The Instigator
Spassky101
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Evolution is real, disproving most religious concepts.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 90471
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Spassky101

Pro

First round is acceptance. After first round, it is open game. Good luck.
ssadi

Con

I accept.


Since no definition etc. was provided, then I will do instead.


BOP is fully on Pro to affirm that:


1) Evolution is real, &

2) It disproves most religious concepts.


Con's only BOP is to negate Pro's arguments, not the resolution, to show that they don't affirm the resolution.




DEFINITIONS


Evolution: A theory that states that all life-forms or species, including plants and fungi, came from a common ancestor. In other words, all species came from other species until they reach a single simple living thing named as The Common Ancestor.

Real: factually existing or happening, not imaginary.

Most: almost all of; the majority of.

Religious: relating to religion.


Since nothing is mentioned, then we'll assume that religion refers to Abrahamic religions, namely Islam, Christianity & Judaism.


Any disagreement to definitions etc. must be discussed under comments before round 2, otherwise the definitions and BOP conditions must be followed.


I will wait for Pro's arguments and wish them best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Spassky101

Pro

Sorry by not being clear, but I meant Christianity. Now, cutting to the chase, I will start by saying that without evolution, many modern day sciences, especially medical research, rely on evolution. The uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we deny the fact that viruses evolve my rapid asexual reproduction.
Also, when I said most, I meant by definition. I have a sad tale, which is sad unless you're a religious fundamentalist. This one scientist was a Christian all of his life. One day, out of curiosity, he checked the factual evidence of the Bible. When he got rid of all fictional evidence by elimination by natural sciences, including evolution, he found that the Bible was reduced to gibberish and random words with no meaning. With his work in one hand and the Bible in the other, he tossed his work, his career, and his life in the fireplace.
Citation: Undeniable, by Bill Nye.
ssadi

Con

Pro: “[By religion] I meant Christianity.”


I’ve included it as well.


Pro: “… many modern day sciences, especially medical research, rely on evolution.”



Irrelevant!


Our debate is about the Theory of Evolution of Species, as defined in R1, not about the literal meaning of the word evolution. Pro first has to prove that this theory is real.




Pro: “The uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we deny the fact that viruses evolve my rapid asexual reproduction.”




Irrelevant!


Pro has first to show whether those evolutions of viruses “by rapid asexual reproduction” have turned them into any different species or not. Until then, Pro’s example is irrelevant to resolution.



Pro’s example of a Christian cannot be a convincing argument to fill the 2nd part of their BOP, because:

1) no detail is provided as for how said conclusion is obtained by that person,

2) doesn’t show how evolution disproves most religious concepts, &

3) the truth of the story is not confirmed.



I wish Pro best of luck in R3!

Debate Round No. 2
Spassky101

Pro

Spassky101 forfeited this round.
ssadi

Con

Pro: "Now, cutting to the chase, I will start by saying that without evolution, many modern day sciences, especially medical research, rely on evolution."


1. Bare assertion!

2. No evidence is provided.

3. It is not clear what Pro means by "many".

4. No evidence is provided how medical research is relied on the Theory of Evolution of species.


Pro: "The uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we deny the fact that viruses evolve my rapid asexual reproduction."


1. No evidence is provided that the viruses evolve (into other species) by rapid asexual reproduction.

2. It is barely asserted that this evolution of viruses is a fact.

3. It is barely asserted that the uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we denied this so-called fact.



CONCLUSION


1. Having full BOP, Pro didn't provide anything other than bare assertions.

2. Even their bare assertions don't affirm the resolution.

3. Their example of a Christian is not a convincing argument.

4. Pro forfeited R3.


Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Rfd Part 1

The Burden of Proof is on Pro. This means that Pro's arguments need to be standing until the end, then Pro wins, if Con refutes Pro's arguments, then Con wins the debate. The definiton of religious is Chritianity. (Con, you are not supposed to make the definitions, it's unfair.) first argument is that without evolution, then modern science, and medical research depend on evolution. The impact is not met, as Con explains. An impact is how the argument effects the resolution, but as Con says, the argument is irrelevant. Con says that Pro has to explain why evolution is real, not just the meaning and what it is used for. Pro's second argument is irrelevant also, so the impact is not met.

Because Con had rebutted all of Pro's arguments, and Pro's BoP is not met, and Con doesn't have a BoP, Vote Con.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Danielle// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't meet his BOP in the debate. He also forfeited and did not respond to Con's claims.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to assess specific points made by both sides as part of the RFD. In this case, the voter solely focuses on Pro's failings, but doesn't explain how Pro failed to meet that BoP. While assessment of BoP can be enough by itself, the voter does actually have to assess it, and not merely state that one side didn't meet it.
************************************************************************
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Spassky101ssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's BOP is to demonstrate two things: (1) that evolution is real, and (2) that evolution disproves most religious concepts. This burden isn't met. Pro argues that medical research and similar scientific concepts rely on evolution, which isn't compelling because -- as Con points out -- that has no link to whether evolution is "real." Regardless, Pro doesn't meet their BOP anyway because Pro doesn't show the link between evolution and "most religious concepts." Lacking this, I vote Con. Note: my original RFD has been edited since it had multiple typos and lacked punctuation.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
Spassky101ssadiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
Spassky101ssadiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture leads to pro conceding truth claims brought up by con. In the future, allow the instigator to provide rigid rules for the rest of the debate (see: your R1 and how it can come off as stand-offish).
Vote Placed by Danielle 1 year ago
Danielle
Spassky101ssadiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes a positive, proactive statement and has the burden of proving that evolution is both real, and that reality disproves most religious concepts. In R2 Pro argues that modern day science would not exist or be useful without first accepting evolution. Even if this proved evolution was real (questionable), it does not disprove religious concepts, so the burden is still unfulfilled. Pro also recites a an irrelevant fictional story that does not disprove evolution or any religious concepts. Con correctly responds that Pro has to prove evolution is both definitively real AND disproves religious concepts which Pro has not. Pro forfeited R3. Con used R3 to show how Pro's arguments were both fallacious and how Pro's BOP remained unfulfilled. I awarded conduct sources to Con for Pro's forfeit, but I'm not sure if the hyper-strict vote police will remove my vote again because of that.