God does not exist.

I thank Con for his response. Superhuman I'll start by doing Con a favor and conceding my first argument, the one concerning the word "superhuman", to focus on my ethical argument. It shouldn't be surprising that I'm doing this because, as any voter can clearly see, the opponent's case can't actually be defeated in any reasonable, logically sound way. (Not that I could see, anyway.) This is because the opponent presented a case which was not topical, using an argumentation strategy which is unethical and antithetical to the very point of debate. Con has attempted to cast my ethical argument as being a reactionary argument to his "stellar arguments". We will recap: 1. My opening statement was designed to make it clear that this type of argument was not considered topical. In fact, given that I had researched my opponent before accepting this debate, my opening statement was specifically designed to hedge against this *exact* argument. The opponent has used it before and is using it again because, apparently, voters have yet to conclude that it is an unethical practice. 2. Con states "I was alarmed that Pro basically called for my head because I pointed out all of the holes in [my] case..." We can see that this isn't true, as my ethical argument was made immediately after Con stated his case. This is not a reactionary "cry-cry" argument; it is an argument which has been explicitly existent since Round 2 and implicitly existent since Round 1. Now, we'll cover the ethical argument in all the gory detail I deem in necessary to irrefutably demonstrate that Con's behavior deserves a loss. Ethics, Because Nothing Matters Without Them As a very brief recap, I argued that Con's argument is so egregious, unethical and inappropriate that it warrants him receiving a loss. This is because the resolution makes it clear we are supposed to be arguing whether there exists a god. The opponent's case takes advantage of semantics and shifts the debate to one concerning whether the sun is god and, if so, whether the sun exists. This is bad for a few reasons. 1. The opponent presents a case with no debatability. The sun clearly exists. It's even difficult to play "counter-semantics", as we've seen. 2. It ignores context. It is fairly obvious what Con was expected to debate and he purposely chose to debate something contextually unrelated. He is implicitly arguing that it is "ok" to accept someone else's debate, ignore what that resolution is supposed to be about, then present a truism. 3. It goes against the fundamental principles of debate. It serves no useful purpose. We are not learning anything new and neither debater is improving. Con is not required to demonstrate any debating skill, as little is required to debate something which is clearly true. Con's general response to my ethics argument doesn't seem to be to deny that his case and argumentation strategy are unethical, but instead to attempt to demonstrate that I am behaving unethically. While this is silly, ethical concerns should be addressed. First, the opponent claims that I am asking voters to ignore DDO voting policy because, "The voter must assess the content of the debate and *only* the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside the debate rounds is unacceptable. If this is evident in your vote, the vote will be removed." The opponent claims that, because I referred to his debate history, I have asked you to do something illegal. But we will note that I gave this information during the debate, in the previous round. This information was outside the debate before I mentioned it, then it was "inside" the debate. The voter is not disallowed from considering the opponent's debate history given that I explicitly mentioned it. If my claim was false, I could understand there being an ethical breach, but it isn't. If the opponent wants a more concrete inclusion of his debate history in these rounds: [1] There we go, it's sourced. Second, the opponent claims that I have accused him of misconduct and that I stated that there will be consequences as a result of this. The first claim is probably false, the second claim is definitively false. It's likely that an "accusal of misconduct" refers to misconduct as it relates to the site's policies. I never stated that the opponent is breaking any site rules. His argument is completely unethical, but it's not against the rules to make unethical arguments. It goes against the principles of debate, not the policies of Debate.org. As for his second claim, I never stated that the opponent will receive a loss for his argumentation strategy or that he will be punished in some other way. Rather, I asked the voters to give him a loss. It has never been a policy breach to ask that voters give the opponent a loss; this happens regularly. I in no way threatened the opponent. I don't have authority over him or the voters. I didn't claim to have this authority, nor did I truthfully or falsely claim that I would take any action against the opponent. -------- The irony here is that the opponent is explicitly accusing me of breaking DDO's code of conduct, something I *never* accused him of. Any action or judgment regarding that irony, though, is in the hands of site administrators, as it should be. ------- I've demonstrated that the opponent's argument is unethical, non-educational, trivial, and antithetical to the principles of debate. I've argued that allowing an argument of this type to win any debate only encourages others to use it more. This is directly destructive to the quality of debate on this site and elsewhere. Goodbye discourse, hello wordplay. Finally, I demonstrated that the opponent's argument has no merit. In this previous round, he seems to claim that his argument has merit because his *definitions* have merit. I'll remind the voters that the ability to copy and paste definitions is not meritorious. Voting Issues The voters are left with a choice, as they always are. The opponent presented an argument which was technically in-bounds, in terms of definitions, while also being out-of-bounds, in terms of context. Which is more important to you: that the opponent is technically correct or that he is contextually wrong? Do you consider semantic arguments of this type to be valid? Did you learn anything from reading this debate or was this a waste of your time? Is Con's argument meritorious or is he debating a truism? This is a 7-point system, so the voter has even more decisions to make beyond arguments. Which opponent had the best conduct? Do you feel that my claims of unethical behavior are out of line? Do you feel that the opponent's partially censored profanity and irreverent responses are rude? It's my belief that context matters, that semantics of this degree are not valid, that this debate is a waste of time and that the opponent is demonstrating a lack of ethics by manipulating the debate such that he is arguing a truism. I think it's clear that the opponent's responses have been rude and that my ethical argument, while serious, was presented in as respectful a way as it could have been. I believe it's clear that the opponent's argument isn't even meritorious. Remember, he's utilizing a strategy that allows him to post almost any case he wishes, as long as he can find a way to use words out of context to justify it. Despite this, he has chosen to argue that the sun exists and that it is god because it emits UV radiation. Thanks for reading and vote Pro. Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org...