The Instigator
TheMinorMiner99
Pro (for)
The Contender
FollowerofChrist1955
Con (against)

Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
FollowerofChrist1955 has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2017 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,414 times Debate No: 101153
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (97)
Votes (0)

 

TheMinorMiner99

Pro

Hi. I am an evolutionist and an atheist, and enjoy talking to people who disagree with me. The way in which we avoid the topic of creation science in school is ridiculous, and needs to be rebuilt, taught using a modern scientific method, which evolution by natural selection provides for us. As multiple lines of evidence shows, the evolution model of life can be tested and has been proven.

There is a mosquito in Hawaii who lays its eggs in between the ridges of crickets wings, and when they hatch, those crickets get devoured from the inside. Yum! Quickly, most of the crickets died out, except for a few, who had a random mutation in their DNA, and didn't have the ridges necessary to make sounds, or have eggs lain in them. They were the only crickets who survived this mosquito, and quickly reproduced. The mosquito's couldn't touch them, and natural selection allowed the silent crickets to live. When those mosquito's flew to the neighboring island, those crickets had already developed a different mutation in the same gene that accomplished the same task. Those islands are now filled with silent crickets.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

As you can see, a random mutation, chosen to succeed, led to a brand new species. There are countless other examples of this happening around the world.

Why are we deluding future biologists from knowing the truth about our origins. Teaching them nothing is much worse then teaching them the best truth we have access to. Shown again and again by experimentation and direct observation. This is important for the future of biology, and our species.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

1. Name the sentient animal created by evolutionists during experimentation:

Answer #1 here:__________________________________.

2: Must have EVOLVED from microbe to a sentient living air breathing, crawling, walking, flying ,egg producing, reproductive animal :

Answer #2 here:__________________________________.

.... because Sentient creatures ARE the recognized Life on earth. Otherwise it's a bacteria, and while they may be a form of life, not a single example of one ever becoming a creature sentient OR otherwise exists in the History of Science.

Medical Definition of Microbe
Microbe: A minute organism typically visible under a microscope. Microbes include bacteria, fungi, and protozoan parasites.

Not excuses please.

3. Name the scientist and the experiment that SUCCESSFULLY produced that specific sentient Life form.

Answer #3 here:__________________________________.

4. Name a single animal that changed from one species to a completely different species in history that IS 100% proveable!

Answer #4 here:__________________________________.

Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog, must be 100% factual OR it CANNOT BE CALLED TRUE as defined by dictionary.

ev"o"lu"tion
1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms:Darwinism, natural selection
2. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.

Definition of true
1: truthful
2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs true description
(2) : conformable to an essential reality
(3) : fully realized
c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed the true dimension of
d : consistent true to character
4: legitimate, rightful
b : conformable to a standard or pattern : accurate
: narrow, strict in the truest sense

Definition of sentient
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions sentient beings
2 : aware
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Problem with Evolutionists in general, is their Failure to verify the data or actual evidence. Evolution has always BEEN FALSE!
I borrowed Pros story, to illustrate my point. .

There is a mosquito in Hawaii who lays its eggs in between the ridges of crickets wings, and when they hatch, those crickets get devoured from the inside. Yum! Quickly, most of the crickets died out, except for a few, who had a random mutation in their DNA, and didn't have the ridges necessary to make sounds, or have eggs lain in them. They were the only crickets who survived this mosquito, and quickly reproduced. The mosquito's couldn't touch them, and natural selection allowed the silent crickets to live. When those mosquito's flew to the neighboring island, those crickets had already developed a different mutation in the same gene that accomplished the same task. Those islands are now filled with silent crickets.

Now remove all the misdirection and it becomes Reality;

There is a mosquito in Hawaii who
Killed crickets having back ridges
except for a few, who didn't have the back ridges necessary to make sounds
They were the only crickets who survived this mosquito, and quickly reproduced.
The mosquito's couldn't touch them,
Those islands are now filled with silent crickets

BAM no mystery now is it, No Evolution now just dumb luck for that type of cricket, REMEMBER whether Pro wants to admit it or not ... nothing indicated there were Not back ridgeless crickets already existing. It was clearly written to support the IDEA of evolution, it's not like it's a news story? It's purpose was to support evolutionists ideology without hard evidence being NECESSARY.

But if you LOOK at the actual EVIDENCE, it's ridgeless crickets giving birth to ridgeless crickets NOTHING MORE. Please! Pro erroneously calls that A NEW SPECIES? They were crickets WITHOUT back ridges, they produced WHAT? BABIES WITHOUT BACK RIDGES!

By inserting natural selection, DNA all of a sudden you have something mystical, like evolution instead of what it really WAS, mosquitoes killing crickets that had back ridges. Now evolution would have been all crickets were killed and a microbe EVOLVED into a cricket without back ridges, but that didn't happen. The crickets without the back ridges ALREADY existed. They reproduced, that's called sex not evolution.

How IS THAT by any definition a New Species or did 2 exact type of crickets GIVE birth to identical parent to baby crickets. Now the incredible thing would have BEEN IF two mating no ridgeback crickets had produced a what? Right a ridgeback cricket, but it's still a cricket so not a new species!

By definition According to the biological species concept, a species is a group of individuals who interbreed or have the potential to interbreed in nature. By this definition, a new species exists when individuals of a population become sufficiently different and can no longer interbreed.

To declare an entire system such as evolution proven by 100% unprovable data is unprofessional and misleading.



Debate Round No. 1
TheMinorMiner99

Pro

I'm afraid your first 3 questions don't work, as we cannot hope to complete a process that took nature millions of years in a matter of a single human lifetime, or many lifetimes. That's not how it works. the fourth one, I definitely can, but I can guarantee you will dismiss it as you did with the other one. I`ts a little different though, so you will listen. Ill also phrase it like you would like it with no misdirection.

mosquitoes bite birds
WW2, mosquitoes get trapped underground
Some mosquito`s randomly can bite rats
They survive, biting all the rats underground and do better because they have food
when the mosquito`s get out, they can`t mate with other mosquito`s of the same species.
BAM! new species that didn`t exist before

``Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog``

I don`t think you understand how evolution works. Here is a quick explanation, if you want the full one let me know.

Occasionally, when developing sex cells, (sperm and egg), a extra set of genes will duplicate. It happens a ton, some mistakes are bound to happen. the old set of genes can now shuffle around a bit, specialize, do something brand new. A lot of these mutations are bad, like limbs not growing properly. Lots do nothing at all, but some are fantastic, like light sensitive cells in bacteria to get more food. These bacteria do really well, and reproduce! They pass on the light sensitive cells! Fish may turn into birds over millions of generations, but fish are really good at being fish. Why would they stop.

I want you to read that paragraph again, this time with the mindset ``LOGIC``. It just makes sense. mistakes happen, some are good, some are bad, bad ones die, good ones do well.

Now the incredible thing would have BEEN IF two mating no ridgeback crickets had produced a what? Right a ridgeback cricket, but it's still a cricket so not a new species!

You are wrong there, crickets with no ridges and crickets with ridges are two different species in the cricket family, just as trout and salmon are two different species of fish in the fish family

IS 100% proveable!

My favorite quote of all, because 100% provable isn`t a thing in science. You can only get closer to the truth, you never actually get there. It`s my favorite part about science because no one in science can claim to know all the answers.

What is your personal account of origin science? How does it work, what changes. I ask because you just tried to disprove my points, not add anything of your own.

Where is your evidence for your belief, because god said so is not a valid answer, it being written in the bible is also a no good answer.

Did you agree that we should teach the best truth we have, and what is that truth to you?

What do feel you for sure know, and where might you be wrong?

Please bring hard evidence, that is, in your eyes, better then mine. Good luck, enjoy.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

So are you conceding then? Because despite your attempt to squirm out of your predicament, which cannot BE done, because this was YOUR debate.

The exact Debate challenge was:
Evolution is tried and true

Now you openly admit in your OWN words:
"My favorite quote of all, because 100% provable isn`t a thing in science. "

That being the case you cannot possibly state accurately that Evolution IS TRUE, then can you. by your own admission it cannot BE PROVEN hence NOT TRUE!

The dictionary defines true as something not almost true, close to True, not even hinting at true. It Means that it is a real accurate statement!

true
1. in accordance with fact or reality.
"a true story"
synonyms:
correct, accurate, right, verifiable, in accordance with the facts, what actually/really happened, well documented, the case, so; More

By your admission Evolution is not "TRUE" by required standards of accuracy, and according to you, never can Be.

I submit, you admitted your own defeat in your response. There is nothing else to say.

The debate WAS yours, the Burden was yours. You admit No evidence exist. You lose.
Thank You for playing.
Debate Round No. 2
TheMinorMiner99

Pro

You thinking I`ve put myself in a corner doesn`t mean you`ve won, that`s fallacious debating. Here is what I meant:

Tried and true is a figure of speech, it means that its the current working model, and is good enough for science to say OK! It`s impossible to name something objectively true, if I say something is true, it means it`s good enough. Evolution is good enough for science, just as reproducing is good enough for evolution. Congrats, you have wasted a round. I don`t do that, so I`m going to give another example regarding the success of evolution, and the failure of your model. Humans. They breathe, eat, drink and talk all through the same hole. The amusement park is right next to the garbage dump. Why? If your god created all species perfectly, something like this wouldn`t have happened. Please answer these in addition to the previous questions you failed to answer.

Try to name something true, I`ll tell you a case when it isn`t.

Why do whale have hipbones? They aren`t attached to their skeletons, and serve no purpose.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

"Here is what I meant:
Tried and true is a figure of speech, it means that its the current working model, and is good enough for science to say OK! "

THIS IS WHAT YOU PUT
"Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system"

"As multiple lines of evidence shows, the evolution model of life can be tested and has been proven."

"Shown again and again by experimentation and direct observation."

"Why are we deluding future biologists from knowing the truth about our origins."

"This is important for the future of biology, and our species."

Your admission of evolution as unproven theory.

"I'm afraid your first 3 questions don't work, as we cannot hope to complete a process that took nature millions of years in a matter of a single human lifetime, or many lifetimes. "

This readily means no actual evidence exist, theorizing we must wait Millions of years to "SEE" IF something evolves?

That is in direct contradiction of Use of the term TRUE.

This also may be construed as an awareness of misleading at onset. Knowing something is UNTRUE but inferring it as TRUE is a violation of debate rule, i.e... misrepresentation, fraudulent statements, misleading statements.

Further You did not notify opponent of your deception till Round 3 this is unconscionable and unacceptable.

Debate was entered into in good faith, you've turned into a sham by deliberately lying to cover up your errors, rather than simply admitting your loss.

Now you insult the intelligence of your readers and voters by insisting figure of speech was your intent all along, when a simple reading of your opening statements clearly demonstrates you meant precisely that evolution WAS TRIED AND TRUE in the absolute.

Why in the world something known to be false would be of more benefit to teach in school as you recommended, shows want of clear thinking, and a clear indication that you yourself, were obviously UNAWARE that evolution was false at the onset of our debate. And only by my questioning, were you forced to research and discover your error.

I'm afraid in light of your inexperience on the subject of evolution, continued debate would be all but pointless.

This obviously renders my submission of further evidences as moot, in that you cannot even provide any evidence contradicting my original four questions, what sense would there be to submit other, equally unanswerable questions.

You lose. Sir, in every way that matters you failed to provide anything that could remotely be called TRUE!
Debate Round No. 3
TheMinorMiner99

Pro

We have been having heated debates in the comments, and it's a mess. Enter at your own risk.

I just read a paper of these examples, you can find them if you like. I found a website that even gets rid of the misdirection for you

http://examples.yourdictionary.com...

It's very brief, the internet exists though, so you can find other stuff there.

So sorry I missed an example in the last round, It wasn't relevant with the topic. I'm trying to bring us back to the main topic, being that Evolution is a powerful tool to teach the origin of species, and we should be teaching school.

This time, i'm going to bring up an example that is a big deal today. Anti-biotic resistant bacteria. As I discussed in round 2, occasionally a bacteria will develop a random mutation that give it light sensitive cells. Well, the same style of mutation can have it develop resistance to a certain type of anti-biotic. I contracted Pneumonia a few months ago, and without modern medicine, I would be dead.

Explanation of Pneumonia: http://www.mayoclinic.org...
Sorry for the ads

There is a chance that these bacteria could have a random mutation, that gives it resistance to the type of drug I was taking. This would mean my antibiotic wouldn't kill it, and I would have to take a different one, one that the bacteria hopefully hadn't evolved a resistance to. Fortunately, this didn't happen, and I was better in a few weeks.

This seems a lot like natural selection doesn't it. A random mutation in the genes of a bacteria cell that gave it power against a natural predator. This mutation would allow it to survive easier and pass on it's mutation. Maybe one of the other cells had a mutation that meant it couldn't spread, so it died off, maybe a different bacteria gave a rash on your hand, but because pneumonia doesn't affect your hands, it was useless.

You can see that evolution is everywhere in the animal kingdom, and in the kingdom of the very small especially. You just have to look a little closer. And before Con tries to pass this off as already existing, why have we never seen it before, because we would have definitely noticed if a cell was immune to our weapons.

The first 4 question I have addressed, but It has been 2 rounds and you haven't responded to mine

This readily means no actual evidence exist, theorizing we must wait Millions of years to "SEE" IF something evolves?

We can watch it happen, but we can't do it. These mutations are random, and science isn't perfect. It's a process not an ideology

I'm very sorry that my figure of speech fooled you. I thought it was clear, but I guess I was wrong. If you do think that objective truth exists, let me know, i'll tell you where it doesn't apply, and I'll use more quotation marks

And i'm throwing on 2 more questions to the previous 6, explain the difference between us an chimpanzees, as we are so similar, and explain how we share 50% of DNA with Bananas, If we didn't evolve from a common ancestor

If there is anything that I missed from you that I should address, let me know, but I think I've covered everything. Happy conversing.

P.S. I was religious only a year ago, until I thought about it, did some math, found it was too improbable to be realistic, and Occam's razor-ed it away (Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected). I know where you are coming from, and I know it is hard to drop everything you've known for your entire life, but the truth is what we are after, and science is the best tool for finding that truth. It won't be easy to convert to a new model of why you exist, but it is the right thing to do.
FollowerofChrist1955

Con

Posted by TheMinorMiner99 6 hours ago

Cons final Question to Pro:
So are you conceding then? Because despite your attempt to squirm out of your predicament, which cannot BE done, because this was YOUR debate. The exact Debate challenge was: Evolution is tried and true.

Pros response to Con:
I can no longer debate this with someone who thinks that because I made a mistake, they have won. I'm conceding, because this is a worthless argument. I hope you feel happy you have won.

Sorry folks confirmation of response to my question CONFIRMED. THis debate ended . Too bad you didn't grow a pair BEFORE CONCEDING. I'm glad though.

Why would you ask me questions off topic .... what I think of the origin of earth. .

Pro stated:
The first 4 question I have addressed, but It has been 2 rounds and you haven't responded to mine

"The response"
I'm afraid your first 3 questions don't work, as we cannot hope to complete a process that took nature millions of years in a matter of a single human lifetime, or many lifetimes.

Proving Evolution was not tried and True by Pro's admission

Posted by TheMinorMiner99 6 hours ago
You, know I might finish this just to rub in your face when I win

Ohh what a dishonest,dishonorable fellow you have shown yourself to be. Lies, deceitful, conniving. So much FOR YOUR character. You have assassinated it all by yourself.

Let all who read consider pros conduct. He conceded. I of course have accepted. This debate ended long ago. Henceforth only Pros form of imagination must serve too entertain you.

The smart man, would NOT have tipped his hand. Bye.
Debate Round No. 4
TheMinorMiner99

Pro

Please try and continue with this debate, you do no good for yourself just saying how I made a single mistake. I am aware that the comments are a mess, but I decided to continue. If there is an issue with me continuing the debate you agreed to join and I created to finish, let me know. Even if I said I was conceding, after much thought, I decided to continue.

The comments are a mess, I addressed that in my last argument.

To close off, I'm going to recap my view

I believe that evolution by natural selection is responsible for the diversity and uniqueness of modern species. We can trace our genes back to the genes in the earliest bacteria. Evolution by natural selection is the most correct view of modern species and it should be taught in modern school. Avoiding the topic of origin science in education needs to change, and it should be taught with convincing evidence, and solid data. The worlds leading biologists and scientists in other fields agree with me, and they are the ones building a brighter future.

The best place to see evolution in in the very small, as they reproduce quickly, especially bacteria as seen before in the previous argument. We have seen evolution happen, and it's time others see the same way.

"Truth resists simplicity" ~ John Green, Author

The best we have can't be explained in a sentence. It's far more complex then that, taking thousands of years, with lots of failed blueprints and successful changes. Creationism is easy to follow, it lays everything out for you on a platter for you to accept as truth. Human nature disagrees, and want's to find the truth for itself. It found something different, something with far more complex rules and a lot of "dumb luck". Evolution resists simplicity, and humans have found the truth on their own. Be a warrior, armed with knowledge, and teach people a more complex reality to the one they have always known. Human's crave knowledge, but knowledge can't be discovered without building on previous knowledge and facts. If people refuse to accept what's been known for years, they wont contribute to progression as a species. Make the right choice, not the easy one. Carry out my debate with believers and turn them towards the truth, or at least whatever we have. It will be easy to ignore my words, but with an open mind, you will realize that evolution has been staring you in the face all along, just like it had with me.

"Problem with Evolutionists in general, is their Failure to verify the data or actual evidence. Evolution has always BEEN FALSE!"

Well, you still haven't refuted the previous examples, you have just gone over my own mistakes, while failing to correct any of yours

"That being the case you cannot possibly state accurately that Evolution IS TRUE, then can you. by your own admission it cannot BE PROVEN hence NOT TRUE!"

No, it can't be proven true, nothing can , but it's looking really good, and that's good enough for science, which just happens to be the building block of modern society.

"You admit No evidence exist"

No I do not, see previous examples

"Your admission of evolution as unproven theory."

It isn't unproven, as proven is not the same as true. The evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming, as 2 failed responses on your end will show, and the proof of evolution has been settled among scientists already

"rather than simply admitting your loss."

That's not how debating works. If there is contradictory evidence against evolution i'm ready to drop my view. I just haven't found any yet. Please show me some, i'd love to follow you if there is good reason.

"Why in the world something known to be false"

lots of the world and almost all of the scientific community disagree, and you haven't shown me why it's false. Now is far too late for that. 4 rounds too late.

"I'm afraid in light of your inexperience on the subject of evolution, continued debate would be all but pointless."
"Like dog to fish, bird to lizard, elephant to flea, ape to Man, pig to dog"

It is not I who is inexperienced, as the above statement shows.

The questions that you have continued to fail to answer, all here.

What is your personal account of origin science, being the origin of species, not the planet (which is very on topic)? How does it work. I ask because you just tried to disprove my points, not add anything of your own.

Where is your evidence for your belief, because god said so is not a valid answer, it being written in the bible is also a bad answer.

Did you agree that we should teach the best truth we have, and what is that truth to you?

What do feel you for sure know, and where might you be wrong?

Humans. They breathe, eat, drink and talk all through the same hole. The amusement park is right next to the garbage dump. If we are perfect why does this happen?

Try to name something true, I`ll tell you a case when it isn`t.

Why do whales have hipbones? They aren`t attached to their skeletons, and serve no purpose.

Explain the difference between us an chimpanzees, as we are so similar, and explain how we share 50% of DNA with Bananas, If we didn't evolve from a common ancestor.

And of course, now that we are pulling quotes from the comments:

"Excuse me ... The Debate is not about Opinion, it's about FACTS"
"Did you honestly enter into this debate with the intent to USE only opinions? No evidence, no facts? That is a waste of time, as opinions are NOT FACTS and everyone has a differing opinion."
"Opinions are not facts."
"I would just request, that IF your going to attack me, please be so kind to do so with FACTS."
"The whole of the Evolution theory rest on pure unadulterated opinion."
"Pro can fill the page with opinions, but ZERO FACTS"

I have provided facts, you have refuted them with varying degrees of success. You have given only opinions thus far. You should take your own advice.

I made a mistake, people do that a lot. I apologize. But I realized my mistake, and now I'm back. Continue debating with me. I welcome opposing ideas with my own.

I want your personal view on creation science, how does it work, what is the driving force and why should we teach it. Find weak points in my model and attack them, shooting for conclusive evidence that will make me change my mind. You have had 4 rounds to present a case, and you missed them. Here is the 5 round, far too late to give a model but better late then never. Oppose my thoughts, and not my person, and enjoy your 10 000 characters, you may need them.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
97 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 1 year ago
TheUnexaminedLife
But FollowerofChrist1955,
Surely you have to believe in abiogenesis as a Christian: wasn't the non-living material bodies of all Jesus, Lazarus and Jairus' daughter, resurrected from the dead? Given life by God?
Your issue is not with the idea that matter can be animated but that it can be animated naturally and not supernaturally. To which, you must understand by now from all your preaching on this site, the secular individual responds to by saying that 'science will discover this in the future as, it is subject to constant errors and improvements'. A statement which you cannot disprove not yourself knowing the future...
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
TheMinorMiner99

Is it not truly pitiful that any person be so desperate to convince themselves there is no God, therefore no punishment in death, that one clings to 2 absurd and Scientifically unproven theories as evolution and abiogenesis. Such a shame, that you will have no excuse before God.

Question: "What is the theory of abiogenesis? What is the definition of abiogenesis?"

Answer: Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind"s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
Posted by TheMinorMiner99 1 year ago
TheMinorMiner99
You have 3 hours to finish an argument. If you don't wan't to debate this, you shouldn't have started. After that the voting, and then the winner. You've clearly been active here so running out of time is not an excuse. Try to refute my points and examples, rather then saying that I made a mistake and had an epiphany too late is reason for your victory
Posted by TheMinorMiner99 1 year ago
TheMinorMiner99
My debating isn`t fantastic. Destroy me in every way imaginable. Stop wasting time in the comments and post an argument. The viewers will decide who wins. An argument takes lest time then 3 days worth of comments, and take on RC and RR, because, to you, they are also children. I did not concede because I lost, I conceded because it was fruitless, and then it wasn`t. That`s what I mean by attacking my character
Posted by RR-5L8S 1 year ago
RR-5L8S
Put simply, you are a coward who will not defend his views when challenged by someone who [In your view] stands a chance to refute your twisted logic. And for a child, I am certainly better able to articulate arguments and provide hard evidence than you on the other hand. My challenge still stands.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
TheMinorMiner99
The debate is:
"Evolution is tried and true and should be taught in the modern school system"
Pro conceded, because he could not prove his debate, end of story. There are no other discussions beyond this topic. Burden of proof was on Pro, not Con, end of story. No opinions will nor can change that. I certainly do not debate children. Largely because their all imagination and ZERO experience. But Miner may do as he wishes, he can nor could prove evolution. Signing off.
Posted by TheMinorMiner99 1 year ago
TheMinorMiner99
Yup. Keep engaging and practicing. debating is very useful in real life, so you might as well practise here first
Posted by RR-5L8S 1 year ago
RR-5L8S
Practice is the venue through which perfection is achieved. That is exactly why I joined this site in the first place, despite it's many flaws.
Posted by TheMinorMiner99 1 year ago
TheMinorMiner99
:) I'm not too great at debating, but I'm shooting for the debate team at high school. This isn't a fantastic first experience, but Iv'e sure learned a lot
Posted by RR-5L8S 1 year ago
RR-5L8S
Thank you. I must be gracious and compliment the fact that you have even tried to continue a discussion with this... senile person to say the least.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.