The Instigator
travelman
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Evolution is real.

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 13 votes the winner is...
FritzStammberger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,843 times Debate No: 30062
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (53)
Votes (13)

 

travelman

Pro

Evolution is, overall, a well proven theory. Before we officially begin, a "theory" is defined as "a re-proven and reiterated idea." In fact, evolution is one of the most well formulated theories in all of science. Anyway, why it is real: Chimpanzees/monkeys and other primates have had close genetic similarities and behaviors as many humans. Also, many systems of the human anatomy work virtually the same. For instance, humans have been proven to have the strongest immunities of all living beings. And what living being comes next on the list? Chimpanzees. That is because of evolution; The Immune System has become stronger as evolution has progressed. We'll go into depth once you accept.
FritzStammberger

Con

The similarities are due to having the same designer.

Ford cars are very similar, this doesn't mean that the Ford F150 evolved out of a Ford Taurus over billions of years. It means they have the same designer.

You have good observations but draw the wrong conclusion.
Debate Round No. 1
travelman

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. I will write rebuttals to each of your comments.

The similarities are due to having the same designer.
Rebuttal: Hmm...I can tell you that I do believe in God, yet I do believe in evolution. Actually, the similarities are from the nearly same DNA. I said nearly same because evolution occurred and the DNA took shape overtime.

Ford cars are very similar, this doesn't mean that the Ford F150 evolved out of a Ford Taurus over billions of years. It means they have the same designer.
Rebuttal: That analogy is not a very good comparison. After all, evolution was a natural event, unlike car designing.

You have good observations but draw the wrong conclusion.
Rebuttal: How do I draw the wrong conclusions? My conclusion is that the genetic similarities are a result of biological evolution.
FritzStammberger

Con

My opponent states:

My conclusion is that the genetic similarities are a result of biological evolution.

yet my opponent is yet to provide any evidence for this conclusion, This is just un-substantiated speculation.

This is equivelent to saying "because the stick bug looks like a stick then it evolved from a stick." But this is not science. This is just conjecture.


Evolution is mathematically impossible!



"let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)
200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

http://www.icr.org...;

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 2
travelman

Pro

Let me bring up this topic. What is the basic building block of life? Cells. Animal Cells, Plant Cells, White Cells, there all over. So where did life begin? Well, with cells, it's been proven. Life started out as single celled organisms. Then, the organisms EVOLVED into tissues, tissues evolved into organs, organs evolved into systems, and systems evolved into organisms like us. See? Cells are the basic unit of life. Tell me this: If we have found and seen cells under microscopes and taken visual evidence of them, why do you still believe that evolution is false? We have found the source behind evolution, so it has been nearly solved.
FritzStammberger

Con

Round 4 and my opponent is yet to provide a single piece of scientific evidence for evolution.

I have also shown in round 3 how the evolution of complex systems by mutation is mathematically impossible.

My opponent now seems to be switching from talking about humans evolving from chimpanzees to just merely talking about cells turning into organs. He is switching from Macro evolution to micro "evolution" or what I would call "growing". This is a sort of reverse of what happens in schools. In schools they start off talking about micro evolution and then they switch to macro and start talking about animals some how mutating into other animals over "billions of years". Regardless.

This is a major problem people.

There are atleast 6 definitions of "evolution" according to creation scientist Kent Hovind.

1. Cosmic evolution
: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
2. Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
6. Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

Only number 6 has anything to do with real science.

I have shown how macro evolution is mathematically impossible and therefore "evolution" as commonly regarded is not real.
Debate Round No. 3
travelman

Pro

Okay, I have just stated that the building blocks of life are cells, and that they are found in virtually every living being. That is why evolution is real. The development of cells overtime is why evolution is real. Also, there are fossils. With fossils, we have been able to date animals back to certain years within the layers of the Earth. Also, we have found numerous bones from Neanderthals, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus species of humans. We have been able to piece together the bones and figure out how similar our species, the Homo Sapiens, and the previous species have been similar. It's not magic, it's just evolution. We have also been able to track DNA from Chimpanzees and see the RNA/DNA similarities. Scientists have also been able to recover DNA from Neanderthals and have found genetic similarities. And its not a common creator that proves why we are similar, it is a common ANCESTOR that makes us all similar to many animals.
FritzStammberger

Con

Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record

Fred Williams
January 2002
(Featured in Creation Digest, Winter 2002)

Introduction

One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth. So how is the evolutionist able to effectively sell to their audience the precise opposite of what the data shows? They achieve this by employing a clever sleight-of-hand with the fossil data that can easily be missed by any reasonable person. The purpose of this article is to expose this sleight-of-hand, which will then dissolve the false illusion it creates. Once the curtain is pulled and the illusion exposed, the truth can clearly be seen – the fossil record is an overwhelming and devastating contradiction to evolution.

The Sleight-of-Hand

Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!1 What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!2

If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.

1. The fossil distribution data comes from Answers is Genesis, and is based on various sources (including Paleontologist Dr. Kurt Wise). This data is not disputed by informed evolutionists, which includes frequent Talk.Origins regular Andrew Macrae.

2. For example, in the widely used college undergraduate textbook “Evolutionary Biology” (3rd Ed. 1998), author Douglas Futuyma does not list one single transitional leading up to the complex invertebrates (see chapter 6 in particular, “Evolving Lineages in the Fossil Record”). All his transitional examples spanning orders or classes are vertebrates! His only mention of the "evolution" of the complex invertebrates is a brief snippet on the changes in rib numbers on trilobites! This of course is nothing more than small-scale variation, or micro-evolution. Also see “Invertebrate Beginnings”, Paleobiology, 6: 365-70, R.D. Barnes, 1980. Also see Dr Chen’s comments in the Boston Globe article A Little Fish Challenges A Giant Of Science

http://evolutionfairytale.com...

An Analogy

"Image John the evolutionist and Fred the creationist entering a huge 50-story museum filled with all the fossils that have ever been unearthed. The curator of the museum explains that most of the complete fossils are displayed in every single room up to the 50th floor, while the incomplete fossils are kept in a small closet in the basement. The curator tells John and Fred that the fossils throughout the building represent all the invertebrate phyla discovered, literally billions of complete specimens representing millions of different species of complex invertebrate animal life, from clams, to trilobites, to sponges.

The curator then tells John & Fred about the small closet in the basement. They are told that the fossils in this small room constitute only .0125% of the fossil record, and most of these are fish. He then adds that the remaining fossils in this small room that aren’t fish make up all the remaining vertebrate fossils, 95% of which are represented by less than a single bone.

John and Fred scurry through all the evidence throughout the massive building, ignoring that little closet in the basement, realizing that it’s the most unrevealing data to look at. As the huge cache of complete fossils is examined, panic soon begins to set in for John the evolutionist because THERE IS NOT A TRACE OF EVOLUTION IN ANY OF THE EVIDENCE! NONE! THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LINK TO THE COMPLEX INVERTEBRATES, AND NOT A SINGLE LINK BETWEEN INVERTEBRATES AND VERTEBRATES!

In a total state of panic and defeat, John suddenly remembers something the curator had mentioned. That little closet in the basement! John quickly runs to the basement and opens the door to the small closet. Soon his mind begins whirling, he becomes excited, and before long he has found “evidence” for evolution! These fragments of bones allow John to make all kinds of wild, fanciful speculation. “Hey, this is ‘evidence’, man!” John gleefully declares. The curator quickly reminds John that many similar past speculations made from observations from this tiny room have long since been refuted. He’s reminded of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, Mesonychid, Pikaia, and so on and so forth. But John is so excited about his speculation that he chooses to ignore this very important and revealing truth.

John goes on to gleefully tell others that “the fossil record supports evolution”, and gives them his “examples” from the closet in the basement. He fails to mention to them that his evidence is from a tiny closet full of incomplete specimens. He also fails to mention that all of the other rooms in the 50-story building contained complete specimens, yet yielded NO sign of evolution whatsoever. He tells his story over and over again, and before long, many begin to share in his fantasy, themselves telling the story to others over and over again. Eventually, their myth emerges as reality to countless unsuspecting listeners."

http://evolutionfairytale.com...

A common ancestor

Our common ancestor is Adam and Eve.

- not a monkey

- not a fish

- not soup

- not a rock

- not "nothing"

It is Adam and Eve, the first two complete humans that God made.

Debate Round No. 4
travelman

Pro

Ok, may I remind you again that I am Catholic and I do believe in God, yet I also believe that evolution occured. Anyway, think about this: Why do we humans and chimpanzees look the same? Evolution. Our features are similar to theirs. For instance, our reproductive system and their's are the same, because of the same gentials and everything. Also, check out the Phylogenetic tree and the molecular tree. When comparing them, they match so well that the significance is P <0.00077. Animals overtime gain new features as evolution occured, such as the way that marsupials have aquired many of the placental mammal features. Animals, with evolution, have the capability to adapt to their environment, such as birds have different beaks for their own unique needs. Tink about this, too: Goose bumps. You experience development of goose bumps when you are cold or in fear, same with all of the other animals. See? If you match animals characteristics with us, you will find that evolution has passed on many vital characteristics to us.

Thank you for accepting my debate, and I conclude my final argument with saying that I am a firm believer of science and God. May the best man win.
FritzStammberger

Con


"why do humans and chimps look the same?"



you say "Evolution" but provide no evidence to back this claim up.



I say we look similar because we are made by the same designer.



I know some people that look more like cats than monkeys and some people that look like a lizard. This doesn't mean they mutated from a cat or a lizard to become human.



- "birds have different beaks"


This is merely variation not vertical evolution. like people having different colour eyes or hair. The common ancestor of the birds is a BIRD.



"goose bumps?"


God designed creatures to get goose bumps.



I just do not see in any way how you have provided ANY good evidence for evolution or even a half decent logical argument.



You conceded the fossil argument by not refuting my claim that there are NO transitional fossils. You failed to provide even a single example.



Your entire argument is basically


"Why do we humans and chimpanzees look the same? Evolution. Our features are similar to theirs."



- No evidence, bold assertion.



I say we look the same because we have the same Designer, God. This is a far more rational and logical explanation than "first there was nothing, then there was dirt, then there was soup, molecules, millions upon millions of beneficial mutations (of which not one has EVER been observed), and then Man. You fail to see the complexity, power, knowledge and beauty of Man as the handy work of a loving, all powerful, perfect Father who is in heaven.



The bible says this in John


John 1



1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


2 The same was in the beginning with God.


3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.


7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.


8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.


9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.


10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.


11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.


12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:


13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.


16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.


17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.




CONCLUSION


- I have provided 6 definitions of evolution in round 3 ALL of which remain un-refuted


- My opponent dropped the fossil record argument.


- My opponent failed to provide even a single scientifically sourced piece of evidence for evolution.


- I showed how evolution was mathematically impossible in the second round. My opponent ignored this completely.


Actually, now that I have looked over this debate it is clear that there is no way my opponent has "proven" that "Evolution is real" as is the title states.


Please vote Contender


Thank you ,


Fritz



Debate Round No. 5
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Phil_Collins 4 years ago
Phil_Collins
tyler.schillim Vote Bombed based on his poor knowledge of evolution. Of course we didn't come from monkeys. We have a common ancestor with monkeys.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
religion is such a joke, I think its time for some real humor from our friend Stewie :)

Quotes 8:21--"Tell me you did Not have sex with her Brian. That is ground zero, I wrecked that place on the way out. I even scratched "Brooks was Here" on the wall. Did you see that, did you see Brooks was Here Brian?"--Stewie Griffin
Posted by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
Chemical evolution: all elements evolved from hydrogen is actually true. Stars fuse hydrogen into helium, its a proven fact. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Stalin was actually a Christian, too, he just used secularism as a tool of oppression where Hitler used religious fervor. He wasn't nearly as devout as Hitler was, but once his rule was secure he reintroduced the Orthodox Church.

"Joseph Stalin was raised to be a Catholic Priest and I remain curious as to why his Christianity is shoved aside in all these arguments. Yes, there is no way to get around the fact that in his early career, Stalin made a vast effort to rid Russia of religion, but that had nothing to do with atheism. It was the only way he knew to seize power of the country.

For generations the entire populace of Russia had been taught that the head of state was supposed to be close to god. At the time in question, the head of the church in Russia was a tyrant. The Russians were already disposed to servility and all Stalin did was exploit these two facts, and place himself in the position of god. Once Stalin was firmly seated in office, he revived the Russian Orthodox Church in order to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. Stalin was part of a council convened to elected a new church Patriarch. Then the Russian theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. Even the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary was re-opened, after being closed since 1918.

So, while Stalin was no peach, he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist, which is a personal character trait. He did not use atheism to gain control, but religious principles that were modified to fit his own, sick and twisted method of revolution." --http://www.examiner.com...
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
thanks deadlykris, haha. devient.genie you are so right. All wars caused by religion views, witch hunt was a religious thing, Hitler was a religious leader that was doing this gods will under christianity. 100% of christian went against this gods will engaging is sex before marriage, they lie everyday, they sin every day. if this is all real, 95% who will go to hell is christianity for not truely following gods law, not only that worshiping jesus christ, making him a second god, they then broke number one law of god rules. so we can move that 95% up to 96%. we will move that up one more precent for worshiping and praying, and preaching outside there own privacy. like when in church, schools, etc..
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Survey 3:45--2006 poll, 82% in UK think religion does more harm than good. 63% describe themselves as "not religious. UK is smarter or more honest than USA. The USA is far more brainwashed than UK or we just have more liars afraid to admit they question the validity of an all powerful being monitoring their sex lives :)
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Pterodactyl. It's a funny word. The P is silent.
Posted by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
Taryadactal how ever you spell that dinosaur bird, evolved to some of the birds we have now, T-rex etc lizards, are now smaller, but hold the exact traits as the dinosaurs that used to roam the world largely but no they are small.

Single piece of evidence that the earth is about 4. whatever billion years old, the turtle, its been around even during the dinosaur ages.

as for this jesus to be god, its funny how he yelled up saying father, or god why have you forsaken me. but then your going to say well the ghost left him, then that makes jesus just a man, and since you cannot prove there was even a ghost, only words from a book claims. Then that comes to this question. if this god can come as a man to earth, why did he wait for so long to do so, oh and if that so powerful, then why does like i said he allow killings, death. why not use that all powerful to stop it, to keep death from happening, to keep kids from going through hard times, or dieing wrongfully. You say he loves us allot, but does nothing to to prevent any wrong. then you blame the this devil, but yet failed to even realize that since this god is creator of all, that means he the one who created all. but you all blame this devil for things, why people start asking those questions, so then why not add a bad guy to cover up this gods true evil done to this world.
the question is did man find this god or god find man. if this world is truely 6000 years old, why did this god wait until man knew how to use sentences, and basically truely learn how to write to show himself, not when men did not knew of true writing just pictures. did man find this god or this god find these men.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
1) The carbon content of the atmosphere is hardly static. Carbon is constantly entering and leaving the atmosphere.

2) No, they're not historical fact. There is not one credible historical record of such events. There was absolutely NOTHING written down at the time these events supposedly happened.

3) We only have your word on that, and as someone who adheres to some exceedingly hateful beliefs, your word is suspect.

And now for that evidence you asked for, which you will immediately dismiss for some lame reason or another:
http://link.springer.com...
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
1. the carbon 14 in the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium therefore it's no older than 30,000 years

2. Jesus death and ressurection from the dead and his ministry of healing and miracles is historical fact. Jesus claimed to be God and we have NO reason to doubt him.

3. The evidence that I was an atheist is I said I was. I have never lied to you.

Now you provide 1 piece of evidence that dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds as you claimed.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 4 years ago
ModusTollens
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are pretty weak, but his/her arguments win simply because of how ridiculously tenuous Con's grasp of probability is. Evolution does not require consecutive "good" mutations. It only requires changes in gene frequency.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con's arguments weren't particularly convincing, they were certainly more convincing than Pro's.
Vote Placed by tyler.schillim 4 years ago
tyler.schillim
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: We all came from Adam and Eve, not monkeys! They are similar but that doesn't mean we came from them.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering badbob's votebomb; he who claimed that travelman was votebombing in his own debate (and that he was countering that votebomb). Here's a hint: the debaters can't vote.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
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 dropped the argument from mathematics. Even though the argument was not his own, as long as the debater sources, understands, & explains (if necessary), it's fine. The content of the argument was reasonably simple, so I presume con understood it. & it was clear so it didn't really need any explanation on cons part. Thus the argument stands. Pro dropped it, so the win goes to con.
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering travelman
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Humans are created from cells, sperm and a egg without those cells humans would not exist. we evolved went through evolution, from cells to men/women. there visual proof.
Vote Placed by thedebatekid 4 years ago
thedebatekid
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I got travelman's beginning argument so i give him Before. FS used sources so he got that point. He made good arguments which makes me give him the last point.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The most I can award travelman is conduct, since Fritz copied extended arguments rather than making his own. travelman did not demonstrate evolution is real. Fritz proposed an alternate and seemingly plausible theory that travelman did not refute. See comments for more explanation / RFD.
Vote Placed by DoubtingDave 4 years ago
DoubtingDave
travelmanFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither debater seems to have a strong grasp on the evolutionary theory. I am giving con the conduct point for pro's attempt to have me votebomb this debate ni his favor in a comment section with my debate with Muted. I agree with pro, but he failed to meet the BoP.