The Instigator
CrzyDrumlineChic
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Veridas
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Evolution is a THEORY not a Fact

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,709 times Debate No: 14725
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (46)
Votes (3)

 

CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

Basically what I am arguing is if Evolution is only a THEORY, then why is it being taught in schools as fact? Im looking for a very logical debate, and I would like to use evidence, however if my opponent can make logical arguments without evidence I will refute.

So for my plan: In schools, before being taught about evolution, schools should point out the FACT that evolution is a THEORY, and that it is not the only means for creation.

Round 1- Questioning

Round 2- Attacking eachothers case

Round 3- Same

Round 4- Defending cases and rebuilding cases

Round 5- Conclusion, why we should vote for pro or con

So basically what I am arguing that science is based on given fact, however in teaching evolution, science is contradicting the importance of evidence. Yes, there is plenty of evidence that evolution could have happened, however, there is also plenty of evidence that evolution is false, and it is not all religious. So I am arguing that when taught in schools, evolution should be taught as theory not as fact in the means of creation.
Veridas

Con

I'd like to start out by pointing out the fact that my opponent hasn't thought his/her demands for the format of the debate through too clearly. They've decided that the first round should consist purely of "questioning" presumably meaning questioning each other's cases, and yet their post consisted of their first round, negating their ability to question me or my argments effectively.

If I were feeling crude I may try to draw a correlation between my opponent's lack of forethought and my opponent's apparant inability to use a dictionary.

Ignoring for a second the obvious rebuttal within the dictionary argument, I think instead I'll turn off "easy" mode and instead argue from another angle. Namely, that the term "theory of evolution" completely lacks the pretentious attitude that my opponent seems to believe it posesses, simply because it accepts it's status of "theory" freely.

Besides which, "theory" is probably the limit we can get to when it comes to the origin of mankind. While we have endless quantities of fossils, carbon dating, geologial evidence, similarities in skeletal structure and DNA to primates and the deliberately self-questioning nature of science as an aspect of humanity's curiosity to ensure that our knowledge is never taken for granted, none of us were there. We have no primary sources, no multiple scholars and writers to compare to. Humanity's main method of studying history proves ineffective at studying anything that happened before the first cave paintings.

Since we have no way of viewing the creation of mankind barring the presence of a time machine, we have no way to be sure if evolution is a fact or not, it is pure theory.

Despite this, there are factors of evolution that are definitely factual. Natural selection, micro-evolution, the development of tool usage in the animal kingdom, are all consistent with the theory that mankind, and most other forms of life today, evolved from single-celled organisms.

In addition to this, we have surprising little factoids that would suggest that even insects are commonly aware of what constitues a danger to their nest or group. Take this video for instance: http://wimp.com...

Most of this video is irrevant, save for one particular part. The uninfected ant risks personal harm or death to move the infected ant as far away from the nest as possible. Not only does an ant, a creature generally thought of as mindless, unintelligent and barely even sentient, know that a particular fungus can and will devastate the nest if nothing is done about it, but it knows this instinctively.

The point of this?

Instinct is a form of adaptation, a method of partially bypassing natural selection that applies even to the smallest and most individually unintelligent of creatures.

Ultimately, however, all this pales in comparison to a pair of points that my opponent has conveniently overlooked.

The first is that since the alternative to Evolution has traditionally been been Creationism, since the evidence for Creationism is fundamentally weaker than that of Evolution, that makes Creationism even more of a theory than the theory of Evolution.

Secondly, my opponent has stated as a fact that evolution "is" being taught as fact, and yet despite their statement that they "would like to use evidence" neither offered nor referenced any.

Additionally, typing in "why is evolution taught as fact" into google produces yahoo answers, openly biased whinging sessions and people saying that it should be taught as fact in a way that implies that it isn't currently taught as fact.

So not only has my opponent neither referenced nor provided any evidence for their case, but their argument seems to lack serious backing.
Debate Round No. 1
CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

Sorry for the confusion in the first round, I didn't really think that anyone would actually debate this seriously, but I will try my best to clear up confusion as needed.

My definition of theory:

: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
this definition was retrieved from www.merriamwebster.com, and though there were several contexts in which to choose from, I feel that this is the definition I was going for when I posted this debate.

And again I apologize for the confusion on the rounds as i stated earlier, I did not feel anyone would actually debate it seriously. So for the round, since round 1 has been used to clear confusion, round 2 can consist of questioning as need and if needed the presenttion of evidence and I will be backing my claims with evidence.

Basically For a roadmap, I will be breaking down the four different "main" beliefs of creation, being Darwinism, Deism, Polytheism and creationism. Again these main beliefs are subject, and I am not trying to single out any religion, but if you look closely, all religions can be categorized into these four categories.

For Darwinism:
Sure the evolution theory seems nice and even plausable, to a degree. However there are some serious problems with its logic.

What does NOT exist in Darwinism is 1) a good, coherent explanation of how life started in the first place, 2) a good, coherent explanation of why at certain points in the geological record there are explosions in variety. That just means the explanation is incomplete (and who knows, maybe the unexplained part DOES involve God pointing his finger and making something happen; but that's beyond the scope of science). It doesn't mean that Darwinist theory as it stands DOESN'T apply to much of the history of the development of life, any more than general relativity being unknown in the 1600s meant Newton's theory of gravity didn't properly describe how apples fell from trees.

Another problem for example is how in this THEORY of evolution, is how it fails to explain such explosions in gene pools, such as the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk...

If you look at this website, it has all sorts of reasons why Darwinism is wrong, however since the limit of text is relatively short, we can only scratch the service for I have 3 other beliefs to cover(:

This is taken straight from the website:
The Cambrian explosion

About half of the major animal groups appear, fully formed, in the Cambrian strata of rocks, with out any fossilised ancestors. This is how Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, describes it:

…the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as thought they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229)
How do Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists explain this abrupt appearance? For evolution to be true, there must be a gap here – not just a small gap of one or two intermediate forms – but a truly massive gap of intermediates for at least 19 different phyla. Such a huge imperfection in the fossil record is the only explanation which evolutionists can give.

Why such a gap should occur is not clear. Sometimes it is claimed that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian organisms were small and soft-bodied, and hence hard to fossilise. However, fossilised micro-organisms have been found in Precambrian rocks around the world, and many entirely soft-bodied animals have been found fossilised in Cambrian rocks. There does not seem to be a good reason why such a massive gap should exist.

Non-evolutionists take the fossil record more at face value. Instead of hypothesising a large number of Precambrian animals for which there is no fossil evidence, they take the fossil record to show that the Cambrian animals did not evolve gradually from a common ancestor, and came into being through intelligent design.

So as we see, this wide arrange of species just seemed to come out of no where! How can Darwinism, the theory that it takes 10s to 20 millions of years for a species to transfrom, explain the fact that out of nowhere bout 10,000 new types of species just dissapeared, with no generic link to existing species? It can't which is a major flaw within the context of Darwinism. I will further extend this in the other rounds, but I have to move on.

On to Deism. The theory that God wound the clock, let it go, and stepped back.

One main problem with this, divine intervention. Examples in our own American history completely rule this theory out! Take for example the American revolution, again I only have about 3,000 characters remaining so this will again scratch the surface until the next round.

Examples, the American Revolution:
If you go to this website, it has numerous examples which I cannot name due to space
http://www.cracked.com...

But once you have read these examples, it becomes pretty clear that God can choose sides, He can react, and that He is not some distant being. Now some may say "coincidence" however, is it possible that EVERYTHING was a coincidence? Absolutely not if you are a logical person.

On to Polytheism.

This theory, starting from the beginning of time has some serious problems. First off, polytheism was prominant when man did not have technology to explain the natural world around him. In fact I found an article that goes into explicit detail of this principle:

http://www.crowdog.net...

So as we see in this article, barbarians could not have any other means of explanation for the Sun, the wind, or rain etc. So they used their imagination to fulfill their need of worship.

Again I will extend every one of these arguments later in the round

Logically I would move on to creationism, but I would like to discuss that in a later round because I bel;ieve that my reasoning for all other types of beliefs aren't completely correlated and that my Creationism argument would not make sense yet.

So as we have vaguely broken down 3 different types of belief, being Darwinism, Deism, and Polytheism.

As for the argument of biased websites, I am using science as evidence not biased beliefs.
I am definately looking forward to your reply(:
Good Debate, and sorry for the confusion!(:
Veridas

Con

"My definition of theory"

Stop right there.

There is no "my" "your" "their" or "our" definition of anything, if you want to to post a definition, use a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

"noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. "

"Basically For a roadmap, I will be breaking down the four different "main" beliefs of creation, being Darwinism, Deism, Polytheism and creationism"

Deism, Polytheism and Creationism are the same thing with different names. Actually Polytheism in and of itself is not a creation theory, more like a belief in multiple deites which at some point may have coughed on one another and created the universe as a result.

http://en.wikipedia.org... <-- Wikipedia Article on Polytheism

"1) a good, coherent explanation of how life started in the first place,"

That's because that's not the focus of Darwin's theory of evolution, but considering how apparanty uninformed you are, I'll bite.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Bacteria and single cell organisms make up some 90% of life on the earth, and wherever there is water, single celled organisms can exist.

How did these organisms come about?

Well the current explanation is that about 4000 million years ago, as the earth cooled from what was basically it's creation, numerous chemical reactions took place to shape basis of the various compounds and chemicals that would create the earth we live on. One of these compounds was RNA or ribonucleic acid. RNA had, as part of it's makeup, extremely simple characteristics that were defined by it's surroundings, effectively creating the first genome.

") a good, coherent explanation of why at certain points in the geological record there are explosions in variety."

This could be blamed on a multitude of things, a shift in the climate of the immediate region, a natural disaster wiping out predecessing creatures in such a way that doesn't leave fossils (remember that not everything that's died has ever left a fossil), or perhaps even natural selection making a leap and creating variations of the same creature. (Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens, anyone?)

Besides which, your point has one massive hole. It presumes that our knowledge of extinct creatures is absolute, and that we're guaranteed to find complete fossils of everything. Not only is this probably not the case, we don't even know if it is or not. This is no different than me saying Creationism is wrong because we never found fossil of the serpant from the Garden of Eden.

"If you look at this website"

Are you serious?

Ignoring for a second their lacking understanding about evolution, which is laughable considering the context in which you present it as a source, this is a website that, presumably with a straight face, has an article entitled "Did birds evolve from dinosaurs?"

It also has an article entitled "Compulsory evolution in primary schools" the very title of which debunks your little THEORY of evolution being taught as fact in schools.

"So as we see, this wide arrange of species just seemed to come out of no where! How can Darwinism, the theory that it takes 10s to 20 millions of years for a species to transfrom, explain the fact that out of nowhere bout 10,000 new types of species just dissapeared, with no generic link to existing species"

Now you're repeating your points. Bad show. See above.

"On to Deism. The theory that God wound the clock, let it go, and stepped back."

Isn't that different in purpose to the theory of creationism, and even if it was, is a strawman because it has nothing to do with Evolution.

"On to Polytheism."

Also has nothing to do with Evolution. Strawman. Moving on.

"As for the argument of biased websites, I am using science as evidence not biased beliefs."

Here's a hint, using a website with biased beliefs that talks about science doesn't count as not using biased beliefs.

"So as we have vaguely broken down 3 different types of belief, being Darwinism, Deism, and Polytheism."

What's this "we" rubbish?

Oh, and your entire post assumes a laughable consistency over the course of thousands of millions of years, an almost typical selective ignorance of the workings of natural selection, and the assumption that mankind has already discovered everything there is to be discovered and knows everything there is to know.

Since I'm in thinking-ahead mode I'd like to misquote Shakespeare in reference to your "Polytheism, Deism and Creationism are all different" non-point and say that a rose by any other name is still a horrible horrible attempt at disguising preference to the God-did-it THEORY.
Debate Round No. 2
CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

Sorry, I can't continue this debate, Im grounded, computer is getting taken away:( Sorry, only 16. But maybe we can debate this again some day, or not if your not interested. Darn.Sorry for the inconvenience! I was looking forward to debating this:/
Veridas

Con

"Sorry, I can't continue this debate, Im grounded, computer is getting taken away:( Sorry, only 16. But maybe we can debate this again some day, or not if your not interested. Darn.Sorry for the inconvenience! I was looking forward to debating this:/"

Well, that explains a lot.
Debate Round No. 3
CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

CrzyDrumlineChic forfeited this round.
Veridas

Con

Veridas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
CrzyDrumlineChic

Pro

CrzyDrumlineChic forfeited this round.
Veridas

Con

Veridas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Veridas 6 years ago
Veridas
Oh, as for my quotes? Without knowing their source, you can't say much about them.

"Your move" is more or less my own, it's something I tended to say after putting an opponent in a position of self hypocrisy during a debate.

"I have become death, the destroyer of worlds" Is attributed to J. Robert Oppenheimer, the man who created the atom bomb.

The laughter is relavant to my avatar, it's the final line in the Transmetropolitan series.

"If he speaks to me again without me knowing who he is, I will throw him out that window and I won't open it first" is from Xenos by Dan Abnett, the first book in the Eisenhorn trilogy, aside from the fact that it implies that a lack of respect can be a dangerous thing, it also casually points out that you don't always need to shout and scream to tell someone to go f*ck themselves.

"Why should you listen to me? Why should you consider my words as if they have any relevance or meaning or authority? Because I'm driving a house sized mass of f*ck you, that's why" is the opposite, sometimes having a tank and a bad attitude is more than substitute for a calm disposition and speaking softly.

Ultimately, if you ever got to know me, you may find me the antithesis of everything you support and cherish and so on and so forth and blah blah blah, but what you will also find is that I am nothing if not fair. You wrote a (moderately) well written post about entropy and I replied in kind, but now again you take jabs, so now, again, I'm going to have to politely ask you to go suck donkey dick like that bitch in the book of ezekiel.
Posted by Veridas 6 years ago
Veridas
Now, for what you chose to say about me.

First of all, congratulations, you can read, more importantly, you can read a public profile!

Secondly, you seem to be applying facebook logic to a debating site. Strange strategy.

Thirdly, to misquote Samuel L Jackson, "two can play that game, motherf*cker"

Lets see now...so you're single too, I suppose the "he doesn't have a girlfriend" remark must have been poorly thought out.

Christian, ha.

So your quote is from "some geek philosophist" huh? Well, first, it's philosopher, ask your mum for a dictionary for christmas. Secondly, it was written, not said, by George Santayana in 1905. Plus some typical redneck crap about "america is good because america is good" Yes, I'm sure a defense like that will stand up beautifully in court.

No sports teams either, it seems, how's that hyocrisy sandwich tasting?

Oh, and for the record, the fact that I don't enjoy watching big, burly, sweaty men running around chasing one or more balls before enjoying a group shower doesn't really say much about my athletic ability.

Besides which, if you want to watch a sport, watch someone toss a f*cking caber, jesus christ, why isn't that sh!t in the olympics?

You're a conservative at seventeen, which is code for "I watch Bill O'Reilly and think I understand the sociopolitical implications of his attitudes"

and your occupation is "other" which, going on the logic you so readily applied to me, probably means you don't have a job and just sponge off your parents.

My values of life aren't that different from yours, I'm going to go onur logic again and assume that, by that statement, that you support teenage pregnancies and the mass rape of natural landscapes for personal gain, despite the fact that since you're not an oil tycoon or a property developer, you have no reason to support the latter and unless you're a pregnancy fetishist with paedophilic tendancies, you have no reason to support the former.
Posted by Veridas 6 years ago
Veridas
"ok, so yes if you think of the earth compared to everything it is an open system, but lets take the universe in to account. the universe is a closed system, therefore the laws of thermal dynamics and entropy aply."

The universe is just as open as the world is. Hell, I'd argue that given the fact that if there's a closed system at all, then it's the world. Unlike the world, the universe doesn't have every square inch filled with chemicals and bacteria, it doesn't have hundreds of thousands of species' of life forms wandering it, it doesn't have drastically contrary environmental characteristics (volcanoes and glaciers, for instance)

The universe itself really just keeps planets apart, and unless animals and characteristics are free to travel anywhere in the universe then it's not open, likewise, neither is the world.

"universe move on a level of entropy is being constantly created causeing fluxuations and consiquently every system within detiriorates/becomes less complex in nature. "

While entropy itself is a by-product of chemical changes, those chemical changes do not necessarily have anything to do with evolution either. Explaining entropy and what you think it does is all good and well, but none of what you said is in any way relevant to evolution.

"that being said, the natural order of the universe is not that it evolves, but rather
that systems within the universal system "devolve""

Actually...

1: While the law does allow for a small decrease in entropy in a closed system, this is incredibly unlikely

2: entropy itself is defined on the idea that nothing changes without something else changing first, a body at rest will continue to be at rest to quote another, simpler law.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
If you want to debate entropy is order we can debate that as well.
Posted by Veridas 6 years ago
Veridas
I'll answer for the autofellatio abundant here when I'm slightly less tired.

I'm sure none of you will suffer.
Posted by maninorange 6 years ago
maninorange
I think I'll save an in-depth refutation for our debate. If anybody reaches this point and wishes to look further, here is the link to that debate, should guitargod accept it:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by guitargod 6 years ago
guitargod
It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction - greater disorder. Their energy is transformed into lower levels of availability for further work. The natural tendency of complex, ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time. Thus, in the long term, there is an overall downward trend throughout the universe. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of things are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.
If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the powerful, ultimate tendency toward "disarrangedness" brought by the 2nd Law. If such an important force or mechanism is in existence, it would seem it should be quite obvious to all scientists. Yet, the fact is, no such force of nature has been found.
Posted by guitargod 6 years ago
guitargod
maninorange/Cliff.Stampok: let me call you on your assertion with a question. can you give me an example of and spiecies expanding/leaving there "gene pool" that has not resulted in sterility, or death?
2nd law
-The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes basic principles familiar in everyday life. It is partially a universal law of decay; the ultimate cause of why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Everything appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing stays as fresh as the day one buys it; clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust.2 Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe. Each year, vast sums are spent to counteract the relentless effects of this law (maintenance, painting, medical bills, etc.). Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.
2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. (Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241.
World-renowned Evolutionist and avid anti-Creationist Isaac Asimov confirmed that:
"Another way of stating the second law then is, 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!' Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess. (continued)
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"go try and breed a gurilla and a man. then come back and tell me ytour results."

Mating above the species level, while possible is extremely difficult as the DNA has diverged to such a point that it simply becomes unlikely. Curiously enough, there have been people trying to make a human-ape hybrid for over a hundred years, Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, possibly being the most well known.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"entropy is a synonym for chaos, wich is in turn an antonym for order."

That is logical entropy, that is not what is being referenced in the second law of thermodynamics, for a nice article on the difference :

http://www.panspermia.com...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
CrzyDrumlineChicVeridasTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win for Con. Both sides forfeited, but as Roy said, "Con was the worse offender".Pro drew a crudely-designed division between the parameters of Darwinism and religion (polytheism, deism, and creationism in Pro's case). Pro committed classic blunders and his presentation of the Cambrian explanation was destroyed by Con's explanation of its cause by "a shift in the climate of the immediate region, a natural disaster...." in particular.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
CrzyDrumlineChicVeridasTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro violated conduct by forfeiting, Con by using personal insults. Con was the worse offender. It's OK to insult arguments, but not the person making them. Pro has the wrong definition of "theory" in the scientific context. As Con said, the Theory of Evolution like the Theory of Relativity well-proved science, not merely a hypothesis or speculation.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
CrzyDrumlineChicVeridasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: "If I were feeling crude I may try to draw a correlation between my opponent's lack of forethought and my opponent's apparant inability to use a dictionary." Con was leading on argument before the forfeit, but had very poor conduct which is the opposite of what is required to encourage and support new members. One point victory to Con.