The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
arturo
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part3)

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 5 votes the winner is...
arturo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,385 times Debate No: 14176
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

Illegalcombatant

Pro

My last debate on this subject my opponent didn't turn up for the last few rounds, so I will put the same argument up again and let some one else take a shot at it.

NOTE if you have a problem with definitions or rules or anything, please post in the comment section first, to see whether we can both agree to amended rules or descriptions before starting.

I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief.

My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief.

(PLEASE NOTE, their is no win by default here, both sides have to justify their side)

In order to win I have to argue that Intelligent Design is a rational belief (I don't have convince anyone that its true, just that its a rational belief)

In order for my opponent to win they must argue that Intelligent Design is an irrational belief (they don't have to convince anyone that its false, just that its an irrational belief)

Definitions

Intelligent Design An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life

Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity

Rational - agreeable to reason

Reason - the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.

Notes - I'd like to keep the main arguments to things on earth and specifically humans
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opening statements..............

If some one came across a car for the first time, and started observation and tests on it, they would probably figure out some of its "parts" such as wheels for moving, steering wheel for direction, engine for transfer energy into motion, etc and come to the conclusion these parts working, not just in themselves but complimentary to the other parts of the car, this person would be in their rational rights to conclude the car exists by design.

If something came across a human for the first time, and started observation and tests on it, they would probably figure out some of its "parts" such as legs for walking, mouth for chewing, heart for pumping blood etc and come to the conclusion these parts working, not just in themselves but complimentary to the other parts of the human, this something would be in their rational rights to conclude the human exists by design.

1st argument.............

1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.
2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design.
5) Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause.

My 2nd argument.....

To clarify what I mean by something existing out of "necessity" in this argument, I mean something that exists cause their is no possibility that it can't exist.

Humans existence, could of not happened, and going into the future, humans existence could cease, I don't think this claim will be challenged but we shall see. Therefore this rules out human existence , existing out of "necessity"

But even if human existence is contingent, why not believe that human existence is totally the result of no intent, and absent any intent ?

Once again I used the same reasoning from the first argument that its rational to deduce that humans have design. If humans have design this clearly refutes the claim that humans existence is the result of no intent.

But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent. For instance a computer can follow its programming, but it doesn't have the "intent" to do something, sure its follows the process, but the intent lies in the person that put the programming in the computer in the first place.

To summarize my 2nd argument....

1) Something exists either by intent or no intent or necessity.
2) Humans do not exist by no intent or necessity.
3) Therefore humans exist by intent.

I look forward to Con's response.
arturo

Con

Thank you. Today I will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief. I think this debate ultimately boils down on what exactly does it mean to say that a belief is rational. While my opponent has said the belief doesn't necessarily have to be true, "(they don't have to convince anyone that its false, just that its an irrational belief)", he continues the rest of his speech trying to prove why intelligent design is true.To believe in something untrue is irrational, and this will be the standard by which I pursue the debate.

I think it's safe to say then that whichever side gives you the better argumentation (of whether intelligent design is true/false) will win this debate. I will be arguing to the best of my ability as to why intelligent design is false, untrue and therefore irrational.

Before I begin, I would like to point out that - Intelligent Design An intelligent designer, also referred to as an intelligent agent, is the willed and self-conscious entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the origin and/or development of life - is an extremely vague definition. My opponent will be confusing the intelligent design of humans with the ultimate intelligent designer of the universe - when these are not the same thing.

First I will present two arguments of my own and then rebut the propositions arguments.

===========
ARGUMENTS
===========
1) Intelligent Design is Unintelligent
Intelligent design is an attempt at a reasonable way to discern the nature of the universe and how it came to exist. Many people, as my opponent has done, look toward the inherent complexity of the universe and say that the only reason such a thing could exist is due to a more complex, a more intelligent being. However, as I was frustrated with the definitions that my opponent has given, so too are many people frustrated with the intelligent design theory. The fact of the matter is, intelligent design gives us very little understanding of the universe. In fact, to acknowledge that the universe was intelligently designed gives us no further outlook in regards to the nature to the universe than saying it was not intelligently caused. Ultimately, to say that an intelligent designer created the universe is an appeal to ignorance. If we cannot know the nature of the existence of a complex thing, some sort of intelligent being caused its existence [1].

IN SUMMARY - Intelligence is supposed to give us a broader foundation and a wider outlook on that which we are seeking to understand. However, intelligent design gives us very little to create such a foundation. If anything, intelligent design bars us from seeking out any further information because we've reached an ambiguous, vague and largely irrelevant conclusion.

2) Nothing In the Natural Universe is Intelligently Designed
Everything within the universe is governed by the law of cause & effect. In fact, the very purpose of science is to model understanding regarding this causal relationship: to discern the effects of something on something else. It is important to observe that because of this causal relationship, what we consider primitive things were the foundations for what we consider to be our intelligent selves. For example, through our understanding of natural evolution within organisms, we come to acknowledge the fact that these organisms came to be from more primitive, more simple beings. One celled organisms because multi-cellular organisms, and then these organisms grew and developed into the various beings that we know today. There is no exclusive intelligence to be had about any of them. Each being was caused by a more primitive one (simpler -> complex development).

IN SUMMARY - everything in the universe is caused by something else in the universe. Thus, everything that we consider to be "intelligent" was at one point created by something much more primitive. IE, a watch was created by a human being, however a human being evolved from more primitive life forms, etc. The further we go into the chain, the more primitive, not intelligent, our foundations get.

=====
REBUTS
=====
Arg 1 -
1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.

This has been rebutted in my second argument.

"2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts."

Just because there are multiple working parts doesn't mean it was designed to behave this way. Things can come into existence out of a necessary cooperation. For example, when Darwin discovered numerous species of birds on the Galapagos islands, he understood that these birds weren't designed uniformly. Rather, they were adapted by the causing influence of their environment. Was their environment the intelligent cause of their individual unique features? No because my opponent would not attribute intelligence to the natural world. Therefore, there is no intelligent cause.

"But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent. For instance a computer can follow its programming, but it doesn't have the "intent" to do something, sure its follows the process, but the intent lies in the person that put the programming in the computer in the first place."

Arg 2-
1) Something exists either by intent or no intent or necessity.
2) Humans do not exist by no intent or necessity.
3) Therefore humans exist by intent.

Three things
1) This syllogism is completely irrelevant. No meaningful argument is being made here. It's made in his paragraphs...
2) "But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent." - this has been refuted by my second argument, that primitive things can lead to more complex things as long as the need to evolve (in response to their volatile environment) is there.
3) My opponent is misconstruing intelligence/intent with purpose/cause. The computer is built for a certain purpose which is caused by the need of the creator. This creator is purely physical and is futhermore caused by other physical things. However, notice in my second argument I have made the case that, the further we go in the chain of causality, the more primitive the causes become. The beauty of simplicity to complexity is that multiple different simple things can come together to form one complex thing, and so forth.

=======
SUMMARY
=======
In short, my opponent has done very little to demonstrate why intelligent design is a rational belief. All of the arguments for the rationality behind intelligent design have been succesfully rebutted and arguments for the irrationality of intelligent design have been presented.

To summarize this round
Arguments by opponent:
1) Complex things have an inherent design and therefore an intelligent designer -> Untrue; in the universe we can see that primitive things cause complex things. For example, through the theory of evolution we recognize how primitive cells can evolve into complex multi-cellular organisms - by adaptation and mutation - all natural, primitive and ultimately dynamic and non-designed things.

2) Humans exist by intent - the intent of the intelligent designer -> Untrue; humans exist by virtue of the random mutation that is explained by evolution. This evolution is spurred by the characteristic environment that the previous species existed in. Human existence is no more purposeful than any other physical & existent thing in this world.

Arguments by me
1) Intelligent design is fruitless. There is no further knowledge to be had via intelligent design theory. We bar ourselves from further understanding of the universe.

2) Everything within the universe is NOT intelligently designed. Humans exist in the universe. Just like everything else in the universe - humans were designed from primitive, simple things evolving into complex things.

References:
[1] http://www.vexen.co.uk...
[2] http://brneurosci.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Pro

I thank Con for their response.

Con complains about a vague definition, yet Con argues against an intelligent designer, obviously the definition given is good enough for Con to deny its existence. Consider this objection refuted

Con says "Many people, as my opponent has done, look toward the inherent complexity of the universe and say that the only reason such a thing could exist is due to a more complex, a more intelligent being"

Strawman argument, I only claimed thats its rational to believe in intelligent design. I never said that the ONLY way for complexity to exist is by intelligent design, at the very least all I have to argue is that an intelligent cause is more plausible over its negation (an unintelligent) cause. I also never claimed the intelligent designer was "complex".

Con says "In fact, to acknowledge that the universe was intelligently designed gives us no further outlook in regards to the nature to the universe than saying it was not intelligently caused"

Even if this is true, this does nothing to dis prove an intelligent designer. This is just an appeal to unpleasant consequences.

Con says "If we cannot know the nature of the existence of a complex thing, some sort of intelligent being caused its existence"

Straw man, I never argued from ignorance, I gave my argument as why we should deduce design.

Con says "If anything, intelligent design bars us from seeking out any further information because we've reached an ambiguous, vague and largely irrelevant conclusion."

Utter false hood, obviously its not so vague that Con can't deny its existence. Con seems to have this weird idea that accepting an intelligent design means science comes to an end ? This is completely false.

Con says "One celled organisms because multi-cellular organisms, and then these organisms grew and developed into the various beings that we know today. There is no exclusive intelligence to be had about any of them."

This explains process, it doesn't say one way or another if the process has its origins in intent.

Con says "IN SUMMARY - everything in the universe is caused by something else in the universe"

Is Con arguing for an infinite regress ? Con is saying that their is no first cause, cause every effect in the universe is preceded by a cause in the universe.

Con says "Humans exist by intent - the intent of the intelligent designer -> Untrue; humans exist by virtue of the random mutation that is explained by evolution"

This is a non sequitur, evolutionary process says nothing about whether the process its self has its origins in intent or absent intent.

Lets go over my first argument...............

If we had a watch, which of course is designed, and broke it down to it various parts, of course neither of its parts or process have intelligence in themselves, yet the watch does in fact have its origins in an intelligent cause. How can this be the case ? because process that is absent of intent can have its origins in intent.

1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.

Con claims they refuted this, my response is LOLZ, rest assured when people get in their cars, they will think that the car was designed therefore it has an intelligent cause, despite Cons so called claims about refuting this premise.

2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.

This is where the real argument lies.

Con uses evolution to prove their is no intent, I have refuted that. But of course just because evolution process doesn't prove absence of intent, doesn't prove that Intent was involved either.

At this point I would ask anyone to consider...........

Is it more plausible that humans beings exist by intent ?
or
more plausible humans being exist absent any intent ?

With evolutionary process not proving absence of intent, and unintelligent process able to have their origins in intent and design being able to be deduced from complimentary working parts, Such as cars, watches, humans, that it is indeed more plausible that humans exist with intent involved.

Con objected to my 2nd argument, I think I need to expand on it a bit so we don't argue strawmen.

The 2nd argument deals with causation, or lack of causation, and in the case of causation whether the cause has intent or absent intent thus.........

1) Something exists either because its caused or uncaused
2) If something is caused, then its cause has intent or absent intent
3) Humans don't exist because they are uncaused or absent intent
4) Therefore humans exist by intent

I look forwards to Cons reply.
arturo

Con

For this round, I will present an additional argument and then examine what my opponent has said. There are a few odd changes in conduct for my opponent but I will continue the debate in stride.

========
ARGUMENT
========
1) Is the Universe Contigent?

My opponent claims that just because the parts are contingent that therefore the whole is contingent. He does this in regards to the following rebuttal, "Is Con arguing for an infinite regress ? Con is saying that their is no first cause, cause every effect in the universe is preceded by a cause in the universe.". When this is untrue. Just because the parts within the universe are contingent doesn't mean the universe itself is contingent. To say this is the case is to fall into the fallacy of composition. Consider a music CD. If the songs on the CD are less than 5 minutes long it doesn't necessarily follow that the entire CD is less than 5 minutes long [1]. The universe necessarily exists in order for there to exist its subsequent contingent parts. My opponent has made no arguments for why the universe is contingent, and neither have I. I've been saying that the universe exists by virtue of its necessity, and all of its subsequent parts exist by contingency - not by intelligent, willed, self-conscious design by some greater being.

=======
RESPONSE
=======

In regards to definition problems - I have to work with what I have even if the definition is vague and ambiguous. Solid conduct there to not examine what I'm trying to say. " I also never claimed the intelligent designer was "complex"." Like what does this mean, what is the difference between an intelligent and a nonintelligent being? You say humans and watches are comparable to humans and the intelligent designer (because we exist by design) but humans are no different prescriptively than any other material being on this planet (as I have said). You make no differentiation and you just say "oh I never said that, moving on". This debate is losing its substance.

Straw man, I never argued from ignorance - see again, "I never did this" "I never did that" - he refuses to acknowledge my claims and just skips them over. "Utter false hood" -> Once again dodging the argument. It does mean that science, in regards to understanding the nature & cause of the universe comes to an end. We've finished the discovery, it's some intelligent designer, who cares to know otherwise. My opponent refused to actually acknowledge this argument and just skipped it - he said what I've said is utter falsehood, but he's never mentioned why.

"This explains process, it doesn't say one way or another if the process has its origins in intent."
I've explained why, it's for the intent/purpose of adapting to the environment.

"1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.

Con claims they refuted this, my response is LOLZ, rest assured when people get in their cars, they will think that the car was designed therefore it has an intelligent cause,"

Once again, odd conduct - "LOLZ" - and he appeals to the opinions of people getting in their cars to make his refutation. I am truly puzzled when I read this.

My opponent then proceeds to BEG THE QUESTION by asking the reader...
"At this point I would ask anyone to consider...........

Is it more plausible that humans beings exist by intent ?
or
more plausible humans being exist absent any intent ?"
What proceeds from this is not a logical argument but simple rhetoric aimed to appealing to the reader. He misuses ambiguous terms like "intent" & "absence of intent" - not acknowleding my rebuttal that he has misconstrued and almost redefined the terms in comparison to terms like PURPOSE and CAUSE.

My opponent has further restated his syllogism

"1) Something exists either because its caused or uncaused
2) If something is caused, then its cause has intent or absent intent
3) Humans don't exist because they are uncaused or absent intent
4) Therefore humans exist by intent"

But this syllogism provides no new logical foundation to grasp. It's the same regurgitated syllogism that commits the assertion fallacy - he is just asserting points but there is no logical root for these points. Furthermore, to be frank, the grammar in the syllogism is really bad (I try to be as polite as I can here but it's 2 rounds that I tolerate this) and the syllogism doesn't really make sense. For premises 2 & 3 there are two options, but somehow we discern one of those options by the conclusion (4).

=======
SUMMARY
=======
For this round, my opponent has made no new arguments. My opponent has further not sufficiently rebutted my rebuttals. He has merely dismissed them and regurgitated his own. In response, I've rebuilt my arguments and constructed an additional argument. I believe I have been sufficient so far in constructing my case.

Let's review

From My Opponent:
1) To rebuild his first argument - he begs the question "At this point I would ask anyone to consider...........", and he gives us his two options "exist by intent or absent of intent". These become very ambiguous in his argument (or lack thereof), because there is no real argument made for why existing with intent automatically leads us to an intelligent designer. I've shown that humans have evolved with the intent to survive (and all of this is done via natural, primitive processes described the evolution. The origins of which are purposeless, random and dynamic). The design of human beings is like all biological beings, to survive. My opponent hasn't contested this.

2) To rebuild his second argument - well, he hasn't. He's restated his syllogism in a grammar that is difficult to understand. I hope he clears himself up for the next round.

From me:
1) For my first argument, that intelligent design is really unintelligent, my opponent has said this, "This is just an appeal to unpleasant consequences.". I ask, is concluding that the nature of the universe is caused by some vague, ambiguous "intelligent" "designer" an unpleasant consequence? Or is it unscientific and irrational? Is it both?

Appealing to this "unpleasant consequences" is odd. Obviously when someone is being irrational it is unpleasant, I see no rebuttal being made here.

2) For my 2nd argument - this has not been contested. My opponent has said nothing of how complex beings come into existence by the process of purposeless evolution from simpler beings.

3) I've present a new argument - that the universe can necessarily exist (sourced below) without the need for an intelligent designer. There is no longer an issue of "infinite regress" in the debate.

I conclude this round once again successful for side opposition. Vote Opp!

[1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "in regards to understanding the nature & cause of the universe comes to an end. We've finished the discovery,"

Con objects to intelligent design on the basis that a cause of the universe ends science discovery in that area.

But what about claims that the universe had a cause, (but not necessarily) a intelligent cause, say for instance gravity. Would Con object to this on the grounds of, oh no, we can't accept that, once we reach a cause of the universe science ends and we can't have that. I doubt Con would take this approach, I suspect Con only uses this line of argument when their is an intelligence cause claimed to be the cause of the universe.

Con says ""This explains process, it doesn't say one way or another if the process has its origins in intent."
I've explained why, it's for the intent/purpose of adapting to the environment"

I'm going to be real nice here, and give con the opportunity to reword that statement, and here is why....

pur�pose (p�rps)
n.
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: "And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue" (Sarah Josepha Hale).
2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

in�tent (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Purpose and Intent are dependent on a mind for its existence. If evolution and or the universe has purpose or intent their is a mind behind it. There is your justification for believing in an intelligent cause.

Con says " Consider a music CD. If the songs on the CD are less than 5 minutes long it doesn't necessarily follow that the entire CD is less than 5 minutes long "

I agree. But what if you were to argue that before you could listen to one song, but before that song is another, and before that another...........unto infinity, with their being no first song. I would point out the impossibility of this infinite regress.

What if you were to make the argument, that by adding one song of 5 mins, then another of 5 minutes, then another, would lead to an infinity of songs ? In this case I would point out that you can't get to infinity by successive addition.

Finite + Finite = Finite

Actual infinities don't exist in the physical world/universe.

Con says "I've been saying that the universe exists by virtue of its necessity, and all of its subsequent parts exist by contingency "

I find this interesting, it seems to be that Con is claiming that the universe is uncaused, but things within the universe are caused. If this is the case I would ask some questions for clarification

Is the universe the sum of it parts ?
Is the universe something different other than the totality of its part ?

If the universe is the sum of its parts, Con is arguing that the universe is uncaused/eternal/infinite while its parts are caused/finite. I think we have good reason to reject this on its incoherence alone.

Is it more plausible that....

1) A finite universe is made up of finite parts, or
2) An infinite universe is made up of finite parts,

me personally I am going with option 1.

Con stills contends the first premise of my first argument.....

"Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause"

I'm pretty sure that Con is typing their objections on a keyboard. I would ask is this keyboard the product of design ?

I'm pretty sure Con is looking at a monitor as they read my objections, I would ask, is this monitor the product of an intelligent cause ?

The point being, intelligence cause and design go hand in hand, why Con would object to this self evident principle is beyond me. Unto the 2nd premise..........

2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts."

Now Con objects to this "deduction" of design.

Con says " Was their environment the intelligent cause of their individual unique features? No because my opponent would not attribute intelligence to the natural world"

The natural world is a process, I already gave argument where unintelligent process can be the result of intent (such as a watch). You have not proven this false.

Con objects to this claim...... ""But only something with "intelligence" is capable of intent." - this has been refuted by my second argument, that primitive things can lead to more complex things as long as the need to evolve"

How the hell does evolutionary process disprove the claim that only something with intelligence is capable of intent ?

Maybe Con believes things such as guns (which have no intelligence) are capable of intent. What's that saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Why haven't I ever seen a gun sent to prison ? oh that's right cause guns don't have intelligence thus can't have intent to kill.

Unto the 2nd premise of the argument....

2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts

Con says "My opponent then proceeds to BEG THE QUESTION by asking the reader...
"At this point I would ask anyone to consider..........."

Lets look at what it means to question beg.

"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise"

Since Con objected to my 2nd premise I then went on to look at its premise, and its negation and compare the two, and give argument for why it should be believed over its negation. This is NOT question begging, it just standard argument.

Now Con argues that complexity does indeed exist, but is absent any intelligent cause.

Now Con doesn't disagree that an unintelligent process can be the result of intent, (like a watch), and I don't disagree that complexity can result absent of intent like (evolution.)

But the question at hand is, does this process have its origins in an intelligent cause or a cause absent of intelligence ?

My argument is that the result of a process can give us reason to make this distinction.

For instance if we came across a fully automated car plant (and thus all processes were absent intent) that produced cars, we would still be rational to conclude that the cars are the result of intent, due to the complexity of the working parts of the cars, not just in themselves but working together complimentary.

2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts

Compare to its negation which is

-2) No Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts

Once again I claim, that premise 2 is more plausible than its negation.

Note, I only scanned your link, there is an 8000 maximum word limit, you can't go around that by posting arguments from links thanks.

My argument still is..........

1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.
2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts.
3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design.
5) Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause.

I'm not going to ask to vote for Pro yet, cause we still have rounds left.
arturo

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for his speedy response. I would like to urge him however to remain disciplined in structuring his work - as the sentences are getting very spaced out and unstructured and the debate is becoming increasingly hard to follow. I do this note out of spite but of sincerity in order to maintain the order of the debate. So please, for next time, if you can.

For this round of the debate, I will introduce no new additional arguments. It seems as if the debate is getting stuck around the arguments initially mentioned and despite my continuous rebuttals, proposition remains firm to his original arsenal. I will, for this round, examine what the proposition has said and respond appropriately.

==============================
1) Intelligent Design is Unintelligent Rebuttal 2 -
==============================
"I suspect Con only uses this line of argument when their is an intelligence cause claimed to be the cause of the universe.". I hate to use the term, but this is a strawman.

The purpose of the argument is to respond to your definition, "Intelligent design refers to the theory that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life in all its diversity". Not only is the definition involve circular logic (intelligent design refers to intelligent causes) -> yet we come no closer to understanding the intelligent design besides the virtue of its intelligence, but it ultimately gets us nowhere in our understanding of the universe. The counter-example you brought up was gravity, and how, by my logic, it is equally counter intuitive to attribute it as the first cause. I however, would contest that assertion. Gravity is something that we are readily aware of in our experience. To understand its relationship in regards to the cause of the universe is not only empirically verifiable but also reasonably verifiable. If anything, to say that gravity is the potential cause of the universe is far more rational than the mere speculation that an intelligent designer was a potential cause.

==============================
2) Purpose/intent always involves a will. -
==============================
"I'm going to be real nice here, and give con the opportunity to reword that statement, and here is why." Purpose and Intent are dependent on a mind for its existence. At this point, I must ask, where do we draw the line on intelligence.

For, plants, geology, animals, cells and even atoms fundamentally act for a particular purpose. At the most fundamental level, subatomic particles act for the purpose of adaptation to particular physical conditions. This has no reasonable implications for the existence of a "mind". Please bear in mind also you've not formally defined what a mind is and how it is distinct from any other thing in the universe. I would like the viewer to also note - my opponent appeals to arbitrary dictionary definitions rather than actual argumentation. I prefer to do the latter in regards to debate and I hope it is acknowledged.

==============================
3) The Necessary Existence of the Universe -
==============================
"I agree. But what if you were to argue that before you could listen to one song, but before that song is another, and before that another...........unto infinity, with their being no first song. I would point out the impossibility of this infinite regress."

This is not an analogy. You just rephrased the CD metaphor into an infinite regression and said, "here's an infinite regression". You say FINITE + FINITE = FINITE, but you've never made the case for why the universe is not contingent.

Prescriptively speaking, the universe is not the sum of its parts. There are inherent prescriptive properties to the universe that make it necessary to exist in order for contingent things to exist. For example TIME & SPACE. In order for any contingent relationship to exist, a relationship of change must precede it, this being time. Furthermore, in order for physical things to exist spatially, there must be space that exists before it. However, "space" isn't a spatial thing in itself, space is just a necessary existent that allows for us to recognize physical objects (for where else will they exist?).

It is irrational to say that an intelligent designer existed (where?) and then brought into existence (how?) space & time which allow for things to come into existence. That is why I say it is more rational to say that the universe is necessary and is not caused by intelligent design.

==============================
4) Further Begging the Question
==============================
"I would ask is this keyboard the product of design ?" Etc. My opponent believes I am improperly noting that he is begging the question. Yet he does this twice in the following portion of his writing. "is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise." He is intentionally implying that because our keyboards seem so complex they must be intelligently caused. He doesn't pick something primitive like a Carbon atom (which makes up the human body) - no, for this doesn't persuade as well as a complex watch, keyboard or computer monitor. Please refer to Point 2 in regards to intelligence. My opponent hasn't really distinguished intelligence from any other form of design. I have reasoned that intelligent design is really a falsity. In the universe, with everything being governed by the law of cause & effect, there is always a deduction from the seemingly "intelligently designed" to the primitive simplicity that caused it (for example, organisms evolving).

==============================
Odd note on source citation
==============================
5) Note, I only scanned your link, there is an 8000 maximum word limit, you can't go around that by posting arguments from links thanks. - I posted the link as a verifiable source and I posted my argument in full that round.

==============================
Intent syllogism is gone - first syllogism resurfaces
==============================
6) My opponent has dropped his syllogism on "intent" finally. He has made no notice of its failure in this debate. I am glad that we have moved on. However, he continues to stick to his initial premise, which I will briefly re-examine.

1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.

I've asked previously in the debate and on Point 2 - what does my opponent mean by intelligence and how is it distinguished from any other form of development/creation. When a plant grows or the geology of an environment changes, is this the product of some external intelligent cause or is it simply material things adapting to their environment as well as developing according to an evolved genetic code, etc.

2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts.

I've mentioned in Round 1 why working parts don't necessarily imply a uniform, prescriptive design. Nature adapts to conditions, it is not statically designed in its form to act in a certain behavior.

3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.

Out of interest, I'd like to ask, if these parts fail and do not work complimentary, does that mean the human being is no longer designed? If an intelligent cause has designed something to work, it puzzles me why it wouldn't work intelligently and thus without fail. I hope you won't tell me that watches/keyboards break too, because then this grandeur of intelligent design will crumble.

=========
IN SUMMARY
=========
For this round, I've spent all of my characters examining what the opposite has said. I've done a complete rebuttal of all of the arguments of the proposition and believe that my case firmly stands. For this, I urge you to Vote Opp.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says "I hope you won't tell me that watches/keyboards break too, because then this grandeur of intelligent design will crumble."

My argument never claimed intelligent design has grandeur........STRAWMAN

Con says "I've mentioned in Round 1 why working parts don't necessarily imply a uniform, prescriptive design"

I never argued about a uniformed design............STRAWMAN

Con says "Prescriptively speaking, the universe is not the sum of its parts"

That means that the universe is something other than time space and matter and forces. How interesting.

Con says "space is just a necessary existent that allows for us to recognize physical objects (for where else will they exist?"

So far Con has claimed that the universe exists out of necessity, and space exists out of necessity. All these things existing out of necessity next thing you know Con will argue that a personal being exists out of necessity.........or maybe not.

Con asks "I've asked previously in the debate and on Point 2 - what does my opponent mean by intelligence and how is it distinguished from any other form of development/creation"

Intelligence is an umbrella term describing a property of the mind including related abilities, such as the capacities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, learning from past experiences, planning, and problem solving.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah intelligence is still a bit iffy, but you know what, Time is still a bit iffy, but we don't deny its existence just because its a bit vague.

Con asks

"Out of interest, I'd like to ask, if these parts fail and do not work complimentary, does that mean the human being is no longer designed?"

How does something become "undesigned" either something had its origins in design or it didn't. The short answer is no.

Con says "If an intelligent cause has designed something to work, it puzzles me why it wouldn't work intelligently and thus without fail"

Yeah your right, if something no longer works properly then this proves that their was no intelligent design, brilliant argument, from this principle we can infer every car, watch, computer,house, electronic device, swimming pool, humans has no origins in intent due to it breaking down, sounds like a rock solid argument to me.

In a total evolutionary process that is absent of any intent in its origins, something can't be "faulty". Evolution has no mind/intelligence/intent in which it produces something, its an aimless, unintelligent, unconscious, unintended, process.

A fault is when something deviates from which is was intended to be, for instance, a broken watch that than no longer tells the time, a keyboard that no longer allows the typing of letter on a computer. If we accept that humans are indeed faulty.....

1) Something being faulty is the deviation of what it was intended to be
2) Humans beings are faulty
3) Therefore humans have their origins in intent

Con affirms premise 2 when they said "Out of interest, I'd like to ask, if these parts fail and do not work complimentary, does that mean the human being is no longer designed? If an intelligent cause has designed something to work, it puzzles me why it wouldn't work intelligently and thus without fail."

My argument still is.........

1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause.
2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts.
3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts.
4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design.
5) Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause.

I am curious, how do you define "design" ? since you actually objected to premise 1

Going back to premise 2 "Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts."

It would be a mistake to think that how we deduce design is only a question that applies to the origins of everything. For instance in archeology when they come across some artifact the question is raised, is this the product of some ancient civilisation ?

As humans go into space, again if we come across various things out there, and who knows what we find, the question will once again be raised, is this thing we have discovered a natural phenomenal or is there intent involved .

Speaking of space, we have ventured into space and observed some of space, and suffice to say compared to earth, its very very big place (this would be the understatement of the century perhaps)

But in case you haven't noticed, life outside earth is very.......how shall we say rare. But why would it be rare, after all evolution ensures that life adapts to its environment to survive, well this isn't happening outside of earth. Where is all the life that would adapt to different environments, the heat of mars, the coldness of Pluto, the thin air of space etc. There is more than enough space out there and different environments, so this can't be the reason for the absence of other life.

There is nothing about earth that makes evolution possible, and the other environments evolution impossible, remember evolution is all about change and adapting to what ever the environment is.

Maybe you have heard about how the universe we live in, is a life permitting universe, after all, humans are life, humans exist in the universe, there fore the universe is life permitting. Although technically correct, maybe a better generalization would be to say the earth is life permitting and outside of earth its very very hostile to life, as evidenced by the lack of life outside of earth.

Out of interest I'd like to ask if evolution is not producing life outside of earth that is suitable to its environment, does that mean evolution is no longer a process absent any intent ? If evolution is so good at producing life to suit its environment it puzzles me why it wouldn't work outside of earth just as much as on earth. I hope you won't tell me that evolution can only work as well on earth, and not outside of earth, because then the grandeur of evolution will crumble.

It seems to me CON still wont accept the necessary link between an act of intent and intelligence.

Does Con agree that their computer has its origins in an intelligent cause ?
Does Con agree that because their computer had its origins in an intelligent cause its exists by intent ?
arturo

Con

Welcome to Round 4 ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to apologize because, reading the pro's statement, I don't think this debate will get any further beyond the initial statements in round 1, despite my attempt in round 2 to provide additional constructive arguments.

It's kind of funny that you try to point out "strawman" thinking in my words when they aren't really an argument they were just comments - My argument never claimed intelligent design has grandeur........STRAWMAN. This is ridiculous to even have to point out but whatever right? Let's move on.

"I never argued about a uniformed design............STRAWMAN" This is false. He's saying that when parts work cooperatively/complimentary "2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working complimentary with other working parts." - design can be deduced. I think we are getting carried away with calling strawman. Can we have an actual debate now?

In Round 4, I found out this - "Yeah intelligence is still a bit iffy". I think that is pretty ridiculous considering the crux of this debate is in its very essence to understand what intelligence is and its distinctive act and involvement within the creation and design of things. My opponent hasn't changed his conduct and is continuing to use ambiguous terms to support his case (and it's even more disturbing that he's admitted to this). "Time is still a bit iffy, but we don't deny its existence just because its a bit vague." - Time is not at all iffy in the same sense as "intelligence". In fact, intelligence, I've argued, is very clear. It's a degree of natural processing, and simple beings like atoms have a very primitive form of intelligence and adaptation, complex beings like biological organisms, while ultimately composed of primitively interacting lesser beings, behave in an increasingly intelligent manner. My opponent has refused so far, 3 rounds later, to acknowledge this and I am getting further frustrated that my points aren't being deconstructed at length. Oh well.

I mean just look at this, "How does something become "undesigned" either something had its origins in design or it didn't. The short answer is no.". He mocks my argument but does so completely assertively rather than argumentatively, "humans has no origins in intent due to it breaking down, sounds like a rock solid argument to me.". It is a rock solid argument because just like any natural thing in the universe there occur problems - problems in adaptation and development. And like any natural thing in the universe, human beings nor the universe itself have its causal roots in some intelligent being (of which, after what pro said in round 4 - we have no concrete definition of at this point of the debate).

There is further sort of implicit argumentation - if humans are faulty that means they deviate from their intended purpose - therefore there is an intelligent designer to give them a purpose to deviate from. However I will argue that this is not the case and that human beings have failed to adapt to their particular environment. There is an inherent deviation from the intended survival mechanism to a faulty problem within the organism.

"I am curious, how do you define "design" ? since you actually objected to premise 1". I asked what is the distinguishing factor of intelligence, its relationship to human beings and to simple things like subatomic particles - but you've not acknowledged this and continued to use seemingly complex, "designed" examples like keyboards etc.

"For instance in archeology when they come across some artifact the question is raised, is this the product of some ancient civilisation ?" This is another ridiculous instance of begging the question, of course when we come across an ARTIFACT we must semantically deduce that it came from civilization.

"Out of interest I'd like to ask if evolution is not producing life outside of earth that is suitable to its environment, does that mean evolution is no longer a process absent any intent ? If evolution is so good at producing life to suit its environment it puzzles me why it wouldn't work outside of earth just as much as on earth. " I don't understand why I am being asked this question. There is no inherent value in having particular life forms form in far-off regions of space. I would like to further state that my opponent has contradicted himself in saying that "the universe is hostile to life" while at the same time saying " its very very big place (this would be the understatement of the century perhaps)". How do can we assert that the universe is hostile to life if we haven't fully explored it.

" If evolution is so good at producing life to suit its environment it puzzles me why it wouldn't work outside of earth just as much as on earth." - It's not that you are puzzled it's that you deliberately ignore my arguments to rhetorically persuade the reader. Evolution is an explanation of the origins of complex organisms from simpler organisms. These simpler organisms are the result of the initial conditions of their environment. That's why on PLUTO, there are no life-forms, because the conditions are too volatile for any life form to ADAPT and DEVELOP into COMPLEX, SEEMINGLY DESIGNED, BEINGS.

Here's the thing, my opponent doesn't care to talk about anything except human beings, or anything that is an "intelligent" product of the human beings (like keyboards etc). I asked him, is the carbon atom intelligently designed? Are subatomic particles intelligently designed? Is what we observe to be seemingly random behavior by electrons a designed portion of the universe? Does my opponent answer these claims? Of course not. But to answer these claims are critical. For if they are not designed, then it is these very same foundations of subatomic particle movement, adaptation and interaction that develop and grow into the complex beings with seeming "minds" that we know today as human beings.

=======
SUMMARY
=======
I've further re-examined what my opponent has said. Unfortunately, my opponent's arguments are continually being revealed to be under a veil of ambiguouity as he proceeds to pursue intelligence in design through a circular definition (a design which is intelligent must have an intelligent designer) and then through that for some reason he must also pursue intent (for if anything exists purposefully it must have been willed into existence by some external designer).

Note* When I say external designer, it's NOT a strawman. It must be true that the designer is external to the process of development itself, otherwise the process itself explains the origin of development (as I have explained continously in the debate).

At this point, I'm not really sure what to ask of my opponent to do. I've made several arguments, many of which have gone ignored by my opponent, but even further, the most essential questions I've asked, like "what is the distinguishing feature of intelligence" have been concede to be inherently vague. If we are arguing about vague terms here, I'm unsure of how to proceed in the debate, it seems to me you don't know what you are talking about and are just pulling out cyclical argumentation to win the debate. I urge the audience to recognize this fault, to take note of the arguments that I have made and the rebuttals that have been clearly outlined by side opposition and vote appropriately.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Pro

Con says ""For instance in archeology when they come across some artifact the question is raised, is this the product of some ancient civilisation ?" This is another ridiculous instance of begging the question, of course when we come across an ARTIFACT we must semantically deduce that it came from civilization."

Yep my mistake on that one, I thought artifact could mean something along the lines of a very old object, but yes artifact is defined as being made or used by humans. Considering this me replacing the word artifact with the word object.

Con says "Are subatomic particles intelligently designed? Is what we observe to be seemingly random behavior by electrons a designed portion of the universe? Does my opponent answer these claims? Of course not. But to answer these claims are critical. For if they are not designed......"

Lets break down this hidden argument.

1) If X has undesigned parts, then that means X is not designed
2) Humans have undesigned parts (eg carbon atoms)
3) Therefore Humans are not designed

Using an artifact example (and yes this time I want to use that word) imagine declaring some ancient tool, like a rock that this so called tool, is not an artifact. When questioned on what basis you claim this, you claim, well the rock is made of undesigned parts (like atoms) therefore that means this rock its self must be undesigned and thus not an artifact.

Con keeps objecting that intelligence has not being defined enough. I did post an explanation before, I think most people will understand the basic concepts of intent, intelligence etc. You can always object to something not being defined enough.

Con says "In fact, intelligence, I've argued, is very clear. It's a degree of natural processing, and simple beings like atoms have a very primitive form of intelligence and adaptation"

Atoms have intelligence eh, this is news to me, unless your redefining what most people understand as intelligence.

Con says "It is a rock solid argument because just like any natural thing in the universe there occur problems - problems in adaptation and development"

Con doesn't seem to understand that having a problem, is something that intelligent beings have. Evolution as a process has no capacity to understand nor care there is some "problem" with its adaptation results, its not self aware, its doesn't even know it exists. You might have a problem with the results, but that's because you possess an intelligence, evolution doesn't have this capacity so it doesn't.

Con objects by saying "How do can we assert that the universe is hostile to life if we haven't fully explored it."

There are two main reasons I assert this.....

1) The evidence data collected so far (consider it a sample) That is too say of the observed universe there is no life outside of earth.
2) That the universe works the same way in all places (That is too say the laws of physics are constant)

Which brings me to Cons justification why we have not seen an abundance of life outside of earth Con says "These simpler organisms are the result of the initial conditions of their environment. That's why on PLUTO, there are no life-forms, because the conditions are too volatile for any life form to ADAPT and DEVELOP into COMPLEX, SEEMINGLY DESIGNED, BEINGS"

This I would argue gives a good reason to believe that these initial conditions are rare, even from a universal stand point.
I would use this understanding of life being rare to add more weight to my argument that complex life is more plausible to have its origins in intent than absent of intent.

Claiming that evolution is a process is one thing, to claim or imply that evolution proves absent of intent in origins is to make a claim that science is not making. Therefore any who claims or implies the absent of intent must give justification for this claim.

It should be understood at the end, what I am arguing for in this debate, and also what I am NOT arguing for.

I am not arguing that its impossible that humans are the result absent of any intent.
I am not arguing that if evolution is proved false in whole or part, that proves humans exist by intent.
I am not arguing that even with origins in intent, that means all process are the result of intent.
I am not arguing that humans existing by having their origins in intent proves some well defined creation belief (eg six days of creation of genesis, rael aliens, the flying spaghetti monster)

I am arguing a very simple concept and proposition, that humans or anything else having multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts, is more likely due to having its origins in intent, rather than having no intent involved at all, and as such is a intelligent design is a rational position.

Vote Pro

I thank Con for participating in this debate.
arturo

Con

Thank you. For this final round of the debate, I will be summarizing both sides of the debate and show why Con has won the debate. I would like to thank Pro for participating diligently for the last five rounds - there has been a lot of intense discussion and a lot of time was put into each 8000 character response.

Throughout this debate, there is a noticeable progression on both sides. Both from prop and opp, we've noticed a crystallization of the major themes purveyed in the debate. However, from the proposition's side, what became two length syllogisms that were vigorously argued for the earlier parts of the date were later compressed and simplified into one simple statement, "that humans or anything else having multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts, is more likely due to having its origins in intent, rather than having no intent involved at all, and as such is a intelligent design is a rational position."

On the other hand, from Con - the argument has developed and grown to span a number of areas including questioning the nature of the universe, discovering the nature of the various parts of the universe and how they relate to the origins and development of humans themselves - a topic central to the debate.

Readers, I would like to state very clearly, that even in his last statement, my opponent further conceded a point and has made no further rebuttals. His argumentation is weak and implicit, and his been rebutted sufficiently throughout the debate (as will be summarized later). He says I make "claims" - implying as though they were false (and even if he weren't, that makes the pointing this out even further irrelevant) but makes no logical and reasonable argumentation to dispute this.

And so, I'd like to summarize the case on both parts and explain why CON deserves your vote in the various categories of this website.

===============
ARGUMENTS FROM PRO
===============
As mentioned previously, PRO started with two length and descriptive syllogisms that meant to describe the nature of human design (this design having existed with intent) and hence why the existence of such a design necessitates the existence of an intelligent designer.

My opponent argued this from 2 standpoints. These were his ONLY 2 arguments in the debate.

1) Human beings exist as a series of parts working cooperatively and in complimentary activity with each other --> thus entailing an "intelligent" design of sorts.
2) Anything that is designed is designed with an intent.

Intentional design can only be brought about by a self-conscious external will that allows for this to come into existence. Hence the premises follow the conclusion that by definition this intentional design can only be brought into existence by an intelligent designer.

===============
ARGUMENTS FROM CON
===============
From side opposition I've argued at the very root of the issues in the debate why intelligent design is untrue and thus irrational. I've looked at what it means to exist and I've shown there is no distinguishable intelligence that my opponent purports and why therefore a necessarily existing universe can presuppose a purposeless existence of its subsequent parts that develop and grow and "design" themselves around the volatile conditions within the universe. To summarize:

1) Intelligent design is fruitless - my opponent conceded that his own definitions of intelligence are vague and ambiguous. This furthers this point immensely - it proves the case that even assigning the nature of the universe and human beings to an intelligent designer gives us no further foundation or understanding of the reality we observe. Besides the semantic of intelligent design - the theory is meaningless and so it's therefore irrational - for it provides no further reasoning then we have prior to believing it.

2) Nothing in the universe is intelligently designed - my opponent has conceded in his final round statement that carbon atoms and any other fundamental substances are not intelligently designed. He also didn't dispute the fact that we, humans, who he claims are intelligently designed, aren't made up of these substances. I would like to then state once more that because these fundamental substances are our foundations - and our foundations are not intelligently designed (as I have argued and my opponent conceded) - it therefore follows that we are not intelligently designed.

3) The universe exists necessarily - my opponent has tried to reach for an idea that the universe exists contingently and that its entire existence is explained by an intelligent designer. I've sufficiently disputed this claim - I've also demonstrated how concepts like space & time cannot exist contingently - for they are necessary for any form of contingency to exist. For how can something spatially exist without space? Or how can something COME into existence without time? These questions require us to come to recognize the fact that space & time necessarily exist, and so it follows that these components being essential to the universe give us reason to believe the universe itself exists necessarily.

=======
IN SHORT
=======

While my opponent points to the complexity and cooperation that exist between multiple parts to give impression of a certain intelligent design - such as a watch or a keyboard or even a human being - as reason for believing in an intelligent designer - I have effectively disputed this as summarized by the syllogism below.

P1) We exist materially as a conglomeration of subatomic particles
P2) Subatomic particles exist without intent or any form of inherent intelligent design
C) We exist without intent or any form of inherent intelligent design.

I've further explained why these subatomic particles exist contingent to a necessarily existing, purposeless, non-intelligently designed and absent of intent universe.

It is with these two essential claims that I have outlined throughout this debate that I declare intelligent design untrue and irrational. For to believe in non-truth is a delusion - a direct opposite of what it means to be rational. Unicorns do not exist, to believe in them is irrational - likewise an intelligent designer doesn't exist - therefore it is irrational to have a belief in such an idea.

============
VOTE BREAKDOWN
============
Who had better conduct?
While I'm not appealing for the vote, I would like to point several instances where debate conduct has been in one sense or another broken by my opponent. Firstly, with comments like "...Con claims they refuted this, my response is LOLZ, rest assured when people get in their cars..." and "...I'm going to be real nice here, and give con the opportunity to reword that statement, and here is why..." - not only do these comments degrade me as an opponent but also degrade the purpose of my arguments which is to have a healthy debate. I'd further point out the fact that my opponent conceded to having a vague definition in the FOURTH round of the debate... "Yeah intelligence is still a bit iffy, but you know what". It made it very difficult to continue the debate but I tried to recoup based on what has been said by the opponent since then.

Who had more convincing arguments?
I hope that my summary above, my opponents remarks and your own reasonable judgement will make the right decision. However I would like for you to also recognize the number of instances of my opponent begging the question & using implicit argumentation.

Who had more reliable sources?
I've referenced a number of reliable sources from the internet as well as grounded, factual scientific research that has been widely accepted. I hope you as the voter will recognize and give the appropriate vote.

In short this was a really fun debate, I really enjoyed it. Until next time, Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
"While I'm not appealing for the vote, I would like to point several instances where debate conduct has been in one sense or another broken by my opponent"

You do relies you just proved your own statement false, by saying you weren't appealing for the vote, then making your case why your should get this vote right ?
Posted by arturo 6 years ago
arturo
Votebombs are laaaaaaaaaaaaaame.
Posted by arturo 6 years ago
arturo
If you have any concerns about what I have said combatant feel free to post here.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by marker 6 years ago
marker
IllegalcombatantarturoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantarturoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by seanevanmusic 6 years ago
seanevanmusic
IllegalcombatantarturoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
IllegalcombatantarturoTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
IllegalcombatantarturoTied
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