The Instigator
Microsuck
Pro (for)
Tied
23 Points
The Contender
acvavra
Con (against)
Tied
23 Points

Evolution (pro) vs. Creation (con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 12 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 22,200 times Debate No: 24967
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (63)
Votes (12)

 

Microsuck

Pro

Resolved: Scientific evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution by common descent over the "theory" of Creationism.

Definitions:

No semantics please. These are the definitions that will be used throughout this debate.

Theory - A well supported, conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, data, and observations and explains them in a coherent way (Fairbans, 2012)


Evolution - At the most basic level, evolution is defined as “the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.” (Moran, 1993) Consequently, “genetic changes over many generations ultimately result in the emergence of new and different species from a single ancestral species”. (Fairbanks, 2012) As a result, “all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale”. (Douglas Theobald, 2012) Consequently, all modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species. All life on earth shares a common ancestor from the Phylogenetic Tree of Life.

Scientific evidence - "Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions." (Douglas Theobald, 2012)

Supports - The supporting evidence (see above) is consistent with the Theory of Evolution and makes evolution more probable than not.

Creationism - The view that God created life in its present form on earth within the passed 10,000 years.

Rules:

Structure

(1) Acceptance;

(2) Opening statements;
(3) Rebuttals;
(4) Rebuttals/Closing

Conduct

(1) Debater must have typing experience, internet access, and should have sufficent knowledge of the Theory of Evolution.

(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate
(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(4) No semantics,or trolling.
(5) Burden of proof is shared. My burden is to prove that scientific evidence supports the ToE and your job is to show that it doesn't.

Additional information:

(1) This is not a debate on God's existence;
(2) This is not a debate on whether the Bible is God's word;
(3) This is not a debate on the age of the earth.

Bibliography

Douglas Theobald, P. (2012, April 16). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, 2.89. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from Talk.Origin Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org...

Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Ahmester: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.

Moran, L. (1993, January 22). What is Evolution? . Retrieved July 17, 2012, from Talk.Origin Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org...

acvavra

Con

accepted. Best of Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your willingness to debate this subject. In this round, I am going to defend evolution and bring forth evidence for its theory.

I. The Phylogenetic Tree of Life

One prediction that is made by evolution is that if evolution via common descent were true, then we should be able to place life in a hierarchy – a tree if you would. We should be able to develop an objective classification scheme for all organisms. We call this the Phylogenetic tree of life.

A basic Phylogenetic tree.

The above lists a basic Phylogenetic tree (Theobald, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree). Note that “hypothetical common ancestor” does not mean that we guess that it existed; rather it means that we infer that it existed.

This Tree of Life and the line of evidence can easily be falsified if we find an organism that cannot fit into any known taxonomy or hierarchy on such a tree.

The video to the right explains how Phylogenetic trees are constructed and why they offer such great proof for evolution.

II. Evidence from our bodies

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” -- Theodosius Dobzhansky.

A. Remnants of the past

Our bodies yield much evidence for evolution. I will explore several key points from our body that presents evidence for common descent: 1) Vestigial structures; 2) Atavisms; 3) HERVs; and 4) Pseudogenes.

A-1. Vestigial structures

Contrary to Creationists claims, a vestigial structure is not a structure that is functionless. Indeed, a vestigial structure is a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed (or evolved) for another complex purpose (Theobald, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - Part 2: Past History).

Example 1: Goosebumps

Goosebumps are vestiges of a time when our ancestors had hair covering their entire body. The function of the goosebump is to raise hairs to make better insulating the animal when the air is cold, or to make the animal look larger and more menacing when frightened (Fairbanks).

Example 2: The ostrich wing

"The wing of the ostrich resembles those of the gyrfalcon and the hawk. Who does not know how the speed of the gyrfalcon and hawk in flight exceeds that of other birds? The ostrich certainly has wings like theirs but not their speed of flight. Truly, it has not the capacity to be lifted from the ground and gives only the impression of spreading its wings as if to fly; however, it never supports itself above the earth in flight.

It is exactly the same with all those hypocrites who pretend to live a life of piety, giving the impression of holiness without the reality of holy behaviour."

The Aberdeen Bestiary http://www.abdn.ac.uk...
Folio 41v , c. AD 1200
— on the ostrich, its vestiges a symbol of hypocrisy since the 2nd century A.D.

The ostrich wing is a vestigial structure as the wing is useless for flight.

No organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors. Thus, for each species, the standard Phylogenetic tree (listed above) prohibits what types of structures we cannot see. For example, we will never see a man with vestigial wings used to fly.

A-2. Atavisms

Atavisms are a slam dunk for common descent. Atavisms offer powerful evidence of how anatomy evolves. Unlike a vestigial structure, an atavism is a lost ancestral structure that occasionally reappears in a few individuals (Fairbanks). I will list below two common forms of atavisms.

Example 1: Humans with tails

The most striking (at least to me) atavism is the formation of humans with a true tail. Occasionally, human infants are born with a small tail that persists into adulthood if it is not surgically removed. More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported. Less than 1/3 of these are “pseudo-tails” [1] (Dao and Netsky)

Atavism

This picture above shows an x-ray of a human tail (Theobald, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - Part 2: Past History).

III. Evidence from the genome

A pseudoegene is a gene that is disabled. It is one that has lost its entire function via a disabling mutation. There are numerous such pseudogenes in humans and I am going to explore a couple of them in this debate.

A. PseudogenesA-1. CMAH

Malaria is one of the most horrific human diseases. However, at one point in our evolutionary history, humans enjoyed immunity to malaria. What happened for humans to gain and lose resistance to malaria?

Malaria is caused by a microorganism known as Plasmodium falciparum. It cannot be transmitted from person to person but must be carried via a mosquitoes and acquired and transmitted when a mosquito bites a person.

Chimpanzees suffer from a less severe form of malaria caused by a microorganism called Plasmodium reichenowi. What happened is the following: The human parasite evolved from the chimp parasite by jumping hosts from humans to chimpanzees.

Plasmodium reichenowi recognizes a substance on a gene called CMAH. Our genome carries this gene and we have it in the same strand of DNA as chimpanzees do. However, the only difference is it is disabled – a pseudogene if you will. No-one has the original non-mutated version.

The mutation that disabled the CMAH gene had a distinct advantage of those that did not – they became resistant to malaria. [2]

So, what happened? Why did we lose our resistance to malaria? The answer lies in the evolution of malaria itself. Mutations in a gene called EBA-175 allowed those parasites that carried the same mutation to recognize another substance which is abundant on human red blood cells about five to ten thousand years ago. The results: Plasmodium falciparum evolved as a new species. We are highly susceptible to this new form of malaria and the new version of malaria is much worse than the old one. (Fairbanks)

Conclusion

The evidence that I have given you in this debate is not even the tip of the iceberg. Many books have been written on the evidence for evolution and I can easily write hundreds of pages on evolution.

Yes we evolved, yes we are evolving; along with the rest of life—how we use our knowledge of evolution directly impacts the future of life on earth.



[1] “Pseudo-tails” are not true tails; they are simply lesions of various types coincidentally found in the caudal region of newborns.

[2] Neanderthals apparently had this same CMAH pseudogene meaning that the disabling mutation occurred before the splitting of the two lineages.

Bibliography

Dao, A. H. and M. G Netsky. "Human tails and pseudotails." Human Pathology (1984): 449-453. Pub Med. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;.

Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.

Theobald, Douglas. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree. 16 April 2012. 16 August 2012. <http://www.talkorigins.org...;.

—. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree. 16 April 2012. Document. 16 August 2012. <http://www.talkorigins.org...;.

—. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - Part 2: Past History. 16 April 2012. 17 August 2012. <http://www.talkorigins.org...;.


acvavra

Con

My opponent begins this debate by bringing forth what he feels are three strong evidences that evolution is true. I shall begin by refuting these points and then show evidence for Creation if space permit.

Rebuttal to Phylogenetic Tree of Life
First off, an evolutionary tree is NOT evidence for evolution. It's based on inference and supposition. It does not provide you with any fossil record or scientific facts of one organism evolving into another. It ONLY provides you with taxonomy and then INFERS the common ancestors. It does not provide you with solid fact at all.
Second, evolutionists admit themselves tha there are gaps between EVERY phyletic series. Observe:

�€œGiven the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.�€� Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century), What Evolution Is, 2001, p. 14.

�€œ . . . instead of finding the slow, smooth and progressive changes Lyell and Darwin had expected, they saw in the fossil records rapid bursts of change, new species appearing seemingly out of nowhere and the remaining unchanged patterns hauntingly reminiscent of creation.�€�
Pagel M., �€œHappy accidents?,�€� Nature, Vol 397, pg. 665 (February 25, 1999).

Pro makes a rather interesting statement saying, "This Tree of Life and the line of evidence can easily be falsified if we find an organism that cannot fit into any known taxonomy or hierarchy on such a tree."

Indeed Pro is absolutely correct. The problem is what is an evolutionist going to do when they find a new species. Then the "Tree of Life" is revised over and over, meaning it was false all the times before. Would you really trust such evidence? Here is an example of a new species:
http://www.theblaze.com...

The phylogenetic tree provides no real evidence at all.

Rebuttal to evidence from bodies

Vestigial Structures
My opponent is confused, Creationists believe vestigial organs are FULLY FUNCTIONAL. Goosebumps are useful for humans even now. The hairs on our body stand up to trap heat when were cold.
Ostrich wings are useful. They help them keep balance and change direction while running. Thus, the wings do have a purpose.
The evidence doesn't end there. Observe:
Appendix- Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria that help us digest food
spleen-kidney shaped and tucked into the upper left of your abdomen�€"helps spot infections and filters out red blood cells that are damaged or old.

Pro said, "The most striking (at least to me) atavism is the formation of humans with a true tail. Occasionally, human infants are born with a small tail that persists into adulthood if it is not surgically removed. More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported. Less than 1/3 of these are �€œpseudo-tails�€� [1] (Dao and Netsky)."

This is supposed to represent a reversion to our animal ancestry. However, more detailed studies have shown that this caudal appendage, as it is known, contains no bone and is not connected to the vertebral column. It may be nothing more than excess tissue covering the lower end of the spinal column. This abnormality is no more a reversion than other birth defects such as spina bifida (see Gish, 1983).

Rebuttal to evidence for genome
First off, isn't malaria "evolving" rather contradictory of "survival of the fittest? Pseudogenes have no real function, and these mutations contradict evolution.
Second, animals have a stronger immune system than humans so their malaria would be less severe naturally.
A serious problem with evolution is some pseudogenes are thought to have originated over a hundred million years ago and maintaining DNA that serves no purpose over such a time is a waste of energy. A component in a mechanism like a cell that wastes energy is a disadvantage and natural selection should over time remove it. So before science told us that these genes were in fact not at all junk DNA the premise put out by evolutionists of non-useful components being proof of evolution was false.

In the study of pseudogenes it has been discovered that nucleotide substitutions (substitution of one amino acid for another) at the evolutionary rate for pseudogenes could bring the conclusion that these genes came about around 14 million years ago. This contradicts evolutionary theory that apes converged into certain hominid species 30 million years. We share 98% of our genome (DNA in an organism) with chimps but what is interesting is this is coded DNA (DNA that carries the necessary information to code for a protein), an it only makes up 3% while non-coded DNA (DNA that does not carry information to make a protein) also known as pseudogenes make up the other 97%. The comparisons of non-coded DNA between apes and humans make them far from identical even though we share 98% of coded DNA.

Evidence For Creation
Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a … portion of the geologic column…the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance. "The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scaleruns into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

Apologies, but I'm out of room.

Sources
http://yakkstr.com...
http://www.apologeticspress.org...
http://www.facts-about.org.uk...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
http://www.keratin.com...
http://calvarychapel.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Pro

Thank you for your swift reply. I am going to defend my opening statements and then refute your case for Creationism.

I. Phylogenetic Tree of Life

The Phylogenetic Tree of Life is a genetic classification amongst known species. According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. If every living species descended from an original ancestral species that had the four characteristics of life, then all living species today should have those functions. More importantly, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions and we should be able to objectively classify all living organisms in taxonomy.

Phylogenetics is the scientific discipline concerned with describing and reconstructing patterns of genetic relationships amongst species and amongst higher taxa. The Tree of Life is a way of visually representing the past evolutionary history of life. My opponent has several qualms with this evidence for common descent and I will explain why his rebuttals fail.

Firstly, my opponent claims it is based upon inferences and supposition. However, an inference is not an educated guess. Indeed, an inference is the act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence. For example, if you hear a loud crashing sound, your house shakes, and you run into the living room and see a car there and a large hole in the wall, you infer that there was an accident. The only suppositions are those of reasonable people; we go on the working assumption that the universe behaves according to rules.

Second, my opponent states it does not provide with any fossils. However, the pattern of nested hierarchies in the modern Phylogenetic tree of life demonstrates common descent via modification.

The lack of transitional fossils or fossils in general, does not disprove evolution. We should not expect that EVERY organism that has ever lived will fossilize. Indeed, for any organism to be fossilized, it must be preserved and buried very fast under immense pressure (Fairbanks). [1]

What solid facts are not inferences? We have not seen a complete orbit of Pluto around the sun, though we INFER that it makes revolutions around the sun.

To show how important phylogenetic analyses are. There have been numerous cases in which there have been criminal courts convictions because of the phylogenetic analysis (Albert, Wahlberg and Leitner) and phylogenetic reconstruction are admitted as legal testimony.

In fact, it has been used in medicine. Evolutionary medicine seeks to explain the nature of disease in light of evolutionary theory (Abu-Asab, Chaouchi and Amri).

My opponent then states that there are gaps between every fossil; therefore evolution is false. First, we are lucky to have any fossils at all given the pressure that is needed to create them. Moreover, even if not a single corpse has ever been fossilized, the theory of common descent will still hold (Dawkins).

Your link to the new speices did not work. I will not respond until I can view the full article. Thank you.

II. Evidence from the body

I have presented several cases from the body that show that evolution via common descent is confirmed over creationism.

A. Remnants of the Past
A-1. Vestigial structures

My opponent’s entire case against vestigial structure is that the structure has function; therefore, it is not a vestigial structure. However, I already refuted this in the opening statements. I stated “[c]ontrary to creationist claims, a structure can severe a function and still be vestigial.” My case therefore remains standing.

My opponent’s case for the ostrich is that it serves to balance the ostrich during a run; therefore it is not vestigial. Once more, it fails to take into account that structures that are vestigial can still serve a purpose; they are simply rudimentary or reduced in function. Indeed, as Charles Darwin himself puts it (Darwin):

“Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not be considered as rudimentary.”

Ostrich wings are not that it lacks any function whatsoever, but that it is rudimentary wing powerless for flight. The functions that my opponent cited is akin to a human hammering tacks with a computer keyboard (Theobald).

A-2. Atavism

My opponent cites my atavism case as it is a pseudotail and not a true tail. In other words, it may be no more than tissue covering the lower end of the spinal column. This is false in so many ways. Their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails and not true tails (which I’ve cited happens, this has not gone refuted).

Apologies, but I’m out of time/room. I’ll respond in more detail in the next round.



[1] This explains why the vast majority of fossils are that of marine animals.

Bibliography

Abu-Asab, Mones, Mohamed Chaouchi and Hakima Amri. "Evolutionary medicine: A meaningful connection between omics, disease, and treatment." Pubmed (2008). Web. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;.

Albert, J., et al. "Analysis of a rape case by direct sequencing of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 pol and gag genes." J Virol (1994): 68: 5918-24. Print. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 1859. Print.

Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 2009. Print.

Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Ahmerst: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.

Theobald, Douglas. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. 16 April 2012. Website. 22 August 2012. <http://www.talkorigins.org...;.


acvavra

Con

I have to visit the hospital 5 times a week for over 2 hours each day due to a dire sickness of coughing up blood. I also have college and a part time job to attend to, along with helping my parents move. I don't have time to be on DDO for now, and would appreciate it if my opponent will accept a tie and we can resume this debate in perhaps a month. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Pro

I wish the best for you. Good luck and I accept a tie.
acvavra

Con

thank you
Debate Round No. 4
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RogueV2Reav3R 1 year ago
RogueV2Reav3R
could ye lads say what ye were about to say in this debate?
Posted by MickieTheGenius 4 years ago
MickieTheGenius
There are things that vote for and against evolution. But think about things logically. Where did we come from? We didn't just pop up out of thin air. We have the same or similar skeletal structures as many organisms on this earth. Sure, there MAY BE a higher power out there. But is that really logical? Can it be tested to be prove that a god really does exist? Think about it. Things change due to their environment. They aren't saying that we directly came from monkeys. They are just saying that we are related in some way. Monkey's are actually more intelligent than we give them credit for. Organisms change depending on the place they are in. They adapt to their surroundings. Darwin proved this by observing finches and tortoises on the galapagos islands. The finches beaks were different on each different terrain of the island. But they were the same or similar species to those finches. Their beaks changed based on the type of berries or the type of food that were on each part of the islands. The shells of the tortoises were different as well. What about mud skippers? Did they just learn how to use their fins or flippers to walk on the mud? Something must have happened to have them walking on the mud. There are bones, fossils, and remains of other species of humans. They didn't just pop up out of no where. They surely weren't formed by rocks. So what else do we have? Evolution. If you think about it logically, we had to have come from somewhere. And there are things that we can experiment with to prove that evolution really does exist. How is God more logical than science?
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Its all fun and games in the debate arena, however, evolution is indifferent, like the heliocentric theory, and the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution is the single most corrosive theory religious doctrine faces :)
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Math has been countered.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Math has been countered.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
math, please make this debate a tie!
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Whitewolf, this debate is a tie. Please make that change.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Stephen, thank you much for the suggestions. Re-reading it, I definitely think that I should cut it in half. It would give me more room as well.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Microsuck, you really need to work on your conciseness... you end up spending too long on each point, it's annoying because they're good refutations but can be easily, say, cut in half in length at times.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Lord was counterbombing you and made it a tie. If he made me win, I would have been upset at him.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: What's a tie? Aww hell guess i'll just give both people points to even out the score.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
MicrosuckacvavraTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Math
Vote Placed by Mathaelthedestroyer 4 years ago
Mathaelthedestroyer
MicrosuckacvavraTied
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: Counter vote bomb revenge.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
MicrosuckacvavraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Agreed on a tie.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
MicrosuckacvavraTied
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 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: they agreed on a tie.
Vote Placed by WhiteWolf 4 years ago
WhiteWolf
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. It was hard to pick a winner but Pro had a few points in his second round that con didn't really stand up against to well. I liked the flow chart being used, umm con you have the potential to be good at this if you can connect your arguments and refutes better.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Man boobs. That is all
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
MicrosuckacvavraTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: They agreed on a tie.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
MicrosuckacvavraTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Idiot creationist is idiot.
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
MicrosuckacvavraTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con was able to refute the reasons that pro gave for proof of evolution. He did the better job of defending his position.sorry he could not continue.