Creationism is a Rational Belief System
I will leave it up to my opponent if he wants to add the idea of a young earth and universe into the definition.
For starters, the Theory of Evolution doesn't disprove God if true. Why should a Creationist fear any discovery of how God created life? They shouldn't. No fact should worry a Creationist. No future facts should worry a Creationist. Can Atheists in general say the same if the God's existence were proven somewhere in the future? Would they then bow down on their knees and greet Him with happiness? Good question.
Nevertheless, from a purely scientific viewpoint, I challenge the Theory of Evolution as a student and studied person in the fields within biological sciences with no hesitation because if that is the direction of the debate, I welcome it, and not as a "Creationist", but as a lover of the truth no matter what that means or where it leads. If the Theory of Evolution is one day proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I will gladly accept that a god or God as I percieve God may have created life as we know it.
Why is it that only with the existence of a god, is the scientific "process" so prone to using poor science? Every other thesis a PHD student offers must be examined heavily by many panels before it is even put into print, much less called a theory or even more so, a fact? Why is it that Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity is called by that very name in school, but Evolution and Speciation are proclaimed as though they are a 100% fact? Why is the word 'theory' never used in relation with the word evolution? In every physics class I have taken, the professor told us that Einstein had a theory. And humanity sees evidence of Einstein's theory all around the observable universe. So why does the Theory of Evolution get higher billing than the Theory of Relativity? This is a question, but is a rhetorical one from my perspective. What corrupted group would want God/gods or judgement/accountability to be true or validated? I believe the answer is probably none, and not even the "church" itself in some instances of malicious corruption.
History combined with Arcaeology have writings that date back to approximately 3000 BC. The first known written language is called Cuneiform, and it was invented in Sumer.
So here is what we have in theory: the agonizingly super slow development of the human mind getting smarter and improved over millions of years with no good or reliable proof of written language.
Magically, humanity one day learns to write, and then over a stretch of a tiny seven thousand years people begin to build metrolike societies, and humanity works together in the field od agriculture. Then cities are built, vast and complex buildings are constructed, and advancements in the knowledge of alloys and metals burst into reality all around planet Earth, weapons go from archaeic to amazingly complex, and humanity goes from throwing spears to building nuclear warheads, atom bombs, and gps guided weapontry of highly capable devastion and destruction.
Transportation suddenly can carry mankind across continents in years, months, weeks, and down to hours, even to the place where humans have journeyed into outerspace. Communication goes from primitive, to letters, books, and then twitter and e-mail to most anyone on Earth.
The mind boggling growth of our human mind over the last seven thousand years kills the theory of grueling multi million year development of human thought. There is one possible explanation for all of this. By some unexplainable phenomenon, a tiny piece of the human mind suddenly spurted out an extra five inches of nerve endings that miraculously enlightened most everyone all around the world. Then, perhaps for no reason at all, out human "forfathers" were all able to sit down with a rock and chisel and start writing poetry and concepts of gods or a god.
The concept of a young Earth is meaningless in thought to me. I have no way of knowing how long "Adam", which is simply the Hebrew word for man, was around before the "fall" and given an age at that point. Most Creationists don't read the Adam and Eve story as literal for many reasons such as Adam being a word as opposed to a name in Hebrew, serpent being a title given to any evil entity in other Biblical references, nakedness being athe revealing of many times cold, dark truth of someone's being, track es being entities in other Biblical reference, and fruit being something that examplifies who someone really is and what their motives and desires are in reality, and all according to otherBiblical references yet again. Simply put, Biblical Adam and his/their age in reference to how long they were on Earth is unprovable as far as trying to come up with Adm's exact day of birth in references to his age given from the point of the fall onward. In theory, Adam was a million years old before the fall. It's semantics to argue how long "Adam" was actually here on Earth. We also cannot prove beyond doubt that Adam and Eve didn't have 50,000 kids before the "fall". It's all guesswork at best.
Here is a National Geographic documentary on DNA and how it relates to Biblical Adam.
Most of Pro’s argument here is irrelevant to evolution, such as the idea that people don’t call evolution a theory enough and that it doesn’t disprove God.
I agree it doesn’t disprove God, however since creationism refers to the claim that life was created by God other than natural processes, it would be a misnomer to say creationists shouldn’t worry if evolution is proven.
Pro says evolution is referred to as a fact most often, rather than a theory. He has yet to show this is true, the distinction between fact and theory, or its relevance. A theory is an interpretation of facts . If such an interpretation corresponds to the world, it is also a fact. Furthermore, you can clearly see well known places of information refer to evolution as a theory .
His main argument against evolution is that humanity developed quickly culturally, therefore biologically humans didn’t evolve. First, Pro said himself he’s trying to refute the claim that humans developed over millions of years, however these such culture developments happen within species. It is therefore a categorical mistake to state this proves humans didn’t develop over millions of years. Even if a biological change is necessary, such a thing can happen rapidly . However, there is no reason to think brains needed anything new to become smarter. Humans may have just learned to use their minds differently. For example, I know how to memorize a large list flawlessly, not because my mind is different than anyone else’s or prior humans, but because I know how to use my mind differently. Anyone can learn it with ease . Learning language, mathematics, ect can simply be learning to use what’s already there differently. In this case evolution is memetic, not genetic.
I will now present some arguments for evolution. This one being from the fossil record.
Evolution would be disproven if we found fossils belonging to the wrong evolutionary time period. Instead what we find is correct evolutionary sorting along with showing the evolution of entities .
This is strong confirmation of evolution, as if it were false, fossils should be disorganized.
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are traces of viruses in our genome. Evolution predicts that we should share these ERVs with our closest ancestors and less with our distant ancestors. As Douglas Theobald said, this is exactly what we see.
“There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism.”
Evolution fits with these two pieces of evidence better than creationism.
Back to Pro.
 Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012
Nevertheless, I'll post a rebutal to Evolution and move on to prevent a pointless circular argument being put forth from myself.
Evolution is still not good science or a consistant and dependable model, at least not in the present time, for making a finalized declaration for how our Earth history and the truth of the origin of life truely, within reason, in true truth, really and dependably, is. Thus, it is not a yet dependable source for declaring Creationism as illogical.
Let us see what Darwin himself had to say on the matter.
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The Origin of Species)
Here is a quote from "Almost Like a Whale" by Steven Jones.
"The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next. Far from the display of intermediates to be expected from slow advance through natural selection many species appear without warning, persist in fixed form and disappear, leaving no descendants. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against the theory of evolution." (Almost Like a Whale, p. 252)
The book references a long ridiculed statement by Charles Darwin. Darwin observed that a bear catching insects in its mouth, could evolve over time into a creature "almost like a whale".
My opponent himself states that the Theory of Evolution is just that; a theory, so we are agreed on this. I'll now choose to move right along.
Richard Dawkins is a world renknowned Atheist and the author of a book titled, "The God Delusion". He is also an Evolutionary Biologist. In the Atheist community, he is well respected, so much so that his net worth is $135 million due to book sells.
In the following link Dawkins dances around the idea of God, but states that reality could be a simulation created by someone outside of our reality. Dawkins, the respected Atheist and Evolutionary Biologist, and undoubtedly of reasonably high intellect, is chewing on an idea that is not so far removed from the basic Creationist model; someone, somewhere beyond our reality, created it all, and it is hard to know how. Are Richard Dawkins and Creationists more alike than we had ever thought? Perhaps.
And here is one where he says an advanced alien civilization may have "seeded" us here.
So we could have been seeded here by someone much more advanced than us, and our reality may be a simulation or matrix created by some super programmer from outside our reality. Dawkins doesn't sound insane as I watch these videos. He seems to be thinking quite logically about the possibilities explained in these theories.
I believe our reality was created by an outside being much mor advanced than us, and I am Creationist. If this were proven to be a created simulated reality, as Dawkins explains to us in the first video, wouldn't it be fair to say the theory would fall under...
Is Creationism really an illogical belief? I argue no, and I believe Dawkins doesn't really think so either. He is quoted to have said that he believed John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama are most likely Atheists, but there is a belief that one canmot be elected President in the United States by claiming Atheism. I often ask myself if Dawkins is showing his own hand by accident. I believe he is generally Agnostic but believes he has to oversell his "Atheism" to maintain his status in the Atheist community and allow himself to obtain $135 million in wealth. Is he stupid? I don't think so. And this intelligent Evolutionary Biologist author and businessman is hinting, in my opinion, at his somewhat Creationist views. Creationism is logical, reasonable, and most possibly 100% true in some way, shape, or form.
Theistic evolution is typically regarded as separate from creationism . Some definitions of creationism may include it, but that’s why I gave a definition in the first round to clear this up. However, Pro himself admits that we should move on from this point into actual content of the debate.
Pro has dropped his argument that the evolution of human culture proves biological evolution is false.
He states I have admitted to evolution being just a theory. This is missing the point completely. I’m stating that the point of evolution being a theory is trivial, as it can be a fact and a theory at the same time. This is a very different position than Pro’s.
The claim that Dawkins comes close to admitting creationism comes up. This again is irrelevant to the debate at hand. The rationality of creationism doesn’t rest in one man. Furthermore, conceding we can be in a simulation or seeded by aliens falls under the category of intelligence design, not creationism .
This is completely trivial in the first place. Of course at least possible for ID to be true. Conceding this just makes you intellectually honest. It’s possible that I am really a telepathic mutant who hasn’t discovered his abilities yet. Nothing contradictory is in that statement, making it at least possible, but this doesn’t mean it’s logical to believe. Nobody should start making videos about me claiming I am a telepathic mutant. As philosopher William Lane Craig said “...possibilities come cheap”. Furthermore, the interview was highly edited  if you pay close attention you’ll see how Dawkins’ answers don’t fit with Stein’s questions.
Pro gives two quotes. One from Darwin, and one from Steve Jones about how gradual change isn’t observed. However, the idea of gradual change isn’t the same as evolution, it is an idea of evolutionary change that isn’t necessary to the overarching theory itself . This shows Pro is committing a strawman fallacy. Gradual change is an early idea of evolution, which is rejected. This doesn’t invalidate my argument at all.
Lastly, if we recall my argument, I stated the fossil record proves evolution in two ways. One being the correct sorting of fossils and the other from the evolution of entities. Pro only attacked the latter, making the former claim uncontested.
Pro has dropped this section.
Pro doesn’t spend much time attacking my arguments and the time he does, he attacks an outdated strawman. Nor does he spend time addressing my rebuttal to his argument. He spends time on what he thinks Dawkins believes from a small interview, which is completely irrelevant. My arguments still hold, which show creationism isn’t a rational belief.
Back to Pro.
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."
This can be claimed by anyone about anything, and was not my intention, so I now call this debate Strawman vs. Strawman, by definition. I can make the same "strawman" comparison by simply typing the words,"That is not what I meant", or "You are misinterpreting my meaning". I can then say, you are a strawman for calling me a strawman because you are calling me a strawman by misinterpreting me thus, making you a strawman. By definition, we are all guilty of "strawman falacy". I assume my opponent meant no disrespect, and knows I do not possess the ability to 100% invision his motives or meanings without any error. If I do, it's a crying shame that I am ignorant on how to use my abilities. So this debate is Unintentional Strawman vs. Unintentional Strawman. We could define Semantics now, but I see no need to dig the debate into an Unintentional Strawman 5000 With a Cherry on Top Deluxe vs. Unknowingly Strawman Excel 10 to the 3rd power divided by pie or in other words, Semantics vs. Semantics discussion. I'll choose to continue on. I digress.
My Atheist friends always use the term "observable". "Without observation," they say, "we are unconvinced." They say we need to "observe in order to believe". I am an Evolution and "fossil record", Agnostic. I haven't observed anything or seen dependable evidence. Ironically, neither have Biologists. "Just have faith. Trust us, our theories and our guesses, because they make sense to us." To this I respond about Creationism,"Just have faith. Trust me, my theories, and my guesses, because they make sense to me."
Any Evolutionary Theory, including the when standing alone, discusses no explanation or knowledge of who, what, when, where, or how as to the same list of questions referring to how any first cell or first organsim came into existance in the first place. The Theory of Abiogenesis had to be birthed as an answer to my rebutal. Ironically, Abiogenesis' very name gives you a clue in its root; Genesis. Now we are headed in a logical direction. We need an equation here, so I'll provide one.
x = life
So the unknown exponent here needs to have a logical answer. Let's plug an answer in for "x".
X = nonlife. So nonlife evolved into life. Nonlife = life. Nonlife slirped its way magically into a cell(s), then into more and more complexity until we had life in some recognizable lifeform, then consciousness, we skip ahead to humans, thus we have computers, nukes, GPS, skyscrapers, space shuttles, moon colonies, Mars colonies, transportation faster than the speed of light, invisibility tech, ability to replicate, future stem cell tech V, ability to repair the body instantly, brain repair or transplants, body mechanics, telekenesis, future virtual reality tech, inability to tell the virtual from nonvirtual, saving consciousness, dna codes, and who we are on a futuristic high tech hard drive, evolving into post human super species, a mix of technology and Evolution evolving into high tech cyborgs able to live as immortals as long as the information was available to download into a host, then even more truely immortal, and if higher dimensions are able to be channeled, we become outer or inner dimensional beings, and so forth and so on until one of us or several of us as a "governing entity" become a god or gods, and if time travel is possible or even concepts human beings can not concieve yet, we reach omnipotence in a reality where time is irrelavent, and we or one of us becomes omnipotent but not in the manner of time as we know it because time travel and barriers of science are broken accordingly. It's an interesting concept. We'll just label it as Evolution Theory. In the Theory of Everything, the Bible is true, Lord of the Rings is true somewhere, and so is Superman as an advanced alien with powers we do not possess. And this is a secularly created concept. And then perhaps, someone else has reached omnipotence already
The ERVs of humans, chimps, monkeys, gorillas, or any other monkeylike creature do not line up because they have the same ancestry. They line up because different ERVs prefer to attach to their favorite locations or "hot spots". Mutations "hurt" reproduction cells(egg and sperm), so there is no good reason for evolutionists to guess or theorize that ERVs will create new beneficial functions.
Speaking of ERVs. Let's move on to an even simpler form of matter that even ERVs are made up of as is everything. Atoms. Here is a video on Quantum Entanglement.
So, now we need a Creationism equation to be fair, right? I'll give us one.
x = life
x = life
Here is what we are looking at.
Life = Life
Here are our 2 choices.
Nonlife = Life
Life = Life
In simple logic, it is easy to percieve life coming from life, but it seems hard to percieve life coming from nonlife. Spontaneous Generation has been proven false, but it was once thought to be a rational and honest piece of science. Even if it had been correct, it still would not have answered life coming from nonlife, nor is there any truth in it or logic. The concept was tested, and it is 100% false. I could step aside and act like this is the end of the logic involved here, but it is not. The next question any Atheist or Agnostic would ask is a very reasonable question, and it must be answered. Creationism owes and is demanded by common sense, reason, and logic to answer this fundamental question. Where did life come from to give life. Simply put, where did God come from? When was He born in time?
It is a tricky thought but does have an exponential value. X must equal x. How do we get there? It seems irrational to say life came from nonlife. It does seem rational to say life came from life. Nevertheless, where did first life come from?
In the 3rd dimension there are 3 points that give us an exact location. As we move, these 3 points move as if the cross hairs of a rifle scope are on us at all times. These 3 points can always tell us where we are exactly in 3 dimensional space.
In the 4th dimension there are 4 points that serve the same purpose. What is the difference? In the 4th dimension we have the same 3 points as the 3rd dimension. The difference is the 4th point, and the 4th point is time. In this dimension we can move forward and backward in time. So, to simplify, in the 4th dimension, we are located by three points, and the 4th point locates our point in time going forwards and backwards. An example is,"He is standing at an exact coordinance on a mountain at 3:45 (and 10.678936523 seconds) pm. In the fifth dimension we can move more directions in time such as up and down.
Here is a video to elaborate this very thought.
- 10 Dimensions - Time is a dimension.
Pro’s first argument remains dropped. He also drops his notions about Dawkins. Instead he presents an argument against abiogenesis. His basic argument is that life came from life, not nonlife. This is an appeal to intuition, and it doesn’t make much sense. If life came from life, where did that previous life come from and that previous life, ect? Since the Earth hasn’t existed for an infinite amount of time there must’ve at one point been no biological life. Proposing creationism doesn’t get around this, as God isn’t a biological lifeform. On a trivial note, Pro’s equation is flawed because no one is claiming non-life equals life. For example, I come from my mother, but I’m not the same thing as my mother.
Abiogensis is speculative, but more plausible than creationism. Experiments like the Miller/Urey experiment have shown that abiogensis likely happened . Pro claims spontaneous generation has been disproven, this is true, but irrelevant. Abiogensis and spontaneous generation are two different things. S.G. states that higher order life cannot come from nonliving matter . It says nothing about lower order life. Creationism is less plausible than abiogensis a priori too. Abiogensis does not posit any extra entities than what we already know. Abiogensis and evolution are two different subjects, even if Pro has shown abiogenesis to be implausible, it doesn’t follow that evolution is. Nor does it follow that creationism is justified. Pro then goes on about transhumanism, I’m not sure why as this has nothing to do with the debate at hand.
Pro drops his argument from gradual change and instead argues against the concept of a strawman. He misunderstands what a strawman is, a misinterpretation of the meaning of words is an equivocation fallacy , not a strawman. Phyletic Gradualism isn’t an accepted model of evolutionary change, it would be like me arguing against creationism by arguing against the canopy model. It has nothing to do with motive or semantics, it is simply the wrong position one is advocating for.
He asserts without evidence that biologists haven’t seen evidence about the fossil record. Despite the fact that I did present evidence from the fossil record. The sorting and the transitions that show up in the fossils are powerful observable evidence of evolution. Biologists conclude evolution from this. They don’t just guess or go at it without confidence.
The argument has nothing to do with mutations being beneficial. Nor has anyone claimed ERVs are beneficial. He asserts that the ERVs pick out hot spots, but he fails to give a source or explain why the ERVs are inserted precisely where evolution predicts. Why is it that we share more ERVs with chimps which is what’s predicted by evolution and less with new world monkeys? Are the ERVs involved in a conspiracy with the nested hierarchy? ERVs are still better explained by evolution.
He then talks about quantum entanglement and various dimensions of space for some reason and goes onto attack abiogensis again.
Pro again fails to address my refutation of his argument and has dropped his rebuttal against the fossil record. His argument against ERVs is flawed and unsourced. He again throws red herrings into the debate by speaking of quantum entanglement, string theory, ect.
Back to Pro.
Saying that Intelligent Design and Creationism are not the same thing is a stretch. Both say we were created.
I drop no arguments. Once I make my point, I move on to my next point. No one wants to see me repost over and over about something that I've already addressed. Redundance is the enemy of keeping the attention of another person. Con trys to say somewhere in each post that he thinks I did not rebutal his argument to his satisfaction. It's not about his satisfaction but the reader's. He never put a rebutal about higher dimensions or Quantum entanglement. Those are the breaks. That's how it is. I accept it and go on.
Life = Life vs. Nonlife = life.
A former coach of mine said to trust your first instinct for it is usually right. This has proven profitable advice. Now look above at the two options. Life = Life is my intuitive first choice because nonlife giving us life seems logically impossible. So now we are left with Life = Life. But where did the first life come from? We would need an explanation that makes this possible. We need a first life that can either manipulate or move through time or is the creator of time. This has becme an equation that needs variables plugged in. In higher dimensions one can move forward and backwards in time or even "pause" time. Think of it as you watching your favorite movie. You know what happens next with every turn. Why? You are beyond the forward time of the movie. You have seen the movie hundreds of times. You can rewind if you miss anything. You can pause the movie. You can take in every detail, and you stand beyond their time. But there is a difference still. We live in the 3rd dimension which is ruled by time. God would be looking at us in similar fashion as us watching the movie. The difference is He lives in a higher dimension and is beyond our time and beyond time in his own dimension.
Think of Him as a genius computer programmer. Humans have already created virtual reality. How much better could an eternal genius do? Answer: much, much better. The how of creation is hard to fathom at first thought, but in reality, it is not so bad.
Where did the first life come from? It's a logical question in the 3rd dimension, but if God is an omnipotent, eternal being, logic says that He Does not reside in the 3rd dimension, but in a higher dimension, or above all dimensions or even all theoretical dimension and exists somewhere that is beyond our governed ability to comprehend.
-10 Dimensions. What's it like in other dimensions?
-What is real? (1 minute video)
-But how could Jesus do those miracles? It's impossible right? Answer: it was His matrix. Here is a 2:00 minute video that gives a great example of how Jesus could do such things as turn water to wine, resurrect the dead, walk on water, or even ascend to Heaven.
-Jesus ascends into Heaven in this video. (Remember that it is God's creation and His matrix under His control)
(2 minute video)
God's Matrix is our reality. He created it somehow. It might be way deeper than even this. The matrix.
But why would we think these things are true or even possible? First off life cannot come from nonlife. There is a better answer, so it is responsible to acquire as to what that answer is.
-How our brain uses "coding" to "interpret" information. (2 minutes)
-The DNA "Code"
-Cracking the code of life.
-Quantum: you can pass through walls. You are composed of atoms which can pass through matter.
-Symphonic version of quantoms. We are made up of microscopic energy particles.
-Albert Einstein: The behavior of atoms(which we are made of) is "spooky".
-Scientists confirm that reality is an illusion.
-How do we explain deja vu?
We are waves. Michio Kaku: What is deja Vu?
-Double slit experiment with atoms
-Christ vs. Satan. How could that work in reality?
He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
Jesus says with perfect faith we could tell a mountain to change place. How is this possible? This video shows how.
"You wanted to find out what made us human. Well you aren't going to fund it in here. [He points at his brain.] You were looking in the wrong spot."
-(John uses quantum abilities.)
I finish with my final statement of the debate. The brain is an interpretory mechanism. We are composed of particles(atoms) that can go through matter and possess spooky abilities. Everyone I know claims to have known that a future event was going to hapoen, even Atheists. They also all claim to have experienced deja vu. In a matrix-like reality, Christ's miracles are accomplished with ease. Have I proven God exists? The reader can decide. Have I proven Creationism is a "rational belief"? Yes.
I'd like to thank Con for a great debate.
As I’ve defined before, creationism is more than just being created by intelligence.
Pro states he’s dropped no arguments, but moved on from them. This isn’t how a debate works, you need to address my responses to the arguments or else you’ve just conceded the argument is flawed. Also, isn’t dropping the argument and moving on from it the same thing? The point is, you’ve ignored my defenses and rebuttals. No one is asking you to make the same point over and over, just address and defend arguments. It’s true I didn’t make any rebuttal against quantum entanglement or string theory, because those topics have no bearing on the debate at hand. He has yet to show why or how creationism is demonstrated by quantum engagement or S.T.
Pro states that it is intuitive that life came from life. He again ignored my arguments against this intuition. He ignored my argument that God doesn’t satisfy this condition. God's not biological, so biological life still had to come from nonliving material. Your first instinct is almost always wrong. Pro talks about quantum entanglement quite a bit, but Q.E. is highly unintuitive. Two separate particles being invisibility connected faster than light isn’t intuitive at all. The whole bit about the matrix is itself also unintuitive and unparsimonious. Pro is being inconsistent.
Pro speculates about what reality is like and what God is like. This again doesn’t prove creationism and even if it did it’s merely speculative. Pro then posts 16 youtube videos, which are completely irrelevant.
My fossil record and ERV argument have remained dropped.
This is suppose to be a debate about creationism, yet Pro doesn’t spend much time talking about it. All of my arguments were dropped and Pro dropped a majority of his own arguments.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|