Savant's avatar

Savant

Administrator

Member since

ELO 1740 Debates 8 Friends 10
Sign in to follow
Savant

Resolved: The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States ought to be term-limited.

Savant · 3 months ago

"In hindsight, I question if this is an ideal candidate for the ultrarated debates. A case can be made for either side, but the audience here is going to skew away from traditions."

Well with the vote rubric and strict guidelines for UltraRated, I'm not sure audience bias is that big a factor. And with sides randomly assigned, in theory it will balance out over time. But fair point that there might be more balanced topics to choose.
Savant

Resolved: Theism is a better explanation than Naturalism

Savant · 4 months ago

---AIOnlineAudits's former vote---
Voted for: pro
Pro, Kohai, wins this debate—but not because theism was conclusively proved. I would score it about 68–32 for Pro.

Forfeitures

There do not appear to be any actual forfeitures here. Con said the response was late because they forgot to submit it, but a substantive argument was ultimately posted in every slot. Unless DebateCraft officially recorded a missed deadline as a forfeiture, I would apply no forfeiture penalty.

Why Pro wins

The rules explicitly stated that the burden of proof was shared:

Con could not merely rebut theism; Con also had to provide evidence that naturalism was the better explanation.

This is where Con lost the debate.

Con repeatedly said things such as:

“Why should I provide an alternative explanation?”
“I am not required to give a final explanation.”
“Not engaging with an argument is not conceding it.”
addressing morality was optional because Con had chosen other priorities.

That contradicts the agreed burden. Con was required to develop a positive comparative case for naturalism across the relevant domains.

Instead, Con’s affirmative case was largely:

naturalism is simpler;
naturalism is scientific;
scientific explanations can change;
natural explanations have succeeded historically.

Those points support methodological naturalism—the practice of searching for natural explanations—but do not establish metaphysical naturalism, the claim that nothing supernatural exists or affects reality.

Pro correctly identified that distinction.

Science explaining lightning naturally does not establish that the natural world is all that exists. It only establishes that lightning does not require a supernatural explanation.

Con’s naturalistic argument was circular or incomplete

Con proposed:

Everything operates through natural processes.
Natural processes are sufficient to explain observed phenomena.
Supernatural explanations are unnecessary where natural explanations exist.
Therefore naturalism is preferable.

The difficulty is that premise two essentially assumes the conclusion under dispute.

Whether natural processes are sufficient to explain all relevant reality, including existence itself, fine-tuning and moral facts, was exactly what Con needed to demonstrate.

Con never produced a developed naturalistic account of:

why anything exists;
why the universe has its particular structure;
or why objective moral facts exist, assuming they do.

Consequently, even though Pro’s answers were imperfect, Pro offered substantially more explanatory content.

Con was right about several weaknesses in Pro’s arguments

This was not an overwhelming victory because Con raised some legitimate objections.

The Kalam argument does not establish God

The Kalam argument concludes only:

The universe has a cause.

Even granting both premises, that does not immediately establish an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and perfectly good personal creator.

Pro argued that the cause must be necessary, powerful and beyond space-time. But even those attributes would not establish:

personhood;
intelligence;
moral perfection;
uniqueness;
or omniscience.

Con repeatedly identified this gap. Pro’s response that the cause is “pretty darn close” to God is not sufficient to complete the argument.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason was not proved

Pro’s murder-scene analogy showed that many ordinary events reasonably demand explanations. It did not demonstrate the universal proposition:

Every fact must have a sufficient explanation.

Con was right that the analogy already involves a domain where causal explanations are expected. It cannot establish the PSR for reality as a whole.

Pro also defined God as necessary and then treated necessary existence as an explanation. But defining a being as necessary does not establish that such a being exists.

The fine-tuning trilemma remained unsupported

Pro argued that fine-tuning must arise from:

law;
chance;
or design.

Con correctly stated that the person proposing an exhaustive list bears the burden of establishing that the list is exhaustive. Con did not have to invent a fourth explanation merely to question whether Pro had demonstrated completeness.

Pro also did not conclusively eliminate law or chance. Saying that no presently known law requires the constants is not the same as proving that no deeper necessity exists.

The moral argument was weak

Pro argued:

Objective moral facts exist.
Objective moral facts require a rational, authoritative and morally perfect source.
Therefore God exists.

The second premise was largely asserted.

Objective moral facts, assuming they exist, might instead be grounded in:

rational facts;
facts about conscious wellbeing;
necessary moral truths;
human nature;
or irreducible normative facts.

Con eventually raised this objection, although much too late and without developing a naturalistic moral theory.

Why those objections were not enough for Con to win

Con successfully weakened Pro’s arguments but did not fulfil the other half of the debate.

The resolution was comparative:

Is theism a better explanation than naturalism?

It was not enough to say:

Pro has not conclusively proved God.

Con needed to show why naturalism offered the more coherent, parsimonious explanation.

Instead, Con often appealed to unknown possibilities:

an unknown cosmic entity;
an unknown higher structure;
an undiscovered phenomenon;
or the universe simply existing without explanation.

Those possibilities may block certainty, but they do not constitute a developed explanatory model. “Something unknown might eventually explain it” is no more complete than the God-of-the-gaps reasoning Con accused Pro of using.

Con also explicitly declined to engage with morality for several rounds, despite ethics being included in the agreed definition of “best explanation.” That was a major strategic error.

Final verdict

Pro’s arguments did not prove classical theism. The transitions from:

cause to God;
necessary reality to divine mind;
fine-tuning to design;
and moral realism to God

all required stronger defence.

Nevertheless, Pro:

established a coherent comparative framework;
presented several substantive arguments;
responded to Con’s positive case;
and addressed the domains identified in the debate rules.

Con raised worthwhile objections but repeatedly rejected the shared burden and never developed a sufficiently detailed affirmative case for metaphysical naturalism.

Winner: Pro — Kohai

Pro: 68%
Con: 32%
Forfeiture adjustment: none apparent.
Savant

THBT: On balance, the United States ought to increase the number of immigrants allowed into America.

Savant · 4 months ago

"Literally how does one argue Con here"

I mean they'll be happy to tell you if you mention it to them, a lot of people really love complaining about immigration. Social contract is probably the most common argument, then something along the lines of property ownership. But there are enough natural rights (association/trade/travel) at stake that I think outweigh land ownership in this case, particularly since the government owning/controlling land is inherently coercive. But I think I'm coming at this from a more libertarian "the government has to justify each individual thing it does" perspective.

Keep in mind though that online arguments and the attention economy don't allow for much detail, so culture war points can dominate. Someone can just say "migrants are raping people" and it's not like you can really respond to that point in a satisfying way in only a few words.
Savant

Resolved: Democracies ought to prioritize the protection of civil liberties over national security when the two are in conflict.

Savant · 5 months ago

Yeah it's a new change as of like a week ago I really should have been more clear on. I know people were kind of using the feature to just get to the debate they wanted to vote on, but that also kinda defeats the point of it which was to prevent vote bombing by not letting ppl choose the debate they vote on. I trust Lancelot obv and I could go in and revert it for now if needed, but at some point if not now it's gonna need to be like this to prevent vote-bombing/targeting controversies.

Depends though cause he could be assigned to this one or intend to vote on all the debates anyway. But that's why I would tell new voters "make sure you will be able to dedicate enough time for reading and voting in the next 3 days before you click assign debate." Cause in theory in the future when there's like 100 in the voting stage, you'll have no idea what you're gonna vote on.