fauxlaw

Pro met the burden of proof in this debate. The Resolution, "Is Abortion Murder" is a straightforward commentary because abortion, as defined by Pro, and not disputed by Con, is "The termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus." It is differentiated from a miscarriage because abortion is not a natural act, whereas miscarriage is. Therefore, abortion is a willful act performed on another human, as Pro argues. Con's argument in R1 is that "Murder is a legal term." Con fisnished R1 by claiming the debate concluded ["Case closed."] With another round of argument scheduled, this was premature.Yes, murder can be a legal term, but Pro's R2 rebuttal to Con's "legal" argument was: "the word “murder” can be used in everyday language and media without referring to the legal definition." This is a more prevalent argument- Con's R2 drifted fropm argument to personal attack with "...save the rant for the schoolyard." which is not a valid argument or rebuttal, and by, again, declaring "case closed."

The case is closed on Con. Pro wins by argument.

The challenge in this debate began by Pro offering: "I will state evidence for why Islam is true and we will debate those points." Given the opportunity to declare definiton of terms [I suggest one term, essential to the Resolution - truth of the Quran - would have been the definition of "truth."] No definitions were offered.

The debate's 5 rounds never arrived at a conclusive argument by either side. Rather, the debate amounted to a discussion of factors such as that Momhammad was a man, his literacy, an expanding universe, initiated by the Big Bang, Byzantine losses, Rome, whether Mohammad was or was not a poet, Allah's protection, and whether the leader of ancient Egypt was a king or a pharaoh. To all these matters, I kept asking, literally, relative to the truth or falsehood of the Quran, "So what?" How do any of these arguments either support or deny the truth of the Quran? 5 rounds of no argument to support or deny the Resolution results in a tie since neither participant met their burden of proof. Instead, we were treated to such commentary as [from Pro]: The Queen does not say that water appeared at the Big Bang."
Commentary from Con: "You denigrate the deflection of "overcome" to mean minor tactical reversals."
I have read the Quran in English and French, cover to cover. It is a wonderful book of scripture composed by a man. What scripture of any religion was not composed by men or women? None of which I am aware. That, alone, let alone water at the Big Bang, or tactical reversals, are proof of truth in any of them.

Tie.

Con won this debate going away. Each round [5 in total] built upon the last, with a conclusion that rocked the debate resolve in every way. That said, here is my justification;

Again, Pro failed in a number of ways.
First, the debate resolution [title] is poorly constructed, making attempts at logic that do not follow. He assumes that both sides [atheist and theist] make positive claims of their beliefs. No.

Second, he offers no definitions of terms in his challenge, and he wanders as a result. Atheist, theist, and evidence should have been clearly defined terms. Pro has been warned about this lack in other debates, and he continues to suffer by not making an offering of definitions. How hard is it to do so? Seemingly impossible for this Pro, but others are capable and do it [not all, unfortunately].

Third, he asks questions of the opponent instead of making proactive arguments and rebuttals to challenge the opponent.

re: #1, above: Pro's mistaken position that both theists and atheists must prove their position by evidence
is easily rebutted in each round by Con without Pro ever offering concrete evidence for the positive claims of theists that God exists. Pro wastes his R1 with an anecdotal story of one person [an atheist] who, predictably, does not make a positive claim regarding his proof that God does not exist. Anecdotal carries too much expectation to be evidence, yet the "argument" occupied 3/4 of Pro's entire R1 to no effect. Con crushed the argument by logic which Pro denied, but the logic is sound. Most atheists make no claims but disbelief in a god. That is not a statement of belief, let alone proof, and does not need to be. That is the fallacy of Pro's first error in the resolution. This argument is pressed by Pro in every round, and Con's response never wavers; No proof is needed when not making a positive claim.

That's enough, #'s 2 and 3 above are self-explanatory

Worse, Pro's mention of Con's forfeiture in at least two rounds is poor sportsmanship and petty. His R3 is a single statement he assumes is correct and logical. It is neither.

The Official RemyBrown Trial

Since this is not a debate in the traditional sense, but a trial, I am likely to make some comments not based upon any verbiage in the participants' arguments, or, more to the point, lack of possible text by the participants that would have made their argument more complete. As I am not certain of the moderation of vote commentary, this vote may be at risk based upon the above admission. So be it. These are my thoughts on the matter as a judge/juror.

I'll admit up front that I do not appreciate much of RemyBrown's commentary, finding it is often offensive in virtually every way, and in spite of past conflicts with moderation. In fact, though the Defense offered by Whiteflame is an excellent display, I find his commentary relative to the
following issues problematic:

A. Parody
B. Satire
C. DC Code of Conduct [CofC]

A. Whiteflame refers to much of RemyBrown's commentary as "parody;" a work that imitates, critiques, or mocks the work or commentary of another, generally in a humorous attitude. Humor is an an equally operative word as the three qualfiers defining "parody," but humor according to whom? Not those to whom the parody is targeted.

B. RemyBrown's typical post engages "satire;" use of humor, irony, and exaggeration to expose and criticize flaws and corruption in people and society. Humor is fine until it is used as a verbal weapon against another. The First Amendment is not a laissez-faire document. Harm is a factor restricting that laissez-faire attitude.

C. Whiteflame's assessment of the DC CofC, in his R1 argument, said "It’s my position that only flagrant violations of the CoC after everything else has been tried should result in a permanent ban."

Whiteflame further points to RemyBrown's participation in the Forum with 160 [it's now 168] posts and 1,056 [now 1,207] comments, pujtting him in 3rd place on the Forum leaderboard. Well, not to brag, butI lead the leaderboard with 229 posts and 1,772 comments. The latter does not lead, but in posts, I do. RemyBrown and I are virtually matched in time of our membership on DC; he leads me by 3 days. Yet he has been short-term banned once, and risking some penalty now. I have never been sanctioned at all. I do not raise this to brag, as I said, but to point out that participation doesn't matter much in my view if posts/comments in the Forum cannot be held to a reasonable standard.

Whiteflame argued in R3, relative to sanctions on members that "...interventions in cases where someone posts extensively become more about removing their capacity to post than addressing the type of posting..."
"This blurs the line between curation and censorship" as if the CofC has naught to say about it.
But it does. The CofC, criticized as it is, does contain 11 separate points of conduct under the section, "Heuristic Overview" that seem reasonable to me: *Responsible Engagement, Criminal Conduct, *Harassment, *Banter & Profanity, *Identity Based Conduct, *Content Standards, *Metadata, Formal Debate, Voting Etiquette; all having "What's allowed," and "What's not" criteria. By my observation, RemyBrown habitually violates 6 of these 11, but two of them, the last, dealing with Debate rather than Forum, are discounted because RemyBrown, with 1 debate, and 1 vote in his year-plus participation, is not an active participant in debate, so, RB's record is a violation of 6 of 9 of the Forum's CofC qualifiers; a 67% negative participation.

Kohai in R1 cited about RemyBrown: "Women and rape is his largest target; Woman / women used over 500 time. Rape / raped / rapist used over 200+ times."

Kohai's first argument in R1 was: "DebateCraft is intended to cultivate intellectually rigorous and dynamic discourse. Its aim is to foster an environment in which logical precision, rhetorical dexterity, and mutual respect are not merely compatible, but expected. Behavioral standards...to preserve its integrity."

Couple this argument with the fact that words can be mentally, emotionally, and even physically harmful, and this has been demonstrated in our long history of legal action in the United States.
If you have stayed with me thus far, you may be convinced how I am going to conclude with a vote. I sought advice on freedom of speech by going first to that document, and then to a particular Supreme Court case that pre-dates all of us, and has, perhaps, the most brilliant exercise on freedom of speech I have ever encountered. I was pleased to have been reminded that it was one of the most highly respected Justices ever to serve on the Court; Justice Louis Brandeis, who offered this opinion. The case was Whitney v. California [1927]. Justice Brandeis wrote in his assenting opinion for the plaintiff:

"Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exult order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incident of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may be fall before there is an opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

I cannot, in good conscience, determine that Justice Brandeis was wrong, that nefarious speech should be distanced at arms' length, or further. I detest RemyBrown's speech. I abhor that he denigrates women and rape victims, and various identity types. It serves no purpose I can describe. It is harmful to some who endure it as personal attack. However, as Whiteflame argued, we have the means to avoid it. It is branded as objectionable, and we must click on that warning to expose it. To we, personally, who have already allowed the exposure to occur to ourselves, all bets are off to then cry foul, as I have done, myself, even within the comments on this debate. My reminding by Brandeis, a research I suggested in front may invalidate my vote, since neither Kohai nor Whiteflame argued Brandeis. I accept that risk. I, personally, do not feel threatened by RemyBrown. His speech is not, for me, personally, a clear and present danger of the destruction of my own personal beliefs and standards.

With the First Amendment's cautionary shield that it is not absolute, but very, very flexible, that we may be offended, but should not censor by response, but rather suggest greater enlightenment, I vote for Whiteflame's argument, waving the Brandeis flag.

This debate was won in Round 2 [R2], first by Pro's [Instigator] acknowledgement of a series of current social media flaws:
"Yes, it can weaken bonds, but it also sustains relationships across distance.
Yes, misinformation exists, but so does instant fact-checking and global awareness.
Yes, anonymity can be misused, but it also protects voices that would otherwise be silenced."

Con's R2 rebuttal sealed the win by reminder that the Topic declares the current state of affairs of social media in the form of an interrogative: "Is social media a boon or a bane?" This is a present tense condition, with no conditional excuses. What is the current state of affairs? Con's R1 argument presented these three current conditions: weak family bonds, misinformation, anonymity. These are listing factors that strongly suggest a present state of of social media being a present bane, not a boon, and Pro admitted in R2 that this is currently true.
Further, while Pro did make use of citing sources for his arguments in R1, citation completely went missing in Pro's R2, depending only on personal claims, such as: when Con argued "Using AI like ChatGPT leads to cognitive debt," which cited a source in R1 for the claim," Pro replied, "This is a selective use of emerging research," but did not cite any source to substantiate the claim.
Pro's R3 amounted to a concession to end the debate as of R2: "Can we take this as a 2-round debate ???"

Con wins by better argument, claiming current conditions of social media are not a boon, plus valid citation of supporting sources. Pro failed to sustain a valid argument, and stopped sourcing, relying on personal opinion.

This debate contains no Description other than a typical non-specific-to-this-debate word salad of rules that is not in the least descriptive of the Topic; a failure by P)ro to provide.

Pro begins R1 with a non-sequitur statement re: "Holidays" being "secular religion" creations. What is a "secular religion" since "secular" means a societal condition lacking religious, spiritual, or sectarian issues.[Con will argue this point] Pro's entire R1 is a repetition of this self-defeating language, trying to tie opposing principles together in an effort to prove his BoP [burden of proof - the Topic] that "Holidays are mere secular religions."

Con's R1 applies definitions of "secular" ["of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world," and "not overtly or specifically religious"] and "religious" ["of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances," and "scrupulously and conscientiously faithful"]. Such definitions provide that which Pro declined to offer, and should have, as Instigator. Then, Con offered two salient argumentative rebuttals: "Religious and secular are opposites. Secular religions cannot even exist." By definition, both arguments support the Contender's BoP, against the Topic.

Pro's R2 begins: "Looks like this is a matter of how things are defined." My voting reaction [excuse my French] is "No shit! Where was that statement in Pro's R1, let alone in the Description?? Pro follows with "So based on how I defined and explained secular religions and what they are..," Defined? Where? Not only were these terms not defined by Pro, as noted by Con, they are conflicting terms that cannot, by definition, mutually exist.

Con's R2 doubles-down on his R1: "Secular and religious are opposites, so how can secular religions even exist?" Con closes R2 with another rebuttal: "if we're talking about secular holidays, they don't even come from any religion at all," having already noted in R1 that some holidays celebrate the Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus, which are not religious icons, and adults do not really believe these character exist, so, no belief system is involved.

Pro's R3 finally offers definitions of "secular" [worldly] and "religion" [belief system], and then declares Con must "...based on this foundation, you have to find inconsistency in my points based on those terms ..." Pray, tell how Con should have done that, given that Con did not have "this foundation" to respond to in R1 & 2? That "foundation," as judged by this voter, was missing in the debate challenge, let alone in R1 or 2. Failure by Pro.

The rest of the debate is repetition of these back-and-forths until Pro admits in R5, "This debate NEVER really took off.." Indeed, it did not, and that I place at Pro's door for lacking a foundational challenge that gave more than generic rules. Con's forfeit of R5 is not sufficient to penalize the other four rounds of argument.

I award the debate to Con for superiority of addressing the Topic and his BoP by contrary logical argument against the Topic.

Neither opponent presented argument; Pro, by full forfeiture of each round, but Con, as well, by assuming full forfeiture by Pro in the first round, and resting on that opinion through the balance of rounds. In order for an opponent to properly win a debate, I need to see argument from at least one side for or against the proposed topic. As there are no arguments from either side for or against the Resolution, I judge this debate a draw. That result points ts to a voting issue on this site: the lack of a negative vote option for voters. I believe this "debate," while having a legitimate Resolution, saw no effort by either size. They should both lose. The only other option is to avoid voting on the debate at all, which I usually do in this case, but something must be done to prevent one side winning when neither side presented argument. That one side is awarded a point when no argument was given, such a vote spoils the grading system of debate.

Since no Rules of Debate have been posted, I am voting on this debate by DART rules.

I could say that Con lost this debate in the second round, but it really was lost out of the chute, by a Description that lacked the very point made by Con in his R2: [Con quotes Pro's bolded statement from R1] "Based on these definitions, the following is direct empirical evidence supporting the evolution of mankind." Definition of terms followed.

[Con's R2 response:] "No. It's based on what I said above. ...But if you practice what you preach, we have to be honest that it is my topic so therefore I have the right of entitlement to define my terms and of course are non negotiable nor debatable." Con's "I have the right..." is a useless statement considering that Con offered no definition of terms, when they should have been included in his Description, nor were any offered in R1. Con has been advised before by me own other debate votes to define keywords of a Topic challenge, but he continues to believe, in spite of this quote, that they are not necessary and are not offered by Con.

Further, Con complains in R2 that Pro's R1 arguments did not prove evolution of man from other animals. However, the Topic states "Do you actually have empirical demonstrations of evolution regarding mankind?" and there is no mention here or in description that evolution of humans from other species is the burden of proof. Con's R2 said, "None of this proves non human species became human. The correlation was failed to be made. We'll have to throw this out of court as inadmissible. I'm sorry." Con has engaged in topic shift, which is also a losing argument. The "...we'll have to throw this out..." is a decision to be made by voters; not an appropriate rebuttal by Con. Since Con engaged in topic shift to disallow the Pro argument in the first place. Con concluded R2 with, "Your grade right now is a 'C'. Charitably graded." Again, Con trries to wear voter credentials. Poor sportsmanship.

Pro offers cited sources with evidence to prove his BoP throughout his argument rounds, such as: "Genetically, humans share about 98 to 99% DNA similarity with chimpanzees when you compare equivalent, functional regions of DNA, not the entire genome (Nature, 2005)." While allowing that there has been some genetic evidence of human inheritance of lower primate features, pro's BoP is strictly required only to demonstrate human evolutionary changes, and this is evident in his argument and sourcing, such as "The fossil record shows a consistent sequence of human ancestors with gradual changes in anatomy over time, not random forms (Smithsonian; Wood & Boyle, 2016)."

Another matter of Con's debate method is turning it into a Q&A rather than argument and rebuttal. Con has been advised about this tactic as well as being a useless debate strategy. Questions are not arguments. Arguments are declarative statements, hopefully, with cited sources for scholastic support.

Con's R3 is a continuation of poor sprits unship and confusion whether he is a debate participant or voter, not to mention. being confused about whether his questions are answered , or not. I suggest Con get unconfused, because Pro's arguments [appropriately, not necessarily "answers," but valid rebuttals. Pro is easy to read and understand.

Pro forfeited his R3, but issued frustration in Con's rounds that were not responsive to pro's rounds other than in dismissing them. I understand pro's frustration. Con claimed victory in R4, inappropriately, since a participant can forfeit rounds that do count as more than 40% of all rounds by Rule, and prior to Pro's available R5. Pro's R4 was an explanation of his frustration, and then forfeited R5, effectively conceding the debate.

However, Con's poor sportsmanship throughout cannot convince this voter that Con should win the debate since his arguments did not prove his BoP, and Pro's did. I wish pro had sustained his arguments and he would have won the debate. As it is, it must be judged a draw by this voter.

Pro, pls try to endure to the end of a debate, You have good debate skills.
Con, clean up your act, because this debate showed me a petulant childish snob. I will not vote on another of your initiated debates unless you clean up your act and debate as a decent adult

Neither participant really conducted a debate in its traditional sense. The problem begins with Con, being the instigator, Presenting a question rather than a resolve that lands on one side or the other of a topic, regardless of topic. Con seems to believe debate is a Q&A, which is really more appropriate for the Forum, but not Debate. With a Q&A, burden of proof [BoP] becomes blurred, and Con took the tactic that all BoP belonged to Pro, while ignoring in the Resolve [topic] or Description to declare Pro's side of the Q&A. Pro should not have engaged this exercise under those circumstances. Con has been warned about this style of "debate" before. Neither declare a response to the question, which is a simple yes/no question, and would absolve Pro of making declaration of a proper BoP. To this voter, that is a flawed debate proposal.
Pro's R1 makes clear that Pro is taking the approach that the Bible is true, but makes no argument to that effect.
With nothing offered to rebut from Con, Con rightly argues that BoP should be shared, but then offers no real argument for a false Bible.
Thus the argument proceeds through all 4 rounds. Pro offers several verses own R2, but they seem to support the value of the Bible, rather than declare it is false, so is counter-productive to Pro. Con should have offered similar argument, and this may have gone Con's direction. Pro does forfeit R4, but then, Con argues from the outset an improper claim, that if Pro does not accept the total burden of proof, or does not answer questions, Pro forfeits the debate.
No, I will not award Con the debate for making what is a Forum statement, but not a debate argument.
This is a non-debate, and a tied result, but a caution to Con to do a proper debate, or stop debating and populate the Forum section. This has been suggested to Con previously: Debate is not a Q&A.

The topic is poorly constructed, which limits Pro's latitude in argument, because Pro's approach is to make polygamy a primary feature of the conflict of marriage coupling or remaining single, which are not the only two results in a society without polygamy. Con correctly argues: "And we need to be realistic, attraction is selective, and compatibility matters. Even with a perfect 1:1, you would still get singles because not everyone wants each other, and some choose to stay single. Furthermore, singleness is not a flaw of monogamy, it is inevitable, and dependent on choice, preference, and competition."
Pro does not address any of these three optional results of a polygamy less society. Con wins.

No brainer on this one, After proposing a good challenge, Pro takes a 3-round siesta. Total forfeiture by pro. Con wins, even providing valid argument in R1 against the topic for a decisive win: "It is impossible for Calvinism to embrace something it condemns. It is an oxymoron to be a Nestorian Calvinist."

This debate had possibilities of being a stellar debate on a subject not entertained much anymore; admirable on that factor, alone. However, there were, for multiple rounds, confusion of who was whom in this debate, with one opponent with legitimate claim of being the instigator, because ChatKnight [Pro] is the instigator; while the other, Wylted [Con] merely tried, but failed to be the instigator. Spoiler alert: Pro wins the debate.

Justification: The Resolve [Title] was clear enough: "America made a catastrophic mistake sending troops to Vietnam." The Description, while lacking definitions, which I personally demand to see just for clarity of what's what to help not just participants, but voters. Oh well. The description, however, did frame the debate well: "Was it a strategic miscalculation? Were there unwinnable objectives? Were there tactical blunders? Was the overall policy flawed?" By taking the Pro position, the instigator defined his Burden of Proof [BoP]. By accepting the debate as is, Con agreed to this framework. Just because Pro did not call it that, it is clear these are the "beef" in his argument.
Pro's R1 was a clear response to the BoP
Con's R1 was a disgrace to civility - a site expectation: "Out of fairness to my significantly inferior opponent..." after reading that, the balance written was TLDR [but I did read it with red flags [take that as one will]
Pro's R2 was a civil reply: "Insults and name-calling are not an effective way to debate." Totally agree.
Con's R2 offered a framework that is the instigator's privilege, not Con's. Since Con accepted the debate, he should align his arguments to that framework, and not invent an alternative as an argument. To offer an alternative framework is just another insult, and does not meet theCon BoP. Talking "domino theory" and "cascading failure" is not a positive approach to convince this voter than Con is arguing that America did not make a mistake in Vietnam. Further argument introduced NATO, arguing that "My opponent wants NATO to fail," but Pro has not mentioned NATO in argument.
Pro's R3 rebuts Con's NATO argument by informing that SEATO, not NATO, was the relevant treaty alliance in Vietnam, deflating Con's argument.
Con's R3 win produces an argument, not in support of his BoP, but against Pro for use of AI. Looking for Con's referenced "rules" [not found, by the way, because they're not there], Pro is accused of breaking them.
Pro's R4 repeated the 5 mistakes argument he made on R1, concluding his BoP to which Con has yet to adequately rebut or argue
Con's R4 doubles-down on his "proposed" framework, which is not a debate argument in favor of American involvement in Vietnam, but a primer for voting. Con has totally failed to offer a valid argument to support his BoP, and repeatedly launches personal insults against Pro. Pro wins, Con loses, big-time.

An interesting debate, but one in which the Topic, "Does the Bible teach Mary is the Co-Redemptrix?" Fell onto a trap of discussion far more than the simple BoP of the Resolution: whether or not Mary serves a role as "Co-Redemptrix" by biblical evidence. Itwould have been prudent for Pro, the instigator, to define the term "Co-Redemptrix" specifically, because much of the resulting debate flourished in inglorious discussion of its definition. Define it in Description and put it to rest. The instigator of any debate has that privilege, and if the contender then. disagrees with the offered definition, they then have the option to not engage the debate. Failure by the instigator to provide definition itions in Description makes the definitions open season. a much less powerful position.
That said, Pro acknowledges that a co-anything in not equal to, in this case, a redemptive role. Would have been a good idea for Pro to define this term, as well, because it does not equate to simple "save" of someone, but rather, a divine role of eternal redemption of a soul, which Con correctly argues is not Mary's role in mortality as she is "blessed among women," but not "divine" in her mortality.
Pro's R1 cit4es Genesis 3, and Revelation 12 as evidence that Mary is a Co-Redemptrix. Con's R1 rebuts the claim, that neither Genesis not Revelation put Mary in that role, but rather, a "woman" who is not named. It just as likely can define Eve in those roles [my personal view, but thesis not part of my voting decision.] Further, Con's argument asks a critical question, and a response that pro is never capable of rebutting: "What does Mary actually redeem us from? Nothing without Jesus. What does Yeshua redeem us from? Everything and Mary's role was to birth and raise the redeemer. Mary's role, by this rebuttal, does not achieve the status of "co-redemptrix."
The debate really ends there, Con's BoP having been adequately met. Without Jesus' role as Redeemer, completing the task entirely on his own, Mary's separate role as a disciple, perhaps the first and best, not-withstanding, is not even a secondary role to meet the title of co-, let alone a "redemptrix" at all. The redemption, accomplished in entirety by Jesus, alone, sufficed for the accomplishment, which is not an ongoing role.
As said, Pro could not defeat the Con R1 rebuttal, The debate turned out to be accomplished with Con's in R1. No deducti0on for Con's forfeit of R2, as it represented by 20% of the entire debate. Pro went too far afield trying to use verses, both OT and NT, attributing acti0ons to Mary when Mary is not the named "protagonist" in any of the references. As Pro argued, himself, several women, OT and NT, are named as "blessed among woman," so that Mary's award of that mention, even by an angel {Gabriel] is neither unique, nor redemptive by the definition of that word.

This debate appears to almost completely miss, by both opponents, the conditional of the Topic, "If atheism is true, then we most likely live in a simulation." However, one of them does finally succeed with a logical argument.
Pro BoP: Atheism "most likely" = simulation
Con BoP: Atheism "most likely" ≠ simulation
The Topic does not include a design/purpose maker, but does not exclude it as a factor to consider. However, the Dscription, by Pro does allow: "Simulation means that our world was created by another intelligent being or beings and that humankind and other live forms were also created this way."

Pro's R1 begins with three propositions: 1. "Atheism assumes God doesn't exist." 2. "Atheism assumes the world was completely an accident." 3. "Atheism assumes only the material world exists." Then Pro claims: "With these assumptions, we can say it is indeed possible to create life from non-life. It is possible for an intelligent being to come forth from a non-intelligent being."
All three propositions are acceptable; they stand on their own as descriptive of atheism. However, one cannot draw the two conclusions from the three propositions. They are non sequiturs: Atheism does not accept the existence of gods who promise life after death or that life has purpose, but nor it does infer life derives from non-life, nor that intelligence derives from non-intelligence. Therefore, Pro's entire R1 is nonsense, and does not meet the Pro Burden of proof [BoP] that atheism "most likely" [the conditional of the Topic] can design [plan] a simulation

Con's R1 is equally nonsense: "If atheism is true, no simulators can exist properly." Simulation, according to Con, can only be by design, and does not allow that simulation can be accidental, therefore making the same general argument as Pro. Also does not meet Con's BoP, but for a different reason. Con is not speaking to a simulation, but to "simulators," i.e., designers or planners.

Pro's R2 blunders by saying "Con seems to miss that we are supposed to assume atheism is true." No, that is not a proper assessment of Con's BoP. Con's BoP is is noted above; opposing Pro's BoP. ProR2 blunder #2: "since the world was an accident, it is possible to create things that exist in the world from other things in the world." But if "creation" is a matter of accident, then Pro must offer the evidence that "creati0on" can be by accident, whereas Pro merely assumes accidental creation via atheism.

Con forfeited R2, but clearly offered an R3 argument, therefore, no deduction.

Pro's R3: "If the world was an accident, it must be pretty easy to make. What is the chance our world is the original accidental world?" What, indeed? Pro makes no argument, nor offers any evidence of the "chance," therefore, another non sequitur, and Pro has failed to meet his BoP, and did so by the cited Description above: "Simulation means that our world was created by another intelligent being or beings and that humankind and other live forms were also created this way." Pro does not disallow that "an intelligent being" could be a god, thereby arguing against atheism, a non sequitur by
Pro.

Con's R3 finally arrives at a conclusive argument: "What is the chance our world is the original accidental world? Very low. This is why I support simulation theory and that we are simulated by a deity." And then offers a "more likely" argument: "If the world, was created on accident, it is probably much easier to create it on purpose." Purpose = designer with a plan.

Con wins for offering a "more likely" scenario. Pro loses by allowing and making both sides of the argument, which mutually disagree.

This debate was an enjoyable read. Pro presented a good Topic that typically is approached by an attempt to prove God's existence, which often is a difficult Burden of Proof [BoP]. However, by introducing the principle of parsimony, proof of God became of less significance for Pro's BoP by making a parsimonious argument. This is not to say Pro did not offer av proof of God, because the first pro argument was the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, which offers a 5-step process concluding with proof of God. Many people automatically assume parsimony is a negative activity, because it tends to be linked to a monetary argument: the cheapest approach to solving a problem. Rather, Pro's approach, while not naming parsimony's "kissing cousin," Occam's [O's] Razor," is that the principle of parsimony is synonymous with O's Razor. He says in R1: " By parsimony I mean favoring the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions or entities to explain a phenomenon and provides for the most coherent framework." Pro also offers the Kalaam Cosmological Argument [KCA], which asserts "Therefore, the universe has a cause." Pro's R1 gauntlet is that "simplest explanation." [citing the Topic] other good R1 argument by Pro is the "fine-tuning" argument, "The fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe is due to either law, chance, or design" which concludes that design, a "cause" is parsimoneous.
Con's R1 rebuttal does not refute the KCA's "cause" argument conclusion; rather, Com claims that does not necessitate God, ignoring that Pro did not "necessitate" God without evidence. The evidence is the parsimony argument, which is sufficient t to meet Pro's BoP. Con then tries to rebut the "Fine-tunoing" argument by the rebuttal suggestion of a situation, concluded by "“Either Sophia stole the phone, it fell by chance, or she planned it.” But Con. ignores that the third option, "...she planned it" is a perfect example of the fine-tuning "design." Designs are planned.
I could go on to demonstrate these same failed arguments by Con in R2-4 against Pro's R2-4, but they follow this same analysis.
Pro wins this one in a landslide. Parsimony = Occam's razor - BoP proven win R1.

Pro's R1 was offensive, and R@ + R3 forfeited.
Con presented a valid argument that he had no legitimate opponent, that there were two more rounds for Pro to to be a legit opponent, and that this was a debate, not ordinary social media.
Con wins.

This could have been an interesting debate, but it failed for Pro up front by not taking advantage of the opportunity of using the Description for a very critical [in this debate] option to define keywords of the Topic; namely, "eternal," hell," "contradict," "merciful" and "God." As a result, all four rounds were argument between the opponents over definitions. Had Pro defined these terms up front, as said, this debate would be interesting. Instead, Pro launched his debate with a speculative argument:
"Eternal hell challenges the coherence of a merciful God by elevating retributive justice above redemptive love, risking theological incoherence."
This argument contains all the keywords of the Topic, but still fails in subsequent R! support of the "argument" to make his case. This argument assumes it carries its own weight without justification. That justification would support why Pro claims "retributive justice" without acknowledging that justice only applies after any person commits thought to action, thus Pro implies that God pre-judges, and that cannot be supported by scripture, although Pro makes that attempt, but fails, in his R4.
Con's R1 takes down all of Pro's R1 by four sentences:
1. "Hell is rejecting God's infinite mercy."
2. "Hell is ultimate pain because it is a rejection of infinite happiness."
3. "God does not force anyone to go to heaven."
4. "Some people would rather go to hell."
5. "Heaven would be painful for the wicked."
One could go into detail on Pro's attempts, R2-4, such as Pro's R2 rebuttal of Con's #5 concluding argument by Pro'd exaggeration: "Heaven would be painful for the wicked." Pain has too many levels to parse them so elementarily; i.e. that all pain is torture. Even modern medicine parses better than that, offering 10 levels of pain posed to virtually all patients during lifetime of care. None of the 10 reach the level of "torture." Whereas, Con's #1 argument really touches all 5, and, because #3, ""God does not force anyone to go to heaven" justifies #4, and #5: ""Some people would rather go to hell," and, therefore, ""Heaven would be painful for the wicked." These arguments flow in a very natural progression concentrated to defeat Pro's BOP that " Eternal Hell Contradict A Merciful God." God is infinitely merciful, but allows each person born on Earth the free choice of Hell. Con's R4 conclusion bears this out: "Eternal sin requires eternal consequence because of God's justice. Rejecting the All-Powerful Being is a sin of infinite weight," and "There is the sin of refusing forgiveness"

In the end, Pro's R4 commits another critical error by concluding "Strike 3 for you. You're out" before Con has even offered his R4 rebuttal. That's is a decision for voters, Mr. Instigator.

Con wins.

Unfortunately, this debate became overly and personally combative, including a two-round argument which began each participant's rounds with a subject beyond the scope of the debate re: whether or not Jesus condoned divorce and an argument whether a married man putting a wife away was equivalent to divorce, or not. Absurd argument, considering its existence beyond the debate scope. Since both participants engaged the argument, it neither adds nor subtracts to/from either participant in the score. It was just frustrating as a voter to endure. Pls stay on point.
I will also add that I do not appreciate Q&A debates because the points made in them can be couched in simply making argument and rebuttal. The nature of Q&A tends to stray from the scope of the debate, just like the above criticism. Both participants engaged in this nonsense as well, and so neither gain. nor fail due to the distraction it caused.
The true scope of the debate was simply described by the Resolve, curiously, given by the Instigator/Pro, who was also the one instigating, in debate, both distractions noted above. The Resolve: "Is the WORD in John 1 Father God?" John 1 is a classic example in NT scripture of describing and differentiating God the Father and God the Son. But then, given an opportunity to define these terms in Description, which is always a best course of using the Description section, to define critical words of the Resolve, Pro failed to offer definitions. Pro's argument began, and really ended with the mandate that God the Father, and God the Son, are one person. He argued from the Genesis creation story that God was one person, saying he created man in "his" [singular] image.
Con's argument sided clearly with the concept of two separate beings, arguing that, from Genesis, "Let us make man in our image..." signifying two separate gods involved in the creation.
The Q&As distracted all main point arguments of both sides, and the real interrupt in argument occurred in R2 when Pro began personal attack on on Con: "You're this stiff-necked I have to say it over and over." Not kosher. Then further, Pro argues, "DROP THE LOGIC AND GET SCRIPTURE TO PROVE YOUR POINT." Since Pro did not stipulate in Description that all sourcing must be biblical, Pro is open to source at his pleasure, and defeated Con's "argument."

Them in R3, Pro asserts, "THE OPPOSING SIDE HAS FORFEITED THIS DEBATE." No, I see no evidence of Con forfeiting the debate, as all three rounds of argument to that point in the debate were entered by Con, and the fourth round, as well and I charge foul against Pro for claiming forfeit.

Both Con's argument of refuting the Resolution by demonstration that God the Father and God the Son are two separate gods, and that Pro abuses by absurd argument and accusation of forfeiture. Con. wins the debate.

I am going to ignore that Con forfeited the 2nd round, which could, on its own lose the debate for Con.

Con's argument completely ignores Pro's R1 statement, which is absolute truth: "The MOA [Modal Ontological Argument] is built upon S5 modal logic." Con does not ever mention or acknowledge "S5 modal logic," which leads Con to ignore two essential facts of the MOA: [1] Argument 1 and argument 6 do NOT oppose each other as Con claims, and [2] Con ignores the three factors of a being, including a maximally great being [MGB]: Necessary, Impossible, Contingent. The denial of these two facts completely destroys Con's R1 argument. Lacking any other argument, Pro wins this debate.

Words mean things, and certainly6, the worlds of the Resolution have specific and understandable meaning in their context, which is a condition experienced by people who ignore or dismiss "rules of the road" we travel in mortality. However, pro seems to imply by his argument that the Resolution must be taken in its own context, ignoring possible alternative words that say much the same thing, but without using the words of the Resolve. There, in Pro's case, the Bible does not read "greatest pain in the fires of hell," and, as a statement of factual reality, the Bible does not say this string of words in this words. There is great pain suffered, Pro acknowledges, but no "greatest pain."

However, Con's argument effectively shuts down the argument because Pro's claim is effectively a truism, which is a failed debate tactic. Con allows for, and cites several biblical passages, Old and New Testament, which acknowledge pain suffered as a consequence of sin, as a path to glory, and as a test of faith. Whether or not this amounts to "greatest pain in the fires of hell" is inconsequential, because the the consequences can be both physically and spiritually painful unto death, and that is suffice t pain to lose sight of the goal of dealing with pain and surviving to earn their right to live with God or not, eventually. The scriptures Con cites teach these principles clearly, Isaiah 33 18, Matthew 25 and Mark 19, for example.

Con wins.

A simple, single-round debate, which had no description, and, therefore, lacked in sufficient background, definition, and substance on which to measure an outcome.
That said, Pro's singular argument also begged for content, establishing an either/or argument, such as: X is good, Y is bad, or, specifically, weird is good, bored is bad.

Con's rebuttal introduced the substance needed: "The biggest Problem with the [Pro] Statement is, that it is subjective to what is normal and what is weird. This directly goes to definition, which Pro's challenge completely lacked, because the Resolve points to people, who, by Pro's lack of a Description [containing background, definition, and substance] are considered merely as repetitive [his word] cardboard cutout figures who all think the same thoughts, conduct the same actions, and view the world in black and white, or, more correctly, only one of the two options. But Con's rebuttal fleshes out the cardboard, and we see the individuals with their variable thoughts and actions, specifically with regard to what "weird" and "boring" are and represent.

Con wins.

On the surface, Con failed by 3 of 4 rounds forfeited, but, while Pro's 1st round argument featured the popular Ontological Argument, and was supported by 2 other cosmological arguments less well known but, nevertheless effective, were poorly rebutted by Con's first round, and only round of argument, making claims of failure of the ontological argument without any substantiation of hies argument by presented by and source material.

Pro R2 says, "Jesus is more of the punch line of the joke here than the actual Joke." The typical punch line is the joke. Pro also says, “if the roles and circumstances were changed…” That is a very open-ended argument because roles were not changed in the episode, but all were who they always were in the episode.

Con R2 says, “The criteria that I have for funny is not just about who makes me laugh the most, but who embodies the purpose of South Park and offers the best that satire, absurdist humor, and social commentary have to offer. In addition, when making fun of religion and the Christian nationalist nutjobs, no character and no show does this better than South Park. Although Jesus is mostly the punchline, he is usually in on the joke and that is what makes him so funny.” This is a compelling argument.

Pro’s R3 rebuts, “The emotional range of Jesus's facial expression go from "Resting bitch face" to "Mildly dis-appointed"

Con’s rebuttal to Pro’s R3 was already offered in R2: “Stan asks Jesus if it was ever OK to murder someone if they asked for it, Jesus patiently answers, ‘My son, I'm not touching that with a 60' pole.’ After hanging up Stan says ‘Goddamn it’ to which Jesus replies ‘I heard that!’” Yes, the last Jesus reply deeply is, for a reason, played down and not hilarious: it’s satyr, therefore comically funny. Funnier than Butter’s obvious humor.

Pro’s R3 rebuttal, “You don't make an audience laugh by shoving logic down their throats, you do it in a way that makes fun of the thing you want to laugh at…” fails because, as Con argued from the beginning, Jesus is not throwing logic at the audience; it’s satyr.

Pro’s repeated argument is that Butter’s is “an audience favorite.” Yes, by lack of demonstrated audiences tracking, Pro is “the audience.” Con does not make argument by “audience” other than himself, which was, after all, the debate challenge by Description: “Choose your favorite south park character and argue why he is better [funnier] than who I pick in round 1” Pro tried to convince that some external “audience” chose Butters as “better.” Con put the burden of choice on himself, never citing some “audience” that was never within the debate resolve scope. Con wins.

Ahhh... definitions. My kingdom for a definition placed where it/they ought be placed: in the Description so it is not a triffling matter within the debate rounds. Thereby, an opponent, having accepted the debate challenge as is, accepts the definitions, as is. Period. Full stop. The bane of poor debating is centered herein. The rule by which I vote: "The keywords of a challenged title/resolve shall be defined in Description."

Pro delayed offering definitions until R1, making them, therefore, available for rebuttal by Con, which is exactly what happened in this debate.
However, Pro's Description did contain a key directive which both participants proceeded to ignore, first by Con in R1, and then by Pro in R2, and by both for the balance of the debate. That directive was: "Should every American have the right to bear arms?" - thus establishing the country of debate limitation - America - and not in addition to Japan, Canada, Mexico... all made mention in Con's rounds, and were not shutdown by Pro in R2 when other countries should have been declared beyond the scope of the debate.

That said, Pro's R1 did emphasize that a "right" can still be be regulated, such as " "A rule that says people can do something or have something because it is fair and allowed by the law," and supported this allowance by credible sourcing, and exemplified by "a felon has forfeited their right to a firearm."

Con tried, and failed to overwhelm that argument, thought it was claimed defeated by Con, by such argument as "I'm not so sure about 'Rights,
Some people argue..." a very weak rebuttal, and lacking any credible evidence to support it. Con agues rights vs privileges, which are distinctive, but that claim does not successfully argue against "the right to bear arms" by law, which Pro cites, and even Con acknowledges in R2 "3/4 of NYers Say New Law Requiring Permit to Get Semi-Automatic Weapons Will be Good for the State..." and citied this quote source, which acknowledges even rights have regulation. Con effectively surrendered the debate with that commentary, because it shot holes in his own BoP.

Pro wins this debate by his successful arguments and sourcing. Con's arguments, while having source references, never ties those references by any notice within his argument text, so linking referenced sources to any text was virtually impossible. put the reference numbers in the text. Another difficulty with reading Con's arguments was the virtual constant apparent quoting of something with open quotes, but never closes quotes, so one is never sure when the quote is supposed to conclude. Sloppy punctuation making legibility difficult.

Pro has a common problem among debaters who think defining key words of a resolve [title] are not needed to assure both participants have clear understanding of Burden of 
Proof and its dependence on their success. The lack of definition of contraception launches Pro into two arguments in R1 that both fail due to the lack. One, Pro compares poor decision-making with a contraceptive, and two, Pro compares STI’s with a contraceptive, thus making the contraceptive responsible for both unwanted results of having sex. Con’s R1 effectively defines both contraception and counterintuitive, putting both definitions at the forefront of his BoP rather than introducing flawed arguments against contraception with poor decision-making and STI’s. T%his debate was effectively decided for me by the convulsing of the R1, with Pro insisting on his flawed dependence on unwanted outcomes, and Con prodding support for his BoP by dependence of definitions to provide a easy path to victory by the simple logic that contraception is intuitive to help prevent both unwanted pregnancy and STI’s. Even Pro's R3 admits Con's argument is sound by saying: "Birth control pills should be made for men." These pills are clearly a contraceptive, and are intuitive; Con's entire argument. Con wins.

Pro's R1 was an excellent description and demonstration of modal logic with excellent sourcing, such as Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, to present a typical, multi-premise syllogistic argument, the Modal Ontological Argument [MOA] of existence of a Maximally Great Being [MGB], and multiple examples of why this argument is sound by S5 Modal Logic. Pro remained consistent to this logic throughout all active rounds.
By contrast, Con started his argument in R1 with a flawed premise comparing N numbers X & Y without acknowledging > or < properties, ignoring the math Pro presented of a "maximal" Number [entity, if you will]. Con's P = NP argument, therefore, failed due to this same lack of consideration, effectively repeating his first argument, now using the P = NP "logic," which, again, failed to acknowledge "maximal" value. Con simply failed to disprove Pro's "MOA is sound" BoP, claiming only that Con did not present a Muti-premise argument in Pro's active 3 rounds. This single-premise argument is false; the MOA presents fully 5 separate premises.
Con alleged Pro said: "◊□M." No! Con alleged Pro said "□M." No, again. Pro's arguments did not include "necessity" by acclamation [though implied it] until R3, by which time, Con waived all argument or rebuttal. Further, Con offered no sources for his arguments in any round with the exception of "Socrates is mortal," a well-known syllogism that fails as a rebuttal to Pro's MOA.

Con effectively waived R3, promising an R4 conclusion, but forfeited R4, effectively making this a 2-round failed argument for his BoP.
Pro, therefore, wins the debate on sound argument and rebuttal.

To be precise, a tongue-in-cheek farce of debate, and yet effective given rules of debate [must reference a discontinued, yet accessible site, https://www.debateart.com]. So, with the farce in mind:

Pro's R1 outlines a precise argument in 3 phases: backed opinion, opinion perfection, and population agreement, which all conclude with appearance of wisdom.

Con forfeited R1. Not, however, a loss, relative to the above cited former site since this forfeit was only 33% of the total arguments available to Con..

Pro's R2 offers three primary support features added to his R1 arguments: by logic, emotion, and credibility. Logic was demonstrated by R1. Emotion was demonstrated by original poetry; a haiku. The poem was not well constructed, but what poet follows poetry rules, anymore? or ever, since poetry has always been open-season relative to "rules." [see referenced site from Pro's R1] Credibility was demonstrated by Pro's reminder he is the premier authority of his opinion, as substantiated by Pro's sourcing of "the most trusted people in America," headed by Tom Hank's, aka Pro according to his demonstrated superior opinion.

Con's R2 consisted of denial of credibility of Pro's R1 and R2, denying the sourcings Pro clearly offered in R1 and R2, therefore, a failed Con argument.

Pro's R3 is a clever self-referece one had to research to discover Pro's claim of being the leader in the field of personal opinion, and we know it to be his alter-ego [his ego being Tom Hanks]. One may pass by Pro's username, Ultracrepidarian, to ignore the Ultra- and go to crepidarian, which is a shoemaker. Thus, one may suppose Ultra means he is the ultimate shoemaker. Nope, not in shoes, at all, but in an intangible: an opinionater of no expertise, and this fits the sense of Pro's absurd Resolve, demonstrated by his "Crippling Evidence" sourcing in R3.

Con's R3 was a late-to-the-party attempt at proper rebuttal of an absurd Resolve. Too little too late.

Pro wins the debate.

Con wins by default due to Pro concession in R3. However, I did enjoy the debate through 2 rounds, though, admittedly, it became cumbersome because the math, not my favored subject other than in probability, and I really appreciated Con's six-sigma reference [he specified 4.2σ insufficiency in his R1 last argument], which really sealed the deal for me

Being a food connaisseur since age 5, when my mother taught me how to make chocolate chip cookies, I have solid opinion on this debate, but I will shelve personal opinion to analyze this debate on its own, separate merits by participant.

As I am also a debate enthusiast, I rankle at the dismissal of important features of the Challenge, a territory totally controlled, if chosen to be controlled, by the initiator, whether Pro or Con. That dismissal, too frequently engaged by thee initiator, is ignoring the opportunity [I say, personally, the obligation] of the initiator to define at least the keywords of the debate Resolve; in this case, cereal and soup. Pro chose to avoid definition of both, and it became, therefore, an argument of definition virtually over four rounds, the 5th being forfeited by both participants [including the added R4 forfeit by Con]. Therefore, preptitlon of argument over, and over, and over again. A real joy for a voter [not!]

Therefore, ignoring all definitional statements, since no agreement was met be either party, I depend on other argument raised by each participant.

Pro R1-4 contends that cereal is soup, and argues such because, by appearance, they are both pieces of various chopped/sliced/diced/molded food types suspended in a liquid base. That argument repeated ad nauseam over 4 rounds, plus mere denial by "rebuttal" that any of Con's argument/rebuttal made separate cereal/soup sense.

Con's R1-3 cpontekds that cereal and soup are separate categories of food, arguing that lack of cooking, i ingredients, eating, culture, nutrition, fortification v. fresh [processing], and culinary tradition set cereal apart from a soup category.

I conclude that Con provided the more convincing argument that the two food types truly belong in separate categories.
One key in that decision was the apparent limitation Pro argued for them being the same category was restricted to an American perspective, being American, whereas, Con's [not an American, but Candian] argument of a cultural influence made a more worldwide base for that cultural argument. Pro offered no cultural perspective on the Resolve
Con wins.

Pro had opportunity, but did not use it, to offer definition of the keyword of the debate: "brutality," leaving definition to be developed over the course of the debate. Than, having effectively forfeited R1 of any argument, ["testing" is no debate argument], fails to try definition of same to re-begin the debate in R2.

Pro's R2 has a number of disconnects:
"So, it is an oxymoron with an officer that enforces the law and at the same time doesn't." This statement ignores the potential for the law to allow enforcement of law by "brutality" should no other action suffice; again leaving definition up to... whom? When?

Then: "It's really a misnomer like the phrase 'civil war'. Is anything about a war which is killing folks and destruction. Is any of that 'civil"?'" Again, Pro fails to define what is meant by "civil." In the case of keeping peace in society, yes, that is a police officer's duty, but there is no consideration of peace in war; a "civil war" is simply separate people of a society going to war with one another over a disagreeable issue, an entirely different concept of "civil."

Then, "There is no law that I know that mandates brute force." Pro makes no attempt to offer any credible source to substantiate the claim. A referenced source might have offered support for the claim. As it is, it is rebuttalable opinion.

Then, "...Now once a police officer that acts outside of what is to be enforced, that person by nature is no longer an officer." This claim makes no relatable reference to brutality, and therefore hang's itself as an argument. Worse, this is an admission of effective loss of debate since, no longer being an officer, that officer cannot be brutal in the role of an officer. The debate essentially ends on that admission, alone, as a poorly worded argument.

Con's R2 settles these disconnects by rebuttal, addressing both issues of Pro's ill-stated claim in the middle of his R2 argument [lack of definition of "brutality" and my last of Pro's statements] by citing the very same issues. Con offered an encyclopedic definition of brutality, and related it to "police brutality," and, by citing Pro's commentary regarding an officer's actions rendering him no longer an officer with the same result as my judgment of
Pro's ill-fated statement in R2.

Con wins the debate.