The Instigator
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
177 Points
The Contender
DATCMOTO
Pro (for)
Losing
47 Points

Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+24
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 37 votes the winner is...
Kleptin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 20,649 times Debate No: 8739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (357)
Votes (37)

 

Kleptin

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and the audience for their time and participation. This debate is a challenge to the member DATCMOTO who asserted in this thread:

http://www.debate.org...

That "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence".

I would assume that DATCMOTO is a man of his word and means what he says. If this is the case, then I would like to challenge this assertion. I personally believe that this assertion is unjustified and the result of a lack of scientific understanding, and that DATCMOTO does not understand evolution enough in order to make such a bold statement.

However, I assume that DATCMOTO has his own reasons for making such a huge leap of faith, so I shall let him explain to me why it is that evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence.

The parameters of this debate are simple: Evolution shall refer to the standard scientific definition of change in species over time of which human evolution is one type. Evidence shall refer to scientific data, theory, and evidence of either a tangible or theoretical nature. Fabrication is, as my opponent has used it, in reference to the Theory of evolution being a complete artificial lie.

I hope to learn much from my opponent as his assertion is indeed a bold one. Thank you, I await his response.
DATCMOTO

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate challenge.
I believe this is debate.org working at it best: Someone (in this case myself) makes a statement of belief (on one of the forums) and then someone else (in this case Kleptin) strongly disagrees and decides to make a debate challenge of it.

I stated:
"Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence."
I 100% whole-heartedly stand by this statement.

But first we must define Evolution.

As we shall soon see, defining what Evolution IS and is NOT is where the real battleground lies.
Kleptin (whether consciously or not) understands this and has tried to control the definition from the outset:

"Evolution shall refer to the standard scientific definition of change in species over time of which human evolution is one type. Evidence shall refer to scientific data, theory, and evidence of either a tangible or theoretical nature. Fabrication is, as my opponent has used it, in reference to the Theory of evolution being a complete artificial lie."

Within the first line we find the crux of the matter: "change in species over time".

The so-called 'Theory of Evolution' is simply the mixing of an observable truth:
THAT animals (as humans) inherit certain characteristics from each parent and so change occurs over succeeding generations (often misleadingly referred to as 'micro-evolution') with THE LIE: that one Family of animals can, given enough time and through the above process, become another Family of animals.

There is simply ZERO evidence for one Family of animals becoming another.

The word 'species' is a misleading categorization: wolfs and coyotes (for example) are classified as different species but are obviously from the same 'Family' (The Dog Family)
As every dog or pigeon breeder well understands, there are LIMITS to selective breeding.
That wolfs, coyotes, foxes and jackals etc all had a common ancestor is highly probable: That they evolved from another Family is simply unobservable and unverifiable conjecture; NOT science.

So we may not define Evolution as simply 'change in species' and then hope to imply all life 'evolved' from a single cell amoeba: This is commonly referred to as Macro Evolution which we may now call simply 'Evolution'.

In order for Evolution to occur there would have to be an increase in genetic information. This has never been observed. Natural or un-natural selection (dog breeding etc) utilizes the existing gene pool. By selecting certain characteristics there is a lost of information NOT gain.
Or, there would have to be a beneficial mutation. Again, this has never been observed. Mutations only scramble existing genetic codes, there is no new information added.

I would like to add that many of the so-called 'proofs' used in the text books over the years have found to be, not only wildly inaccurate, but willfully fraudulent.
As I do not yet know which (if any) 'proofs' my opponents intends to produce as evidence for this debate, I will not comment further on these for the moment.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to a good exchange.

My opponent first begins by stating that my framing of the term "Evolution" is deliberately adjusted in my favor, he accuses me of making a definition that is too vague and wants instead to submit his own definition, which is patently wrong and unscientific. To avoid dispute, I shall compromise and simply use the definitions of credible sources.

Evolution (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
The change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

As you can see, the core definition of Evolution shows absolutely nothing about it being the exact way through which speciation takes place, even though it is stated that the progressive changes accumulated through generations and generations can indeed lead to speciation. My opponent would have us believe that if one branch of a branch of a branch of the tree of evolution leads to a single bad leaf, it means the whole tree is diseased from the roots.

Please do not be mislead. The definition of Evolution and the core of evolutionary theory is centered only on the observed changes that my opponent has referred to as microevolution. Evolution in no way claims that it is the perfect and the only explanation for how species came to be, nor is Evolution limited entirely to what my opponent calls "macroevolution". Evolution is what the definitions show it to be, and my opponent may try to manipulate these definitions until he turns blue in the face, but it will not change the fact that Evolution is evolution: it only implies that my opponent has been mislead about the true definition of Evolutionary theory.

Now, before I get into my opponent's response, let us deal with the resolution: Is there a shred of evidence for Evolution? Yes. Evolution is defined as the passing of changed genetic material from one generation to the next. Let us also go over what we mean by Evolutionary Theory. "Theory" is a word that is misunderstood by many people. A scientific theory is something that attempts to explain an observed scientific phenomenon in the best way possible, that is supported by evidence. Evolution by way of natural selection falls under this category and I will have evidence following:

The most obvious piece of evidence for Evolutionary Theory is the fact that all living things come from other living things, and that every living thing is linked to every other living thing via DNA and other processes that are essential for life to occur. The fact that every living thing shares the same mechanisms for life combined with the fact that living things change and come from other living things leads us with only one explanation: Evolution of a common ancestor.

My opponent may argue that DNA is merely the signature of a single creator, but he cannot explain why life is dynamic and constantly changing. In addition, he cannot explain the presence of Mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells, supported by Endosymbiotic Theory

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

Stating that these "organelles" which are the energy source of cells and which also have their own DNA actually originated from a symbiotic relationship between two primitive cells. Why then would an intelligent creator not just create an organelle? To suggest that is simply absurd.

We have also successfully altered the DNA of microbes and allowed them to reproduce, changing their DNA and the DNA of their progeny in the laboratories. In fact, this is how Insulin is made; genetic reprogramming of yeast.

http://www.dnai.org...

This is, of course, an artificial example. There are also countless examples of natural selection occurring in response to environmental effects. One of which is the famous peppered moth example.

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

The peppered moths of the Industrial revolution show a good case for what my opponent calls "microevolution" and thus, is evidence for Evolutionary theory (which, as I repeat, is merely the indication of genetic change passed from one generation to the next). Natural selection of the moths in the form of birds being able to see through their camouflage shows that the mechanism of natural selection can lead to genetic disproportion in the gene pool. While not being evidence for all branches and concepts that come from Evolutionary Theory, it is still evidence for it.

Speciation is also observed in animals that have different adaptations for different uses, such as Darwin's finches in the Galapagos.

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

The finches have a wide variety of different shaped beaks specialized for their particular niche. Scientists have isolated the cause of these developmental differences to one particular chemical and its timing and amount in the body. This not only shows how a species adapts to the environment as evidence for the mechanism for evolution, but also that evolution is quite possible since a single chemical's duration during development could have a profound impact phenotypically. This serves as evidence for the plausibility of evolution.

The fossil record also serves as a good source of evidence for speciation. Archaeologists who unearth fossils from different geological strata can see the differences between fossilized species and how a particular creature's traits change over long periods of time, after many generations of accumulated change. In addition, many so-called "transitional" fossils have been found to link two previously "unrelated" species, providing evidence that they developed from the same ancestor.

http://anthro.palomar.edu...
http://www.gate.net...

And this source which provides a list of 15 examples of evolution via the fossil record:

http://www.nature.com...

Now, I shall address my opponent's lone argument.

Before that, I must note that this debate is about whether or not there is evidence for Evolutionary Theory, not about whether or not Evolutionary Theory is correct. Do not allow my opponent to mislead you by giving an argument as to why Evolutionary Theory is false. I have provided evidence and thus, my response to this argument is just a formality.

A family or a kind as a form of categorization is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific way to categorize families or kinds, so I will throw out his argument about families and kinds until he can prove that families and kinds are categorized objectively.

A species can be defined more easily based on reproductive ability and this is how speciation occurs:

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

My opponent's suggestion that Information cannot be added is false. Here are observed examples and a proposed mechanism:

1. Video shown above-www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...

My opponent's suggestion that there has been no observed beneficial mutation is false. The following source lists many:

http://www.gate.net...

My response has addressed every word of my opponent's counterpoint even though it was unnecessary because this debate is about whether or not evidence for Evolutionary Theory EXISTS, not whether or not it is true. And I have listed my pieces of evidence, which work for my first definition of evolution, my opponent's wrong definition, and for the two definitions I provided (just to make sure that my opponent does not cry foul).

I look forward to my opponent's
DATCMOTO

Pro

>Thank you Kleptin for your thorough, if predictable, response.

"My opponent first begins by stating that my framing of the term "Evolution" is deliberately adjusted in my favor, he accuses me of making a definition that is too vague and wants instead to submit his own definition,"

>As predicted, the whole debate rests on this question of definition:

>When I made the original statement "Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence" I of course meant the theory that; All life evolved from a single cell amoeba and that humans have themselves evolved in this way through the lineage of an ape-like ancestor.

>I would challenge all DDO members to honestly ask themselves IF this is the generally perceived, universally accepted definition one assumes one means when one uses the term Evolution.

>If my opponent now wishes to merely state that Evolution is nothing more than 'variation within Families of creatures' then I simply have no argument with him.
But let us not pretend there is a single shred of evidence that one Family of animal has ever become another. There is not.

>My opponents, frankly bizarre, contention that I must accept his (or at least his sources) definition is utterly ridiculous.
It is exactly the same as if I were debating whether the Holocaust occurred and my opponent demanded that I accept Neo-Nazi doctrine as gospel.
It is that serious and that ridiculous.

"Evolution
The change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. "

>No, this is simply BREEDING, nothing else. Has a wolf 'evolved' into a Chihuahua?

"In addition, he cannot explain the presence of Mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells, supported by Endosymbiotic Theory"

>Neither can you: Hence the link.

"We have also successfully altered the DNA of microbes and allowed them to reproduce, changing their DNA and the DNA of their progeny in the laboratories. In fact, this is how Insulin is made; genetic reprogramming of yeast."

>We? and this only proves it takes intelligence to create anything, not blind chance.

"The peppered moths, finches in the Galapagos, The fossil record, "

>All evidence of breeding. (misleadingly referred to as micro-evolution)
If an African man has a child with a white English woman, their child will share certain traits from each parent, what you have to ask yourself is: Is this 'evolution' or simply breeding?

"In addition, many so-called "transitional" fossils have been found to link two previously "unrelated" species, providing evidence that they developed from the same ancestor."

>Who needs fossils? No-one denies that a made-up classification of 'species' are related because they are from the same Family.

"A family or a kind as a form of categorization is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific way to categorize families or kinds, so I will throw out his argument about families and kinds until he can prove that families and kinds are categorized objectively."

Many so-called 'species' interbreed, so this is clearly a nonsensical term. No two Families EVER interbreed.
Dogs and wolfs cross-breed and are not the same 'species'. There are two 'species' of wolf, gray, or timber, wolf is classified as Canis lupus. The red wolf is classified as Canis rufus.
A dog is classified as a Canis domesticus. Clearly, not the same 'species' but the same Family, Canidea.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

"My opponent's suggestion that Information cannot be added is false. Here are observed examples and a proposed mechanism:"

>These are theories and yes, a PROPOSED mechanism. (how do you dare type it?)
Of course there is genetic variation, a 'switching on and off' process but unless you begin with the original archetype then how would you know the original code sequence?

"My response has addressed every word of my opponent's counterpoint even though it was unnecessary because this debate is about whether or not evidence for Evolutionary Theory EXISTS, not whether or not it is true. And I have listed my pieces of evidence, which work for my first definition of evolution, my opponent's wrong definition, and for the two definitions I provided (just to make sure that my opponent does not cry foul)."

>My opponent has presented a juggling act rather than an argument.
He has concentrated on presenting evidence for 'micro evolution' while evading the issue at hand.
If nothing else we have at least exposed where the respective camps are dug in.
We are, however, no further along in the debate.

>I stand by my original statement ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now issue my round of counterpoints.

First, we need to be sure about the stance on Evolutionary theory. My opponent cannot debate this issue if he defines "Evolution" to be a theory that it is not. Evolution is not defined as the theory of pineapples and coconuts. Evolution is not defined as the theory of penguins wearing santa hats. Evolution is not defined as "the theory that all life evolved from a single cell amoeba and that humans have themselves evolved in this way through the lineage of an ape-like ancestor."

Contrary to what my opponent believes, he is not allowed to adjust the definition of scientific terms as he sees fit, nor does popularity change a scientific definition. I have provided sources to back up my definition whereas my opponent has absolutely no sources for his arbitrary definition whatsoever. I shall include another source that gives several other definitions and examples of definitions which are wrong:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

If my opponent is still unhappy with the scientific fact that his definition is wrong, I shall further appease him by connecting what he calls "microevolution" to what he calls "macroevolution" later on.

My opponent has also stated that if this definition is accepted, then he has no argument with me, so he has essentially conceded. We are, at this point, just chatting. I have countless sources that validate my definition of Evolution and there are no credible sources that back up his. This is fact.

Now, on to the counterpoints:

1. Have wolves evolved into Chihuahuas?

Not all wolves. All dogs, including Chihuahuas, can trace their evolutionary lineage back to the gray wolf.

http://www.essortment.com...

Chihuahuas did not evolve from the wolves directly, but are a demonstration as to how gradual changes can lead to rather large changes. Thus, my opponent's attempt at reducing to absurdity has backfired and he has actually helped my argument. Thank you.

2. I cannot explain the presence of mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells, therefore I am wrong.

My explanation was actually in the paragraph immediately below the link, which my opponent has ignored. If my opponent is lacking in understanding about the topic, he can either ask me to clarify or research it on his own. I, however, have supplied the audience with enough information about the Endosymbiont hypothesis to judge the resolution. Ignoring an explanation and refusing to respond on the basis that I have no explanation is wrong on several levels.

3. Genetic manipulation shows intelligent design

My argument was to show that speciation via this mechanism is possible. I now introduce another argument: Antibacterial resistance.

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

Genetic information mutated out of a species of S.A. Bacilli and became actively selected for. This is why Penicillin is losing its efficacy over the decades: Bacteria are evolving new mechanisms to defend against the drug.

4. The peppered moths, finches, fossil record are all breeding, not speciation

My opponent has missed the point. My point was to show that the mechanism of natural selection could lead to changes within a species, as per the definition of Evolution that is accepted by scientists (as opposed to the one my opponent proposes, which is probably just a figment of his imagination). Neither the moths nor the finches were bred, nature simply selected the ones which had certain traits and allowed them to prosper. In addition, the fossil record does not show breeding, my opponent is simply confused.

5. Transitional fossils

My opponent makes a confusing statement regarding species and families. This has nothing to do with the fact that transitional fossils show an evolutionary connection between related species. My opponent's designation of a "family" is arbitrary and unscientific. The scientific "family" is above "genus" and "species". Transitional fossils provide evidence for macroevolution, which my opponent cannot complain about.

6. Family breeding

My opponent's own source shows that he has not read what he is citing because it disproves him entirely. I present his source as my own piece of evidence:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

First, I must state that no two animals of different species breed in an evolutionarily significant way because their offspring are sterile. Donkey + Horse = Mule, but the mule is sterile. In addition, the dog/wolf hybrids are also sterile. Thus, my opponent's point is moot. The very fact that he brings up families is irrelevant to the entire debate.

7. Addition of information

First, they are theories and a proposed mechanism, but they are scientific theories. The definition of "Theory" is a general rule that frames and explains observed phenomena, not the typical layperson's definition of "guess" or "hunch". These mechanisms are backed by scientific data and analysis. My opponent then speaks of an original archetype and genetic variation/switching on and off. There are two possibilities: The first is that this is an important point and I do not understand what my opponent is saying. The second is that my opponent is mumbling irrelevant information in an attempt to seem knowledgeable about the subject when he is not. I will assume that it is the former and invite him to explain the following statement he made:

"Of course there is genetic variation, a 'switching on and off' process but unless you begin with the original archetype then how would you know the original code sequence?"

And now, as promised, I shall unite "micro" and "macro" evolution. My opponent has conceded that I have offered many examples of "microevolution" and not of "macroevolution" and claims that I have not met the burden because he personally defines evolution as "macroevolution".

First and foremost, my opponent is not a scientist, nor the founder of Evolutionary theory, nor an expert. Neither am I. Thus, I suggest that he posts a citation of ONE SINGLE SOURCE and see whether it is more credible than the multitude of citations I have, claiming that Evolution is what I have defined it to be.

Please keep in mind that my opponent has already conceded that if the definition of evolution is what I say it is, then we have no disagreement. I then invite him to challenge my sources by giving his own.

To appease my opponent, here is a short list of observed macroevolution in nature:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...

I have also supplied as evidence for macroevolution, the existence of many transitional fossils found in the fossil record, showing the change of one species into another.

I have combined this with my argument debunking my opponent's notion that species can interbreed successfully. This is generally a marker to determine when a species ends and begins. If there are cases where two species can reproduce, then it shall be corrected. By definition, two species cannot produce fertile offspring, as supported by the source my opponent has cited himself.

Regardless, microevolution directly implies macroevolution. My opponent cannot give a reason why small changes cannot build up to big changes. If I can walk to my front door, why can't I walk down the street? My opponent has no answer.

I have not only responded to all of my opponent's points, but have completely countered them. My opponent has also ignored a few of my pieces of evidence and has absolutely no argument standing. I would ask that in the next round, he address everything I have set forth because if even 1 piece of evidence slips by, then he loses the debate.

Thank you. I await my opponent's response.
DATCMOTO

Pro

"I have provided sources to back up my definition whereas my opponent has absolutely no sources for his arbitrary definition whatsoever. "

>"The amoeba is a very important life form as it is the basis on which many more lives form, like tissues and organs. Without amoeba, evolution of other organisms would not be possible"
http://www.buzzle.com...

>"The full family tree of the species known as social amoebas has been plotted for the first time – a breakthrough which will provide important clues to the evolution of life on earth."
http://www.york.ac.uk...

>"The full family tree of the species known as social amoebas has been plotted for the first time – a breakthrough which will provide important clues to the evolution of life on earth. "
http://www.astrobiology.com...

>Enough for now?

"Chihuahuas did not evolve from the wolves directly, but are a demonstration as to how gradual changes can lead to rather large changes. Thus, my opponent's attempt at reducing to absurdity has backfired and he has actually helped my argument. Thank you."

>The word 'evolved' does not mean 'changed' it means PROGRESSION.
So my question stands: Has a wolf progressed by changing into a chihuahua? Has it improved?

"Endosymbiont hypothesis"

>We are not discussing hypothesis, we are (supposed to be) talking about EVIDENCE.

*POINTS 3,4 & 5 all deal with my opponents erroneous belief in 'species' and so cannot be dealt with.

" Family breeding"

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
"The strict definition of species is NO. But there are noted exceptions. It
depends how far separated in evolution the species are. It is believed that
all dogs descended from a wolf-like species and dogs and wolves have been
known to interbreed."

>So different 'species' can interbreed or they can't?
I stand by my link.

"Of course there is genetic variation, a 'switching on and off' process but unless you begin with the original archetype then how would you know the original code sequence?"

>I simply mean that you assume a less complex ancestor and so perceive an increase in complexity while I assume a more complex ancestor and so perceive a loss in information.
Unlike my opponent, I do not link to a website in the vain hope of convincing others that I actually understand the exact processes.

"And now, as promised, I shall unite "micro" and "macro" evolution. My opponent has conceded that I have offered many examples of "microevolution" and not of "macroevolution" and claims that I have not met the burden because he personally defines evolution as "macroevolution"."

>NO, you have provided many examples of breeding masquerading as 'evolution'.
I define Evolution as the theory that all life sprang from a single cell amoeba.
The macro/micro classifications are totally misleading terms which I've used only to delineate how the slight of hand works.
My opponent is trying to put words in my mouth here.

"Regardless, microevolution directly implies macroevolution. My opponent cannot give a reason why small changes cannot build up to big changes. If I can walk to my front door, why can't I walk down the street? My opponent has no answer."

>And here we have the pinnacle of 'evolutionary' 'theory':
That a reason cannot be found why it is NOT so!

>'Big changes' would be referring to Families perhaps?
Posting links to yet more examples of breeding simply WILL NOT DO.
Show the actual evidence, with the link as back up please.

>On the one hand my opponent would have us believe that evolution is nothing other than 'change in species' (misleadingly called micro evolution) but on the OTHER hand wants to sneak in 'macro evolution'.

>WHICH is it?
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and I shall now give my counterpoints.

1. My opponent begins by "citing sources". His first source is written by someone with the following list of credentials.

"Sudarshan Kelkar- I am student of commerce background and love studying corporate law and economics. "

Notice how there is no mention of anything scientific whatsoever. In fact, even after a lot of digging, I couldn't find anything *anywhere* about it being a widespread notion that we evolved from amoebas. This is just a random, trivial, untrue "fact" that my opponent seems to have lodged in his head.

However, according to my opponent's second source, it is noted that Amoeba may have been the link between unicellular and multicellular life forms, making them vital, but not the origin. I also thank him for providing a source that adds to my side of the argument while still showing that his accusations are wrong. I advise him to read his own sources and not simply google the terms "evolution" and "amoeba" and post whatever appears.

2. Next, my opponent brings up the issue of what evolution means. Unfortunately, he has decided once again to invent strange definitions that stray from what any scientific source would define evolution as. Progression does not always mean improvement. In this case, there is no objective good or bad. Also, my opponent assumes that it went directly from wolf to chihuahua. However, in order to appease my opponent, I will propose the following: It could in fact be that the wolf began to develop shorter hair as they grew into warmer climates, grew smaller in order to more easily rid themselves of heat while preserving water, etc. This is justified by the fact that Chihuahuas are indigenous to Mexico, a hot desert climate.

3. Endosymbiont Hypothesis- I apologize to my opponent, I have made an error. My opponent understand then that the designation of a thing as a "theory" indicates that something has evidence, and that the designation of something as a "hypothesis" indicates something has no evidence.

I provide the link again:

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

And assure him that it is the endosymbiotic *theory*, and not the hypothesis. In addition, I will also provide another link:

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

Illustrating the same point. Thus, by my opponent's own clarification of my error, he has conceded that Evolution is, in fact, based on at least some evidence.

4. My opponent thinks he can then bypass not one, not two, but THREE of my most vital points because he disagrees with scientific fact. The fact that he does not believe in the term "species" is not an indicator that it does not exist. He simply does not wish to deal with the fact that I have provided arguments he cannot counter.

5. After that, my opponent points back to his source, indicating that wolves and dogs can interbreed. This is the second time I have to tell him to reread his own source, which shows how wrong he is. He deliberately cut off the part he wished to quote, I shall aid him by supplying the part he wanted to hide from the audience:

"Usually though, even if two different species interbreed and produce offspring, THEIR offspring cannot produce offspring. An example is the mating of a horse and a donkey. The outcome is a mule and mules are sterile. The only way to get more mules is to mate horses and donkeys again."

I made specific mention of the importance of this, which my opponent has completely ignored in favor of emphasizing a point which I have just disproven. (or I should say, a point that he has disproven himself on)

6. The point that I requested clarification on, is simply a lack of knowledge and understanding on my opponent's part. My opponent's argument is that the video I sent is wrong on the basis that things must go from more complex to less complex. However, this is typical begging the question fallacy. In addition, I have provided examples where information *is* added, and he has not responded to that. It is not an assumption if it is witnessed and documented. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever of things becoming less complex as a naturally selective process. My opponent then, is simply rambling and does not know what he is talking about. He claims that my linking to a site indicates that I do not understand what I am linking to, but my opponent has illustrated that this is only true for him, not for me. I trust the audience will understand the link even though my opponent does not.

7. My opponent then concedes that there is no issue between macro and microevolution even though he was arguing the point clearly in earlier rounds. He then replaces it with the argument that he defines evolution as "the theory that all life sprang from a single cell amoeba", however, there is no such theory and there is no such definition. No definition of evolution claims this and no scientific document claims this. Perhaps all multicellular life sprung from a collection of amoeba, as suggested in my opponent's link (thank you to my opponent for citing a source for me), but it does not indicate anything as to what my opponent is saying. Until he proves that this MUST be the definition for evolution, we will go by all of the sources I cited, which define evolution differently, and in a way my opponent has just conceded, would win me the debate.

8. My opponent accuses me of argumentative hypocrisy. However, he does not understand that I was simply illustrating that his argument was fallacious, not mine. I have provided numerous pieces of evidence for macroevolution, but my opponent has not provided any that say "no, there is a clear distinction between micro and macro". I am merely asking why he believes so, and he simply refuses to answer.

9. My opponent concludes by saying that I am being misleading. I have stated before that the definition of "evolution" is simple "genetic change in a population over time". I have also stated that in my opponent's deliberate repetition of these terms, I decided to appease him by talking about macroevolution, which is a branch of the general definition of evolution. My opponent would have us believe that cutting the branch would kill the tree. Thankfully, due to the complete lack of evidence, my opponent cannot even cut off the branch.

So far, my opponent has done nothing but try to redefine scientific terms in his own fantastical ways, try to bend definitions as he sees fit, interpret sources to say what they obviously do not say, withhold information from the voters in order to defend his point, and malign my character by accusing me of doing things that I did not do.

I have many arguments left that my opponent has either not addressed or simply ignored or glossed over. I hope that he shall address them in the next round, because as I remind my opponent: If I even have so much as ONE piece of evidence for evolution, then I will have affirmed the resolution. In fact, it does not even have to be a conclusive piece of evidence, or a good piece of evidence. It need only be a piece of supporting information. As such, I will include a few more pieces of evidence for evolution:

1. Observable common ancestry, hundreds of species are visibly observable to be related to each other and thus, from a common ancestor.

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

2. Homology: The actual parts of animals can be seen to be related and in different levels of adaptation. Another sign of ancestry.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)
http://itc.gsw.edu...

3. The presence of vestigial organs shows that needs of an animal change and their parts with it.

http://www.livescience.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you to my opponent, and to the audience. I look forward to my opponent's response.
DATCMOTO

Pro

My opponent begins by "citing sources". "

>As my opponents whole 'argument' rests on the non-argument that Evolution does NOT purport to be an 'origins of life' theory my links merely show that the belief that all creatures evolved (progressed) from a single cell amoeba is INDEED widespread.

"Progression does not always mean improvement."

>WHAT? This is what we are up against folks: 'Progression, in EVERY other instance, means improvement, but NOT in Evolution theory!'
Of course, if my opponent wishes to concede that Evolution is nothing more than observable changes through breeding and not an origins of life theory then this is just another mute point anyway.

"Also, my opponent assumes that it went directly from wolf to Chihuahua."

>I certainly do not assume any such thing. Even with determined breeding (un-natural selection) it would take many many generations to turn a wolf into a chihuahua.

"My opponent understand then that the designation of a thing as a "theory" indicates that something has evidence, and that the designation of something as a "hypothesis" indicates something has no evidence. "

>I understand there is a scientific term 'theory' which differs from the generic term.
But just because someone states it's a theory means little to me with out hard evidence.

"And assure him that it is the endosymbiotic *theory*, and not the hypothesis. In addition, I will also provide another link: "

>My opponent will forgive me if I take no heed of his 'assurances' as he has consistently proved himself to be singularly unreliable .
As already stated, links on their own will not do. You must provide a specific piece of evidence.
If, however, we cannot agree on WHAT evolution is or is not then again it is a mute point.
(just chatting, remember?)

"The fact that he does not believe in the term "species" is not an indicator that it does not exist."

>Nor is it an indicator that they do. They do not.

"USUALLY though, even if two different species interbreed and produce offspring, THEIR offspring cannot produce offspring. An example is the mating of a horse and a donkey. The outcome is a mule and mules are sterile. The only way to get more mules is to mate horses and donkeys again."

>USUALLY. Doesn't sound very 'specific' to me.
Can we use the word 'usually' when describing attributes of Genus'?

>I am still waiting for my opponent to DARE bring one SHRED of evidence into the debate itself (NOT links, I can find a link to 'believing in fairies' if I look hard enough)

>As predicted the whole of the Evolution debate rests on these crucial points of definition.
My opponents mono-maniacal obsession with winning the debate has clouded his judgment of this and so he wastes his own, mine and everyone elses time by scurrying off into ever obscurer trivia in the hope of proving that which we have not defines terms upon.

>I challenge him to present ONE piece of evidence that one Genus has evolved (progressed) into another.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Con

Included is a video of Kent Hovind's arguments involving the definition of evolution.

10:02- Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind's definition of macroevolution is critiqued, and the proper definition is given.
11:02- Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind's dog argument is dissected and disproved
14:29- Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind's definition of microevolution is critiqued, and the proper definition is given.
16:30- Final summary of the actual definition of evolution and why Creationists like Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind and my opponent, are wrong.

I have included this video because my opponent's arguments, as well as his misunderstanding, is cut and pasted from the fallacies of convicted criminal Kent Hovind.

These segments explain the Creationist tactic of using non-sequior and strawman arguments in order to argue their beliefs. My opponent has been developing his own definition of things that he believes he can disprove. However, let us not be fooled. This debate is about Evolution, not about my opponent's imaginary definition of "evolution". My opponent is using the same tricks and tactics shown and exposed in this video. To summarize it effeiciently, I will list them now:

1. The definition of evolution I have given is the scientific definition. The ones that scientists operate upon, the one that biology operates upon, the one that is commonly accepted and the one that is backed by massive amounts of evidence.

2. My opponent knows this and has wasted a massive amount of time trying to define evolution as something that makes ridiculous claims, so that he can attack that instead of the actual definition. Straw man argument.

3. My opponent then wastes even more time bringing up examples of why this imaginary Evolution is wrong, by introducing new terms, new imaginary terms that are figments of his imagination.

4. The term "species" is used to demonstrate how one gene pool may be isolated from another in a format that is evolutionarily significant, since evolution is genetic change of a population over time. Horses and Donkeys can produce sterile mules, but since the mules are sterile, they are evolutionarily insignificant. My opponent has decided to forego terms such as this for his imaginary one; "kind". Notice how it is the same word used by convicted criminal Kent Hovind. There is no definition given by my opponent or by Convicted Criminal Kent Hovind. It is only referenced and calls back common knowledge that we know what a "kind" is, when in reality, it has absolutely no scientific definition or importance whatsoever. In fact, it is merely the movement of goalposts.

5. My opponent moves the goalposts because I submit examples of speciation, the change of one species into another. However, my opponent is unhappy with this and demands that I prove how I can go from changing out of a species to changes out of a genus. Next, he will then force me to prove the movement from a genus into a family, and from a family to an order. When does it end? My opponent, in his fear of losing this debate and knowing the truth, sets irrational goals.

6. How do I know that these goals are irrational? Because as it says in the video, the development of modern genetics has made the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution obsolete. We see that looking at a DNA change, the designation of species, genus, family, etc. is all irrelevant and can be reduced down to the DNA sequence. In other words, we are looking at a slide and not a staircase. If I can slide 1/4 down a slide, what prevents me from sliding 1/2 down a slide, or from sliding all the way down the slide? My opponent has no response for this. Change in DNA reflects the change in phenotype, this means that going from species to genus is a matter of building up the changes, not a magical pokemon-style evolution as my opponent suggests.

My opponent, having failed in redefining "evolution" and "species" to suit his desperate needs, has now decided that his only chance at winning is to redefine "evidence" to suit his desperate needs. My opponent has decided that he can blanket reject all my evidence by saying that no links can be evidence, when these links are to articles written by scientists with legitimate data. My opponent is trying to convince the audience that unless I bring in a Charmander and have him pokevolve into a Charmeleon, I lose this debate. I doubt that the audience is that gullible.

It is then quite reassuring to know that I do not need to abide by my opponent's imaginary definitions of evolution, species, or evidence in order to win this debate. I have provided more than enough evidence to hopefully show a neutral audience that I am correct, and that my opponent's tactics are merely used in lieu of actual substance.

I will now restate all of the evidence that I have outstanding, pieces of evidence for Evolutionary Theory that my opponent has either not countered or deliberately ignored.

1. The definition of Evolution:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
(video)
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Four sources that show that my definition is correct and that my opponent's definition is wrong. In several places throughout the debate, my opponent conceded that observable evidence would apply to my definition of evolution on the justification that my definition is wrong. To the last round, my opponent could not support his imaginary definition of evolution, so mine stands.

2. The fact that it is referred to as a "Theory" infers that there is scientific evidence for the theory. Whether Evolution is true or not is not the issue, nor is it an issue whether the evidence is legitimate or not. The evidence exists and connects with the theory.

3. Endosymbiotic Theory shows how mitochondria in Eukaryotic cells are indicators of common descent
http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. Yeast is genetically reprogrammed to create insulin, evidence that these changes are possible.
http://www.dnai.org...

5. Peppered Moths show the example of natural selection's effect on speciation and was not a hoax.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.independent.co.uk...

6. Natural selection and niche-filling speciation can be seen with Darwin's finches and antimicrobial resistance
http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_finches
http://en.wikipedia.org...

7. Three sources detailing fossil evidence for macroevolution of species
http://anthro.palomar.edu...
http://www.gate.net...
http://www.nature.com...

8. Sources for observed macroevolution of species
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://news.softpedia.com...
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com...

9. Addition of information is possible and beneficial mutations are observed
www.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg (video)
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.gate.net...

10. Common descent, Homology, and vestigial organs all point to Evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://itc.gsw.edu...
http://www.livescience.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent has left all of these pieces of evidence hanging. It is plain to see that my opponent has made a statement he cannot back up and is too proud to take back, and too desperate to lose honorably. Vote CON. Thank you.
DATCMOTO

Pro

"My opponent has decided to forego terms such as this for his imaginary one; "kind". Notice how it is the same word used by convicted criminal Kent Hovind."

~I would respectfully ask DDO voters to NOTICE that I have NOT used the word 'kind' ONCE during this debate.
I have, from the outset, consistently either used the word Family or Genus when suggesting how animals should be classified.
The word 'kind' is a Biblical classification and so wholly inappropriate for a scientific debate such as this.
I respectfully ask DDO voters to ponder the motive behind my opponents attempt to put this word 'kind' into my mouth. (and so tie me to a creationist viewpoint when I have not mentioned faith or the Bible ONCE)

~In round one I stated:
"As we shall soon see, defining what Evolution IS and is NOT is where the real battleground lies."

~And if we are honest we have not progressed very far from this statement.
If I allow that Evolution is nothing more than 'change within species' then I have lost.
If my opponent allows the term 'Families' to stand, he has lost.
Neither of us will budge from our respective positions.
This is precisely were the whole 'Evolution' argument rests today. (despite what leading evolutionists would have you believe)
If nothing else, I hope this debate reveals where the opposing camps are currently dug in.

Now to my:

~FINAL ARGUMENT.

~My opponent has consistently stated that Evolution is NOT a theory of how life was formed but is merely change within 'species' over successive generations.

~Let us examine what Charles Darwin believed:

"Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits."

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. "

~Or Richard Dawkins:

"For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria."

~Or Prentice Hall Biology:

"Descent with modification also implies that all living organisms are related to one another. Look back in time, and you will find common ancestors shared by tigers, panthers, and cheetahs. Look farther back, and you will find ancestors that these felines share with horses, dogs, and bats. Farther back still are the common ancestors of mammals, birds, alligators, and fishes. If we look far enough back, the logic concludes, we could find the common ancestors of all living things. This is the principle known as common descent."

~So if you, the voting public, agree with my opponent that evolution is NOT an origins of life theory you must vote CON.

~The rest of my opponents strategy has simply been to post links to sites confirming his own view of 'speciation' etc.

~As we cannot even agree on the definition of classification of animals, all of these are of little or no value.
And even if we did agree on classification my opponent would still have all of his work ahead of him:

www.realfairies.net
pjentoft.com/fairie6.html
www.lucylearns.com
www.amazon.com/Fairies-Real-Encounters
www.askkids.com/web?q=Are+Fairies+Real&qsrc=6

~Above are just a few of the sites devoted to people who believe in real life fairies.
I respectfully ask the voting public whether simply POSTING LINKS to their sites adds weight to the theory that fairies exist?

~If it does, again you must vote CON.

~As my opponent has not brought ONE piece (or a SHRED) of evidence into the debate itself I fully stand by my statement:

"Evolution is a complete fabrication without a shred of evidence."

~Thanks to my opponent for all of his hard work and dedication.
Debate Round No. 5
357 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Avamys 1 year ago
Avamys
Evolution does have some evidence, to say 'without a shred' is very extreme.
Posted by DATCMOTO 3 years ago
DATCMOTO
@ AC666: It's improvement for the CANCER isn't it!
Posted by wolfhaines 3 years ago
wolfhaines
I am glad Kleptin is winning this debate. There is hope for mankind after all.
Posted by AntiChrist666 3 years ago
AntiChrist666
Progression always means improvement? Not at all my friend, not at all. IT COULD MEAN improvement, but if cancer progresses in a human, it does not improve the human at all.
Posted by tBoonePickens 5 years ago
tBoonePickens
"Who wants to be killed? It's against all our survival instincts." There are loonies out there. Oh, so we're talking about instincts here like: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli WITHOUT involving reason. (mw)

"...Yeah, and that would be moral to them because it ensures their survival..." I think you're referring to instinctual things here as well, right?

"The mental process if reasoning and decision making. They come out of the mind by evaluating what would be beneficial for survival and then doing it." Instincts here as well?

"Determine the values?.. Well, we just evaluate them is all I can say." Just do it? Is that your answer? These things would have to have real values (better/worse) but they don't. You can say they have subjective value but then we're back to square 1: how do we know the subjective value of something?

"People kill people after they get the idea. If someone killed someone for thinking vanilla is the best flavour, he would have had the idea to kill him before he did it." I never said it was automatic. But just because you get the idea, doesn't mean your going to do it. Every action is proceeded by a thought BUT not all thoughts are put into action.

"Imagine we had not way to measure distance officially. We would still be able to tell that one distance is longer or shorter than the other wouldn't we? Just like we know killing someone in our culture is worse than stealing from them." Not a good example because distance is not subjective; it is objective. You'll need to use a subjective concept instead, otherwise it makes no sense.

"This is sliding slowly off topic isn't it :P" That's true, as this really has nothing to do with evolution. That's why I invited you to check out the forum in the link which does have to do with this topic. I hope you decide to contribute there. Thanks!
;o)
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 5 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
Actually, killing & stealing may have been required at many times; the group could kill & steal from other groups, for example." Yeah, and that would be moral to them because it ensures their survival... wouldn't be moral to the other side though :P

"what is the mental process; where and how do said opinions/morals come out of the mind? How do we determine the value between different opinions?" The mental process if reasoning and decision making. They come out of the mind by evaluating what would be beneficial for survival and then doing it. Determine the values?.. Well, we just evaluate them is all I can say. We decide the value from our experience and the experience of others. It's not a big mystery, it's just what the brain does.

"sure but if I want to get killed then I should kill others." Who wants to be killed? It's against all our survival instincts.

"1st off people kill people, ideas don't kill people. 2nd why couldn't some nut kill someone else for not agreeing with them that vanilla is the best flavor? People have been killed for even more ridiculous things than that!"

People kill people after they get the idea. If someone killed someone for thinking vanilla is the best flavour, he would have had the idea to kill him before he did it. It's not autonomic.

"Just because they are both opinions, it doesn't mean that they have the same merit." No? Why not? What is the metric of merit? Isn't it just another subjective term and so consequently no real why to tell merit?"

Imagine we had not way to measure distance officially. We would still be able to tell that one distance is longer or shorter than the other wouldn't we? Just like we know killing someone in our culture is worse than stealing from them.

This is sliding slowly off topic isn't it :P
Posted by tBoonePickens 5 years ago
tBoonePickens
Common_Sense_Please,

"The first ones can be argued to have come from what was best to ensure survival in a social group (do not kill, do not steal ect.)." But what IS "best/worse"? Actually, killing & stealing may have been required at many times; the group could kill & steal from other groups, for example. But that's not what I was really trying to get at. What I meant is, what is the mental process; where and how do said opinions/morals come out of the mind? How do we determine the value between different opinions?

"do to others what you would like to be done to you" sure but if I want to get killed then I should kill others. Thought the golden rule is not a bad one, it too has its limitations.

"Well no, saying vanilla is the best flavour doesn't impact a society and rob someone of their life." 1st off people kill people, ideas don't kill people. 2nd why couldn't some nut kill someone else for not agreeing with them that vanilla is the best flavor? People have been killed for even more ridiculous things than that!

"Just because they are both opinions, it doesn't mean that they have the same merit." No? Why not? What is the metric of merit? Isn't it just another subjective term and so consequently no real why to tell merit?

Being discussed here: http://www.debate.org...
if you'd like. ;o)
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 5 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
In other words, it's only an OPINION that morals have progressed."
Yes, we've come to an agreement at last haha.
"But HOW does one arrive at these opinions?" The first ones can be argued to have come from what was best to ensure survival in a social group (do not kill, do not steal ect). A lot of them come from a simple statement, 'do to others what you would like to be done to you'.

"Is the opinion "vanilla is the best flavor" the same as the opinion "one should not kill innocent life"?" Well no, saying vanilla is the best flavour doesn't impact a society and rob someone of their life. Just because they are both opinions, it doesn't mean that they have the same merit.
Posted by tBoonePickens 5 years ago
tBoonePickens
Common_Sense_Please,

"Look, you've got to see this by the fact that people make their own morals. So if morality is objective, then it is objective to the set of morals that the people have created, because where else would they have come from? Out of thin air?" 1st, I'm not really specifically arguing for OM, what I'm saying is that if you take the position of SM, then you must accept ALL that it entails.

One of those things is that you cannot make claims like "moral progress;" at least not in an objective manner. In other words, it's only an OPINION that morals have progressed, and this cannot be objectively proven as you have attempted to do.

While it is true, that I cannot say (& I didn't) that there is one set of morals that are right and any other belief system that opposes these morals are wrong, it is also equally true that you cannot say that our morality has progressed (gone from worse morality to better morality.) Now do you see my point?

But where do morals come from? Great question. I would say the mind; opinion, as you put it. And for some, they think it comes from (dare I say) God. But HOW does one arrive at these opinions? Out of thin air? That's the $1,000,000.00 question! Is the opinion "vanilla is the best flavor" the same as the opinion "one should not kill innocent life"?
Posted by Common_Sense_Please 5 years ago
Common_Sense_Please
"if you believe in SM you cannot say that morals can or have progressed or regressed: they're just morals. Now if you believe morals to be objective, then you can make that stance. End of story."

Look, you've got to see this by the fact that people make their own morals. So if morality is objective, then it is objective to the set of morals that the people have created, because where else would they have come from? Out of thin air? And please don't say God.
However, this objectivity is flawed because it is based on the people's OPINION of what morals should be. This varies from culture to culture ect. Therefore morals are subjective to these changes. Morals were created by Humans, and Humans are biased.

At the end of the day, if you are saying that morality is objective, then you are saying that there is one set of morals that are right and any other belief system that opposes these morals are wrong. This is just not true.You cannot say 'I am right and you are wrong' without giving evidence.
37 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jack999 5 years ago
jack999
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by greatstuff479 5 years ago
greatstuff479
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by biggrz 5 years ago
biggrz
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by abromwell 5 years ago
abromwell
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Sequelae 5 years ago
Sequelae
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rimshot515 5 years ago
rimshot515
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ErodingEthos 5 years ago
ErodingEthos
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 5 years ago
tribefan011
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by RedEights 5 years ago
RedEights
KleptinDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70