showing Bible verses that show the Earth is flat. Con did not meet their burden of proof as they did not provide a single Bible verse that states the Earth is anything but flat.
Full forfeit
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.
Most of Pro’s arguments were AI generated. Con wins by default
Pro forfeited the last round. In addition I felt con's raps were better. Here is a round by round break down:
Round 1: I thought Pro was better in this round. Best line "Thoth mastered not a single one, this pussy writes like he was on crack or maybe it's because he's bird brained and he just wants crackers
Round 2: I liked con's rap in this round. I esp liked the line "The high point of your sex life is going to Hooters"
Round 3: Con wins by default as pro forfeited
Final score: Pro 1 Con 2. Con wins!
Pro forfeited and used AI to generate his entire arguments. Con wins by default
Full forfeit
