It's unlikely that the Origin of Life was brought about through Natural Means.
Debate Rounds (4)
In order to win, either side must prove that their point is likelier.
This isn't about Macro Evolution, whether Evolution is true or not, or what god brought about life. If anything i'll opt for a Deist interpretation of God.
Google defines 'natural' as this: "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind"
and 'nature' is defined as this, from dictionary reference: " "
tschuk forfeited this round.
Because natural means is loosely defined as "not made or caused by humankind", I have to prove that life was not created by humanity, and my opponent has to prove that it has been made by humankind (because he has set the BoP on both of us).
To prove that life was not created by humanity, I will be assuming that it was and use logic to prove that this idea is false.
The idea that life requires life to exist is flawed at its core.
This is comparable to "the creation of paper requires paper"... well, where did the first paper come from?
Because my opponent has to prove that humans caused the first human, and I have to refute this idea, I can say that God created the first human and that all life after that was created.
My point is more likely than the very first life requiring life to exist, so vote con.
. http://www.worldometers.info...;(population requires life)
You were supposed to be arguing for the point that life could come about on it's own, without a guiding force. Yet, you opted to be a child and make this debate into an argument focused on a poor reading of my intent, which I clearly voiced in Round 1, I might add.
I ask the gentle reader to look at his second paragraph, where he says "oped to be a child" (referring to me), and it is apparent that he is using ad hominem, a type of logical fallacy. This is not civil in any type of debate, and I ask that you review this instance of poor conduct accordingly.
I think you are misunderstanding what an Ad Hominem Fallacy is. I didn't insult you and try to influence the argument through that, I insulted you because of your poor debate manner.
Let it be known that she is sending me explicit messages on this website in an attempt to get my phone number.
Regardless of this attack, vote con because pro has not met the BoP he set upon himself, forfeited a round, and is accusing me of trying to steal his phone number for no reason...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro came up with no argument. con gets more convincing arguments because for 1. Pro FF the 2nd R. Con didn't necessarily even know what Pro's stance was because he didn't post his argument in the first round. And for 2. He never rebutted her. He also didn't provide any other arguments in this debate. All he did was attack Con. Conduct goes to Con because Pro accused Con of sending him explicit messages. When for 1. these things shouldn't be mentioned in a debate. For 2. This has nothing to do with the debate. Also, even is she was sending him explicit messages (which I highly doubt are true, where's the proof?") Con stayed within the topic while Pro took it to a different level. Reliable sources go to Con since she's the only one who used them.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.