The Instigator
Wylted
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Jesus Christ is more likely to be an alien than the son of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,577 times Debate No: 56678
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (153)
Votes (7)

 

Wylted

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Envisage

Con

I can't insert pictures so...

http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Pro

Introduction- Thank you for accepting this debate Envisage. I know you'll put up a good fight and this debate will be close.

Unholy Seed- Facts aren't copyrighted so I can just post facts word for word. In this case I'm not going to do that. I'm going to give a small quote by Rabbi Shraga Simmons

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

A.Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B.Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C.Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D.Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world ? on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).


If an individual doesn't do this. He isn't the messiah. Jesus hasn't done this and isn't the messiah and therefore not the son of God. http://www.aish.com...

There is other problems with this messiah claim as well. The messiah is supposed to be a descendant of King David on his father's side. Since Jesus's dad isn't Moses, he doesn't fit this qualification.

It's likely that Jesus was a real being who did miraculous things. He was just mistaken for a messiah. It's like what happened shortly after WWI and WWII. American troops created miracles. They came from the sky and gave tribal people free stuff. These cargo cults still exist to this day. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... So yes the cargo cults are being honest, just like early Christians. Miracles did happen, but the interpretation of their meaning is way off.

To infinity and Beyond- The virgin birth is a clear indication of in vitro fertilization. This is a technology not available at the time and given the fact that aliens have been known to interbreed with humans and have a particular interest in the human reproductive system. It would seem the aliens put a baby in the Virgin Mary. http://www.abduct.com... http://ufodigest.com...

UFO abductees have a bunch of similar experiences, so we know certain unique traits of the aliens visiting Earth, and what they do. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Using these traits. We can easily determine Jesus was an alien.

1. The Aliens tend to communicate using telepathy. The can read minds. http://www.ufoabduction.com...

There are a few times in the Bible where Jesus shows he has telepathy.

Jesus perceived their thoughts. - Luke 5:22

He knew their thoughts. - Luke 6:8

Jesus knew their thoughts. - Matthew 22:25

Jesus healed things that human technology was incapable of at the time. He healed the blind brought the dead back to life and made the lame walk. Something that only a more advanced species could do.

Jesus also ascended to outer space after he died and came back. The bible talks about Jesus going up to space.

Acts 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight

Since people can't actually chill on clouds the writer was probably trying to explain an alien craft.

Conclusion- resolution upheld. Jesus is clearly an alien.
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro. I will save rebuttals for R3. Good luck!

I. Definition
Son: A male descendant
http://tinyurl.com...

II. God the Conscious Father

God gave us free will, and conciousness. In doing so he fathered our minds, and indeed every single mind, alien or not. Hence I hold this resolution to be a false dichotimy, since Jesus could well have possibly been both an alien and son of God. Therefore Pro needs to demonstrate why Jesus being a son of god is unlikely in order to demonstrate his conclusion.

The argument is as follows:

P1) All male conscious beings are sons of God
P2) Jesus was a male conscious being
C) Jesus was a son of God

I don't see Pro contesting premise 2, as his masculinity is plagued all over the NT, to defend premise 1 I intend to show that we all are descended from God via. conciousness. But there are also excellent biblical reasons to accept this to be true anyway:

John 3:1 - Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name

P1) Matter is unconcious
P2) Humans consisting of matter possess conciousness
C) Conciousness is a separate entity
P3) Concious beings come from concious beings
P4) Infinite regress of concious beings is impossible
C2) Conciousness can be traced back to an uncaused conciousness (God)

By proving C2, I will have satisfied P1 of the original argument, since it is logically equivalent that we are descended from God (Sons). P1 is quite clearly demonstrable, as the subunits of stuff do not think, or behave. Moreover if they were concious then idealism would ensue. P2 is also easily defended, we are beings of material that possess conciousness. P3 is also very easily defended, each person is born of another, and the Earth is of finite age both biblically and scientifically, so P4 is obvious. Four very easily defended premises giving the required conclusion.

We also have excellent biblical reason to accept that God gave us conciousness, by his giving us free will, a major component of immaterial conciousness.

Deuteronomy 30:11-20: "See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed."

III. Aliens
Given the necessity of our divine ancestry, we need to assess the probability of Jesus being an alien.

First, if Jesus was an alien, then we would expect there to have had been other aliens on Earth with similar abilities. Yet the reliable historical record has turned up no such examples, and 2,000 years is plenty of time for an advanced alien race to visit us again.

Moreover, if an advanced alien race has visited us in the last 2,000 years, then we would expect to be able to pick up their nearby radio signals that we are searching for in SETI (http://tinyurl.com...), anything that was within 2,000 light years in the last 2,000 years should be detectable. Yet we have received no communication. Lastly if an alien race visited us, then we should expect to see some alien physical artifacts, of such high technological advancement that reverse engineering it would be feasible. However no such artifact has been found.

In fact Jesus dressed like any other Jew of the time, and was never described wielding advanced technology, which surely would have been very alien to the witnesses if it was present. Jesus has also been stripped, and nothing found (John 19:2, John 19:23).

Back to Pro!
http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Pro

I didn't actually expect my opponent to get into a semantics debate with me over the word son. I also expected that we would both assume the existence of both God and Aliens. I'm mildly disappointed this is taking a different course. However, there is a silver lining. My opponent has made this debate easier for me to win.

I ask that the voters keep an open mind and I'll explain how to weigh the arguments (in my opinion), in the final round.

Son of God

When determining the meaning of a word it's important to look at the context. My opponent has chose an extremely vague meaning for the word "son" we must look at context, among other things. What I clearly meant as any reasonable person can tell from the resolution, is that It is more likely that Jesus is an alien human hybrid (or full alien placed in Mary's womb) than a human that through divine intervention was placed in the womb of Mary. This making Jesus some sort of Demi God or better. I leave it to the voters to decide if my opponent's interpretation of the word "son", was reasonable and derived fairly.

My opponent offered a definition of the word son that uses the word descendant. The word descendant actually implies a biological relative in direct relation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Clearly God isn't biological, but metaphysical instead.

I will offer rebuttals for my opponent's arguments, but they should be unnecessary because he hasn't made any relevant to the resolution. With the exception of the Alien argument.

Aliens

Visitors- Aliens have visited the Earth and continue to visit us constantly. (Appelle, 1996) http://www.collective-evolution.com...

According to firsthand eyewitness reports of abductions (see previous sources), aliens are conducting breeding experiments with humans. If we look at the life of Jesus we can see that it fits with the aliens typical modus operandus. http://arcturi.com...

Radio signals- We actually did get a radio signal from aliens in 1977 as confirmed by SETI http://www.universetoday.com...

Radio signals from aliens would be a lot more rare than what my opponent believes.a civilization using radio signals is a very small window. Both us and the aliens would need to be using radio signals during the same period of time for us to sense them. Seeing as how they were capable of interstellar travel and artificial insemination in the time of Jesus, it would seem reasonable to suspect they're way beyond using radio signals to communicate by this time.

Appearance- Obviously Jesus's appearance would be normal to a certain extant, otherwise he would stand out too much and probably have been crucified before he had any following whatsoever.

God the Conscious Father-

Con's argument;

P1) All male conscious beings are sons of God
P2) Jesus was a male conscious being
C) Jesus was a son of God


I challenge premise 1 and would say it hasn't been sufficiently defended. Pro offered a few New Testament bible verses, but I'd say that in order to prove all beings are the son of God, con needs to offer evidence that is secular or something from the Old Testament. We can't depend on writings, not related to narrative as provided by members of Jesus's cult.

Con's 2nd argument

P1) Matter is unconcious
P2) Humans consisting of matter possess conciousness
C) Conciousness is a separate entity
P3) Concious beings come from concious beings
P4) Infinite regress of concious beings is impossible
C2) Conciousness can be traced back to an uncaused conciousness (God)


I challenge premise 3. Con has provided no proof for premise 3 and the theory of Abiogenesis shows how life could come from non life. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Son of God = Messiah?

Pro arguments against Jesus being a son of God explicitly appear to be as follows:

P1) If Jesus has not done/been X THEN he isn't messiah
P2) If Jesus isn't messiah THEN he isn't a son of God
P3) Jesus hasn't done/been X
C) Jesus is not a son of God

X - fulfilled a prophecy, born of Moses, etc. Any possible qualifier.

This is a valid argument, but it is just plain unsound. All three of these premises are questionable, even if one accepts P3, then P1 & P2 remains completely unsubstantiated by Pro. There is zero reason to accept this premise and I have explicitly argued P1 is just plain false. There are many ways Jesus could have been son of God without being the messiah (he is).

Pro's complaints regarding semantics are unfounded. The term 'Son' don't have to be biological at all, adopted children are a clear example of this. This even applies to inanimate things, such as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, father of the web.

http://tinyurl.com...

II. God the Conscious Father

Pro challenges the premise:

P1) All male conscious beings are sons of God

Note the second argument is used to fulfil this premise, also there are an abundance of references in the OT that refer to God as the father of all conscious things (Malachi 2:10 Isaiah 63:16 Deuteronomy 32:6 to list a few).

Pro's objection to the use of the NT is self-defeating as this same evidence is what Pro uses to determine Jesus is an alien. Remember the BoP is on him, so by denying the NT he shoots himself in the foot!

Pro's only objection to my 2nd argument's third premise is "the theory of Abiogenesis shows how life could come from non life". Firstly, this is irrelevant. Life =/= consciousness and secondly abiogenesis is not proven and there isn't even a single hypothesis of abiogenesis! This premise is evident as no conscious being is born of an unconscious one, consciousness is always required, every human born is evidence of this.

III. Alien Claims:

Pro's information regarding alien capabilities have come entirely from disreputable biased unscientific sources not subject to any peer review process. According to Pro's own sources aliens continue to visit us today. Therefore the claim that we have at least 2,000 years of alien history on Earth, if true, then something, ANYTHING, resembling an alien artefact, or remnant would have been discovered. Neil Tyson provides an excellent demonstration if this in the video at 1:30-3:00.

http://youtu.be...

Anything worthy of scientific interest would pass through the peer review process and published in a respective journal. The following four publications are on a single lump of rock from Mars. If any comparable alien artefact was discovered, there would undoubtably be dozens of publications on it.

http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

However Pro has provided none. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

We both accept that Jesus did miraculous things, we disagree on how they were performed. We have 2 possibilities:

1. They were done with advanced alien technology
2. They were done supernaturally

The issue here is, it doesn't matter which one of these is true, as Jesus could still be a son if God even if 1 was true. It is made worse by the fact that #1 is so poorly supported.

Furthermore Pro cites a *single* unconfirmed 40 year old radio signal, which was never repeated as evidence of this 2,000 year alien project. Sorry Pro, but you can't have your cake and eat it. Either aliens exist in abundance, or they don't. If aliens and abductions are so common, there would be many more examples. Pro's appeal to alien advancement fails, since electromagnetic waves are a fundamental force carrier, and hence inconceivably superseded. Moreover it's just ad hoc reasoning.

Fermi' paradox remains a problem in SETI to this day, and we have excellent reasons to think the conditions for life are very, very rare.

http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Pro

Semantics- I believe con has made a fatal error with his use what I would call unfair semantics. When you accept a debate you're supposed to attempt an honest evaluation of what your opponent means. The meaning of the word son in this debate is clearly that God impregnated Mary and conceived a child by the name of Jesus. I'm arguing that aliens are more likely source for Mary's virgin conception and birth.Envisage has had 2 different accounts and has proven he is quite adept at theological debates. Given how good of a debater my opponent is and how familiar he is with theology, he clearly knew what my intent was when using the word son.

My opponent's entire rebuttal actually depends on his use of these manipulative semantics. Without that, they fall apart. No matter how he defends his use of these semantics later, it doesn't changed the fact that he used them in an attempt to get a cheap win and should be penalized accordingly.

Aliens- Pro has simply ignored the evidence I've provided for alien contact. Artifacts simply aren't as important as my opponent has indicated. This is obviously a species with capabilities light years ahead of us. They wish to conceal their presence, so they do. The breeding programs discussed by eyewitnesses is just more evidence they want to concern their presence while being able to closely study and possibly even influence us.

While I haven't provided the evidence that my opponent insists on, but I've still provided evidence for alien contact. The article I linked to concerning the abduction narrative was heavily cited and so is this one that goes into a little more detail. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

The alien abduction experience and narrative isn't disputed by serious researchers in the field. There are legitimate rebuttals for what these people are experiencing. What's not disputed is the fact that they occur. Unfortunately for my opponent is the fact that he has merely dismissed the abduction experience instead of offering a rebuttal, means my argument still stands. It's also too late to offer a rebuttal now, because I won't have any chance to respond to it.

Recap- It should be clear I've won this debate by now, but I'll highlight a few important things. My opponent's focus on his absurd and unfair semantics means he never actually gave a real argument against my Jesus isn't the messiah and is therefore not the son of god argument. All of my arguments showing Jesus isn't the son of God have been essentially dropped in favor of his semantics play. If you don't buy that my opponent gave an honest evaluation of the meaning behind my words than you should count my argument in this regard as standing.

My opponent has dropped the eyewitness testimony of the abduction narrative which is experienced by between 2% and 4% of the population. He's proposed counter evidence, but it doesn't count as a rebuttal, nor does it pass the smell test for reasons I've already explained.

Bonus- I label this section bonus, because I feel as if I've already won the debate. My opponent can't offer new arguments, but can do a summary such as the one I'm doing. So I don't expect some monumental come back. The rest of this is just mainly for bonus information.

"If aliens and abductions are so common, there would be many more examples."

Well how about 2%-4% of the entire population? That's a ton of examples with a lot of overlapping information. A common theme can clearly be deciphered.

"Either aliens exist in abundance, or they don't."

They don't have to exist in abundance to exist. Or they could exist in abundance and are so far advanced of us that our vastly inferior technology is so out of date that no picked up communications could occur.

"Anything worthy of scientific interest would pass through the peer review process and published in a respective journal."

Check the citations on the first article I linked to. That covers this criteria. Good luck to con. Vote pro.
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Preface

Forgive my tone in this closing, as Pro's antics have annoyed me, legit or not. In any case I thank Pro for this unusual debate and good luck in voting.

II. Son Semantics

First Con did not define terms in the first/second/third OR forth round. Second my use of son is very much in line with social and colloquial convention. Third, most Christians don't believe Jesus was a biological son of God, and rather instead a son in spirit, hence Pro's 'intended definition' is prima facie nonsensical even assuming Pro's 'intended' debate of assuming God and Alien's existence (which seems to be a whine rather than an actual argument).

And forth, Pro attacks my personal debate history, in which case I am inclined to issue a tu torque and show a debate of Pro's in progress right now where Pro is heavily abusing absurd semantics to win. (http://www.debate.org...) Clearly he has a double standard if he thinks he deserves to win both of these debates.

Lastly recall my opening round:

"God gave us free will, and consciousness. In doing so he fathered our minds, and indeed every single mind, alien or not."

Please imagine what you would be like without consciousness. Imagine how monotonous the world would seem if you were just an unaware machine to move and breed. Yes, God really is our father if he gave us consciousness, as we ARE our consciousness.

III. Jesus a Son of God

Pro has dropped all my arguments for this. I quoted several bible verses stating explicitly that God is the father of all men. This by itself is enough to win the debate as it doesn't matter what semantics you use, the statement in both the new and old testaments is enough to affirm my case.

Remember all of Pro's arguments for Jesus being an Alien PRESUPPOSE the Old and New testament's veracity. As such from a theological perspective this debate is already over, you have have something be both true and false.

Pro needed to defend the premise/presupposition "If Jesus isn't messiah THEN he isn't a son of God", and yet he has failed to do so despite my explicit challenge of it. Claims need to actually be substantiated, Pro, you simply cannot just assume them. I quote Hitchen's Razor:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

IV. Aliens

I made two claims regarding aliens in this debate:

1. The evidence provided by Pro is junk
2. Many of Pro's claims are falsifiable

First let's kill off Pro's first round references which Pro asserts are credible scientific publications.

http://www.abduct.com...
http://ufodigest.com...
http://www.ufoabduction.com...

That's it, 3 alien references, and none are scientific, peer reviewed, controlled and the least bit unbiased. Junk science is the name.

Now let's deal with the falsifications.

"Artifacts simply aren't as important as my opponent has indicated...They wish to conceal their presence, so they do."
This is called ad hoc reasoning, Pro. This ignores the stupendous significance that would inevitably occur if any were found, yet have not. Not one.

" ..abduction narrative which is experienced by between 2% and 4% of the population."
THAT is over 100 million people! 100 million addictions and not one artefact or tangible piece of evidence! Pro hangs himself on the noose by making this massive claim!

Perhaps existing in abundance is not an accurate description of Pro's claim. Abundant activity is probably a better descriptor, 100 million is no small feat.

"...our vastly inferior technology is so out of date that no picked up communications could occur."

This is just false, any radio signals or any e/m wave are very much detectable with any modern technology.

V. Conclusion
Jesus is not an alien and is more likely to be son of God. Pro's case is both unsound, and just plain false. Vote Con!

http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
153 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Yes that's true and visa versa. Do I should have won.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
Anything an alien can do, the Son of God can do.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Wikipedia is awesome. Teachers who disallow it are dumb.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
I have no problem with wikipedia for the most part. It all depends on what you are trying to use it as a source for.
Posted by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
It's because teenagers don't understand why the stigma of Wikipedia exists. Instead, they're taught 'Wikipedia is bad, never use it', just like children learn to accept whatever religious following their parents have -- all without question.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Don't know... Wiki is a pretty good first-stop nowadays and is usually much more reliable than blog articles etc.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I really don't understand why people are so prejudice against Wikipedia. If their article has good citations WTF?

They want you to use the Wikipedia citations instead of Wikipedia, but honestly it's a pointless extra step.

Wikipedia is good for general knowledge of a variety of subjects and there is a time and a place for those articles. If the debate is going deep into a particular subject, Wikipedia is inappropriate. However, typically debates don't get that deep.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
And one Wikipedia citation is not sufficient to drop sources points...

And giving conduct too is just being an arse...
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Of course, but those citations in the part of the article I was referring to were from scientific peer reviewed journals.

It's one thing to award him arguments, because you agree with those semantics, but conduct points are just a direct result of your bias. If you can't provide an unbiased fair vote than please refrain from voting.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
@ Wylted, I gave Envisage the conduct point because his semantics were justified unlike yours and any old yahoo can edit Wikipedia any time they want
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Jesus the Alien
Vote Placed by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Loveshismom
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 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: CONDUCT: Both Pro and Con semanticized, but it was justified when Con did it, as he clearly demonstrated. ARGUMENTS: As clearly demonstrated by Con, some of Pro's arguments did not even point to an alien Jesus, and the only ones that did could also be used to argue for Con's case. SOURCES: both had about all the same sources and in an equal amount, but Pro used Wikipedia, which, as we all know, is not always reliable.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Raisor 2 years ago
Raisor
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
WyltedEnvisageTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: this debate is a toughie. The two opponent face each other and rebut each other's arguments equally strongly, using logic at first, then turning to semantic arguments, later with pro challenging the major premises of con, but with con challenging the lack of (good) sources from pro. However, pro was very sure and confident, even providing a bonus within the last round, as he had pretty much refuted half of con's arguments by that point. On the other hand, the last round of Evisage also saved his skin because he strengthened his points and regained his stance. Will reread if need to. EDIT: actually, con destroys pro's sources quite well, and as a result, his sources seem better in comparison.