The Instigator
400spartans
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Pro-lifeConservative
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution vs Creationism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
400spartans
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/7/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 73071
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

400spartans

Pro

Evolution or Creationism? I, Pro, will be taking the side of Evolution, meanwhile Con will be taking the side of Creationism. Ready?

Get set, on your mark, DEBATE!
Pro-lifeConservative

Con

I will start this debate off with my opening statements, definitions, and acceptance.

First, I understand that I will be supporting creationism as oppose to evolution, and the criteria that this debate will be judged by and the guidelines concerning the debate.

Definitions:
Creationism: (Personal conviction)
A belief that the world was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God; a belief going completely against evolution. A belief that coincides with the world being created rather quickly, and nothing occurs without the approval of God. It also aligns with the belief that the world is rather young.
Evolution: (Personal conviction Dictionary)
The belief that everything comes from simpler life forms, without regard to a god; a belief going completely against creationism. A belief that coincides with the world being made very slowly, by natural causes, and being very old (billions of years)
Creationism: (Merriam-Webster)
a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis; the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
Evolution: (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

For evolution, I will only be using definitions 2c(1), 4b, and 6.

In this debate, I will attempt to prove that creationism makes more sense than evolution. I will do so using the Bible as a source at times, as it cannot be disproven. Creationism makes more sense than evolution because of many reasons. First, common sense undeniably proves creation, as does radioactive dating. Also, only intelligent creation would be able to create the many things that "prehistoric" people could make. Here is a video's link supporting the last point. Note the History Channel clip about ancient aircraft. https://www.youtube.com...
Also, the Mount Saint Helen's Eruption shows many interesting points about creationism that I will address later.
Debate Round No. 1
400spartans

Pro

"common sense undeniably proves creation"

I do not see how that works; please explain in round 2.

"as does radioactive dating"

Have you heard of Zircon? Zircon is a rock that is made up of silicates and zirconium that may contain trace amounts of Uranium. Using Uranium-Lead dating, scientists have dated the earth to be at least 4.4 billion years (1). If anything, radioactive (it's actually radiometric) dating is more evidence for evolution, as creationism would use up only 6000 years.

"Also, only intelligent creation would be able to create the many things that "prehistoric" people could make."

Which things? As far as I can tell, most prehistoric artifacts are very primitive, and could have been easily made by prehistoric people.

1. http://www.geology.wisc.edu...
Pro-lifeConservative

Con

I will start off by answering questions you had from round one, with arguments interspersed.

I assume that with your belief of evolution, you believe that the world was created via the Big Bang. The Big Bang states that there was energy, then an explosion, then everything (1). Energy cannot be lost or gained, just transferred ((Law of conservation of energy)(2). And obviously, since there was no matter, and energy is not matter, energy could not have made everything. It's just common sense! However, it makes more sense that God would knowingly place everything into place for a purpose. And being all powerful, this would be perfectly possible for God to accomplish. Clearly, it would make more sense to have an all powerful God create everything with a purpose, rather than everything being randomly put into place by a process that could never happen!

Radiometric dating also has several faults to it. "For example, when the fresh lava dome at Mount St. Helens was only ten years old, it showed a radioisotope age estimate of 340,000 years! Many such examples cast doubt on the entire dating method," says the Institute for Creation Research (3). Another article of their's shows many other instances where dating has been wrong as well (4).

I apologize for not being clearer with my statement, "Also, only intelligent creation would be able to create the many things that 'prehistoric' people could make," as you pointed out, "Which things? As far as I can tell, most prehistoric artifacts are very primitive, and could have been easily made by prehistoric people." However, many objects have been found in coal, coal dating to be millions of years old! An organization called 6,000 Years has some surprising discoveries on the matter, as well. "One of the most prodigious lava flow in the history of the world occurred in the Pacific Northwest. The lava spread over an estimated 200,000 square miles in depths up to 5,000 feet. In 1972, a competent geologist stated that the eruptions took place a mere fifteen million years ago. Much of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and portions of neighboring states was covered. The immense age of the deposit "can easily be imagined by the fact that the Snake River has cut canyons through the deposit to depths of up to 3000 feet. Still, there are several curious things about this lava flow. Many competent observers have commented on the remarkable freshness of the deposit, as though the eruptions took place in very recent times. A startling find was made in 1889 near Nampa, Idaho. While workers were boring an artesian well, a small figurine of baked clay was extracted from a depth of 320 feet. Above the figurine, the drill, inside a 6-inch tubing, had cut through fifteen feet of basalt lava and many other strata. The find has never been challenged except to say that it was impossible. The conclusion is unmistakable. Before the basalt flowed, sophisticated humans lived in the area (Velikovsky, 1955, p.87; Pensee , May 1972, 2:2, p.18). Ancient men lived in California. They worked the hardest stones, fabricated perfect granite mortars and dishes, used a circular, skillet-like vessel made of lava, hard as iron, which had three legs and a spout, made polished stone axes with perfect holes drilled in them for a handle, and fashioned ladles, disks or quoits. They were able to bore into the bowels of mountains for gold and silver," they state.

Another source, from the University of North Carolina, also speaks of the datings' unreliability in an article(6).

6,000 Years also says, "if conventional dating is followed, ancient man seems to be far more ancient than he should be. In fact, he must have been thriving before he is supposed to have evolved. Second, ancient man was a very sophisticated person. There is no indication that his brain gradually evolved. Both of these conclusions, obviously, are completely opposite to evolutionary theory. One ancient shaft was drilled 210 feet down into solid rock. An altar for worship was found there. Other finds include the following: a mortar for grinding gold ore at a depth of 300 feet in a mining tunnel, a mortar and pestle weighing 30 pounds, beads, perforated stones, a 40-pound oval granite dish. One human skull was found at a depth of 130 feet under five beds of lava and tufa separated by layers of gravel. Man came before the lava flowed, and deep canyons have been cut by rivers since the lava spread. An amazing number of stone relics have been found. The finding are almost always in gold-bearing rock or gravels (Victoria Institute , 1879, 15:193-198)." they say (5). I'd read the whole article carefully, there is much to learn about early art.

(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.energyeducation.tx.gov...
(3) http://www.icr.org...
(4) http://www.icr.org...
(5) http://www.6000years.org...
(6) http://www.cs.unc.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
400spartans

Pro

I assume that with your belief of evolution, you believe that the world was created via the Big Bang."

I do believe that the UNIVERSE was created via the Big Bang. BUT, we are not talking about the Big Bang. Evolution and the Big Bang are two different things.

"Radiometric dating also has several faults to it."

Okay, so you try discrediting Radiometric dating. Lets mix in all of the other overwhelming evidence.

http://rationalwiki.org...
http://atheism.wikia.com...

There is:

Amino acid racemization
The Baptistina asteroid family
Continental drift
Coral
Cosmogenic nuclide dating
Dendrochronology
Distant starlight
...
and so on. You see, there's not just radiometric dating you have to deal with.

"if conventional dating is followed, ancient man seems to be far more ancient than he should be."

I believe you just discredited radiometric dating? If you did (which you did), that means that this section is unreliable.

Tip: When discrediting opponent material, don't use that material later. Your opponent will be sure to exploit that flaw.
Pro-lifeConservative

Con

Before I refute your points, I will explain them briefly so the viewers can quickly understand what each is.

Amino acid racemization: Amino acids in decay rates from fossils, which are normally constant, can be used to determine earth age. However, the time it takes to fossilize is highly variable, depending on pressure and other forces, so it would make sense that the decay rates could be "jump started" by quick fossilization or other forces. "To use rates of racemization as a dating method, however, the entire history of the fossil material would have to be known, including temperature and the entire diagenetic process, especially the chemical environment that contributed to this process, and most especially the pH. Since all of these factors, most of which accelerate racemization rates, cannot be known, it is suggested that the apparent ages obtained by this method are unreliable and, with few exceptions, are much older than the real ages, " The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) says (1).

The Baptistina asteroid family: Two asteroids hit each other, and are now going in similar orbits. Tracing the orbit patterns with the current speeds, scientists presume them to have been moving for 80 million years. Since we do not have evidence of how fast the asteroids were moving at the point of collision, how do we know that it took these asteroids this long to get to their current place? How do we even know that these asteroids did collide with each other? Could not have gravity changed their direction prior to human realization? This asteroid family was theoretically the asteroid to kill the dinosaurs, but evidence from NASA's WISE spacecraft shows that these asteroids are probably only 80 million years old, as oppose to the original 160 million years. If scientists were wrong once, why could they not be wrong twice, three times? And, remember, this is only a theory. It should only be brought into careful consideration, not labeled as factual evidence as the original source makes it out to be (source 4).

Continental drift: A theory that the continents used to be joined together in a "supercontinent." However, scientists lack a plausible cause for the drift's start. Many, myself included, do believe that there used to be a supercontinent, but that the separation was caused differently. I believe that the cause was the release of many geysers under the land, that all erupted and forced the land out in different directions. That is one part of the true story of Noah's Ark. The ICR says, "If continental separation occurred during Noah's Flood, a host of problems in the tectonic dilemma can be solved." The article (2) explains more.

Coral: Another thought about timing the rates of growth to estimate earth age, but with coral. However, studies have shown that corals can grow very quickly, or slowly, depending on conditions. This means that if before a time, conditions for corals could have been near perfect, allowing corals to thrive, but then conditions could have changed, to what they are today, changing growth rates. A fifty year study by the United States Geological Survey shows that nature's "clock" may be out of synch (3). This could mean that we could be interpreting nature's signs wrong, and then making false inferences.

Dendrochronology: Counting the tree rings to estimate the number of years from the tree's "birth." This is not reliable, however, as we do not know what conditions were like thousands of years ago. Conditions may have been suitable enough for trees to grow several modern years worth of growth in just one ancient year. The rings on a tree tend to go light to dark to light, etc., or thick to thin to thick. However, two rings (light/dark, thin/thick) make up a year, not just a thick or thin ring. Because I believe the earth to be around 6,000 years old, splitting the one year ring into two years, doubling the age, could give around 12,000 years of age (4).

Distant starlight: Light travels at a certain rate, and measuring that rate for the distance a star is from earth can tell us the number of years the star has been around. Answers in Genesis (AiG), another organization, tackles this problem. They say, "Any attempt to scientifically estimate the age of something will necessarily involve a number of assumptions. These can be assumptions about the starting conditions, constancy of rates, contamination of the system, and many others. If even one of these assumptions is wrong, so is the age estimate. Sometimes an incorrect worldview is to blame when people make faulty assumptions. The distant starlight argument involves several assumptions that are questionable"any one of which makes the argument unsound. Let"s examine a few of these assumptions.". Yes, that quote was about assumptions in general, but they go on to give several of those assumptions. They say later that time is not constant, so the timing of modern dating may be off. "Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale. "Many people assume that time flows at the same rate in all conditions. At first, this seems like a very reasonable assumption. But, in fact, this assumption is false. And there are a few different ways in which the nonrigid nature of time could allow distant starlight to reach earth within the biblical timescale." One of these ways is gravity. Gravity does indeed slow down the speed of light, and Albert Einstein himself discovered that. "Albert Einstein discovered that the rate at which time passes is affected by motion and by gravity. For example, when an object moves very fast, close to the speed of light, its time is slowed down. This is called 'time-dilation.' So, if we were able to accelerate a clock to nearly the speed of light, that clock would tick very slowly. If we could somehow reach the speed of light, the clock would stop completely. This isn't a problem with the clock; the effect would happen regardless of the clock"s particular construction because it is time itself that is slowed. Likewise, gravity slows the passage of time. A clock at sea-level would tick slower than one on a mountain, since the clock at sea-level is closer to the source of gravity. It seems hard to believe that velocity or gravity would affect the passage of time since our everyday experience cannot detect this. After all, when we are traveling in a vehicle, time appears to flow at the same rate as when we are standing still. But that"s because we move so slowly compared to the speed of light, and the earth"s gravity is so weak that the effects of time-dilation are correspondingly tiny. However, the effects of time-dilation have been measured with atomic clocks," (5). The article goes into greater and other details that I do not have space to mention.

I will hopefully be able to address the Mount Saint Helens Eruption in the next round.

(1) http://www.icr.org...
(2) http://www.icr.org...
(3) http://www.usgs.gov...
(4) http://rationalwiki.org...
This is my opponent's source from last round.
(5) https://answersingenesis.org...
Debate Round No. 3
400spartans

Pro

However, the time it takes to fossilize is highly variable, depending on pressure and other forces, so it would make sense that the decay rates could be "jump started" by quick fossilization or other forces."

From my first link:

"While it is true that there can be great variability on the rate at which amino acids undergo racemization, the changes in humidity, temperature, and acidity required to make the oldest known samples conform to a young earth (under 6000 years) view are completely unreasonable. Such conditions would destroy all traces of the amino acids rather than just leave a racemic mixture of the molecules behind."

"Could not have gravity changed their direction prior to human realization?"

As far as we know, gravity can't change sporadically, so from current evidence, we can say that they've probably been moving for 80 million years. Also, using current speeds, we can backtrack the asteroids to when they've collided.

"If scientists were wrong once, why could they not be wrong twice, three times?"

This is a great example of the continuum fallacy. This is remarkably similar to Example #1 in the link below.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

"And, remember, this is only a theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"I believe that the cause was the release of many geysers under the land, that all erupted and forced the land out in different directions. That is one part of the true story of Noah's Ark."

The true story of Noah's Ark? Well, take a look at this picture: http://www.skepticblog.org...

The Titanic had more room, less people and food to weigh the ship down, and sturdier materials, but it sunk. It would be practically impossible for the Ark to keep up so many animals on one little wooden boat.

"Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. (From aig)"

Actually, most secular astronomers believe in the Big Bang.

"This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. (From aig)"

For the Big Bang, there is evidence. http://www.universetoday.com...

Okay, I'm not going to quote the next paragraph, because it's basically one sentence with a lot of glamour: The speed of light was slower in the past.

Well, triangulation shows that if the speed of light was slower in the past, you get an older universe!
https://www.youtube.com...

Next one says that the Bible uses cosmic local time. Local time was made because in different parts of the earth, the sun was in different positions. It turns out that we use cosmic local time too! We see what we observe, so we are on local time. And, with local time, we have figured out the age of the earth, and that local time is the same as universal time.

Next one says that because God is supernatural, he made it with the stars somehow appearing further from the earth than they are. This is a clear example of unfalsifiability. So, invalid argument.

Final one says that if points A and B in the big bang were of differing temperatures, then they couldn't have swapped heat to equalize. Want to know why? Because points A and B didn't equalize EACH OTHER. They equalized with much closer points.
Pro-lifeConservative

Con

I will only address several of your points so I can get to more evidence, rather than playing tennis with existing evidence.

"As far as we know..." There, you admit yourself that we only have limited knowledge, we do not know for sure, and could be wrong.

"This is a great example of the continuum fallacy. This is remarkably similar to Example #1 in the link below." When I looked at example one, I realized that if scientists were wrong several times, it would be equal to them being wrong in general, so being wrong 100 times is equal to the one, as they were still wrong.

"Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions." That is from your Wikipedia link on scientific theories. You acknowledge that the theories you support can be false by this.

"The true story of Noah's Ark? Well, take a look at this picture: http://www.skepticblog.org...; This graphic only gives dimensions and statistics of both ships, however, the picture is wrong. AiG says, "The key is to understand the word used in Scripture, kind (Hebrew min). The Bible does not say God brought every individual or every species to Noah," (1). Your source uses each animal species, while the real ark brought only two of each order or family.

"For the Big Bang, there is evidence." This evidence is predominantly theoretical evidence, with some observations, too; this is not good, solid evidence.

And, please explain this paragraph, I could not understand it. "Final one says that if points A and B in the big bang were of differing temperatures, then they couldn't have swapped heat to equalize. Want to know why? Because points A and B didn't equalize EACH OTHER. They equalized with much closer points."

New Evidence:
"None of the major steps of evolution have ever been recapitulated in a lab," a caption for a video says. This video stars Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, who received his Ph.D. in cell and developmental biology from Harvard Medical School (2).
"When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection," (3). This sentence is in reference to an article describing the "Fatal Flaw" of evolution through a state-of-the-art test.
And the fruit fly. Who knew that this could refute a very learned man's ideas? Starting in 1910, scientists have been studying fruit flies on evolution. 100 years later, we find this: "Fruit flies, with their short generation times and only four pairs of chromosomes, presented prime testing ground for evolution. In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all manner of mutation-inducing phenomena, including hosts of chemicals and radiation treatments, to try and accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now. But they haven't," (4).
Happy Birthday, Darwin, your theory's biggest gaps (5)! On his 200th birthday, several biologists were interviewed and asked to name the largest gaps in evolution. Six of those interviewed actually responded, and gave many interesting comments on the issue. "Despite the countless experiments conducted under highly-controlled laboratory environments using complex instrumentation, it appears that the essential biomolecules and biological structures needed for life just won't develop 'spontaneously,'" is a comment off of the difficulty of life beginning originally. The article gives several more.
Mount St. Helens also gives insight to a young earth. The supposed trickle of the Colorado River forming the Grand Canyon over millions of years happened similarly during a mudflow following the eruption. "The little "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon. The small creeks which flow through the headwaters of the Toutle River today might seem, by present appearances, to have carved these canyons very slowly over a long time period, except for the fact that the erosion was observed to have occurred rapidly! Geologists should learn that, since the long-time scale they have been trained to assign to landform development would lead to obvious error on Mount St. Helens, it also may be useless or misleading elsewhere," ICR says. Coal, supposedly millions of years to form, could be forming as we speak in Spirit Lake, where tons of logs were deposited after Mount St. Helens eruption, became waterlogged, sunk, and formed peat. "The Spirit Lake peat, in contrast, is texturally very similar to coal. All that is needed is burial and slight heating to transform the Spirit Lake peat into coal. Thus, at Spirit Lake, we may have seen the first stage in the formation of coal," ICR says in the same article, which is devoted entirely to the Mount St. Helens eruption, its effects, and its relation to creation (6).

This is my final argument, as in the next round, I will be responding only to Pro's final arguments and giving closing statements, just to make that clear.

(1) https://answersingenesis.org...
(2) http://www.icr.org...
(3) http://www.icr.org...
(4) http://www.icr.org...
(5) http://www.icr.org...
(6) http://www.icr.org...
Debate Round No. 4
400spartans

Pro

There, you admit yourself that we only have limited knowledge, we do not know for sure, and could be wrong."

True. However, we only use evidence we have CURRENTLY. If the current evidence shows that A is true, it is considered true. That's the whole point of falsifiability. All scientific theories or facts are falsifiable.

"so being wrong 100 times is equal to the one, as they were still wrong."

That's still using the continuum fallacy. Your statement is even more similar to example #1 from my previous link. (1)

"You acknowledge that the theories you support can be false by this."

Addressed in first rebuttal of this round.

"Your source uses each animal species, while the real ark brought only two of each order or family."

Huh. That's a pretty good explanation. Let's take a look at two other impossibilities:

Plants: Your link (2) says that plants weren't on the ark. However, the salt water would have made plants extinct, like what Hurricane Katrina did to soil, except worse. (3)
Fish: The flood would have caused a mixing of fresh water and salt water, thus disturbing many, if not all aquatic life. (4)

"This evidence is predominantly theoretical evidence, with some observations, too; this is not good, solid evidence."

Well aren't you the pot calling the kettle black! Your evidence from round 3 on speed of light had NO EVIDENCE at all! It's just a blind explanation! I'm starting to regret saying that your "two of each order or family" was a pretty good explanation, as what you are doing is trying to interpret your Bible in a way that is best fit for you. Please try not to do this again, as even in your Bible, Jesus speaks against hypocrisy. (Matthew 7:4�1)

"And, please explain this paragraph, I could not understand it."

Just look at the last explanation in (5).

"None of the major steps of evolution have ever been recapitulated in a lab"

Au contraire, (6).

"When biologically realistic parameters are selected, Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of the processes of mutation and natural selection"

Huh. Turns out that somebody had a problem with your argument, and contacted some friends on rationalskepticism.org for help. Here's what happened: (7)

The next argument is about fruit flies. Who would have guessed. While scientists still don't know why they haven't evolved, we do know of things that have evolved OUTSIDE OF LABS!

1. The Peppered Moth. This is a good example. Before people started polluting the earth, Peppered Moths were peppered white and grey to blend in with trees, but when the industrial revolution started, the trees became polluted. Thus, a new type of Peppered Moth was better at camouflaging. It was darker to blend in with polluted trees. So, it became the dominant species of Peppered Moth. Nowadays, people are trying to stop pollution, and so the trees are starting to retain their lighter color. So, the original Peppered Moths are the dominant species of Peppered Moth.

2. Nylon-eating bacteria. Just take a look (8)

3. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria. MRSA is resistant to benzyl penicillin and methicillin. (9)

"Despite the countless experiments conducted under highly-controlled laboratory environments using complex instrumentation, it appears that the essential biomolecules and biological structures needed for life just won't develop 'spontaneously' "

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Two different things. (10)

"The little 'Grand Canyon of the Toutle River' is a one-fortieth scale model of the real Grand Canyon."

There are some differences between these Canyons that show why the "Grand Canyon of the Toutle River" formed relatively quicker than the Grand Canyon. (11)

"Coal, supposedly millions of years to form, could be forming as we speak in Spirit Lake, where tons of logs were deposited after Mount St. Helens eruption, became waterlogged, sunk, and formed peat."

You can dig a hole in two minutes with a shovel, but that doesn't mean that all holes are two minutes old. While peat could form in 30 years, that doesn't mean that all peat forms in 30 years. The conditions were PERFECT, and it formed in 30 years. If it was off, it takes MUCH longer.

CLOSING STATEMENT:

Thank you for the debate. It was great, argument-filled, and had two people who know what they're doing.

(1) http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
(2) https://answersingenesis.org... (This is the link you go to from your link to get to what your were talking about)
(3) http://rationalwiki.org...
(4) http://rationalwiki.org...
(5) https://answersingenesis.org...
(6) http://www.newscientist.com...
(7) http://www.rationalskepticism.org...
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(9) http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...
(10) http://rationalwiki.org...
(11) http://scienceblogs.com...
Pro-lifeConservative

Con

Pro-lifeConservative forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Pro-lifeConservative 1 year ago
Pro-lifeConservative
Why not, Tyrone?
Posted by TyroneShelton 1 year ago
TyroneShelton
Common sense does not apply to quantum physics
Posted by Pro-lifeConservative 1 year ago
Pro-lifeConservative
I apologize for not getting the last round in, I have been extremely busy with school work! I just want to say that this debate was lots of fun, and I learned a lot, as well. It was a huge pleasure to be able to debate you, 400spartans! Good luck in future debates! (My forfeit had nothing to do with the debate, I was just very busy.)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Chaosism
400spartansPro-lifeConservative
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: The forfeit by Con is the deciding factor, but it was close. Pro sometimes depended on his sources to perform the entire argument (i.e. "This is why: [link]"). Sources should be referenced as a basis of credibility, not relied on to perform the actual argument.