The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
condeelmaster
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is Evolution fact or fiction

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
condeelmaster
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 550 times Debate No: 86428
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

I'm a born again Christian and believe that evolution is false exept for micro evolution we can all admit that happens
condeelmaster

Con

I accept the challenge. Micro and macro evolution are just two sides of the same coin. If micro evolution exist, macro evolution exists too.

Hope to have a great debate, good luck!!
Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Pro

I disagree that Micro Evolution and Macro Evolution are two sides of the same coin first lets show the definition of the two.

Micro Evolution- evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.
Basically small changes in a animal

Macro Evolution- major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.
Basically one animal changing into another animal

So now we know what they both mean.

So now we know that Micro evolution happens for example A dog can produce a variety of dogs; like dogs with long hair, dogs with short hair, tall dogs, small dogs that's micro evolution but we've never seen an animal turn into another animal into another animal just like the Bible says
Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

it's never been observed or proven so it's just a fairy tail, not true, false.
condeelmaster

Con

Rebuttals

"we've never seen an animal turn into another animal into another animal "


That's a lazy argument. I mean, I have never seen "The revenant" and I don't argue against its existence, I'm just waiting for it to be on cable.

It's difficult to directly see macro evolution because it takes lots of years to occur. In a sense is like your hair growing, in a short time you can't tell it has been getting longer, but in a long period you will see it has grown a lot.


"Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

I respect your beliefs but the bible is not a scientific text. May it be right? Well, maybe it is right. But it's not a scientific text.

Nevertheless, this does not make evolution wrong. The problem here is that people think of evolution as a bird giving birth to a dinosaur. That's not true. Macro evolution is the result of micro evolution over time.

Con conceded that micro evolution was a fact. Then, imagine this: One animal gives birth to another similar to him but with a minor change, like longer hair or shorter legs or stronger arms. Then if you concatenate this minor changes, you get a big change.

To see this in practice let's take the evolution of the horse:

First you had a Eohippus. It something like a dog. The children of this Eohippus started to have longer legs. A minor change, one Con would accept. Lot's of years passed and the change in the legs was such that those Eohippus became to be called Mesohippus. The same happened over some more time and people called this even bigger animals Merychippus. Some of these still had children with longer hair, but some others had a new change, they started to have more hair in the head. This continued and people called this version of the Merychippus with a mane Pliohippus. The Pliohippus started to have bigger children with more hair. This continued till people called the bigger and hairier version of the Pliohippus the Equus ferus caballus, or as you call it, the modern horse.

This is just one example of how small changes in a long period of time form a big change.


I will know give evidence for the evolution theory.


Fossils

The fossil record shows how organisms have been changing over time. You can observe how in a given moment of history animals had certain characteristics and in the following moments that characteristics change and new species appear.


Bacteria and other microscopic organisms

As micro organisms reproduce rapidly, evolution can take place in a shorter amount of time. New bacteria appears quite frequently. Mutations that can resist antibiotics have more chances to survive, so after a while, the only left alive are the ones that can resist antibiotics. But then scientist create better antibiotics and those bacteria start to die again, so mutation happens again. Again, bacteria resistant to the new antibiotics appear and is the one who survives. The latter is a different bacteria than the former. As you can see, evolution took place, macro evolution. Then, evolution is valid,in all of its forms, and it's proved and observed.


DNA

The DNA data recollected by scientists shows that the relationships implied by the theory of evolution are right. Macro evolution did happen.

This data confirms the common ancestry of some species, like humans and chimps, and the remnants of previous generations.


Pure logic

Pro concedes micro evolution is factual. Then we can take like a valid premise "minor changes do exist between generations".

Premise 1: minor changes do exist between generations
Premise 3: generations changes happen over time
Premise 2: adding up minor things gives as a result a major thing
Conclusion: major changes must exist in long periods of time.


Conclusion

There's plenty of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. However, my opponent just gave as an argument that he didn't observed macro evolution happening. To conclude, natural selection happens, and is the best way of explaining the nature of species.


Sources

- On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
- The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins
- The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
- Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne
- Fossil Horses by Bruce MacFadden

Debate Round No. 2
Thiest_1998

Pro

If it's lazy sorry but you don't have to see it exists you can see an advert saying it's coming out or know someone who's seen it, also going back to a point earlier when I said nobody's observed or proven it so in conclusion to that I say it again Macro Evolution has never happened.

But with hair it's a different it just grows nothing else changes

"It's difficult to directly see macro evolution because it takes lots of years to occur. In a sense is like your hair growing, in a short time you can't tell it has been getting longer, but in a long period you will see it has grown a lot".

Just because it's not scientific text doesn't mean it' not a fact for example they use to teach that everything revolves around the earth but later to be proven wrong.

And you kinda admitted it that the bible is true.

when you see a fossil in the ground the only thing you could prove is that it died you can't prove it was a male or female you especially can't prove it had any children let alone any children different to it's own kind just like the Bible says.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And how would you know that animal is evolving just by looking at the fossil.

Fossil reply
Again don't know how you'd be able to tell that an animal is evolving just by looking at it and you could the Observing different fossils and calling it evolution btw do you know how fossils are formed?

Bacteria and other microscopic organisms (reply)

I think that it's more of Micro evolution because it's making small changes for example if freshwater fishes were put into a salt water they would adapt to the changes just like the bacteria but they don't change into a new species like Macro evolution teaches which again never happens.

DNA (reply)

If apes or monkeys were our ancestors then were are the fossils of apes evolving into humans and why ain't apes evolving into humans right now.

Pure logic (reply)

The only thing that changes from generation to generation is the characteristics of the individual for example if my father is tall I would probably inherit those genes same thing with animals if the parent had a certain characteristics then the child would probably inherit it not turn into another animal.

I think approximately 6,000 years ago God created the heavens and the universe 4400 years ago there was a flood that killed everyone in the world but 8 people that's why we have the fossils and all of these canyons for example The Grand Canyon and I know that there is a God that created everything and again I think it's silly to think that everything got here by chance.

P's
If the bible is correct how can evolution be true because both are contrary to one another.
condeelmaster

Con

"Just because it's not scientific text doesn't mean it' not a fact for example they use to teach that everything revolves around the earth but later to be proven wrong."

That's a really interesting quote. Descartes would be proud. I agree with Pro on his skeptical doubts.

However, what this implies is that we cannot know anything. If many propositions that were facts in the past were later disproved, then the same can, and most probably will, happen with all the prepositions regarded as true. Then, we can know nothing. This means that concepts as true or false have no function, cause we cannot know if something if true or false. Then, this debate is just a waste of time. Then, all this site is just a waste of time.

Don't panic. There is one way to return to the safety of true and false having this paradigm. Pragmatism. Pragmatism realises the incognoscible nature of the universe, so they decide if something is true or false in a different way. A true proposition is one which predicts an explain phenomena in the most precise way.

Evolution is, by far, the better explanation of phenomena in the species topic. It predicts the species dynamics (how a specie will evolve), it gives a reasonable explanation to the fossil record, it predicted the DNA similarities between certain species, and so on. So far, evolution is the best theory out there regarding to the formation of species.

It's evolution wrong? Maybe. Is quite probable that a few years from now some bright mind discovers a new theory. However, evolution is the best we have at the moment. According to the pragmatic view of modern sciences, this makes evolution true.




"when you see a fossil in the ground the only thing you could prove is that it died you can't prove it was a male or female you especially can't prove it had any children let alone any children different to it's own kind just like the Bible says."


If you studied some biology you would know this is false. When scientist study a fossil, they can determine when it lived, how they died, if they had children or not, etc. Also, studying the DNA found in some fossils, they can determine they link between different species.




"And how would you know that animal is evolving just by looking at the fossil."

You don't look at just one fissile. You look at all the fossils in a chronological and geographic way. Then, having in mind time space coexistence and DNA links you determine the evolution chain.




"I think that it's more of Micro evolution because it's making small changes (talking about micro organisms and bacteria)"

Well, for a human, the amount of change that happens in micro organisms is pretty small. However, we must remember that humans are thousands of millions of times bigger. What for us is small, for bacteria is huge.
Besides that, the changes are big enough to form new species, so even if they were "small", they prove macro evolution.



"If apes or monkeys were our ancestors then were are the fossils of apes evolving into humans and why ain't apes evolving into humans right now."


This is a common misconception. Humans don't descend form monkeys. Actually, we have the common ancestors. That's why our DNA is so similar.




"The only thing that changes from generation to generation is the characteristics of the individual"

Again, lots of small changes make a big one. Imagine your have a sun that grows to be an inch taller. That's quite a small difference. But imagine that the same happens to your sun's sun, and to your sun's sun's sun, and so on. Eventually, one sun will be like 20 foots tall. A human isn't 20 foots tall, so there you would have a different species.



"I think approximately 6,000 years ago God created the heavens and the universe"

I won't discuss the existence of god, that's a whole other debate. However, there's plenty of conclusive evidence that shows the earth is not 6000 years old. For instances, charcoal that has like 20,000 years old.



"4400 years ago there was a flood that killed everyone in the world but 8 people that's why we have the fossils and all of these canyons "

The thing is that, if the universe is 6000 years old, those fossils we have found are older than the universe itself.

Also, a flood couldn't form the canyons. If canyons were formed by a flood, that flood must have been a very long flood (millions of years, because of the erosion rate of water). So, or the canyons were made of sugar or they were not formed by a flood.




" I know that there is a God that created everything and again I think it's silly to think that everything got here by chance."

As a matter of fact, the existence of a god is compatible with evolution. Evolution explains the formation of species, not the origin of life. Maybe god created life and then it evolved. So the existence of god does not disprove evolution.

Also is not that silly to think everything got here by chance. Quantum physics shows us that universes may divide any time an event happens, so that every universe has a different result. So we live in the universe that had this result, but there are other universe were results were different and life formed different, or maybe it didn't formed at all.

What always puzzles me is how an eternal and non created universe is less logical than an eternal and non created god.



Great debate so far. Cheers!


Debate Round No. 3
Thiest_1998

Pro

I would believe the phenomenon which has never been proven wrong.

Again I disagree go with the fact that saying the Bible is a better way of saying how we got here why we are here and why are things the way they are for example why are there so many laws in the universe and how did they get there?
For example The laws of Gravity, law of vibration, Law of Cause and Effect, Law of action ect
Someone must have implemented them by someone they don't get there by themselves.

Btw look up law of vibration, Law of Cause and Effect, Law of action and tell me how are law's like these possible without "someone" Even God implementing them?
The fact that soo many animals have DNA similarities with humans proves that we have a common designer not a common ancestor and also what "change" in an ape turns it into a human also the small changes that you see in creatures is getting genetics from their parents how can the genetics from your parents turn you into another creature? To me it's absurd!

Macro Evolution teaches that one animal can turn into another animal and that's what you're defending and now you're saying that we didn't descend from them we just have a common ancestor, you're contradicting yourself.


You can't get a 20 ft person there are limits on everything for example they've been trying to inbred the fastest horses so that they can get a faster horse the fastest they've ever got was 43.97 mph but you can't get a horse to go as fast as the speed of light because there are limits in in your genes there is a certain point it can't go beyond hense why Macro evolution is a bit silly to me.

Why won't you discuss the existence of God and how do you know that charcoal is 20,000 years old remember if someone makes a claim and can't back it up it's probably not true.

How do you know how old is the universe?

The canyons can be formed by a flood a year long global flood can just like it says in the Bible in Genesis 7.

God isn't compatible with evolution because the Bible says when God created something it says and it was so it doesn't say that it evolved why would God make the animals evolve into humans when he just make us separate just like it says in the Bible in Genesis 1-2

Nothing appears by chance even the universe, if God's the creator of it explains a lot of things that evolution tries to explain and gets wrong it's a more logical approach and the fact that people that had near death experiences and claim to have seen for example God heaven ect and didn't know anything about it until they died for me it's just logical.
condeelmaster

Con

"Again I disagree go with the fact that saying the Bible is a better way of saying how we got here why we are here and why are things the way they are for example why are there so many laws in the universe and how did they get there?
For example The laws of Gravity, law of vibration, Law of Cause and Effect, Law of action ect
Someone must have implemented them by someone they don't get there by themselves.

Btw look up law of vibration, Law of Cause and Effect, Law of action and tell me how are law's like these possible without "someone" Even God implementing them?"

Metaphysical issues are very interesting, but way out of topic here. This has nothing to do with evolution.



"The fact that soo many animals have DNA similarities with humans proves that we have a common designer not a common ancestor and also what "change" in an ape turns it into a human also the small changes that you see in creatures is getting genetics from their parents how can the genetics from your parents turn you into another creature? To me it's absurd!"

Humans don't have DNA similarities with lots of animals, just with the ape family. This proves common ancestry, not a designer. If there was a designer, the same DNA blueprint would be found in every animal, but that doesn't happen.

Again we see the biggest misconception about evolution. Evolution is not a bird giving birth to a dinosaur. Instead, evolution tells us that animals have small changes, that added up throughout a long period of years (we are talking of millions of years) make a big change. Evolution is a bird giving birth to another bird that has some minor changes, that happening trillions of times causes big changes.



"Macro Evolution teaches that one animal can turn into another animal and that's what you're defending and now you're saying that we didn't descend from them we just have a common ancestor, you're contradicting yourself."

Please read my argument carefully. I said humans do not descend from monkeys, actually humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. Getting deeper into this, you can see the tree evolution in this image: https://upload.wikimedia.org... (just in case, humans are homo)



"You can't get a 20 ft person there are limits on everything for example they've been trying to inbred the fastest horses so that they can get a faster horse the fastest they've ever got was 43.97 mph but you can't get a horse to go as fast as the speed of light because there are limits in your genes there is a certain point it can't go beyond hense why Macro evolution is a bit silly to me."

Firstly, it was just an exaggerated example for you to understand in a more visual way.

Secondly, the impossibility of getting a horse faster than light is not a limit of evolution, but a limit of physics. What I mean is that the evolution process doesn't extra limit physics. In which physics book can you find something that would have made evolution impossible?

I understand genes have certain limits, but how you know those limits make evolution impossible? Also, as discovered by epigenetics, the real limiter and transformer of genes is the environment. So, as the environment changes, genes changes, species changes.



"Why won't you discuss the existence of God and how do you know that charcoal is 20,000 years old remember if someone makes a claim and can't back it up it's probably not true."

The existence of god has nothing to do with evolution, that's why I don't discuss it here.

We can know the age of things using a method called radiometric (or for this case, radiocarbon) dating. Carbon is presented every where. It has different isotopes, some are more stable and some other don't. One of this isotopes is carbon 14. This isotope decays over time, but in a very slow fashion. We can measure this and know the age of the sample. So yes, there are things dated from more than 20,000 years.



"How do you know how old is the universe?"

We can't know exactly. But, we can have some estimations. Anyway, we can be sure that it isn't 6000 years old like Pro said.

Using uranium radiometric dating, scientist have dated rocks from billions of years. So just the earth has to have at least some billions years old. Just a bit more than 6000 years.

Using a similar concept, scientists use radiometric dating combined with spectometries to find out the age of spatial stuff, like stars and planets.

The most interesting part is the method to know the age of the universe. Scientists measure the microwave background radiation. Since they know this used to be visible light, and has been stretched out by the expansion of the Universe, they can extrapolate back from its current wavelength to what it was at the beginning of the Universe. This tells them the age is about 13.8 billion years. (http://www.universetoday.com...)



"The canyons can be formed by a flood a year long global flood "

No, the canyons take years to form, provided the erosion rate of water. For instance, the grand canyon took 17 million years to form (Science Friday Journal).



"God isn't compatible with evolution because the Bible says..."

This presumes that if god existed, it would be the biblical god. This also presumes that the bible was intended to be literal, and not allegorical. Just some presumtions here. God can be different from waht the bible said. Also, the bible is (as many scholars say) an allegorical text, thus not made to be interpreted literally.



"Nothing appears by chance even the universe"

Watch the lottery some day. Things happen by chance every day.



" the fact that people that had near death experiences and claim to have seen for example God heaven ect and didn't know anything about it until they died for me it's just logical."

When people have a near death experience, their body releases a substance called DMT. This is the same substance found on psychedelics like Ayahuasca, psylocibin mushrooms, and others. While on DMT, humans experience hallucinations. This explains why they "see god".
















Debate Round No. 4
Thiest_1998

Pro

Very true the debate isn't about that but I would really like you to give your opinion on it either in the arguments or the comments. Btw no atheist has ever answered that question.

We and apes do have dna similarities but I would doubt that we shared a common ancestor because whatever that ancestor is after a while it's offspring would produce apes and humans, two different types of creatures which means that macro evolution took place and macro evolution has never been observed so it probably didn't take place, also 'if' we and apes did have common ancestors where are thier fossils and where are thier offspring's fossils and how would you know that two fossils are related if they're different. I hope you get what I mean.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. I may have exaggerated it a little bit but let me rephrase that 'you can't get a horse that runs 100m in 4 seseconds' I know they make evolution impossible because it has never been observed.

okay fair enough could we discuss the existence of God in another debate and if not why?

https://youtu.be...;

Random question" what do you think you have to lose if you accept the faith of Christianity?


Some parts of the bible isn't meant to be taken literalfor example some of Daniels prophecies in the book of Daniel that prophecy needs a bit more research into the bible but, prophecies in general not supposed to be taken literally but most of the bible is supposed to.

If you want knowledge on prophecies then go on YouTube and type in walks with God ministries and the video's should help.

Yes the lottery is basically full of it but it was started by someone entering and someone putting the balls in the random selector it doesn't start and happen by itself just like life and the universe.

Not if the brain has not been functioning for hours sometimes days is the brain hallucinating for that long, even that boy from Heaven is for real he didn't die and he saw heaven and God please explain this to me?




condeelmaster

Con

Rebuttals

"We and apes do have dna similarities but I would doubt that we shared a common ancestor because whatever that ancestor is after a while it's offspring would produce apes and humans, two different types of creatures which means that macro evolution took place and macro evolution has never been observed so it probably didn't take place"

Here Pro tries to disprove my point, but the premise he uses is presuming my point is false. This reasoning is circular, thus invalid.


" 'if' we and apes did have common ancestors where are thier fossils(?)"

We have found fossils of some common ancestors, like the Dryopithecus or the Ouranopithecus.


"okay fair enough could we discuss the existence of God in another debate and if not why? "

Yes, why not?


"https://youtu.be......;"

This youtube link Pro quoted doesn't direct you to anywhere (??????).....


"Random question" what do you think you have to lose if you accept the faith of Christianity?"

I don't know how this affects this debate, so I would be glad to answer but not here.


"Some parts of the bible isn't meant to be taken literalfor example some of Daniels prophecies in the book of Daniel that prophecy needs a bit more research into the bible but, prophecies in general not supposed to be taken literally but most of the bible is supposed to.

If you want knowledge on prophecies then go on YouTube and type in walks with God ministries and the video's should help."

How this relates to this debate???


"Yes the lottery is basically full of it but it was started by someone entering and someone putting the balls in the random selector it doesn't start and happen by itself just like life and the universe."

Randomness exists and that's not something you can negate. Quantum physics prove it, everyday life experiences prove it.


"Not if the brain has not been functioning for hours sometimes days is the brain hallucinating for that long, even that boy from Heaven is for real he didn't die and he saw heaven and God please explain this to me?"

Why couldn't he hallucinate that long? I don't think he saw "heaven and God", just pure hallucination and a biased interpretation.




Conclusion


Firstly, Pro conceded that micro evolution happens. This means that he also concedes that macro evolution happens too. He contended that macro evolution was crazy, but it's logical to think that if you have micro evolution for a long time you will end up having macro evolution.

Then, he stated that evolution is false because the bible said so. The bible is not a scientific source, even he admits that "ssome parts of the bible isn't meant to be taken literal". So this is an invalid argument.

Finally he said evolution contradicted the "real" age of the universe, because evolution is supposed to take millions of years and the earth is only 6000 years. I proved that the earth is millions of years, and that scientist know this by radiometric dating and the microwave background.


On the other hand, I gave several pieces of evidence that support evolution. The fossils, the observation of macro evolution in micro organisms, the DNA similarities, and so on. I think evolution was clearly proved in this debate.

Good luck to my opponent. Cheers!!!







Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Well here I would just like to say that the way God made the animals and the way Evolution portrays animals evolving is so simliar its kinda interesting. Like how it was the fish, then the land crawlers, then those who can fly ect... It really could work with evolution. The only about evolution is that we are always finding animals from "millions" of years ago alive and just the same today without "evolving" What is this Pokemon? Grow up people xD. I mean honestly, Evolution doesnt have any evidence at this point in time, what I mean by that is visible recorded evidence of an animal "evolving" Oh look my puppy just turned into a Giraffe! Oh yay! xD (I know thats not how it works but it's not too far off.) Or how about the fact that we've seen Human foot prints side by side with Dinosaur, in the same soil time-line. Hm.... I guess we never evolved but just like in the Bible, were just created from the Earth itself and not other animals, hence the other animals could adapt and change while we stayed human. So yet again Bible has been right for thousands of years now. Remember Evolution isnt a "why" its a how. Its is a method of us being created, not why we were created nor is it the cause. So why couldnt God use evolution? After all he would be the greatest Scientist and Mathematician. However again, neither side debate this info.
Posted by Thiest_1998 12 months ago
Thiest_1998
condeelmaster
Maybe
Posted by Thiest_1998 12 months ago
Thiest_1998
Well jglass841 tell me how evolution worked "ORIGINALLY"
Posted by condeelmaster 12 months ago
condeelmaster
By "you did not even know how evolution worked originally" he means you didn't understand evolution even at the beginning of this debate, I guess...
Posted by Thiest_1998 12 months ago
Thiest_1998
I do research on evolution and be 'specific' on what you mean by evolution there are 6 different definition also what do you mean by evolution worked originally?
@jglass841
Posted by jglass841 1 year ago
jglass841
Honestly, i will debate religion if you wish, but it has nothing to do with this debate. And 'What do you have to lose' is not an argument. Please debate evolution, and since you did not even know how evolution worked originally, i doubt that you can win, because of the lack of research on your side.
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
Besides that, carbon dating is only used for fossiles, not for the age of the universe or the earth!!
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
That video has lots of scientific errors, made obviously by some who doesn't read a lot if science books. I would tell every error and explain ti but it would be very long for here. They admit they can't even read the whole book!!

However, let's assume carbon dating is wrong. Anyway, we would still have the other radiometric methods that confirm the same data. Also, the microwave background.

Nevertheless, make this a contention in your next argument if you want...
Posted by condeelmaster 1 year ago
condeelmaster
Thiest98:

First, I didn't understand the principles question. If you explain better I'll be glad to answer.

And as the age of the earth concerns: I talked about radiocarbon because it was the method used in charcoal. However, as I expressed later in my argument, there are other methods of radiometric dating. One is the uranium one, because uranium has a life time of 10 billion years approximately.

And about the carbon 14, jglass841 is right about the exponential decay of it. Also, matter is not static. What I mean by this is that elements can transform into other elements.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by klaralein 1 year ago
klaralein
Thiest_1998condeelmasterTied
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's only real source is the bible, which is not a universally accepted source and is controversial to say the least. Con used convincing sources, used proper grammar, and successfully rebutted all of pro's sources and arguments. Good debate on both sides, but pro needed more evidence that wasn't from religious text.