fauxlaw

This debate offered a different take on existence of God[s]. It was a refreshing take. makes one think there may be other approaches to debate rather than the typical existence argument, that seems to be done ad nauseam.
That said, there are issues: many on this site will be intimidated by the debate subject for lack of understanding the deep background of modal logic that underpins arguments from both participants. I was excited to see this debate develop through the rounds. That said... my vote is justified as follows:

I found Pro's Challenge Description lacking in detail other than rules for participants. For example: Pro introduced so many concepts in which word usage should have provided definition up front in Challenge rather than assuming readers would have basic grounding in their meaning, such as "Mathematical Platonism," and "Divine Conceptualism."

Pro's R1, "Diversity of Religious Experience" argument spent over 4,500 characters describing "Cat/God," at the end of which one wondered what that was all about relative to the Resolve, particularly when additional animals eating food which may have neither been cats or gods; so, to what purpose? "Special pleading," for example, within the post-story explanation, was never specifically defined in Description, nor in the argument, and so had to be researched by this voter to see what Pro meant by it in his argument. Having that defined up front seems necessary. Further, after the story tells of several "houses" by count, then being told "we can skip the fourth house," why was the 4th house included? Why am I reading about cats and rats and not about gods as most interpret that concept? Even the ancient Greeks, who are used in Pro's argument rounds, considered their gods in humanoid form, regardless of their seriousness in approach to them. No; we are given cats and rats.

Then we are introduced to "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and Mathematical Platonism," and find a disconnect in contradictory posits of a syllogism which will be addressed later by Con's R2 rebuttal of this argument. However, Con's source for this argument, Reddit [a social media platform], is not nearly the level of expertise one would expect of debate source reference, such as Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which Con does cite, Further, the citation's P1 explanation seems more of an argument against any theism, let alone polytheism: "Premise 1 is a prima facie acceptable claim for most monotheists, hence the amount of literature trying to explain the god of the old testament ordering genocide and prohibiting murder." Is that a pro or con theist argument?

For brevity, I found the balance of Pro's rounds to be just as disjointed and profoundly difficult to interpret as cohesive argument, with cats and rats becoming, in Pro's R2, circles and arrows attempting to demonstrate mono- and polycentric morphologic and functional realities of... " While not exactly the argument Con put forward, this is ultimately the question that is relevant to the contingency argument in relation to the polytheism vs monotheism debate." Yeah, not a clear rebuttal of a+b=c, since Pro admitted it was not Con's argument.

To conclude Pro's case, his source references' sequence in argument are not in agreement with the references' sequences listed at end of R1, further exacerbated by not being numbered because there is an out-of-sequence listing between argument and the list, and one example of a reference on the list, "Quarticles and the Identity of Indiscernibles" which I do not see in the argument.

Meanwhile, for Con's case, R1 begins by offering definition for "modal logic" from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy missing from Pro's argument or source list. The rest of the argument is clear and concise. R1 Example: "In philosophy we divide worlds into three different types:..." and following is a list of world types ["actual, possible, & impossible] and their sourced definition. Following is a description of St. Anselm's development of the ontological argument of God's existence, followed by a 6-point syllogism of Alvin Plantinga, describing the probability, and therefore the necessity of existence of a "maximally great being," and Con proceeded to define what an mgb was, and therefore his role. Con's R! concluded with the argument of
Occam's razor, with the necessity of simplification, such as: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity."

Con's R2 further explained the "simplicity" by arguing that, "...a maximally great being and would want to have relationships with the maximum number of people. God knows that different people and cultures will relate to him differently so he appears to them in different forms." Con further argues, "...it is a mistake to say that just because people experience things then it exists in reality. It is estimated that over 3 million people in the United States alone claim to have been abducted by aliens."

Con's arguments and rebuttals carry the strength of scholastic and number-sequenced sourcing for easy reference. Con wins this debate by concise argument with credible sourcing.

Con's Resolve mentions "Evolution/macroevolution," but never defines the terms in the Description, nor mentions them again in any round, and puts the obligation of BoP [Burden of Proof] on Pro, but, although claiming to be the debate's Con opponent, offers no BoP of his own to argue. Is this to be a valid debate by Pro, only, to have tennis racquet, a ball, and a wall to play against? That is a misconception of proper debate participation.
Con [initiator] begins R1 argument with an off-topic claim [unjustified by any citation] that "all living organisms... never were created..." That is entirely off-topic. It may have been relevant had Con allowed in Description that evolution may or may not have been a creation activity, because that is one argument made for creation and evolution for post-Darwin creature development, but Con obviously avoided it. Even after his first sentence in Description, "Please quote exactly" Con never quotes anyone in any round with citation of support for his non-existent BoP. He does quote Pro, bout these are Pro arguments against Con. Good quotations, but senseless toward offering any rebuttal of Pro argument/rebuttal.
Con states in R2, "I'm being told a lot of things but not given where I may have observed this for myself or can do so." Nce claim, but isn't Con supposed to be doing his own research to observe for himself? Apparently not in his opinion. Asking to be given info on a silver platter is not a good debate style. Nor is asking for more information from Pro on a particular argument Pro makes a reasonable Con rebuttal.
Con's R3 consists of noted questions of subjects Pro has addressed by argument in R1 and R2 without contributing any argument/rebuttal of his own. Con R3 concludes, "I rest my case."' What case? Over 3 rounds, Con has not offered a single argument. No wonder; he gave himself no BoP to prove.
Con's R4 composes a nothing accusation against Pro: "Thanks for trying." Nope, Con's rounds were a failed series of neither argument nor rebuttal, just nonsense questions and Pro quotes.
Pro's 3 rounds of argument, with suitable support from scholastic citations, held his BoP against the Resolve with excellent success, such as describing "Evolution is a theory on the biodiversity of life. It does not make any assertions to how life formed or how the universe came into being," and "speciation," and HIV - SIV mutation in R1, and strawman and goal-post moving by Con in R2, and even the evolution of language by example of the biblical "Lord's Prayer," by the metaphoric identical argument for living organism evolution in R3. Pro wins this debate going away.

Con's arguments were scatter-brained throughout,, with a complete missive in R4 [not sufficient forfeit to lose the debate on that account], but may have been the most rational of his rounds. Can't see through several rounds how one-ceiled organisms become multi-celled, and more complex, as Pro rebutted? Has Con never studied gestation of virtually every eventual mutli-celled animal in existence? Guess not. or trying to pass off metaphysics as a science? Nope. That study is in the philosophy department down the hall. By contrast, Pro was able to clarify every one of Con's arguments as failing to meet the resolve. No, evolution is not perfect; it is subject tor mutation, but it is consistent with the data as the data has improved ever since how life has been altered in complexity ever since rational man has studied life alteration [evolution] ever since man could be rational - long before Darwin as Pro has argued, presenting a very structured concluding R5 conclusion.

I was intrigued by this debate challenge, and hoped it would be an engaging debate, but Con was a complete no-show. Although full-forfeiture could be called, I am not going to give that as result of this debate. Pro's arguments were stellar in ever respect, such as by demonstrating the potential for AI to migrate its capabilities into action, becoming the "button-pusher" of a nuclear holocaust by thought/decision/action, or by whim, all without fully understanding consequences. This is a possible, but strictly necessary avoidance factor, putting pressure on human thought/decision/action to remain in human heads and hands, all because of the truth of Shakespeare's eloquence by Hamlet's soliloquy [II, ii]: "What a piece of work is man..." with its strict observance of "... How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god," AI must never be able to attain that kind of expression or action.

An interesting debate with a useless Resolve since the the entire latter half, and only justification for the Resolve [duration of time during which abortion should be federally legal] is never addressed by Pro to justify even a brief 8-week period . Pro's entire argument over 3 rounds is all about pain and suffering of a pregnant woman, and then. extraneous add-on arguments having no relation to the Resolve..
Con's argument over three rounds tries to draw from Pro to justify the brevity of an allowed abortion period, making two summary rebuttals that clarify the Con position held in both round 1 & 2 and in the final round [3]: 1. That Pro's apparent compassion for a woman's pregnancy pain throughout nine months of typical pregnancy is fraught with pain throughout, but that compassion is denied by abortion prevention. Con's rebuttal opens the door behind which Pro hides: a pregnant woman usually does not feel pain over an entire nine months, and why express mock compassion for the woman when none is offered for the woman before she is born? 2. Pro presents a sideshow according to Con that is entirely off topic by presenting care for the elderly, who typically are not subject to abortion decisions, and the selfishness of society with regard to taxes withdrawn from their paychecks, and the miserable pain they suffer for that cause. Totally off topic, as Con alleges.
This is sufficient justification to award Con the victory, not only by lack of valid arguments, but by Con's able rebuttals, plus strong original argument on the two points noted above.

This is clearly a debate between Lunatic and Mikal that was conducted with class and redsperct to one another, throughout the three rounds, and ought to be a model for any member who joins Debatecraft who may not be a skilled debater and wants to learn the craft well. Particular to the crux of the problem posed by the debate is not specifically to objectionable language I and others have seen used in debate, specifically [as opposed to forum, gaming, etc] which not only serves no purpose, but can be damaging to one's self and others when used. I can appreciate the desire to maintain a cordial attitude with one another such as Lunatic [Pro] advocate, indicating an excellent example of decorum while in disagreement, the objective [should be] of any debate, and while Mikal [Con], also agrees such attitude is preferred, he is more willing to allow language that may offend some, but does not amount to personal attack, or worse, such as doxing, etc.

Both pointed to other debate sites [DDO, and DART], both of which had moderation, but on both cases, the sites fell apart largely due to the problem of members who cannot keep a civil tongue in the heads, and, in fact, preferred use of problematic language as a weapon against others. While it seemed to me that pro preferred decorum throughout the site, and that Con was willing to allow non-personal-attack type language, Con did suggest that, since the site is mutli-faceted [debate, forum, games, and socializing], perhaps moderation should allow Forum, at least, more attitude and regulate Debate.

All that said, I am to judge between their rounds of argument/rebuttal to determine a winner.

I have determined, on the matter of spit-regulation, alone, to be an acceptable compromise. point to Con.

Pro's entire argument in both rounds appears to be entirely on the basis of personal opinion without documenting any scholastic sourcing of support of the opinion. Further, Pro's argument tears the fabric of the very definition of democracy; that it is vid of coercion, democracy its paved by the success of allowing the free will of the people, even to be non-participants in the voting process if that is their choice. Pro failed to describe why compulsory voting is any better than thane non-voting if their choice is simply to submit a black ballot by protest. So non-voting may represent such a protest, and Con expressess that conundrum by sourcing. Pro's effort is not a serious effort, as exemplified by accusation of Con in comment #2 of "googling" the entire argument. No, what that was is an effort to provide credible sourcing for his stated BoP. Thaat s exemplary of good debate skill, not a forfeit.
Cons argument in both rounds that voting should not be compulsory is supported by credible sourcing and by argument that demcracy is not ideal with compulsory voting.
Con wins debate.

Pro spent all three rounds talking about drawing this debate, but never drew a bloody thing beyond the expressed desire to draw, never recognizing that Con already out-drew Pro in the first round. Con offered argument, by definition from Dictionary, Com, of all variations offered therein of "drawing," including a sketch to satisfy one popular definition of that enterprise, but managed to demonstrate all six variations is serious and humorous detail, even summarizing as he ""drew drew drew drew drew drew this debate." Con wins.