The Instigator
tbay456
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Intelligent Design

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,130 times Debate No: 15347
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (7)

 

tbay456

Pro


Do you believe in intelligent design? There are very fey explanations to how living organisms can arise from non living matter. Evolution is the slow process of genetic change over time. However there is no evidence of the first organism to start that change off. Even the most basic prokaryotic cell are too complex for the proteins create any basic structure. And if there is any chance at all for amino acids to congeal to a protein to form a cell. That cell will need the perfect environmental conditions for it to reproduce. Like the temperature. The proteins cant denature, and the membrane can’t be punctured. The odds of a cell to do that are so small. Intelligent design is a very creditable theory.

JustCallMeTarzan

Con

My opponent champions the interesting topic of Intelligent Design (ID), a theory that essentially states that, because of the complexity of the objects in the world around us, there is evidence that they are not natural, but rather designed.

It is important to note from that outset that my opponent seems to have wasted his first round of argument. He assumes my burden is to show that evolution a more plausible theory. Unfortunately for him, my burden is to simply show that Intelligent Design is not a "very creitable theory" (sic).

Also, it is important to note that my opponent has not actually made any arguments in support of ID, but spends his argument attacking the theory of evolution. But I will respond to some of his points anyway...

>> "However there is no evidence of the first organism to start that change [evolution] off."

Well there's no evidence of the first "intelligently designed" organism either, so this point is rather moot. More to the point, there are in fact several candidate organisms, comprising mostly of very simple, self-replicating organic structures... not even necessarily a full cell.

Also, simply because the theory of evolution runs into a roadblock (and 'lack of information' may be a better term) on this point does not mean that it is suddenly less reasonable than a theory that states that life was designed by someone/thing...

>> "Even the most basic prokaryotic cell are too complex for the proteins create any basic structure."

As noted above, I'm pretty sure that an organic molecule does not need to actually be a cell to be capable of replication. If I recall my high school biology, one theory is that the present pieces of cells (i.e. the organelles) were at one point in time separate living structures in their own right.

>> "And if there is any chance at all for amino acids to congeal to a protein to form a cell. That cell will need the perfect environmental conditions for it to reproduce. Like the temperature"

Agreed, but it only has to happen once... and consider the chance that perfect range occurring once in the, what, about 6 Billion years the earth has been around? That's really not a low chance. It's actually pretty high. Lots of ID proponents forget that while it is statistically unlikely that a given planet has life, it as probably statistically LIKELY that planets of the class that earth belongs to DO have life - i.e. if we find (living) life on Pluto, it's a much stronger case for ID or Creationism than complex life on Earth, a planet that is relatively likely to develop life.

***********************************************************************

Going along with the comments above, ID is actually not a very plausible theory at all. In effect, ID holds that because things are very complex, they appear to be designed, and things that are designed require a designer. The main flaw in this argument is the contention that complexity establishes design.

In a system where what works best survives (i.e. evolution), the surviving organisms we are able to study after hundreds of millions of years of evolution are the most suited and best-performing structures of their kind that have ever existed. In other words, organisms appear to be complex and well-designed, because we do not see the failed structures.

A famous argument for ID is the example of stumbling over a watch in a field (The Blind Watchmaker anyone). What the author fails to appreciate is the difference between objects and living creatures. There is no other way for a watch to be made but by a watchmaker. Living creatures have an alternate possibility for their origin.

Furthermore, to argue that if there IS a designer, that this designer is intelligent, is simply absurd. Many creatures, humans certainly being no exception, have such egregious flaws that, if designed, were done so by an idiot. It is not as though one found a watch in a field, but rather like one found one working watch on a continent covered in unworking, partially finished, poorly constructed, defective watches, and some gizmos that don't even resemble anything at all.

ID is simply an attempt to reconcile Creationism and modern science by having God take credit for something that naturally happened. The theory is an awful notion based on the flawed criteria of "irreducible complexity" - an idea that pretends structures are far more advanced than they are.

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 1
tbay456

Pro


If there is a watch that has radom bits and bobs, and gizmos that have no purpose, we may jump to the conclusion that this watch maker is an idiot. But what if we turn it around and say that the intelligent watch maker wanted to make an unorthodox watch. The point being, that although there are some flaws with our plant, organisms, and life that might have been the intent. If every fact pointed to a creator, and the creator wanted faith there is no point in his design.
The theory of evolution is based on that life comes from pre existing life. That one thing can only come from another. However science cornered itself because of the famous Reid’s experiment. He tested with the rotten meat and flies. He proved that spontaneous generation is not possible. So if evolution is like a family tree how can the roots be made?
My opponent mentioned that the organelles inside the cell were separate living structures on their own. Yes, which is called the Enosymbiotic Theory. That is where Eukaryotic cells (our body cells) have its mitochondria, and chloroplast which came from protist like cells. Those cells are living. However those too are very complex. The first organisum dose need to replicate because if it does not there are just proteins that are not living nor reproduce. So let’s say that there are these amino acids floating around, there was a statistical test that these amino acids can’t bind together to make a living organism. The chance of it happening was said to be 1 in 10 to the 123rd power. So yes having a simple organism come from disjoint amino acids only needed to happen once, but that once is proven to be impossible. Also in order to have a starting organism, it needs DNA to pass its traits. If it does not the F1 offspring can’t reproduce. Now DNA is very complex if we are just hoping that phosphate, nitrogenous bases, and a Deoyyribose sugar would bind to each other in the correct formation. So this organism that stated life off must be more than protein, or a organic molecule.
Now it’s not just the biology that can’t disprove a creator but how our planet or our galaxy came about. First is the famous law of conservation of matter. That matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well if that’s true how could all of this matter get here? Now you might be saying the same question back. Well the theory of a creator is one of the few explanations because it trumps the laws. With a creator mater can come from nothing. It could do a lot more too. The problem is that science needs to be constant. The laws can’t be broken at anytime. With a designer theory it does not follow set laws, which makes it difficult to be thought of as part of science.
The theory of a higher being, or a creator that made who we are, and what we see is a reasonable approach to explaining how we got here. The reason people do not believe this is because there is no proof. However that does not mean it’s not there. Like our brains we don’t see it, we have no proof that it is in our skulls right now but we know it is there. I don’t think we can ever prove god, but we can’t disprove him, and that’s the point.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Responses:

>> "If there is a watch that has radom bits and bobs, and gizmos that have no purpose, we may jump to the conclusion that this watch maker is an idiot"

You mean random bits and bobs and gizmos that have no purpose like vestigial organs and other evolutionary quirks?

>> "But what if we turn it around and say that the intelligent watch maker wanted to make an unorthodox watch."

A flawed watch, you mean... what if the INTELLIGENT designer wanted to make a BROKEN watch? Is that what you are asking?

>> "If every fact pointed to a creator, and the creator wanted faith there is no point in his design. "

This statement doesn't even make sense...

>> "science cornered itself because of the famous Reid's experiment. He tested with the rotten meat and flies. He proved that spontaneous generation is not possible."

Not exactly - Redi disproved the common (at the time) conception that maggots came from rotting meat. Redi wasn't concerned with spontaneous generation - he was convinced that maggots didn't come from meat. While "spontaneous generation" is highly unlikely, that's not the current evolutionary theory.

Current evolutionary theory states that in the "primordial soup" of nonliving molecules and other matter, some chemical reactions produced organic molecules from non-organic molecules. Then, some of the organic molecules fit together in a way that allowed them to begin basic living processes.

>> "there was a statistical test ..."

Source?

>> "So yes having a simple organism come from disjoint amino acids only needed to happen once, but that once is proven to be impossible."

My opponent seems to be confused between an organism as we see them today, and self-replicating RNA or basic protein strands. Self-replicating RNA has been shown to "breed" and "speciate" in a lab setting (http://www.livescience.com...) and follow expected patterns of evolution. Granted, these strains of RNA are synthesized, but RNA is at at its core, just oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

>> "Now DNA is very complex if we are just hoping that phosphate, nitrogenous bases, and a Deoyyribose sugar would bind to each other in the correct formation. So this organism that stated life off must be more than protein, or a organic molecule."

And here my opponent demonstrates one of the greatest flaws in creationist/ID thinking - that the first organisms had DNA and traits. It is more than likely that they did not - remember that all that is required for life (in this context) is the ability to reproduce. My opponent is correct that life must be more than a protein OR an organic molecule, but the argument that life started as a protein AND an organic molecule (http://www.pbs.org...). And Stanley Miller's experiments in the 1950's showed pretty conclusively that proteins were naturally occurring on the very young earth. All that remains is an organic molecule, like a fatty acid (http://www.scientificamerican.com...), which were also naturally occurring.

>> "First is the famous law of conservation of matter. That matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well if that's true how could all of this matter get here?"

This statement evidences an egregious misunderstanding of the Big Bang. The matter did not just "appear" - it was there already, but very, very compacted. Then it exploded.

>> "Well the theory of a creator is one of the few explanations because it trumps the laws..."

This statement is, to be honest, idiotic. You cannot use causation to prove that a being who defies causation exists. If you want to postulate a magical being that doesn't follow the laws of nature, you belong in church, not in a laboratory.

>> "The problem is that science needs to be constant. The laws can't be broken at anytime. With a designer theory it does not follow set laws, which makes it difficult to be thought of as part of science."

Which is precisely why ID is not thought of as "science" - it is a religious precept that has no scientific backing.

>> "The theory of a higher being, or a creator that made who we are, and what we see is a reasonable approach to explaining how we got here"

Readers take note that as we head into the third round of argumentation, we have yet to see any arguments for this proposition, only arguments against evolution.

>> "Like our brains we don't see it, we have no proof that it is in our skulls right now but we know it is there. I don't think we can ever prove god, but we can't disprove him, and that's the point. "

My opponent now adds the concept of "warranted assertability" to the list of concepts he does not grasp. There is warranted assertability to believe our brains are in our skulls - a primary reason being that brains are seen all the time in hospitals, and actually removed from skulls fairly frequently. If God happened to show up, say, ONE HUNDREDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the number of times we've seen a brain, there might be some warranted assertabiity for the fact that a creator exists....

*********************************************************************************

Readers, my opponent has done only two things:

1) Refrained from arguing FOR intelligent design, but rather arguing AGAINST evolution.
2) Postulated that since science cannot prove there is not a god, God exists, and intelligent design is correct.

The untenability of the second position, and the fact that he *still* has not put forth an argument that actually addresses the resolution, has transformed this from a debate into a waste of time.

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 2
tbay456

Pro


I like how my opponent decided that he would convince his audience by taking what I said and adding in his own commentary, effective but not to creative. First off I think he was confused on my statement "If every fact pointed to a creator, and the creator wanted faith there is no point in his design." Yes to prove something there needs to be evidence. But I was suggesting that if there was a creator the evidence that we would be presented to us would be in a way, filtered. Where we can only see what we are suppose to see. It might make more scenes later on in my discussion. (http://www.seekfind.net...) Here is your source. Now as my opponent mentioned like five times that I have not supported my case of an intelligent designer. I have only “bashed” evolution. Well my goal in that was to bring up that science’s theory of how life started needs almost the same amount faith then an intelligent designer. Now on to God! Let’s take one of the most popular religions, Christianity. Jesus was the son of god. That’s what he said. So why should we believe him? Well this religion came with good reliable documentation. The reason I say reliable is because it was written by normal eye witnesses. They were not geniuses, or prodigies they just experienced what Jesus said, and did, and wrote them down. We might say that they could have lied and made Jesus up just to mess with people. There are several clues that suggest that they were not just in some hideaway making up this story. If you read all of the books there are some things that are repeated. Like the healing of the paralyzed man and other examples. The thing that is most interesting is that there are some repeated stories that are off. Like Mathew said there were four men in the room and Mark said there were five. These errors are good because if every account was identical to each other then we can see how it was just planned out by a group, but that’s not what happened here. Another example is that if they wanted people to believe there story they would not have said that a women discovered that Jesus’ dead body was gone. If they were making it up they probably would have said a man would have, because a woman was very low in the social structure so if they wanted people to believe there story they would have chosen a man to discover his empty tomb. Also if we look at the tradition at that time, the scribes that past down these stories had a tradition of remembering every word of the story before they wrote it down themselves. This is very important because it’s not like the scribes were just adding in parts to fill the bible with untruthful events or forgetting the true story. The bible is almost a primary source from eye witness accounts of Jesus’ life. Now a lot of people could say that Jesus could not be the son of god, he could just be a very smart person. Well he did more than just tell stories and had a way with words. He physically did things that today we still can’t do. An example I mentioned before was that he healed a paralyzed man in a matter of seconds. It doesn’t matter how smart you are no normal human could do that. The bible is not a book of lies that were stirred up to make people confused. A lot of people may disagree with what the bible may say, however that does not mean its validity decreases. It is historic documentation of the life of Jesus Christ and what he did. And when Jesus, (the son of god) preached he would say “because of your faith, you are healed.” That’s what I was trying to say before. Maybe god dose not want us to prove him with scientific evidence. Maybe he wants us to believe he created everything without putting a giant sigh in the sky saying “There is a god.” This is the point where I bring attention to that my opponent has yet to disprove a creator; he is only providing THEORYS supporting evolution. Now just because you believe in god does not mean you can’t believe in evolution. We see organisms changing every day, and in our lives. The problem with it is that our fossil record does not show a nice tree with one common ancestor. It is more like grass where there are a few branches in smaller trees but the trees are not coming all together. So evolution/ or that change in a populations genetic pool can coexist with a creator. The main point I am trying to get across is that there is not going to be a point where we can prove that there is a god, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. In short the theory of intelligent design is that there is a creator who made our everything. The other side is the big bang theory where first there was nothing… and then it exploded.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

The final round begins with my opponent wasting much of his valuable space talking about Christianity, and why Christian doctrine about Jesus is correct. That strategy is egregiously flawed.

Responses:

>> "I was suggesting that if there was a creator the evidence that we would be presented to us would be in a way, filtered."

Why? Where is the evidence for this assertion? My opponent presents no evidence for the proposition that there IS a creator in the first place, NOR that if said creator existed, that it would, for some inexplicable reason, doctor its creative process to fit our perceptions. In fact, the notion delivered by this statement is that the creator did NOT create man, as somehow, the creator was unable to create man in such a way as to experience the rest of creation unfiltered... It simply doesn't make sense.

>> "(http://www.seekfind.net......) Here is your source."

Right, because "seekfind.net" is a reliable, scientific source. The article you reference has a breadcrumb trail called "Home > The Meaning of Life > The Cult > Evolutionism > Arguments Against Evolution > Evolution is Flim-flam > Statistics ." It's a little late now, but in order to actually cite scientific "evidence" it needs to come from a scientific source. The article doesn't even show any basis for it's calculations. Here's just an idea of how far these writers depart from reality - a quote from their website footer: "Human theology and reasoning is not necessarily correct, but the Bible is without error."

If you want to be taken seriously at all, use science, not theology.

>> "science's theory of how life started needs almost the same amount faith then an intelligent designer"

This statement is patently false. By definition, faith in something requires a lack of evidence. Science, by definition, builds on previous evidence. So first of all, the statement doesn't make any sense, and second, the statement also concedes that there is in fact no evidence for intelligent design, and thus, concedes the entire argument.

>> "Christianity. Jesus was the son of god. That's what he said. So why should we believe him? "

Who gives a diddle? There is no evidence whatsoever that if there is an intelligent designer, that it was the Christian God!! But I'll respond to some of these statements simply because they have enormous comedic value...

>> "The reason I say reliable is because it was written by normal eye witnesses."

This is rich... you do know that only one of the Twelve could likely read and write?

>> "These errors are good because if every account was identical to each other then we can see how it was just planned out by a group, but that's not what happened here."

A Christian fictionalism that states in effect: "The more errors something contains, the more likely it is to be correct."

>> "if they wanted people to believe there story they would not have said that a women discovered that Jesus' dead body was gone."

Which they already knew, so they figured that it would increase the believability of their tale if they stood by that little detail... And their story was in such sorry shape already, what with the zombie and all, that they figured one more little thing couldn't hurt.

>> "The bible is not a book of lies that were stirred up to make people confused. "

ORLY? I suggest you actually read it then. Pay particular attention to books like Leviticus and Numbers, as well as the many accounts of factual impossibilities like burning bushes that don't burn, people rising from the dead, etc...

>> "when Jesus, (the son of god) preached he would say "because of your faith, you are healed.""

Right, because thanks to modern medicine, we know that forgiving sins cures diseases and conditions such as paralysis and leprosy. Good on you Jesus, for figuring that one out early!

>> "Maybe god dose not want us to prove him with scientific evidence."

Or maybe he doesn't exist...

>> "my opponent has yet to disprove a creator; he is only providing THEORYS supporting evolution."

My burden is not to disprove a creator - the burden is on my opponent to actually prove the one exists. As far as evolution goes, I have been humoring my opponent's assertions against it, simply because he has yet to put forth an argument that supports Intelligent Design, so there has been nothing for me to actually argue against.

>> "The problem with it is that our fossil record does not show a nice tree with one common ancestor."

Nor would it, given the fact that life likely developed in the oceans, where there aren't too many fossils. Furthermore, the planet is geologically active enough that we wouldn't be able to trace back to the first common ancestor because the evidence has likely been destroyed. Also, consider that the fossil record DOES trace back to many simpler ancestors that show they have developed into multiple present-day organisms. In other words, we can trace back pretty darn far, and that tracing shows evolution to be correct, but beyond that point, we just don't have access to the evidence. That's why science doesn't claim to be 100% correct about everything, and evolution is still a theory.

But it's a whole lot better than the theological guesswork that is ID.

>> "there is not going to be a point where we can prove that there is a god, but that doesn't mean there isn't one."

So there is not going to be evidence, and this proves that there is a god?? Right. That standard "proves" anything you want it to.

>> "In short the theory of intelligent design is that there is a creator who made our everything."

And my opponent has yet to provide any evidence for any of that statement.'

>> "The other side is the big bang theory where first there was nothing… and then it exploded. "

As referenced above, this statement is incorrect (and a straw man), and evidences the lack of preparation and understanding of my opponent.

*******************************************************************************

Readers, if there is one thing that is clear in this debate, it is that my opponent is simply not aware of this subject matter. He provided no evidence whatsoever for ID. He even failed to introduce the concept of irreducible complexity, a key principle of ID.

The debate is clear - there wasn't actually a debate on this topic at all because PRO did nothing to further the resolution, and so it is:

NEGATED.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Do you believe in natural origins? There are very few explanations to how an intelligent designer could arise in the absence of mater and energy. Intelligent design is the process of planning a universe even though time doesn't exist yet. However there is no evidence of how an intelligent designer could do that. Was there another, prior, designer who designed the one who designed us? That is implicit in intelligent design theory: things we don't understand must have been caused by a planner. But then who planned the planner?

Therefore, natural origins is a very creditable theory. [/parody]
Posted by theorusso 5 years ago
theorusso
"I like how my opponent decided that he would convince his audience by taking what I said and adding in his own commentary, effective but not to creative."
-its called a rebuttal, standard in debates; its expected.

You can't argue against evolution without negating all arguments supporting intelligent design. To say that there is no evidence showing where evolution started counters any argument that intelligent design is a legitimate claim, since intelligent design is an idea that comes about from no evidence.

Being this a debate, intelligent design is destined to lose since debates are based on logical reasoning with evidence.

Religion finds conclusions, then searches for evidence. Science finds evidence, then searches for conclusions.
Posted by Randall999 5 years ago
Randall999
@JustCallMeTaran-- np, i figured as much. ID proponents just are not willing to see that evolution can go along with belief in a God (I don't believe in a God, but evolution, which I teach fwiw, is accepted as fact by 99% of scientists/biologists, which I am sure you know). Amazing how some religious folk are stuck in the 12th century world of magical thinking in an age where they however love to rely on scientists and science for their computers, PC games, cell phones.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
@ Randall - agreed... but for reasons unbeknownst to me, he challenged ME on this topic.. lol
Posted by Randall999 5 years ago
Randall999
Proponents for Intelligent Design pretty much had their change in the docket to defend ID against evolution. ID lost. Kitzmiller v. Dover.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
tbay456JustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro apparently thought that attacking evolution is the same thing as supporting intelligent design.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
tbay456JustCallMeTarzanTied
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 did not build a systematic case with scientific support. The spelling and format errors made Pro difficult to follow. Con needs to be careful to just attack Pro's arguments and not Pro -- it was OK but close to the lie, I think.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
tbay456JustCallMeTarzanTied
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: Pretty easy to vote on this one. Pro lost conduct because of the "not to creative" comment. Pro lost spelling
Vote Placed by Ryanconqueso 5 years ago
Ryanconqueso
tbay456JustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: All points go to Con and why shouldn't they? He can spell, use words correctly, knows his way around those great punctuation keys, provided arguments for his burden, and clearly has done some research. Pro didn't give reasoning for ID over evolution, hurt my eyes beyond belief, and used one unreliable source combined with "brochure" information.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
tbay456JustCallMeTarzanTied
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: Jesus has no part in a debate about ID.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
tbay456JustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The brick texts in round 3 was painful, sorry. There was also some bad grammar issues, like using periods rather than commas to create fragmented sentences. In turn, Pro did not argue the resolution very well, he simple argued against evolution (and didn't do that too well either).
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
tbay456JustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not show why ID is a legitamite theory as to how life arose.