Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Complete forfeit.
A complete forfeit and use of AI by con, pro automatically wins
Full forfeit
Full forfeiture
Full forfeit
According to the rules, the burden of proof is on con. Pro made a really long argument that seems very inconsistent with the burden of proof rules. Pro's burden of proof rules have never made sense, but oh well. Con gave a tiny argument when he was supposed to have a "burden" of proof. Also, is it supposed to say that con cannot use any proof at all since he can't use the Bible or non-Biblical sources? This would basically mean that pro cannot use anything. This is even worse than the "logic doesn't exist" debate. In that debate, pro's opponent was at least able to use illogical sentences to prove logic exists. In this debate, you're somehow forbidden to use any source of evidence at all, while your opponent can use any evidence desired. It would only be fair if pro isn't allowed to do this either. Funny enough, this would be circular reasoning, which pro always complains about. Con was able to show pro's argument was fallacious since it assumes only the Bible is real but then uses everything but the Bible to "prove" this claim.
Pro starts by claiming that Bible doesn't prove anything outside itself actually exists. Pro says the pages of the Bible prove nothing, but we all know materials come from somewhere outside the thing itself. Pro refutes himself in the process. Pro then talks about circular reasoning being used in everyday life. Pro essentially says that if atheists can complain about using the Bible to prove the Bible, theists can complain about using non-Biblical things to prove non-Biblical things. Pro then goes on to give us a bunch of thought experiments, which end up proving logic does indeed exist, despite pro complaining that "logic exists" cannot be proven. Pro sites all these sources with Wikipedia. One thing I couldn't help notice was that pro never showed why existence would be limited to things in the Bible. It would make more sense to say nothing exists rather only things in a divine book. Pro could have picked any book and said the book itself doesn't prove things outside it exist. This is not unique to the Bible.
Con is able to show weaknesses in pro's logic. For example, con was able to catch how pro complained about non-Biblical things being used to prove non-Biblical things, which means that there are clearly things outside the Bible, or else there is no circular logic being used at all since these things wouldn't exist. It doesn't matter if the findings and connections are true, since things are being used that exist outside the Bible. Con shows that pro used things outside the Bible to argue a point. Con shows us that pro defeated himself by making an argument.
If pro's argument is truly valid, it would end up contradicting itself since it assumes non-Biblical sources are real, when they supposedly don't exist.
If con's argument is valid, it would not contradict itself since the non-Biblical sources can exist and also be used as real proof.
Con's argument is the only valid and logical one.
Since con was somehow "forbidden" to use any proof at all, he was forced to show pro's argument was invalid in and of itself and actually helped con in the process. Pro did the work for con. Since con wasn't allowed to present forth his own evidence, he was able to "steal" evidence used by pro and make it backfire. Con was only forbidden to use "things" as "proof" (as the description says). He was not forbidden to destroy pro's entire argument and use it against what it was attempted to be used as.
CON WINS!
Pro tried to prove logic doesn't exist by using logic.
Pro used logic, proving logic does exist.
Pro proved the burden of proof for con, so con wins the debate.
Pro forfeited the only round in the debate. Con was not told what the debate was even about, so we shouldn't expect anything. Con wins by default.
Pro's poem is focused on achieving infinity through finite beings that, at best, don't actually exist, or at worst, are actually demons. This poem seems to make no sense at all. It is about destiny, so-called love, darkness, and a bunch of other things. This poem is probably good at being hard to understand, which is indeed something many poems do. Poems only have to make sense to the people who wrote them. Pro's poem was definitely a very personal poem.
Con's poem is a mix of poetic and rap music. It talks about Jesus' redemption on the cross. It asks the question of why God allows suffering. It attacks Satan. It asks Jews and Muslims to accept Christ as their savior. This poem is able to show the point of life. It actually gives us hope.
Pro's poem doesn't give much meaning to life. Con's poem mentions real-life people (Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan) and talks about salvation history.
Ultimately, con's poem gives more hope and meaning to life and is far more coherent than pro's poem.
CON WINS!
You can thank me know, SatanLucy. Reason: Full forfeit.
You can finally stop complaining.
This debate was titled “Is atheism weak or strong as a religion?”, which implies that atheism is a religion.
Pro seems to have misread his own resolution. He did follow the description. (We’re probably gonna need to decide what to do when the description contradicts the resolution.)
Pro argues that since atheism is the lack of a belief in any deity, it is not a religion. If pro wanted to use this logic, he should probably have also said “Even if atheism were a religion, it could not be strong because…” After all this, is a one round debate, so what would pro have expect other than con to say that atheism is indeed a religion?
Con points out that this seems to contradict the agreed-on resolution. Con picks a new definition of religion that atheism can fit. Con then argues atheism is strong since it grows and is popular. Con probably should have gave more reasons and better reasons too (I personally don’t find them strong), but it still works since pro did not follow the resolution of the debate or present any argument other than atheism is not even a religion.
Con wins!
Pro starts off trying to explain how he will always be the strongest debater. Pro also makes many statement that don't seem to make any sense at all:
"Because other debaters cannot be proved to exist as independent minds, and I am proved to myself, I will always be the strongest debater."
Pro then seems to make some sort of "logical" argument:
"Strongest debater is also the one which can make a claim but cannot be proved wrong. I cannot be proved wrong, because statement 'I am wrong' is in itself logically flawed because I cannot contain myself and additional claim about myself."
But again, these arguments are hard to follow.
Con then comes and points out that having high IQ does not necessarily make someone strong at debating. I find this argument better since con is able to point out actual examples of this, while pro tries to speak on an immaterial conceptual level. Pro also provides accepted definitions, instead of making up definitions that don't work in real life.
Ultimately, con's argument was more coherent and easier to follow and made more sense in the real world. Pro's definition of strongest debater didn't really make sense and wouldn't be able to be measured. Con wins.
All con does is ask pro to prove that the "I" (which is never even defined by con) does not believe in God. Con places the burden of proof on pro, but this makes no sense. Con should offer evidence that the "I" does believe in God instead of asking pro to show evidence this claim is false.
Pro goes into major details, explaining what the definition of God should be. Pro argues that con cannot believe in God since con (as well as many other polytheists) believe in gods that are considered false to the True God, creating a logical contradiction.
Con offers no rebuttal to pro's argument and chooses to "disagree."
Pro was the only one who even put forth an actual argument, while con tried to put the burden of proof on pro when it made no sense to do so. Pro easily wins.
Round 1
Pro starts by suggesting that beliefs don’t need evidence to exist and gives us some definitions and examples. Pro then says things existed before evidence of them, but this seems to ignore why we believe in them. Scientists use evidence to guess what life was like before humans.
Cons fires back and says pro’s definition of belief is incomplete. Con says belief must be continual and look at the evidence to see if the belief holds up. This seems to make sense, as beliefs and opinions change over time when new data arises. Con also points out even though some people only believe in God because they feel it in their heart, their heart is essentially evidence they use to believe in God.
Round 2
Pro then claims, “Con conceded that by definition, no evidence is required as no evidence is mentioned in any definitions as requirement for belief, not even in definitions he brought up.” Con rejects this claim, and I myself see no evidence con made such a claim. Pro then goes on to say that kids believe in Santa and fairies when there is no evidence, but I personally find this weak since kids stop believing in them when they receive enough evidence that shows the contrary. It’s also just dumb to equate theism with fairy tales. Evolution, like many have admitted, is a fairy tale for grown-ups.
Cons goes on the clarify what was meant. Con shows the different definitions being used.
Summary
Ultimately, pro’s responses were too short. Pro’s only rebuttal was a completely false claim. Con was able to show that pro’s definitions were incomplete. I thought con’s mention of the heart was great evidence that even feelings are considered evidence.
Pro actually put forth an argument made by a human. Con used AI on the first round and forfeited every following round. Automatic win for pro.
I just have to say tie. Pro provided more evidence but Con provided more rebuttals. They were basically equal and it was hard to tell if this was serious, with all due respect.
Honestly this wasn’t even a debate
A complete bloodbath
Pro seemed to use a lot of fallacies and bad analogies. Pro used bad evidence and drew the wrong conclusions. Con was able to find these flaws in Pro’s argumenr. Overall, the debate was not based on facts or data and just opinions. Pro just kept bringing up unrelated points and just thinks whatever is less painful is better.
