The Instigator
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
aubrey20042
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Evolution and the Scientific Method ----> Creationsim

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 7 votes the winner is...
aubrey20042
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,987 times Debate No: 20180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

ConservativePolitico

Pro

I will be taking the position that evolution cannot be verified byt he scientific method and therefore cannot be claimed as true.

If I can prove that evolution is speculative I can then make the point that creationism, which is also speculative, should be given equal attention as evolution.

First round acceptance only.

The Burden of Proof is on me.
aubrey20042

Con

I accept, but first I would like to state that there is no single definitive scientific method, merely patterns in scientific inquiry that are generally accepted in most situations by scientists. In any case, I have a feeling I know where you are going with this.

In any case, I propose that we use the following as the basis for this debate:

1. Ask question/Background research
2. Construct a hypothesis
3. Experimentation (including but not limited to field experiments, labaratory/manipulated experiments, and natural experiments, all of which are accepted by the scientific community)
4. Analyze results and draw a conclusion concerning said hypothesis.

Debate Round No. 1
ConservativePolitico

Pro

The key piece missing from evolution and the scientific method is experimentation.

* experimentation - a test, trial, or tentative procedure [1]

In short there is no way to test for evolution in a labratory or in the field that yields positive results in favor of evolution. In fact without experimentation the scientific method reads as thus:

1. Ask a question/establish background knowledge
2. Construct a hypothesis
3. Analyze results
4. Draw a conclusion

As you can see this method does not make sense now that experimentation has been removed from the equation but this is the structure used when discussing evolution.

Observation alone cannot explain a theory alone and data collected when using the scientific method has to be done so in a "reproducable manner" [2] which data from evolution cannot be since it cannot be reproduced in a controlled experiment. Using just observations it becomes a speculative science. If you cannot reproduce the results in a lab or set up a situation in which the theory can take place then it is speculative science.

You cannot experiment on evolution. Arguments stemming from observations of nature and fossil records can be used to support evolution.
You cannot experiment with creationism. Arguments stemming from observations of nature and fossil records can be used to support creationism.
The two must be treated as equals in the scientific community.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
aubrey20042

Con

Ah, I did know where my opponent was going with this.

I refute my opponent's claim that evolution cannot be subject to experimentation on the basis that there exists a process known as natural experimentation in the scientific community. Natural experimentation is utilized "whenever controlled experimentation is difficult." [1]

Allow me to provide an example that is a bit less controversial than evolution. Modern day astronomers and astrophysicists observe that stars (including our sun) burn or give off a certain color of light. It is currently not feasible in terms of time or technology to send a scientist to a star to take samples of the burning gas it gives off. However, scientists are able to draw conclusions concerning the chemical makeup of the star because of the color of light it gives off.

Experiments have been done in the lab to show that certain chemicals give off certain spectra of light when burned. By using this knowledge, scientists are able to determine the chemical composition of stars. [2]

The same can be applied to evolution. Because it is generally not feasible in terms of the human lifespan to test evolution in a laboratory, scientists must make observations, and then make conclusions based on those observations against a background of laboratory experimentation.

The theory of evolution rests on two major concepts, these being random mutation and natural selection. Both of these processes have been observed in the laboratory. Random mutation and natural selection have both been observed in a laboratory population of e.coli bacteria, where, after thousands of generations, a random mutation allowed one specimen of e.coli (and subsequently an entire population) to metabolise citrate, something that the bacteria normally cannot utilize. In another trial to test if the results were able to be repeated, they allowed the bacteria to reproduce for a similar number of generations, and then subjected them to a citrate-only diet. Only the bacteria that had evolved to eat citrate survived, an example of natural selection. The new population then consisted of bacteria that only fed on citrate. [3]

In addition to these instances, speciation (the arisal of a new species) has been observed in the laboratory, mostly in plant species, as a result of both natural and artificial selection (almost the same as natural selection, but instead of things like climate, geography, etc. deciding which traits are desirable, human beings decide which traits are desirable). A long list of these experiments can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org...

As you can see, if one considers natural experimentation (which is accepted and widely used in the scientific community, primarily in the fields of medicine, astronomy, geology, meterology, and paleontology) then evolution is easily verifiable by the scientific method. My opponent erroneously assumes that observations of nature do not count as experimentation, when in reality they do in these circumstances. These natural experiments are repeated over and over on a huge scale.

One test of the validity of a scientific theory is how falsifiable it is. Evolution is a theory that encompasses all of life. As such, there is a tremendous number of ways in which it could theoretically be falsified, but it never satisfactorily has been.

In contrast, creationism, by nature, cannot be falsified. It does not matter what evidence is unearthed in denial of creationism, because the traditional creationist argument is so broad, ambiguous, and reliant on faith, any and all evidence that is counterintuitive to it is able to be refuted. Because of this, creationism is not a valid scientific theory. It is not based in science, it is based in faith.

Science is always changing. The theory of evolution has been tweaked and modified over the years (though one should not take this to mean that the theory of evolution is faulty or wrong, the gravitational theory was thought to only apply to objects on earth until Kepler and others discovered that gravity is also responsible for the movement and position of the planets. This did not make the original theory any less true, it merely modified it).

Creationism is unchanging. It is based in religious texts (if we are assuming the traditional Christian concept of creation, if not correct me) that are by nature considered to be static. As such, creationism should not be considered science, and should not be taught in a science class. That is not to say it should not be taught at all (my Honors English courses dicussed several creation myths, including the Judeo-Christian one), but it should not be presented as a substitute or alternative to a scientific theory that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. The United States National Academy of Sciences as well as the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both passed resolutions to the effect that, "the the theory of creation ... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories." [4]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.newscientist.com...
[4]
A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science, The Humanist, January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.



Debate Round No. 2
ConservativePolitico

Pro

"natural experimentation"

Natural experimentation may be accepted by the scientific community however it is in no way an accurate form of experimentation.

"Also, because natural experiments usually take place in uncontrolled environments, variables from undetected sources are neither measured nor held constant, and these may produce illusory correlations in variables under study." [1]

Since all variables are not tested natural experimentation accuracy is lost and results cannot be defined as concrete once again leaving us with a lack of empirical evidence that is usually necessary to forming a scientific theory and can lead to "illusory correlations" of evidence. As a result, in terms of evolution, natural experimentation cannot be used as an accurate source of information.

"Both of these processes have been observed in the laboratory"

While both natural selection and random mutation have been observed in a laboratory, they have not been observed in nature to the degree that you are trying to argue. "The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations," this quote from your own source [2] states that the bacteria were present in the laboratory for more than 44,000 generations a figure that cannot applicably be applied to nature. These bacteria were being taken care of in a laboratory and therefore these results cannot be accurately switched over to nature. "now working to identify just what that earlier change was" [2] As you can see they still have not found what caused this mutation to form and until this evidence is found it can be assumed that the mutation was the result of laboratory manipulation. Lab life, even for bacterium, is no the same as real life.

Also these results do not form a new species of bacteria, they are the same bacteria who now only eat citrate. They did not evolve to occupy a higher plane of existence nor did they evolve into a more complex being, a trait that evolution has still failed to pin down the evolution between tropic levels and the evolution between to diverse species has still not been seen in any lab nor in nature. In fact fossil evidence that bridges the two groups has never been found either.

Take for example a fishes evolution into a mammal, a likely evolutionary process according to many evolutionists. "Eventually some fish transformed their fins into legs and in time they also developed lungs - legs for moving and lungs for breathing." [3] In order for this to take place a mutation that turns "fins into legs" must take place. In order for a population of fish to mutate into land living mammals there must be some in between because, as you yourself stated, evolution is not a quick process. Therefore in order to completely mutate (for the bacteria it took 44,000 generations) they must have had a transition stage where there would be evidence of creatures halfway between the fish stage and the mammal stage, say a fish with fins and legs, or a mammal with gills and an elongated fish body. But no transitional fossil record of such a transformation has ever been found... ever. And in a way to combat my opponents next argument in response to this statement just because two species are similar (because I'm sure the "evolution" of humans will be next on the agenda to combat this point) does not mean that they are a transitional species. If ancient "human" ancestors such as Cro-Magnum people evolved into humans there would be sites where a population of people is uncovered where both Cro-Magnum and homo-sapien samples are found living together because they would be in the transition, however such a sight has never been found and many of these "pre-humans" are found far from homo-sapien settlements or often completely isolated. In fact these "missing links" are the largest hole in the evolutionary theory. In fact the most convincing transitional fossil record was determined to be a fake and was that of the Archaeopteryx a supposed mix of dinosaur and bird. [4]

Thus evolution once again dodges hard empirical evidence yet manages to retain its status as a scientific theory.

"speciation (the arisal of a new species) has been observed in the laboratory, mostly in plant species, as a result of both natural and artificial selection"


Plants are much more susceptible to crossbreeding than animals are due to the nature of their reproductive cycle. What you have described there is mere crossbreeding and was even artificially manipulated by people through "artificial selection" which cannot go on to explain evolution because this once again leads to lack of natural empirical evidence. If two similar species of dogs mate and have a mixed breed as offspring this is not evolution it is crossbreeding. Crossbreeding and evolution are not the same. Plants lend themselves to cross breeding and cannot transfer over to animal's since say a fish cannot breed with another fish to create a mammal, nor can a fish breed with a mammal to create a hybrid. This evidence simply doesn't transfer.
"Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid" [5]

This quote taken straight from your source clearly shows that the plants were crossbred and does not support the theory of evolution.

"In contrast, creationism, by nature, cannot be falsified. It does not matter what evidence is unearthed in denial of creationism, because the traditional creationist argument is so broad, ambiguous, and reliant on faith, any and all evidence that is counter intuitive to it is able to be refuted."

The bolded statement is obviously false since you are in an attempt right now to discredit if not falsify my points about creationism. In fact wouldn't a full and complete evolutionary theory with hard empirical evidence dating from the beginning of time to the present successfully falsify creationism?

Also creationism is based in science as much as evolution is, I will make two points on the matter.

Entropy

The law of entropy states that matter and energy like to travel downwards not upwards, [7] we can see this in death and decay everyday. Stars go out. Systems of atoms will usually fall to their most base state over time through chemical and atomic reactions. Based on the second law of thermodynamics and Newton's laws one will see that in nature systems tend to go from order to chaos. Going from the chaos of the primordial cess pool to the order we see in creatures today is impossible based on these laws. Since it is impossible for a system to gain order over time one can assume that the life we see here today was put here by some sort of creator.

The Cambrian Explosion


The extremely rapid, seemingly instantaneous appearance of extremely diverse forms of life on Earth that took place 545 million years ago including the appearance of most major animal groups and fauna seemingly from nowhere. [6] Such rapid expansion of life lends itself to creationism since evolution could not have occurred so quickly nor so randomly as it did during this period. From this we can deduce that life was put here, as the laws of entropy says must be true. The fact that life could appear so rapidly in such numbers and diversity is contrary to the theory of evolution lending itself once again to the existence of some sort of creator.

Also, creationism does not have to be based in faith. I have merely pointed out the probability of a creator who can be nameless and formless but creationism is still the same (based on some creator).


[1] http://www.answers.com...
[2] http://www.newscientist.com......
[3] http://www.earthlife.net...
[4] http://evolutionwiki.org...
[5] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[6] http://www.fossilmuseum.net...
[7] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
aubrey20042

Con

"Natural experimentation may be accepted by the scientific community however it is in no way an accurate form of experimentation. "

Though I concede that individual, isolated natural experiments are subject to uncontrolled conditions, and so accuracy is lost, as you stated, I refute my opponent's claim that it "cannot be used as an accurate source of information" in relation to evolution. Natural experiments carried out in the field of evolutionary biology are done on a grand scale, under an innumerable number of conditions, in numerous subsets of the field, over long periods of time. Even with the inherent loss of accuracy that my opponent points out can be characteristic of natural experiments, the conclusions drawn from these multifarious natural experiments all diverge on the same point, this being evolution. That the theory holds up under experimentation under this multitude of varying uncontrolled conditions, yet is not falsified, actually supports the theory rather than falsifies it. [1]

"the bacteria were present in the laboratory for more than 44,000 generations a figure that cannot applicably be applied to nature. These bacteria were being taken care of in a laboratory and therefore these results cannot be accurately switched over to nature"

As for the first part of this statement, this is the natural rate at which bacteria reproduce. I am not sure why my opponent takes issue with this. Evolution occurs on a large time scale (billions of years), to allow for such random mutations to take place. [2]

As for the second part of this statement, my opponent appears to contradict himself. He is unwilling to accept natural experimentation as a valid method for verifying the theory of evolution, yet laboratory experimentation is also unsatisfactory. The purpose of laboratory experimentation is to create a controlled environment. The bacteria were raised in a manner that is analagous to how they would survive in nature, feeding off of a steady diet of glucose in the digestive tract of an animal. [2] Nothing inherently "caused" the mutation to form, it was a random mutation.

My opponent's claim that the bacteria did not evolve into a more complex being is also incorrect. Metabolizing compounds is an extremely complex process, even in simple life forms like bacteria. A bacteria that is able to metabolize two different compounds, rather than just one, is inherently a more complex being because the metabolic processes it undergoes are more complex. [3] I concede that the man-made classification system does not lend itself easily to the differentiation of bacteria species and, unlike evolution, there is much debate in the scientific community as to what constitutes a bacterium species.

The So-Called "Lack" of Transitional Forms

My opponent claims that there is a lack of fossil evidence to support transitional forms. This is misleading and incorrect, for a number of reasons:

1. Some of the best evidence of transitional forms are in fact the vestigial organs found in countless living creatures. For example, the pelvis of a snake, or the human appendix. These organs are useless, though often harmless, remnants of previous species in the evolutionary line. In this way, nearly all species are "transitional." [5]

2. As any respectable paleontologist will confirm, fossilization is in fact very rare. The fossil record is by no means a perfect record of the history of life on earth, though that does not mean it is "faulty" when it comes to the confirmation of evolutionary theory (We do not, for example, see dinosaur fossils in strata corresponding to the pre-cambrian era, or humans in the strata corresponding to the Jurassic period). For there to be fossilized neat half-way points between species undergoing evolution would be incredibly unlikely, though transitional forms have been unearthed, as I will address later. [6]

3. My opponent's understanding of transitional forms appears to be faulty. As he has felt the need to repeat numerous times, random mutation (and so evolution) takes an extremely long time. As such, one would not expect homo-sapiens to live among Cro-Magnum at the same time in the geologic time scale (evolutionarily speaking).

4. My opponent also claims that Archaeopteryx is a "fake" transitional form. One contention presented by his source is that the feathers of the fossil do not appear in the counterslab. However, this is characteristic Solnhofen fossils, because " the dead animals would fall onto hardened surfaces which would form a natural plane for the future slabs to split along, leaving the bulk of the fossil on one side and little on the other" [7]. Though I do not have the space here to correct every claim made by the source my opponent cites, my source (which in turn cites 88 sources, while my opponent's cites a handful), is below for reference.

So in reality, evolution does not "dodge hard empirical evidence."

Speciation

I explained in my earlier argument that artificial selection was utilized in many of these laboratory experiments. Evolution by artificial selection, however, still provides a compelling case for the theory as a whole. Artifical selection and natural selection are in many ways analagous. If one considers that natural selection is the result of outside pressures on a species (climate, environmental change, predation, etc.), artificial selection fits within this criteria (the outside pressure being what traits are desireably by humans). Humans have artificially selected (and inadvertantly created new species) for thousands of years. Corn as it exists today did not exist prior to human intervention. It is a completely unique species (the same with dogs, cows, domestic cats, etc.), and as such was not put on earth by a creator. [8]

Creationism and Falsifiability

I am not trying to falsify creationism. I am merely denying my opponent's assertion that evolution is verifiable by the scientific method, and so should be taught in science classes in schools, while creationism is not verifiable or subjectable to the scientific method, and so should not. Creationism is not based in science, for the reasons I explained earlier. Creationism cannot be properly subjected to scientific scrutiny, because any and all arguments are based on the existence of a deity/creator, and so cannot, by nature, be proven.

Entropy

This is a popular, though easily refuted, argument. The law of entropy/Newton's 2nd law applies exclusively to a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, which is a simple fact of physics, as the sun radiates energy and heat in turn escapes from earth into space. In any case, mutations (the drivers of evolution) are observed today, and obviously do not violate any physical laws. [9]

The Cambrian Explosion

There are multiple explanations for the Cambrian explosion. One explanation is that a sort of genetic threshhold was crossed, allowing for a larger range of morphological possibilities. Another posits that there was not really an explosion so much as harder-bodied creatures began to evolve. There very well may have been a large number of species in the pre-cambrian era, though primarily soft-bodied (which do not leave behind nearly as many fossils). [10]


I thank my opponent for his time, this has been quite the pleasurable debate.




[1] Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment, Reid, Robert G.B.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.scienceclarified.com...
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[9] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[10] http://www.fossilmuseum.net...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
Conduct: There was no conduct violations, so this is tied.

S/G: No noticeable spelling and/or grammar mistakes. Tied.

On to the interesting criteria. *Cracks knuckles*

Arguments: Pro's main arguments were that natural experimentation is both inaccurate and unreliable. Pro denied that natural experimentation was reliable, and he did not acknowledge the fact that many scientists hold it in high regard and consider it to be reliable as well as using it often when standard experimentation is not required or will not according to the hypothesis.

Sources: Pro used both answers.com and wikipedia. I am aware of the fact Con used wikipedia as well, but some of Pro's sources didn't seem credible nor reliable.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Wild E. coli have always had the ability to utilize citrate in low oxygen settings [1]. What probably happened was that due to degenerative mutations, inhibitor and regulative genes were rendered useless, allowing E. coli to utilize citrate in a broader setting. No new functions were created.

Source: Klaas Pos, et al., "The Escherichia coil Citrate Carrier citT: A Member of a Novel Eubacterial Transporter Family Related to the 2-oxoglutarate/malate Translocator from Spinach Chloroplasts," Journal of Bacteriology 180 no. 16 (1998): 4160–4165.

Good debate, if I could vote I'd have to give it to Con though. In all fairness, he gave a better case. Though I do disagree with him.
Posted by aubrey20042 5 years ago
aubrey20042
No problem, it has been a battle of wits. I respect the manner in which you defended your side of the debate, your intelligence is apparent in your eloquence.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
I apologize for not formally closing the debate in my fnal statement, I reached the character limit. But it has been a pleasure debating with you, you're insight was quite invigorating.

A great battle of wits to be sure.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ConservativePoliticoaubrey20042Tied
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: he proves that evolution is as much of a theory as evolution
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
ConservativePoliticoaubrey20042Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made numerous holes in his argument, such as pulling off the classic use of the law of entropy as well as arguing that the process of evolution cannot be subject to experimentation. Pro in fact does poorly against Con's contentions, responding to her claim that creationism is not falsifable with ("The bolded statement is obviously false since you are in an attempt right now to discredit if not falsify my points about creationism".....
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 5 years ago
youngpolitic
ConservativePoliticoaubrey20042Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I like Pro's arguments. He pointed out that evolution is as speculative as creationism. Conduct for taking a tough stance. Sources for using con's sources against her.
Vote Placed by MasterKage 5 years ago
MasterKage
ConservativePoliticoaubrey20042Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
ConservativePoliticoaubrey20042Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Many many claims by ConservoPolitico, all refuted.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
ConservativePoliticoaubrey20042Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was arguing that evolution, as a conclusion, was speculative. Con was unable to convince me that evolution was somehow less speculative than creationism. Con certainly shared many hypothesis in response to Pro's criticisms, but they were themselves speculative, in my opinion. Both sides were cordial and provided lots of data, so all other points are a tie for me.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
ConservativePoliticoaubrey20042Tied
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 Checkmark-1 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: This is just another example of creationism continually losing the argument to evolution, reason, and logic. Both debaters were cordial. Con demonstrated better control of language, spelling, and the conventions of grammar. Pro's short and flawed case states without justification that creationism can be observable, then ends with an irrelevant conclusion fallacy. Con's case uses warranted assertions, examples, evidence, and reasoning to effectively negate the resolution. Better sourc