The Instigator
TheUser
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MysticEgg
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Evolution should be taught in schools

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
MysticEgg
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,250 times Debate No: 39962
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

TheUser

Con

1st round for acceptance

Evolution- genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time.
MysticEgg

Pro

I accept! Viel glueck!
Debate Round No. 1
TheUser

Con

The reasons for why evolution not being taught in schools are:

1 There no scientific evidence of this at all
First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.
How could you teach a subject if there is no documented proof on it? Evolution may not have happened at all. The teachers should not teach an unproven theory made by scientists who may not have any clues to support this idea.(1)

2 Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving. Again, why would teachers teach so something that had no chances of happening or is impossible. If this had happened, then wouldn't it be happening today too?(2)

Sources:
(1) http://www.icr.org...
(2) http://www.newgeology.us...

Look forward to my opponent's arguments.
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Con for his opening arguments. Allow me to respond.

Defining the context of evolution
This might seem too obvious from the start, surely? We’ve already defined evolution. True, we have. But I think it is important to make a distinction between the two meanings behind the word (when used in the biological context); so to understand which one we will be debating in this debate.

The first context is the biological phenomenon, which has been defined for the purposes of this debate today, as: “Genetic variation in a given population of organisms over a span of time.” The second context of the word when using “evolution” in biological terms refers to the over-arching theory, with universal common ancestry (UCA), common descent, etc… So, in which context are we debating today? Clearly the first, because the definition given cannot possibly refer to the second context. As a result, any objections given about UCA, common descents etc…are totally irrelevant for this debate today.

My case for evolution
Con has already defined evolution for us. But what does it mean, exactly? Well, “genetic variation” merely means that the "genes of an organism in a given population change"[1]. A given population of organisms is simple: a number of living things in the same species in an area. So, a given population of humans in a town; a given population of mice in a hectare; a given population of monkeys in the Amazon rainforest, etc… (I should hope “over a span of time” is obvious and doesn’t need to be defined. If Con would like, however, I will gladly do so.)

Has this been observed? Yes, of course it has! For example, take the famous E. coli experiment being carried out by Richard Lenski[2] at this very moment! Thus far, he has reported various genetic changes[3], including the adaptation for one strain of E. coli to be able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment![3] It is truly fascinating. So, we have genetic variation over not just one but several given populations over a span of time. By definition, we have observed evolution! It has been proven with many other experiments, too.[4]

(Please note, this was a very brief proof of evolution and I haven’t devoted too much space to it. The reason for this comes up for my next point.)

Granting Con’s benefit
Let us assume, for the sake of the argument that Con is 100% correct. It’s all wrong! There is no evolution. His contentions are completely accurate etc…

OK. Does that give significant enough reason for it to be banned from schools? Should it be taught in schools? Well, let’s have a closer look at the resolution. It clearly states: “in schools” and not “in science classes”. So, I propose that [under the assumption that evolution is wrong] we teach it in history lessons. The significance of evolution is very great! How can such a false movement under the guise of science be denied to pupils? It’s a serious question. We don’t deny the world wars or (for America) the American Civil war, because they were so great. There is no rational reason to deny evolution being taught in history classes.

Significant points in evolution include:

Darwin[5]

The evolution controversy[6] (especially in America)

The biologists who lied about it[7] – this one especially promotes critical thinking to students. Why did they lie? Why were they convinced? Were they convinced after all? These questions are very useful and tie in well with such a proposal!

Conclusions
I have explained how we are debating the biological phenomenon and not the over-arching theory, making Con’s point’s somewhat irrelevant for this debate. (If he would like to debate on the over-arching theory I’m more than open to a debate challenge) I have given evidence for evolution, as defined. I have also granted Con’s benefit and shown how, even then, we should teach evolution in schools.

Thanks to everyone, and I’ll see you all around!

Source(s):

[1] http://biology.about.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
TheUser

Con

Well, we did already define evolution, so why would we need to define it again.

Second here are my rebuttals to this subject,

(1) I do not need the definition for "over a span of time."Thanks anyway. I did not mean to "ban it from schools." I meant for it to be taught in modern-day schools.

For the sake of argument, let's say that evolution is CORRECT. Would we see a frog outside transforming into a human? Or would we see a ape transforming into a human with our own eyes? If it were correct, animals would be going by the process of the mutation of genes even today.

(2) "There is no rational reason to deny evolution being taught in history classes."

History- events of the past. History is for teaching events which happened in the past. Evolution is not yet proven to have been an event of the past. So, how does Pro know that it happened.

(3) "Should it be taught in schools? Well, let"s have a closer look at the resolution."

Do you know people have other beliefs? It would be unfair to those who do not believe in evolution.(1)

Conclusion

Evolution is to not be taught. Think about the children who do not believe in this. I have a question for Pro. What if you did not believe in Evolution but had a child attending a school where it was taught?

Sources

(1) http://dontteachevolution.blogspot.com...
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Pro for his response; I'll do likewise.


Pro's rebut to my (very brief) proof of evolution
Forgive me, I didn't mean to define it again; the definition stayed the same. However, I felt it was appropriate in the context of my argument. On the "ban it from schools". Again, I meant to say "ban the teaching of it in schools".

"For the sake of argument, let's say that evolution is CORRECT. Would we see a frog outside transforming into a human?" No.

"Or would we see a ape transforming into a human with our own eyes?" No.

These appear to be Pro's main points, but Pro has completely ignored my argument. Instead, it seems as though he persists with using the over arching theory. However, in context, I have already explained that we are not talking about that; we are debating about the biological phenomenon. Thus, this is irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong! Is it irrelevant to evolution as a whole? No! But: Is it irrelevant to this debate? Yes. I have already explained why in both round two and round three.


Pro's rebut to my history proposal
It seems I will concede this. Why? Because I have just realised that in round two, I was referring to the history of evolutionary thought. Whereas, this is evolution itself. Therefore, I am making straw men. I apologise and concede the point.


Pro's contention: It disagrees with people's beliefs
While I am sure that it does - particularly in America - my opponent gives an implication here:
The values of Christianity trump anyone else's.
However strongly my opponent may agree with this, I must point out that there is the separation of Church and State in America[1], rendering this argument invalid. Also, I will point out two things about my opponent's source:

1) It probably uses a foundational bias fallacy. This should be obvious, the website is called "dontteachevolution[...].com".
2) It makes very bad arguments.

e.g.: "This means that large sums of students in all public schools are Christians and strongly disagree with evolution."[2] This source gives the implication that: You're a Christian, therefore, you reject evolution. This is demonstrably false, as we can tell by the number of Christians who accept evolution.

I think it is rational to reject this source as "reliable".


Further support of evolution
Since I have conceded the history contention; I will now further support evolution as the biological phenomenon. First, we have the presence of pseudogenes, also known as junk DNA. This is effectively DNA that is useless and doesn't do anything[3]. Why is it there? Evolutionary theory explains this perfectly. We would expect to see the presence of pseudogenes from many mutations accumulating that no longer help the organism survive.

Second, we have the tomcod example. From 1947-1976, the Hudson river had PCBs dumped into it. These are toxic chemicals, understand. At first, the population of the tomcods were devastated, as was expected. However, they recovered. Perplexed, the scientists discovered that the population of fish (>=90%) had developed a resistance. Or, to be more accurate, they had evolved. A mutation that rendered a single fish (or maybe a few more, depending on the time the mutation took effect) highly resistant to the chemicals contained within the PCBs had passed on its (or their) traits to offspring. Consequently, as the breeding of now resistant fish continued, within a few generations, >=90% of the group were resistant.[4][5]

So, there was genetic variation in the given population of tomcods over a span of time [that rendered them highly resistant to certain PCB toxins]. Evolution by definition. Therefore, it is a real thing! We can teach it in schools; indeed, we should, because it is basic biology and vital for science.


Conclusions
I have shown how my opponent's rebut to my brief proof of evolution is invalid; I have conceded the history lesson point; I have refuted my opponent's contention on people's beliefs, and I have given yet more proof of the biological phenomenon called "evolution". The resolution has been negated.


Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://dontteachevolution.blogspot.co.uk...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://www.livescience.com...

Debate Round No. 3
TheUser

Con

First off, I see my opponent used junk DNA and tomcod in his arguments.

Junk DNA:

A number of leading proponents of Darwinian evolution claim that "junk DNA"""the non-protein-coding DNA that makes up more than 95% of our genome""provides decisive evidence for Darwin"s theory and against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would not have littered our genome with so much garbage. In The Myth of Junk DNA(1), biologist Jonathan Wells(2) exposes their claim as an anti-scientific myth that ignores the evidence, relies on illegitimate theological speculations, and impedes biomedical research. After reading the book, then you will see this is just a myth.

Tomcod:

This may be a normal growth cycle. After all, we all grow up and die. Same goes for fish.

Arguments:
Grown cycles are different from evolution and junk DNA is not a true source that supports the idea of evolution.

I successfully rebutted my opponent's arguments. This has been a heated debate so far. Hope to hear my opponents's arguments soon.

Sources

(1) http://www.discovery.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(intelligent_design_advocate)
MysticEgg

Pro

Thanks to Con! Allez!


Junk DNA
Con makes a number of mistakes here. First, he commits a false dichotomy fallacy[1] by stating that: "[Junk DNA gives] decisive evidence [...] against intelligent design, since an intelligent designer would not have littered our genome with so much garbage." This is not evolution vs Intelligent design. It implies there are only two options, whereas, any Creation myth will disprove that, including those by the Greeks[2] and Egyptians[3].

Second, Con's source (1) has no actual supporting evidence to it[4]. There is merely an introduction, praise, contents, and ~30 pages of notes![4] This source is not reliable.


Tomcod
Pro's objection literally is: "This may be a normal growth cycle. After all, we all grow up and die. Same goes for fish." This is a red herring fallacy[5] as it refers to the growth cycle of fish. However, my point was on evolution, as defined. And, even if it was just a "natural thing cycle" [which it isn't, because evolution doesn't cycle], it is still evolution, by definition. Hence, this is an irrelevant response.


Conclusions
I have shown how the junk DNA objection has no support to it, and thus can be dismissed without evidence; I have revealed the fallacy of red herring in Pro's objection to the tomcod example. Con has ignored my E. coil example, therefore, I extend it.


Good debate thus far; quick response blessings to you, Con!


Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.pantheon.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.discovery.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
TheUser

Con

Ok I have realized I have not responded to the e.coli experiment "proof".
You are right about this.
Let me debunk evolution using the acronym FALSE.


In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution"the "molecules to man" theory"we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution"the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)
F for Fossils
A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.
I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies"trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.
As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).
Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.
It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!
Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!
Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves " All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).
The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.
A for Assumption
When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.
If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.
In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.
Evolution is still called a theory"a possible explanation or assumption"because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it"and in many respects runs counter to it.
L for Life
The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.
You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?
To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.
Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg"and the rest is history.
S for Symbiosis
When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.
A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?
Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple"both were created at about the same time.
E for Engineering
All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design"that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.
One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?
Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator

Gl to my opponent.
MysticEgg

Pro

Thank you to Con for a good debate; I'll respond now.

It may disappoint Con to realise that many of his elaborations on FALSE are 100% irrelevant for this debate. Consistently, my opponent has referred to the over-arching theory, whereas (as I have explained multiple times) we are debating the biological phenomenon! I cannot stress this enough. Consequently, my opponent's points are littered with fallacies; I will go through them [the points] now.


F - Fossils
Here my opponent uses the "lack of transitional fossils" and a single example of an animal to disprove the whole over-arching theory of evolution. While that's all very well, we are not debating this. (See above) Therefore, my opponent's contention is a complete straw man[1] against OA (over-arching) evolution. We are debating the BP (biological phenomenon) type of evolution here! This is also, therefore, an irrelevant red herring[2].

Other notes on F - Fossils
Let's say that my opponent is correct and evolution hasn't happened in the past. This does nothing to disprove the examples of evolution I gave happening in the present. So, there is really no point to this, in context.


A - Assumption
Here my opponent is either making a straw man against speciation[3], or referring to speciation itself without naming it for some reason. ((One way, it's fallacious, the other, it's dishonest. Not sure what else to say here...)) In either case, this is also irrelevant, because speciation refers to the OA theory of evolution, but we are discussing the BP. Yet another straw man and red herring.


L - Life
This is something that is often misunderstood, especially by Creationists. The Law of biogenesis does state that "life can only create life"[4]. However, how does this relate to evolution? Abiogenesis refers to life coming from non-life[5] and is interesting to ponder, but doesn't relate to evolution in the OA, necessarily. And it definitely doesn't relate to the BP of evolution. Another straw man!

Other notes on L - Life
Con has omitted a very important part of the law of biogenesis. He didn't add: "...by reproduction"[4] on the end of the sentence. So, for Con to accept this, he accepts that God reproduced to make a chicken. Therefore, God is a chicken. If not, and God made the chicken "out of nothing" [violation of metaphysics], then that is abiogenesis! I am really unsure as to what Con was trying to straw man, here!


S - Symbiosis
Con questions how life evolved together when you need one for the other. This is also irrelevant, but, to make a change for the audience: I'll answer this one.

Con assumes that they have always been dependant on one another. Yet he doesn't back this up. It is highly possible that they evolved mutually in co-evolution, but only (relatively) recently became absolutely dependant. Brief answer, because I want to get back to the topic at hand.


E - Engineering
Con cites the idea of irreducible complexity. However, this operates on a "cells to animals" basis and is therefore irrelevant, again! More straw men, I'm afraid.


General Notes:
(1) Con hasn't attempted to refute any of my arguments this round; so I extend them.
(1a) Indeed, he even accepted it! "You are right about this. [i.e. my E. coli example]". Since I have shown how that was evolution, as defined, then Con has implicitly conceded the debate to me.

(2) Other fallacies by Con include a repeated false dilemma[6].

(3) If Con would like to debate about the OA theory of evolution; I'm more than happy to! (Today I didn't refute them, because they were irrelevant).


Conclusions
I have refuted Con's contentions and/or shown them to be straw men, red herrings, and irrelevant for this debate. My contentions went unrefuted - indeed - Con even conceded one! The resolution has been negated by myself, by showing how evolution, as defined, has been observed many times.

It's been a heated and great debate! I have enjoyed it, Con! I give my thanks to my opponent, TheUser, for an entertaining debate today, the audience, and the voters! I'll see y'all around!

J


Source(s):

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]http://www.nizkor.org...
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Technicallyderped 3 years ago
Technicallyderped
I suppose it can be taught in schools... As long as the parents can choose if their children will be taught about evolution.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
Hmmm... Ok you realize evolutions pretty much been... Well proven...

It doesn't mean God isn't real though. But yeah, everybody knows the bible isn't full of true story's, it's just a fable.
Posted by Brennan-Huff 3 years ago
Brennan-Huff
You can't teach biology without evolution, so what is proposed to replace it? People would rather lump together creationism with biology and cut off the ends that don't fit just to push their dogma. Creationism is not science and will not ever be taught as such because it is purely speculation with NO empirical evidence and does not even present itself rationally. You can't have creationism posited when you don't even have the means to explain it. So you would ultimately have to leave a gaping hole in biology just so that your dogma can fit into reality.
Posted by Artpop 3 years ago
Artpop
Of course it should be taught. Congrats to MysticEgg.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Conduct was equal enough for government work.
As was S&G.
I found Pro's sources to be more reliable in general, despite being primarily wikipedia (and despite Con also using some wiki articles)--this just demonstrates how UNreliable I found Con's sources.

As to arguments: While I was amused by Pro's "History Class" argument, he ultimately dropped it (though, considering it's a case that's been used to justify the teaching of religion, I think it could have been continued--but dropped it was, so dropped it is for scoring). Pro demonstrated that Con's knowledge of evolution was scanty, and seemed primarily shaped from strawmen (most likely provided by his wildly biased sources). Pro focused on evolution alone (rather than, say abiogenesis...though he also pointed out the absurdity in the theistic point Con brought up), and showed that there was well-enough reason to teach it. The dropped Lenski points alone were sufficient for justification, let alone the rebuttals that Pro gave to Con's attempts to contradict. Pro also argued that Con's arguments against the teaching of evolution regardless of truth were bad. I think Pro could have spent a little more time debunking that, since Con's arguments were that we shouldn't teach things, even if they're true, if people don't want them to be true--it's a rather dangerous position. Still, Pro debunked it well enough that Con failed in the BoP, which is all that's really needed.

As always, happy to clarify anything in this RFD.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I will be following this debate. I cant wait to see how evolution is going to be debunked. Hint : It can't.
Posted by TheUser 3 years ago
TheUser
Evolution needs to be proved in order to be taught.
Posted by GDawg 3 years ago
GDawg
No evidence for evolution?! Do you even understand what evolution is?
Posted by TheUser 3 years ago
TheUser
Posted
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
I'll wait patiently for you to change it! :D
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by blue_charles 3 years ago
blue_charles
TheUserMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave a great argument, and was very good overall.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
TheUserMysticEggTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro had less flawed arguments, and Con had a few really bad sources.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
TheUserMysticEggTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
TheUserMysticEggTied
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: Cons entire argument was based on the fact there is no evidnece to support evolution. all pro had to do was show that there is viable evidence to support evolution and he won the debate. He did that splendidly. Not much of an rfd required. Con provided a case and was not able to back it up or refute pros claims.