@prathit_singh Thanks for the debate, and thanks again for dealing with my scheduling fails! Since I hadn't really researched Hinduism before this debate, it was really interesting to hear your perspective.
@kyrothehero Thanks to you too.
Criteria: Sound basis in logic fact reasonable and cogent. Pro needs to refute all negative cases.I think @kyrothehero has set himself a high standard to meet. And in debating with someone from an unfamiliar religious tradition, it's extra challenging. I love hearing @prathit_singh represent the apologetics of a religion I only rarely hear discussed in English.I felt like Pro didn't entirely understand Con's line of reasoning, which makes his rebuttals a little off the mark, at least at first blush (typing as I watch) I feel like Kyro will probably come to grasp with these and make more pointed rebuttals.I think Pro would benefit here in working with his opponent to make sure each individual argument is identified and outlined. I tried to note each argument Con makes and then track whether pro addresses them. Doing this, I found that pro simply doesn't address a few of Con's arguments, and by the standard Pro set for the debate, he didn't meet the burden he set forth.I think this is not due to any fault of reasoning or argument, but because when you are in a debate, it's harder to listen and pick up all of your opponent's points, while as an observer, I can listen, rewind etc... and catch them all.In each case where Pro makes an argument, I tend to agree with Pro. They are reasonable critiques that show that Con's claims are not especially persuasive or compelling (given even a modest degree of skepticism)Here is the argument I think Pro missed...Early on Prathit highlighted that Hindu scripture included a number of verifiable facts. The names of cities, including those that were lost to antiquity, and the existence of pre-Aryan civilizations. He explained that this supports the idea that the scriptures are accurate information, and thus we should trust the elements that are more difficult to confirm, such as the devils, gods, and heros told of in the scripture.Pro seemed to take that as an argument for prediction (an argument that comes up later) and so he didn't address the actual argument which was one about trust due to verifiable information.Of course, I do think there is a pretty easy response to this line of argument and I'm sure that Pro could make it if he understood what Con was trying to argue. (i'll grant its possible I misunderstood, but I think I sussed it out.)So I feel like I am obligated by the rules set forth by pro to vote Con. On the topic, I don't find the missed argument at all convincing. So in the general sense of the topic, I think Pro had better arguments overall. I felt Pro did a great job with the Barnum argument, and with rebutting the argument that pre-Aryan evidence of Hindu beliefs is evidence that those beliefs are true. Pro just needed to make the case that accuracy in one area (placenames) does not necessarily denote accuracy in others (the supernatural). Anyhow, it was a good debate, and it had me looking up various things on Wikipedia while it was going on, specifically who the Aryan people were, and what were some of the Hundi prophecies.I'm going to vote draw... I think technically, Con wins, but I feel like Pro has done a great job in a lot of debates, only loosing on a kind of technicality.
@sigfried Thank you for four remarks
@sharkb8 Oh Daniel come to judgement!