The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
21 Points

Creation is the only logical explanation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,626 times Debate No: 28357
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (4)




I am looking to debate an atheist as to why creation is the only logical explanation for our existence. My last atheist opponent failed to give any arguments against creation, so I'm hoping to find an atheist who is willing to provide any evidence or good arguments as to why the origin of life was not created. If atheists claim that creationism is foolish, they need to back this claim up with evidence.

If anyone wants to debate this topic, then please take the challenge.


I will accept this challenge, and as the con position, I will argue that creationism is in no way the best explanation for the existence of life.

To begin with, I must assert a few things:

1. The burden of proof lies on pro. He supports the side that believes as oposed to the atheist side which disbelieves. Since pro is trying to assert that his belief is the best and most logical explanation for the problem posed, he must offer strong proof and evidence to make it clear that it is so. It is his task to prove his explanation is correct. As the side that disagrees with the explanation given by pro, it is con's task only to disprove that creationism is the best explanation for the existence of life. In this debate, as opposed to disbelief, belief must be backed up by evidence.

2. Pro did not set any rules or definitions, so I shall take it upon myself to fulfill that task:


1. Round 1 is for acceptance. The burden of proof is on pro, so it is only logical that he should be the first to present his argumentation.

2. Round 2 is for opening arguments, round 3 for presenting a rebuttal, and round 4 for defending your arguments and presenting a closing statement.

3. No semantics or lawyering.


creationism - creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Eart and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God [1]

logical - according to or agreeing with the principles of logic [2]



I impatiently wait for my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1


I will explain why my opponent has the burden of proof:

Atheists are always howling about evidence, yet they refusing to acknowledge that objects have a creator. They will admit that it takes a designer to build a brick wall, or a sand castle, yet they refuse to use the same logical standards when it comes to the origin of life.

If I walk into a beautiful garden--nice pathway, neatly cut grass and trimmed hedges, and a few plant pots--I don't have to prove that a gardener designed it. I know by intuition that the garden must have been designed. Out of nothing, nothing comes. Common sense is all it takes. So, if atheists are going to argue against creation, they need to prove, or at least give some evidence, as to why the origin of life came from non-intelligence. I've never had an atheist provide this evidence. Most of them refuse.

There isn't a single example of nature producing information. The genetic DNA in humans is in the right order for humans to survive. Genetic information cannot come from non-intelligence, yet this is what atheists claim. But they never ever ever give a single iota of evidence. Not a single shred. The best they can do is demand evidence from the theist when they refuse to look at the creation around them.

If my opponent refuses to provide any evidence, the debate might as well end.


I thank my opponent for presenting his arguments. I will now, as said in the rules, present my arguments without offering a rebuttal to his, since rebuttals will be given in round 3.

However, I must address the matter of the burden of proof.

Unfortunately, it seems my opponent doesn't understand how debating works. He set forth a resolution (representing a certain belief concerning the existence of life), setting it above all other explanations. Thus, he must offer evidence and explanation defending his resolution and backing up his stance that the belief he set forth is superior to all others. The task of the con side in this debate is simply to disprove that creation is the only logical explanation for the existence of life. Disbelief and disproving need not be proven. Beliefs from the pro side do.

Now, on to my arguments.

The question posed here is whether creation is the only logical explanation for the existence of life. As the con side, I answer: no, it isn't.
Why is it not? The answer will be given in my arguments.


On one side we have theories supported by science that are constantly examined, tested and refined; and on the other we have a stance originating from an ancient book. The latter is dogmatic; it has never been proven nor has anyone ever tried to prove it - indeed, according to religion, one shouldn't, for to do so might affect the religion itself.

It [a dogma] serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. [1]

To prove a certain idea is logical, one must offer reasons why. Creationism doesn't - it is based on blind faith without questioning. The answer why creationism is not the most logical explanation for the existence of life is merely the fact that is an assumption made without evidence. Evolutionism, quantum physics, biology etc. have presented (and still do so) evidence supporting the theory of evolution; and that evidence and those hypotheses have been examined and analyzed - that, by itself, makes evolution a much more plausible explanation as to why life exists. Any hypothesis made by science can either be true or false; and that must be provable.

All scientific explanations must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. [2]

Something which is faith; a belief, and refuses to offer proof to its existence cannot be, and is not, more logical than any scientific explanation, for science is based on logic. Faith refuses to subject itself to logic.

In the same way as my opponent, creationism fails to accept its burden of proof, instead relying on subjective interpretation of a religious book and clinging to an allegation without evidence. Unfortunately for creationism, as Christopher Hitchens once correctly remarked, what is asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof. [3]


To begin with, one of the main reasons why creationism is illogical is the fact that it is incompatible with scientific facts.

As an illustration, let us take the "young Earth theory". This theory forms one of the pillars of creationism, asserting that the Earth is between 5700 and 10000 years old [4]. Yet, carbon dating (and other methods) have dated the Earth to be about 4.5 billion years old. This is a scientific fact; tested through more than one method of dating and proven to be correct. The only counter-theory is the one offered by the Bible, and even there does creationism display inconsistency. When confronted with the argument about the Earth's age being a scientific fact, many a creationist will simply remark that the Bible is not to be taken literally concerning this matter.

How is it, then, that the Bible is taken literally when it aids the creationist cause in an argument or debate; yet not when it doesn't do so? How do creationists know how to correctly interpret each part of the Bible? And if they do - why do they disagree on the matter?
This very well proves that creationism is inconsistent in the interpretation of its only source of so-called "evidence".

It is not only interpretation, however, where creationism shows inconsistency. Throughout the course of history, creationism has adapted its teachings multiple times simply so it wouldn't be rendered obsolete. So-called "common sense and intuition" (which my opponent also mentions) have led creationists to believe the Earth is flat, and that all planets revolve around the Earth (the geocentric system). When certain thinkers attempted to prove differently, they were prosecuted; and if all else failed, creationist teachings were adapted to incorporate the new scientific evidenceven though said evidence absolutely contradicted the creationist theory itself.
A belief or theory that never attempts to prove its beliefs and simply tries to adapt to scientific evidence (refuting itself in the process) cannot be taken as a widely accepted explanation for a matter as grand as the existence of life.

To summarize, as long as creationism has no evidence or reliable source of evidence, disagrees on the different interpretations of the basis of its teachings, subjects itself to inconsistency, and offers no facts (being incompatible with scientific facts at the same time), it cannot be taken as the most logical explanation for the existence of life. As long as no proof is offered, or as long no attempts are made to prove creationism correct, it cannot be placed into the same sentence with logic.


Debate Round No. 2


What can I say? Just about everything my opponent said is false, and he refuses to present evidence to show that the orighin of life came to exist without intelligence. I don't know why he brought the Bible into it, because I don't need a Bible to know that an object has a creator. All I need as common sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes.

I believe that a wall has a builder and a garden has a gardener. It's not up to me to prove this, bwecause all I need is common sense. It's up to my opponent to give evidence as to why the origin of life did not have a creator. So far he has refused to give evidence.


I thank my opponent for his response.

Unfortunately, before presenting my rebuttal, I must once again adress debating formality.

Concerning the burden of proof: this is a debate. I repeat, this is a debate. As the pro side and the supporter of the resolution in question, my opponent must offer evidence as to why creationism explains the existence of life. I need only disprove his claims, not offer an alternative to the explanation or any evidence whatsoever. One doesn't need to prove disbelief. It is my task but to negate the resolution. My opponent has, up to now, completely failed to grasp the concept of burden of proof.

Now, I shall address my opponent's round 2 argumentation.

The first part of my opponent's argument which deals with the burden of proof has already been addressed, so I deem it unnecessary to speak of it once again in my rebuttal.

He then offers an analogy concerning a garden, exclaiming that it is intuition and common sense that tells him it was created by a gardener. This analogy, though, is very far-fetched. Creationist "intuition and common sense" have brought creationists to many wrong conclusions in the past, as I've already mentioned in round 2. Furthermore, the sense of proportion my opponent possesses seems to be somewhat distorted. I do not see how a garden can be compared (even metaphorically) to a matter as grand as the existence of life.
My opponent proceeds to say atheists must provide evidence for their refutation of creationism; here we see, again, that he does not understand burden of proof. I do not have to provide evidence for my disbelief, nor am I obligated to offer an alternative. My task is simply to disprove creationism, regardless of what the alternative might be.
The refutation to the creationist theory was given in my round 2 exposition, and my task completed.

Next, we hear a sentence so often used by creationists: "Out of nothing, nothing comes." Unfortunately, theists and creationists alike often make the mistake of intuitive generalization, committing a fallacy of bare assertion. Through observation, they conclude that since, on Earth, everything has a cause, so it must in the universe. I'd commit the same fallacy if I were to say, for example, that since all students sitting in room X possess mass lower than 200 lbs., the total mass of all matter in the room must also be lower than 200 lbs.

Furthermore, there are another two flaws in my opponent's reasoning:

a) Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty directly contradicts my opponent's statement. We reach the point where quantum physics come into play, which is unfortunate for creationism; it doesn't seem to consider anything beyond the sight of the naked eye. [1]
It has been observed that, in the quantum vacuum, particles materialize and dematerialize at random. Since it happens in a vacuum, we can safely say that those particles materialize with no apparent cause and no creator or creational force behind said materialization.

To quote Taner Edis: "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average." [2]

Should from this arise the question from where comes the energy necessary for quantum fluctuations, I answer with another quote, by Stephen Hawking: "particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero." [3]

Furthermore, concerning quantum vacuum fluctuations, they are defined as uncaused emergencies of energy (according to the aforementioned uncertainty principle). According to the definition of quantum vacuum fluctuations, the fact that the total energy of the universe is equal to zero, and the random materialization of particles in said quantum vacuums, comes a model constructed by Alexander Vilenkin, who explained that the universe originated from a void; no matter, no energy, no expansion - no cause. [4] A simple understanding of quantum physics brings us to the first reason why my opponent's logic is flawed.

b) My opponent still provides no evidence supporting creationism. My opponent proposes we all accept the hypothesis of creation as superior to all others; yet we know nothing about the creator. It is hypocritical that creationism should question science, while it, itself, can answer no question as to the existence of God, the properties of said existence, the relation to the space-time continuum concerning said existence etc. The only explanation creationists have is simply: "We believe." As long as creationism fails to adhere to its burden of proof, it shall not be accepted as an explanation for the existence of life.

Next, my opponent statetes that there isn't a single example of nature producing information, and that it all must come from an intelligent creator. The only thing proven by this statement is that my opponent possesses absolutetly no knowledge of simple biology. The fact that a human being's DNA is in the right order simply represents the end of the chain of natural selection, and even here we have malformations - how do creationists, then, explain malformations on human DNA?
Furthermore, it is atrociously wrong to state there are no examples of nature producing information - what about the replication of DNA? How do you think children recieve their genetic code? It happens through merging of the DNA of the sperm cell and the female ovum - a most natural process. Must I go on?
There are billions of examples where nature produces genetic information; each living being represents one such example.

My opponent ends his round 2 the way he began - speaking about evidence and the burden of proof. I really see no need to address this once more.

He ends his exposition by accusing me of not providing evidence. In his eyes, apparently, the debate "might as well end" if I do not present evidence. It is really disappointing that my opponent should throw such accusations around after I explained the matter of burden of proof multiple times; so I shall paraphrase his statement:

If my opponent continues to refuse to grasp the concept of burden of proof, the debate might as well end.


[3] Stephen William Hawking: A Brief History of Time: from the Big Bang to Black Holes (1988), page 129
Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for his long reply, but unfortunately he hasn't supported his position when it comes to evidence. My opponent is doing what most atheists do: shifting the burden of proof. Atheists do this because they know very well that they have no evidence in their defense. The only thing they can do is shift the burden of proof. So, I would like to explain in greater depth why atheists bear some burden of proof:

We have never seen an object come from nothing, for out of nothing, nothing comes. I'm sorry that my opponent doesn't like this, but this just a fact. Nor have we seen intelligence come from non-intelligence. My opponent can argue "natural selection" until he is blue in the face, but unless he backs this up with evidence, his opinion means nothing. If atheists are going to mock and ridicule creationists, then the atheists need to provide evidence that life came from non-life and intelligence came from non-intelligence.

My opponent says that I need to prove creation. But that's just as ridiculous as standing in front of a brick wall and saying, "you need to prove that the brick wall was designed." NO ATHEISTS!!! You need to prove that the brick wall came to exist WITHOUT a designer. What atheists are doing is playing the "pretend to be stupid" game. They know that objects have a creator, yet they refuse to acknowledge creation in the complexity of life. Just calling it natural selection is a cop-out. Natural selection cannot produce information because information requires an intelligent mind. If not, then show me the evidence!

I thank my opponent for taking the time to engage in this debate, but he has refused to present any evidence or good arguments. His trick has been to shift the burden of proof so that he can wiggle off the hook, and in his next reply he will continue to do this. If he refuses to bear any burden of proof, I'll just have to keep on looking for an atheist that can give me the evidence. If science is really on the side of atheists, then why are they so unwilling to provide the evidence? Could it be that they don't have any, and they are too proud to admit that they are relying on faith? I think so, but will they admit it--never!



I thank my opponent for his response, and in this final round, I will defend my arguments and conclude this debate.

Before that, one final time, concerning the burden of proof: You are participating in a debate. You are, I repeat, participating in a debate. I cannot make it more plain than I have, yet the concept of debating rules seems to elude you. Debates have rules and formalities; in this case, you presented a resolution - you are setting forth an idea and defending it while I need only disprove it. The burden of proof cannot be on the side which negates - its very name suggests it negates, it has no obligation towards offering proof and evidence. Honestly, I cannot remember the last time one was so oblivious to the concept of debating rules to the point of indigestion. If you wish to rant about lack of evidence and arguments:

a) Go to a forum website
b) Read my round 3 reply. Closely.

After this explanation, I shall finally turn to the defence of my arguments.

To begin with, one does not refute an argument with "everything my opponent said is false". The point of offering a rebuttal and refuting arguments is to show why and how one's arguments are not correct (I honestly cannot believe I'm explaining this right now). My opponent does not refer to any point I made and resorts to simply calling them all false.
Since, unfortunately, my opponent seems to require much explaining; let me put it this way: I read a book on politics, and I decide to call everything written therein false. I just do. Because I can. Does that make it all false? No, it doesn't. I am the one who accused the author of presenting false facts, and I must prove why and how they are false.

After simply dismissing all my arguments as false, without explaining why that is so, he most hypocritically calls for evidence (again); which is wonderful - considering he bears the burden of proof.

My opponent then asks why I brought the Bible into the conversation, saying he doesn't need it to conclude creationism is correct. I brought the Bible into the conversation because it is the only source of "evidence" supporting creationism.
As for the second part, that is the best argument ever. Seriously. I know, I simply do, there's nothing you can do about it, talk to the hand - it seems this is my opponent's favourite argument. He then repeats his mantra of "out of nothing, nothing comes" which I've addresse in round 3. Despite this, he carries on with said mantra in round 4 as well.

The final part of my opponent's exposition consists of him once again shifting the burden of proof (this is really sad; I'm sorry, but it is), and offering so-called "common sense" as a rebuttal. I have shown where common sense led creationists in the past. During the course of this debate, I have witnessed firsthand how "common sense" has rendered my opponent unable to understand what the burden of proof is and how exactly one is supposed to refute arguments.

I shall now shortly comment on my opponent's round 4 rant (it is only appropriate to call it a rant) - I will not offer a direct rebuttal but I feel obligated to notice a few things:

a) It is hypocritical to talk about shifting the burden of proof when one bears it - nay, worse - when one refutes arguments with "everything my opponent said is false"

b) Mantra repetition - seriously? I wonder if my opponent even read my round 3 rebuttal, concerning quantum physics, vacuum fluctuations etc. How can he even consider remarking that I am arguing "until I am blue in the face" while his whole argumentation is based on a single mantra (which was, by the way, completely dismantled in round 3).

c) Atheists know there is a creator? No, we don't. We don't, we disbelieve and we research. Creationism believes without evidence. This is the worst case of hypocrisy I've ever seen. Show you the arguments? Read round 3 again. Can you show me your arguments?

Finally, I must refer to my opponent personally - with this style of conversation, you will never find an appropriate place to voice your opinion. It seems so funny that I am the third person you are debating on this topic, that it is the third time you present no logical arguments, and yet you throw the same accusations at others? I'd take some time to think about that if I were you. I know that, formally, I shouldn't address my opponent ad hominem, but this debate has really caused me to lose my temper (which doesn't often happen) and I felt the need to do this in my closing statement.

For obvious reasons, vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
warrior_for_truth's argument = argument from ignorance fallacy.

Theist down. Atheist up. Get off of DDO; your apologetics days are over. :P
Posted by Elmakai 3 years ago
warrior_for_truth, sorry, but you being a bad debater has nothing to do with "atheist buddies" on the comment section. Time and time again, within the comments and the debate, zgb1997 responded to your statements, such as from nothing comes nothing. He gave evidence to support it, and you simply call him names (albeit a small one, [silly], but names nonetheless.)

You really need to read up on proper debate format and rules. When you make a assertion of something, then the burden of proof is on you. Period. If zgb was pro, then the same would go to him. You do not get to decide who has the burden of proof, and to think so is a arrogant assumption, which you seem to do a lot of.
Posted by warrior_for_truth 3 years ago
devient.genie, if you want to challenge me to a debate then do so. I'm not going to have long arguments on the comments page where your atheist buddies back you up. I prefer to do man to man, if you have the guts?
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
whiner_of_lies, while youre relishing in the fact that you got ran by a 15 yr old, lets get back to big kids stuff :)

TRICKS 6:19--Read and wholeheartedly believe in the teachings from a really old book that has been translated thousands of times, indoctrinate children with that belief that the reason for life, and all the stars and galaxies will send bad kids to hell and thinks its a good idea to stone someone who picks up sticks in Numbers 15:32-36, hammer that disgusting, vile, wicked and immoral rubbish, from a "holy binky" into your children because we cant be moral without our binky to suckle, were just "widdle kids" and we need our binky to suckle when things are going bad, its our binky to suck when we get scared, when we're unsure we pull knowledge from the holy binky, cuz it "feels good", becasue its a "metaphysical thing" that is the nutritional equivalent to feeding your child a plate of what you scraped from underneath a dumpster at a McDonalds parking lot. All that "gunk-n-stuff" into your childs brain and presto, you figured out how to abuse your childs youth without yelling or hitting them. Way to go :)

WARNINGS 3:2--Do NOT assume a religious person has limits to how wicked, or ignorant they will be, NEVER put anything ridiculous past the delusional mind of a religious person, because if a human can convince themselves the reason for everything is admittingly jealous, they can convince themselves of anything :)

THOUGHTS 5:19--Was standing up and publicly speaking out against lynchings and other cruel treatment of African Americans or other races during the early 20th century, was that as taboo as standing up and speaking out for reason and the truth which happen to be contradictions to religious views in the 21st century :)

Recognize 2:11--Science will always win, not because it has all the answers, but because the good guys ALWAYS WIN :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
whiner_of_lies, I understand reading one book with scripture is easier than a bunch of other hard ones.

However, researching science books is for big kids. Now put your holy binky down and learn like a big kid :)

"Nothing", is defined as empty space, but what is empty space? These are questions limited brained humans called "religious", dont ask :)

Either science is the devil or conspiracy, or religious people are clowns without red noses :)

The following scientific evidence is brought to you by our faithful sponsors, CHECK and MATE :)
Posted by zgb1997 3 years ago
warrior_for_truth - are you trying to deny all the scientifically proven laws of physics?
Posted by warrior_for_truth 3 years ago
devient.genie, if you want to challenge me to a debate then do so. I'm not going to have long arguments on the comments page where your atheist buddies back you up. I prefer to do man to man, if you have the guts?
Posted by warrior_for_truth 3 years ago
zgb1997, no it hasn't. Provide the evidence. I've given you so many chances.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
whiner_for_lies, there is No crying in baseball. You know that already. Walk It Off :)

Now lets get back to big kids stuff :)

DevientGenie 6:48--The Genie's appreciation and understandings of the universe and life, is not two steps, or ten steps ahead of a religious person, it is flights of stairs ahead :)

EVOLUTION 3:5--You dont need an airbag to survive a car crash, its just that the air bag drastically improves your chances of survival. Just like you dont need to teach kids science if you want them to be smart, it just increases the chances of a higher intelligence :)

WAKEUP 2:1--Science will continue to expose religions, ridiculous, childish beliefs are in fact, impeding on the progress of our conciousness by clinging to outdated ideals :)

BigKids 9:3--We as a human race have reached heights of science and knowledge that are nothing short of absolutely corrosive to any and all religious doctrine :)

WAKEUP 2:2--Cornell University is a very respectable institution. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, and dozens of other scientific organizations, ALL AGREE with this, A Very brief guide for the curious and confused...

CaptainObvious 11:38--Either god made childbirth painful for women because eve ate the apple, or childbirth is naturally painful. Believing the latter is your logic and reason speaking, believing the former is what makes you delusional :)

BigKids 11:49--Science says the source or reason for everything is undetermined and undefined. We dont know how it all started, we only know what happened after it did start. Religion says nothing is undetermined or undefined, the reason for everything only works six days a week and throws flood parties then is too lazy to make 2 of each creature again, just have an old man build an ark and cram the world in there :)
Posted by zgb1997 3 years ago
warrior_for_truth, it can. According to all laws of physics it can, and it has even been observed to happen. While creationists spend their time calling things silly with no evidence or explanation; science keeps doing its job of proving it stance.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gives no arguments and lacks any form of adequate or systematic methodology.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: con never has the burden of proof, pro spelled origin wrong, and con's arguments were left unrefuted
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, nothing more needs to be stated except that Pro refused to substantiate his claims despite not only dispensing with his opponent's repudiations with a single flick of his hand, reasserting the basic application of principles that rests on a simple perception of casual agency that ignored Con's proposition of quantum physics, while essentially lending a rehash of his previous arguments in regards to the assignment of the BOP. It is again unfortunate, and I may as well stir a sea as to galvanize this immovable vessel into action, that Pro did not follow the protocol of the debate or display an understanding of the basics of debating. In any case, I would like to applaud Con, however, for his skill and aptitude. :)
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is very abusive by shifting the BOP and avoiding Con's arguments. He also fails to posit any sources whatsoever.