The Instigator
JasperFrancisShickadance
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution VS. Literal Creationism (PART ll)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
JasperFrancisShickadance
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 743 times Debate No: 62281
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Pro = Creationism
Con = Evolution

This is a debate based off of CoolDudeBro's first argument in Part l (which isn't labelled as part one, by the way). If Con accepts, as I certainly hope he does, he can just copy and paste from the previous debate and use it in this one. After such action the debate will be original and formal. The layout will be as follows: arguments, then rebuttals, then conclusion. I think we all know the definitions so I will not repeat them. Even though "part 1" was a while back, I think we should still do as I promised. So LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Cooldudebro

Con

yoyooyyoyoyo
Debate Round No. 1
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Here is the link to our first attempt to a debate like this: http://www.debate.org...
See this site for good information on all the types of evolutionists/creationists: http://www.talkorigins.org...

The main reason I believe in Creation is because I believe that the Bible is God's Word and I don't see how you can be a Christian without believing that His only way to communicate with us isn't true. Because of this belief of mine, I tend to ask, why would God create us to watch apes just evolve into human kind? The Bible clearly says God created us 'of our own kind.' Further more it says we are made in His image, unique in His eyes and with the power to love, hate, make choices (free will), and advance in technology (inventions, machines, electricity, etc.).

My second argument will be "Evolution Disproved." One of the main reasons I believe in Creationism is because of the many flaws and conspiracy involved in evolution.

Evolutionists are constantly changing what they believe in because of evidence that constantly disproves their theory. For example: the hyenas. Evolutionists have puzzled over where to put hyenas on the supposed evolutionary "tree", at various times linking them to the cats (Felidae), dogs (Canidae), or civets (Viverridae). four hyena species are therefore grouped in their own family, the Hyaenidae"the smallest family in the order Carnivora, and one of the smallest in the class Mammalia. I know about this from study. Hyenas are similar to the felines and viverrids in their grooming, scent marking, and other behavioural aspects. However, like canines, hyenas are non-arboreal, cursorial (endurance-running) hunters with non-retractable nails (ideal for making sharp turns) and they catch prey with their teeth rather than their claws. The hyena"s similarities with cats, dogs and civets reflect not common ancestry but instead a common designer"One who might be said to have specifically designed the stark differences between non-related creatures in order to deliberately thwart attempts at naturalistic explanation (Romans 1:20). In the famous book 'Evolution the Grand Design," the author says that:

-The land animal would have to develop a dorsal fin.
-Its bony tail would have to change into a cartilaginous fluke.
-The land animal"s teeth would have to develop into a huge baleen filter.
-The hair would have to nearly disappear and be replaced by blubber for insulation through chance mutations in the DNA.
-The nostrils would have to move from the tip of the land animal"s nose to the top of the whale"s head, disconnect from the mouth passage, and form a strong muscular flap to close the blowhole.
-The land animal"s front legs would have to change into pectoral fins.
-Its body would have to increase in size from 70 kg (160 lb) to 160,000 kg (360,000 lb).
-The land animal"s external ears would have to disappear and then develop to compensate for high-pressure diving to 500 m (1,600 ft).

I am a Christian. That means I believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins, suffering in our place on this earth. I know you are a Christian, CDB, so I am going to challenge you for why your belief in God and why you do not take the Bible literally. For me over all, the Theory of Evolution does not satisfy my faith in God. If I believed in evolution I would be putting my faith in things that don't make sense--or even matter--such as 'the earth is millions of years old,' and then I would be believing that God didn't specifically create humans as special in His eyes.

A question for you that comes up is this: how and why would we have advanced in physical features over millions of years, and once we became humans we advanced in emotional features, and once we were fully human (we'd all agree that's about 2,000 years ago) we started advancing in technology instead? Answer me that. If God made us in His image (as His Word, the Bible, says), why would he make us to evolve from animals? Do you believe that He created the world as a habitat for us and that is His main purpose for the earth? More importantly, do you believe He created us because He needed company? I believe that. Because the Bible is the only source of communication from Him to us, I think I should rely on that fully in order to be a real Christian. Even though most of what God's Word says is difficult to understand and/or emotionally hard to take in, I still think it is true and believe that is where I should put my faith in as well as God Himself. But that's where Creationism comes in. It is something that satisfies my belief in God because it proves that what is said in it is true. We can study the Bible through archaeological, historical, functional, and sometimes observable scientific discoveries in this world.

Creationism science is everywhere, from examples such as DNA to the amazing universe that we humans have not even explored the end of it yet. I am going to give some examples of how science proves the Bible. Starting with bones. There have been great number of fresh, non-fossilized bones discovered over this year. We've found dinosaur DNA, proteins, blood cells, and more that prove the young earth and utterly disprove what evolutionists say about the old-earth and about dinosaurs.

Next up is Flood Geology. What formed the Grand Canyon? As we look at this you must remember that the facts used are the same, for evolutionists and creationists, but look at through the two different interpretations. Evolutionists say that a little bit of water formed it over a long period of time. Creationists say that a lot of water formed it over a much shorter period of time, particularly from the water of the Flood. There is even a canyon that's 1500 ft long, 120 ft deep, and it recently formed in just 6 days in Washington! [http://answersingenesis.org...] One of the bet evidences that support the Flood are fossils found globally, and the beset explanation for this phenomenon is a world wide flood. Don't even mention neocatastrophism; it is just another adaptation where evolutionists realized the vast amount of evidence proving rapid erosion so they decided to make a new hypothesis.
[https://www.youtube.com...]

That's all I have for now! Thank you for debating me, CDB, and next round you can just copy and paste all the arguments you had from "Part One" (I gave the link at top). Next round will be the rebuttals.
Cooldudebro

Con

Here is the link with my previous arguments. (1) Since the BoP was not established, it is shared.

Rebuttal 1:

This is just for your link. Your link is incredibly bias, as all the links in it are specifically for creationism. I won't post links specifically for evolution. Based on this, we won't know if your link's info is true. Therefore, it renders your link useless because of the bias. Please don't use links like creation today or answering genesis.

Rebuttal 2:

Don't take this as an insult, but I love Pro's ignorant logic behind this argument. She states that you must believe in the Bible to be a Christian. This is not true, as I am a living example of that. I do not believe in the Bible, yet, I'm still Christian. I also don't see how this would help your case, as many people agree with me.

Rebuttal 3:

I love how this argument has nothing to do with what I believe in, as I am a micro evolutionist. However, I will do my best to refute it.

You're problem is in the scientific classification of animals. However, I have found you the evolution of the Hyena (2).

You made so many flaws in this debate.

First off, the book you stated, we don't even know exists, because you neglect to put a link to it. Also, even if there is a book, you neglect to put any evidence to back up the authors claims.

Rebuttal 4:

My opponent then issues a challenge to me that doesn't even involve the current debate, which is poor conduct. However, I will entertain the challenge. I can believe in a higher power, however, I have seen the Bible to be faulty in many points. If you want, I will go into the flaws it has.

Rebuttal 5:

An easy answer to an easy questions. We evolve because of a series of mutations in the DNA. The reason why we became smarter is because, as we evolved, our brain capability for many things changed. We are still evolving today! (3) Then you ask me a Bible question. I don't believe God created us in his own image. No, he didn't. The rest is rhetoric so I don't need to refute it anymore.

Rebuttal 6:

I love your lack of sources! No sources whatsoever!

Rebuttal 7:

This has nothing to do with this debate, so, I'm not going to waste time refuting it.


My arguments still stands. It has not been touched by Pro.

Overall, Pro has nothing backing up any of her statements. If you look on the previous debate, I have sources backing up mine. Therefore you must vote Con!






1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://www.wearesites.com...
3. http://content.time.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Yolo, Con. I suppose that since you did not copy and paste your previous arguments I shall just rebut what you gave in the link. So here we go.

You said: "First, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity!"

A new report of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of 98% similarity of DNA between ape and human is wrong and misleading. [1] Did you know that we humans share 50% "common" DNA with bananas?
1. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
2. At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7
3. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are "virtually identical", chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being "remodeled."5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of "being remodeled" as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.
4. The Y chromosome in particular is of a different size and has many markers that do not line up between the human and chimpanzee.1
5. Scientists have prepared a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map of chromosome 21 in particular. They observed "large, non-random regions of difference between the two genomes." They found a number of regions that "might correspond to insertions that are specific to the human lineage."3
These types of differences are not generally included in calculations of percent DNA similarity.
In one of the most extensive studies comparing human and chimp DNA,3 the researchers compared >19.8 million bases. While this sounds like a lot, it still represents slightly less than 1% of the genome. They calculated a mean identity of 98.77% or 1.23% differences. However, this, like other studies only considered substitutions and did not take insertions or deletions into account as the new study by Britten did. A nucleotide substitution is a mutation where one base (A, G, C, or T) is replaced with another. An insertion or deletion (indel) is found where there are nucleotides missing when two sequences are compared.

You also said: "Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human." You then gave pictures.

Then why do we have emotions and feelings and concepts and language, while apes don't? This can be explained through the Bible in fact, because there's a reason it wasn't apes who built the Tower of Babel [2] and suddenly began speaking many languages!

"Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong." You then gave pictures.

A bigger skull has NOTHING to do with the power to communicate.

"The science of forensics disproves Adam and Eve 100 times over. If we are from Adam and Eve, We would practically be cousins with everyone in the world! No. This is scientifically impossible. Instead, forensics states that we are not all related. Adam and Eve also don't explain race. If we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, we would all be one race. Adam and Eve states they have two sons, Kain and Abel, but, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GIRLS?!???!?"

So you say we are related to apes but then you say we are not related to fellow humans? Where's the source for 'it's scientifically impossible.' [3] Oh and yeah we're assuming that Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel, and even though it's odd, Abel probably had sex with his sister.

Last rebuttal of what you said: "It is also said Adam and eve knew how to speak, but even cavemen had no idea of the simplest languages! Wouldn't Adam and Eve have taught their children to speak their language? They also say that Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, yet, man has never found a tree that give knowledge of everything in the universe! The tree had a fruit, which means it probably had seeds, which would have made other trees similar to it, giving infinite knowledge of everything. They also say that the snake spoke at one time, yet, the snake has no vocal cords! (5) There is also evidence that the Earth is older than 4,000 years. Human footprints believed to be 40,000 years old have actually been older! It is 51,000 years old. (3) Even a tree shows the Earth is older than 4,000 years! (4) That is all Adam and Eve should be taken as. A story."

About cavemen: http://answersingenesis.org... I don't know what to say about the tree thing cause you are acting like a troll! The snake was the devil and does Satan have vocal chords?? There is evidence that if the earth was older than 50,000 years old it wouldn't be like it is right now. There are fossils/bone and the galaxies that disprove evolution! [4]

In response to your rebuttal last round. There is no foundation to being a Christian if you don't believe in the Bible. Give me one reason you believe in the Christian God if you don't believe any of the Bible is true! [5] If you honestly don't believe that the book I quoted from is real and/or you've never heard of it, I'll provide the link: http://en.wikipedia.org...(book) BTW bias sources are OK as long as the content is fact and logically sound. If you say I have flaws in a debate, that will lose you conduct points plus you never said where the flaws were! Thank you and good bye.

[1] http://www.davidicke.com...
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[3] https://www.youtube.com...
[4] http://rationalwiki.org...
[5] http://www.google.com...
Cooldudebro

Con

Rebuttal 1:

I love your tenacity. Using a forum post you don't even have the original article for and using it as evidence is a ballsy move. Luckily, I look at my opponent's links. Your link is from a forum post on a BIAS website. The author even neglects to link us to the article he got this information from. This was posted in 2011. I will now show you an article from a credible source made in two thousand twelve that backs up my claims. It states that we are ninety nine percent similar to the ape. (1) Please read the whole article. It says in in multiple paragraphs.

Rebuttal 2:

We have emotions and feelings because our brain evolved in some ways. Apes have feelings. They even mourn for their dead (2). The Tower Of Babel didn't bring host to different languages, races, ETC. I would like to challenge you to a spin off debate which you may accept here (3).

Rebuttal 3:

*face palm* Not the skull, the brain!

Rebuttal 4:

Is this a joke? A stupid you tube video with no scientific backing? Wow, the world has reached a new low.

Rebuttal 5:

Another bias source! Please, stop with all of these! If Satan was a serpent, how could he talk? He was in a serpent's body, and they have no vocal cords.

Rebuttal 6:

I feel I don't have to even try to refute the first few parts of your arguments, as this debate has nothing to do with my status of being a Christian. You do realize the book you gave was from Stephen Hawkings, a devout Atheist right?

Bias sources normally put out bias information. For instance, would you trust an article that says smoking increases your life span if it was published by a tobacco company? I wouldn't. It's the same thing. Tell you what. Bring me links that aren't from anything like answering genesis or any other Bible site, and maybe it will be a credible source. But, come on man! Answering genesis? All of your sources are from a creationist origin. The last comment came off quite rude. Good luck!








1. http://news.sciencemag.org...
2. http://www.livescience.com...
3. http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
JasperFrancisShickadance

Pro

Thank you for your arguments in Round 3.

If Con is taking this debate seriously, I wish he would try harder because his arguments have been extremely weak. My guess is that he's too cocky to try hard. In fact, in a private message my opponent said that his links have proved everything and his "arguments" still stand. He said I have yet to refute anything. I tried to explain that sources do not count as arguments, that that is plagiarizing (you have to write your own arguments to prove your own point), and that he hasn't proved anything for evolution in any of his arguments. Though, I do concede how he pointed out that some of my sources were not the most reliable, even though some of those facts I needed sources for were obvious or common sense. So during this last round I will back up some of my previous sources with better ones. But remember, about "bias" sources, does my opponent have to use a creationist's website to deliver evidence for evolution? I want Con to answer this: what harm did my so-called bias sources do? I would also like to point out how the Internet is not the most reliable for any source, either. Yet another funny thing is that my opponent only used three sources for what he called his arguments, whereas I went to the work to find YouTube videos and other websites that explain the facts I was trying to convey!

It's also kind of hilarious that he tried to shun me for getting a fact from a website in 2011, then wrote how he would show a, quote, "credible source made in two thousand twelve..." Con actually wrote the number out in words, sneaky sneaky!

Last note about sources...here's what my opponent said: "Bias sources normally put out bias information. For instance, would you trust an article that says smoking increases your life span if it was published by a tobacco company? I wouldn't. It's the same thing. Tell you what. Bring me links that aren't from anything like answering genesis or any other Bible site, and maybe it will be a credible source. But, come on man! Answering genesis? All of your sources are from a creationist origin."
If Con can find me creation evidence in an evolution (or vice versa) website then I'll concede. Or even better, if he gives me a content from one of the links and refutes it straight out, then he has proved his point.

Enough about links. Here are my rebuttals:

"We have emotions and feelings because our brain evolved in some ways. Apes have feelings. They even mourn for their dead. The Tower Of Babel didn't bring host to different languages, races, ETC." First off, can apes talk? Second, why did some apes stayed the way they are now and other "apes" evolved into "humans"? Third, even if it's a "good" source saying that apes mourn for the fellow dead, the site literally says "Chimpanzees MAY gather in hushed quiet to watch a fellow ape in her dying moments, and chimp mothers in the wild MAY carry their infants' mummified remains for weeks, ACCORDING to new research on how humanity's closest living relatives deal with the deaths of those closest to them." That does NOTHING to prove evolution. Fourth. I agree that the Tower of Babel did not host to different races. It's a long story and I think my opponent should perhaps READ IT before going on saying it's not true.

Side question towards Con: where did languages come from if evolution is as you said? By the way, tell me if this site has anything proved false about the Tower of Babel. http://creation.com...

Con: "Is this a joke? A stupid you tube video with no scientific backing? Wow, the world has reached a new low." Yes, it is a joke. I thought my opponent would find it funny considering it's a Christian song that a lot of Christian little kids learn in their childhood...

Con: "If Satan was a serpent, how could he talk? He was in a serpent's body, and they have no vocal cords." If my opponent believes God is a Trinity (3-in-1)? Because I know he believes in God. Think of it this way. God is omnipotent. My belief says He created the Serpent. What image comes to mind when you hear "Satan"? Is it a monstrous evil person with fierce red eyes holding a pitchfork? Because he has the power to tempt us all in lots of ways, I believe he can form into many different bodies--including ones of animals like a snake.

Con: "I feel I don't have to even try to refute the first few parts of your arguments, as this debate has nothing to do with my status of being a Christian. You do realize the book you gave was from Stephen Hawkings, a devout Atheist right?" If my opponent even read my arguments he would have known how I debunked what S. H. said because I was hoping the Christianity vs. Atheism topic would come up eventually. I'm wondering why he doesn't want to explain his belief in God AND in Evolution, because this debate is about what HE thinks vs. what I think.

I'm sorry if I got uptight in this debate! I look forward to the "rematch" because I want to further debate and do it, this time, without as bad of conduct. I apologize but I think I warned everyone, on my profile, that I'm a nice person but when it comes to debating I can get fierce! Thank you, CDB, and debate you later.

My conclusion is that evolution is 1) unfitting for a Christian standard, 2) has too many flaws to make it credible, and 3) is a lie that doesn't make sense. Again, I believe in Creationism because it is more stable than the theory of fabrication that scientists are often modifying to make it sound unrefuted, and because it better fits my belief in God. http://www.newgeology.us...
Cooldudebro

Con

NOTE: IF YOU ARE SKIMMING THROUGH THIS, IT IS VITAL TO READ MY ARGUMENTS FROM LAST DEBATE, AS THESE ARGUMENTS ARE BEING USED IN THIS DEBATE! http://www.debate.org...




Rebuttal 1:

I found this rebuttal quite rude, if you could call it that. Give it up with the biased sources. I challenged you to find something debunking evolution that is not from a creationist website. You failed to do so. Thus, we automatically assume that you couldn't find anything. If you can't find sources from credible scientific researchers (such as the ones I provided. Ex. Time, NatGeo, ETC) and your information can be only be found on creationist websites raises a huge red flag. I don't get my info from evolution.org. Why can't you get yours from credible scientific researchers. Con then adds a remark stating you don't see creation websites posting evidence for evolution. This was a stupid statement none the less. Let me put it to you this way. If evidence goes against everything my religion believes in, and I can't find any evidence to back it up, I'm going to make fake evidence. That is exactly what these websites are doing. THEY ARE FEEDING YOU PROPAGANDA! I am starting to wonder if this debate is a joke to Pro.

Answer to her question: The evidence they put out is in-correct. You did not fulfill my challenge to you to find a website not affiliated with religion to back up your claims. You didn't put any. This makes me automatically assume you couldn't find any.

No! Yours was posted in 2011 and on a forum post with no link to back him up. Mine was published in 2012 with links to back it up on a credible website. Who wins?

Pro's mistake:

If I give evidence that shows evolution in creation or vice versa, I automatically win the debate! Quote by Pro:

"If Con can find me creation evidence in an evolution (or vice versa) website then I'll concede. Or even better, if he gives me a content from one of the links and refutes it straight out, then he has proved his point."

Fine. Challenge accepted. Mike Duran, a leader of a Christian website admitted that theistic evolution should be accepted. (1) Quote from the article:

"Secondly, biological evolution is not clearly ruled out in Scripture. Of course, many Christians would dispute this. The Bible’s aim, however, is to show us the origin of the Universe and the Beings who inhabit it, not provide a detailed description of the organic processes God may have used along the way. Man is created in the image of God. This is central to the Genesis creation account and distinct to historic Christianity. As long as a theistic evolutionist affirms that biblical doctrine (i.e., that Man is much more than an advanced animal; he is Divinely imprinted), how that Man was “assembled” should be peripheral." End quote.

So, I have won the debate. However, I know Pro isn't satisfied. I shall provide her with more evidence with evolution later, after I refute all of her points.

Rebuttal 2:

This was aimed at your statement animals can't have feeling. The exact quote is:

"Then why do we have emotions and feelings and concepts and language, while apes don't?"

End quote.

The most popular theory is that race was because of the Tower of Babel. (2)

Side Question:

Language came from basic association. They looked at something, and called it something. Easy as that. I skimmed through it. This is something you can bring up on our spin off debate.

Rebuttal 3:

LOL

Rebuttal 4:

Just because you believe something doesn't make it true.

Rebuttal 5:

Look at the topic......

Rebuttal 6:

I look forward to an immediate rematch. You were rude, crude, and very uptight. No matter what, I would never get that rude in a debate. Thank you too.

Rebuttal 7:

I will prove this wrong.


Challenge:

My opponent is obviously not satisfied with the evidence I have brought forth on evolution's behalf, so I will add more.

I just want Pro to read these links, so I'll just post them and leave it up to Pro to read.



http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com...

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Made by a fellow theistic evolutionist http://biologos.org...

http://whyfiles.org...


Note this is all up to you to read. I ask the voters don't read the links. If you feel totally comfortable in your religion, or are not interested in changing, I suggest you don't read these. She is right. I have been holding back. I could've brought up fossil records, the full history of the whale evolution, ETC. Good luck.


Conclusion:

I have proved:

Pro used little if not any to back up her arguments.

Al the sources she did use were from biased links, that put out biased information. For instance, Answers In Genesis, (A link commonly used by Pro), put out false information. http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

Many challenges I gave to Pro were dropped.

Many arguments were dropped by Pro.

Pro attacked my character.

I fufilled the challenge Pro sent me, and by her words, I win the debate because I fufilled it.

Good luck! Vote fairly!



1. http://mikeduran.com...
2. http://creationtoday.org...
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
@9spaceking Did you follow the link to see my old arguments to be carried over to the debate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
JasperFrancisShickadanceCooldudebroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con stated that burden of Proof is shared, but did not fulfill his own burden. He called names and commented condescendingly to his opponent. I was disappointed with the lack of real clash in this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
JasperFrancisShickadanceCooldudebroTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The BOP was shared. Con chose mostly to rebut pro rather than making his own arguments, thus he failed to uphold his part of the BoP in this debate.