The Instigator
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
MTGandP
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Official TOC Round 1

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 4 votes the winner is...
MTGandP
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,109 times Debate No: 8962
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

rougeagent21

Con

Resolved: Intelligent Design should not be taught in the Science Classes of public schools.

This is the first round of the DDO TOC. Authorized judges ONLY. Regardless of position, both sides have an equal burden of proof. The first round is a confirmation round, followed by three debating rounds. PRO will forfeit the last round. No new material will be brought up in the final round. Good luck to my opponent; I look forward to an enjoyable debate. Judges, thank you for your time and patience. Without further adu, the TOC.
MTGandP

Pro

I wish my opponent good luck in this first round of the Tournament of Champions.

Definitions

Intelligent Design (abbreviated ID): The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. (Discovery Institute)

Natural selection: A natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment. (Merriam-Webster)

Evolution: Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)

Abiogenesis: The development of living organisms from nonliving matter. (paraphrased from American Heritage Dictionary)

Big Bang: The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Omnievolution: Evolution, abiogenesis, and big bang theory. Compressed into a single word for convenience.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In a closed system, entropy tends to increase. (http://www.allaboutscience.org...)

Entropy: Unusable energy.

========

On Burden of Proof

Omnievolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. Conflicting ideas should not both be taught; scientists should work out which is correct, and then the correct one should be taught. (My opponent may dispute this if he wishes, in which case I will respond; but if he does not, it is to be accepted.) If evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang are all shown to be scientifically valid, then it renders intelligent design invalid; victory goes to Pro. If intelligent design is shown to be scientifically valid, victory goes to Con. If neither is shown to be valid, the result is a tie. With the premise that invalid theories should not be taught: if ID is shown to be invalid, victory goes to Pro. If omnievolution is shown to be invalid, victory goes to Con. If neither is shown to be invalid, well, you know what comes next.

============

On The Invalidity of Intelligent Design

1: ID is not testable.
A theory is only considered science if it is testable with the scientific method [1]. ID is not testable, however. Since the designer is by necessity external, there is no sign that the designer was once here. Observation and experimentation is impossible.

2: ID is not falsifiable.
Any possible outcome could be the mark of a designer. No matter what happens, it can be said to be the result of intelligent design. ID cannot be proven false, and is therefore not science.

==========

On the Validity of Big Bang Theory

Big Bang Theory has a great deal of evidence supporting it. [2]
1. Galaxies are observed to be moving away from each other. This movement is consistent with the expanding universe predicted by Big Bang Theory.
2. Big Bang Theory predicts that just after the Big Bang, the universe contained an intense amount of energy. This is evidenced by the cosmic microwave background radiation.
3. Lighter elements such as hydrogen and helium occur in nature more often than heavier ones such as mercury and gold.

========

On the Validity of Abiogenesis

There is not as much evidence supporting abiogenesis, but it is still the most likely possibility for the origin of life. The Miller-Urey Experiment [3] showed that it is possible to create complex chemical compounds from more simple ones, especially in an environment similar to that of primitive earth. It is therefore entirely possible that a self-replicating molecule was spontaneously formed, and that this molecule then slowly evolved into what we know as life.

========

On the Validity of Evolution

There is monumental evidence supporting evolution.

1. The extensive fossil record is filled with transitional forms, early stages, and other fossils that support the theory of evolution. For starters, we have a complete record of the evolution of humans going back millions of years [4], dinosaurs into birds (including the transition from scales to feathers) [5], and the evolution from land animals to whales [6].
2. Natural selection has been observed many times [7], and we even have some cases of observed speciation [8].
3. Genetics are a great source for evidence supporting evolution. For example, human versus ape genetics are exactly what we would expect if the theory of evolution were true [9].

========

To my opponent, thank you and good luck!

========

References

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
[3] http://www.chem.duke.edu...
[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[5] http://darwiniana.org...
[6] http://darwiniana.org...
[7] http://www.gate.net...
[8] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[9] www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Debate Round No. 1
rougeagent21

Con

I will first offer my own definitions. I will use a single, unbiased source. You will notice that my opponent uses different sources for each of his definitions. I find this a bit skewed.

Intelligent Design (ID) -- "A theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Natural Selection (NS) -- "The process by which forms of life having traits that better enable them to adapt to specific environmental pressures, as predators, changes in climate, or competition for food or mates, will tend to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than others of their kind, thus ensuring the perpetuation of those favorable traits in succeeding generations."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Theory of Evolution -- "A scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Evolution -- "Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
http://dictionary.reference.com...

======================
On Burden of Proof
======================

"Conflicting ideas should not both be taught; scientists should work out which is correct, and then the correct one should be taught. "

I certainly do dispute this. There are multiple problems with my opponent's statement. First of all, ID can coexist with the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and abiogenesis. What my opponent does not realize is that an Intelligent Designer could have used any of these methods to create the universe. He/She/It could have created it through "the explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter." The only thing required of ID is that everything came into existence via a Designer, rather than by chance. The options listed by my opponent COULD HAVE been used by a/the designer.

Second, opposing ideas SHOULD be taught! We develop opinions through controversy. Without controversy, there is no growth. We learn nothing through indoctrination, as my opponent suggests. Imagine hearing this as a seventh-grader: "Evolution is fact, there is no other option. Intelligent design is absurd, do not consider the possibility." Schools are supposed to enlighten, empower, and allow for the free flow of new ideas. That flow is what advances society.

Third, this is a great example of a slippery slope. My opponent wants us to decide which one is right, and only teach what is "right." Is that only applicable to science and religion? What about politics? "A monarchy is the only sound state of government. We have always done it like that, we always will." Where would we be right now if that was taught and enforced back during the 1700s? What if Walmart is the "right" way to shop? Are we only allowed to shop there? What if McDonalds is NOT the "right" way to eat? Are we not allowed to eat there? The point is that my opponent presents an EXTREMELY dangerous idea which ought to be dismissed.

I believe I have rattled off on one sentence for long enough. To conclude, I would like to stick to the resolution. If I show why ID should be taught in schools, I win. If my opponent shows why ID should not be taught in schools, he wins.

======================
Validity of ID
======================

"A theory is only considered science if it is testable with the scientific method [1]. ID is not testable, however. Since the designer is by necessity external, there is no sign that the designer was once here. Observation and experimentation is impossible."

I can show you evidence that a Designer was/is here. Touch your arm. Touch your computer. Touch the floor. Matter exists. How did that matter come into existence? Scientifically, it is impossible to create matter. According to the Law of Conservation of mass, matter can be neither created nor destroyed, but simply re-arranged. So if it is impossible to create matter, how did our matter come to be?

The answer is rather simple. If matter cannot be created naturally, it must be created supernaturally. In other words, an Intelligent Designer is necessary. Since you exist, there is completely valid logic backing ID.

Since ID is backed by logic as well as science, it becomes a theory. Just as The Big Bang remains a theory, so does ID. If the Big Bang is taught as a theory, then so should Intelligent Design.

"Any possible outcome could be the mark of a designer. No matter what happens, it can be said to be the result of intelligent design. ID cannot be proven false, and is therefore not science."

This is a non-unique argument. This applies every bit as much to The Big Bang Theory as it does to ID.

==========================
Validity of Omnievolution
==========================

As has been stated, omnievolution can coexist with ID. Because of this, I feel no need to dispute the validity of omnievolution. If the need should arise, I am prepared to answer. Due to the unfortunate character limit, I will not have space to address it this round anyway.

In conclusion, I have shown ID to be a valid theory. Because of its status as a theory, the Big Bang theory has no more precedence to be taught over ID. Since my opponent argues that the Big Bang Theory should be taught, ID should be taught as well. Thank you.

====================
Sources
====================

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.mlive.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...
MTGandP

Pro

My opponent claims that using multiple sources for definitions is "skewed"; I hardly see how. I tried to find the most reliable and comprehensive definitions, even if that meant going to a different source to get them.

My opponent's definitions of natural selection and evolution are acceptable. However, his definition of intelligent design is not. It significantly differs from my own definition; since my definition is from the Discovery Institute, the primary advocate of intelligent design, mine is preferable.

"First of all, ID can coexist with the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and abiogenesis. What my opponent does not realize is that an Intelligent Designer could have used any of these methods to create the universe."
This conflicts with the traditional definition of intelligent design. As seen on the Wikipedia page [1], intelligentdesign.org [2] and the Discovery Institute website [3], ID clearly conflicts with omnievolution. Additionally, the United States court has ruled that intelligent design was religion [4]; it is clear from the court ruling that ID is distinct from Darwinian evolution: "the board argued that it was trying improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection."

However, even if ID does not conflict with omnievolution, it still should not be taught as science. If my opponent does concede that omnievolution is an adequate explanation (which he seems to do in half of his case, but not the other half), then an intelligent designer is an unnecessary entity. Even if intelligent design does not conflict with omnievolution, there is still no evidence whatsoever that such a designer exists. For example, imagine a theory that says that gravity is caused by magical fairies pulling on objects. It is still completely consistent with the theory of gravity, but does that mean we should teach it? Of course not.

If my opponent concedes that omnievolution is an adequate explanation, he also concedes that there is no evidence that an intelligent designer exists; his evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (in the "validity of ID" section) relies on the invalidity of omnievolution, and in particular big bang theory. This evidence is flawed, but that is another matter.

"We develop opinions through controversy. Without controversy, there is no growth."
1. ----I agree that controversy is healthy. However, on this particular issue, it is not a good idea. For example should we, in addition to the theory that the earth is round, teach that the earth may indeed be flat? Most students would probably believe it; after all, the earth appears awfully flat. Students may end up believing that the earth is flat, even though in actuality it is not. For this same reason, we should not teach ID: students may end up believing it, since it seems more obvious than omnievolution even though omnievolution is supported by far more evidence.
2. ----If we teach ID, for the sake of fairness we must also teach every other creation theory: that humans came from an island floating in the sky [7]; that the world is an egg that was laid by a supernatural bird [8]; that The Ancient one came through the reeds and created everything [9]. This is not only very practically difficult, but an all-round bad idea.

My opponent wants us to decide which one is right, and only teach what is "right." Is that only applicable to science and religion? What about politics? "A monarchy is the only sound state of government. We have always done it like that, we always will." Where would we be right now if that was taught and enforced back during the 1700s?What if Walmart is the "right" way to shop? Are we only allowed to shop there? What if McDonalds is NOT the "right" way to eat? Are we not allowed to eat there? The point is that my opponent presents an EXTREMELY dangerous idea which ought to be dismissed.
This is an inappropriate analogy. Politics does not have a clear right and wrong answer, nor does choice of store or restaurant; science does. Teaching intelligent design is more analogous to teaching that 2 + 2 = 5: it is just flat-out wrong. Should we, as an alternative to 2 + 2 = 4, teach that 2 + 2 = 5?

=========
Validity of ID
=========

"Matter exists. How did that matter come into existence? Scientifically, it is impossible to create matter."
Therefore, an intelligent designer could not have created matter.

"So if it is impossible to create matter, how did our matter come to be?"
Big Bang Theory is a perfectly adequate explanation and does not include any unnecessary entities:

Matter has always existed. This may seem like a strange concept; but it is true, because according to Big Bang Theory, time itself came into existence at the big bang. 'Before' the big bang, there was no space and there was no time. Matter did exist in a sense, but it was all compressed into a singularity. [5, 6]

Back to the original point, the existence of matter is not evidence of a designer. I reiterate: intelligent design is not testable.

"If matter cannot be created naturally, it must be created supernaturally. In other words, an Intelligent Designer is necessary."
Other than the false premise that matter must have been created supernaturally, this relies on the unproven premise that a supernatural being has to be intelligent.

"Any possible outcome could be the mark of a designer. No matter what happens, it can be said to be the result of intelligent design. ID cannot be proven false, and is therefore not science."

This is a non-unique argument. This applies every bit as much to The Big Bang Theory as it does to ID.
The big bang is NOT an appropriate explanation for just anything. For example, the ability of birds to fly can be blamed on a designer ("an intelligent being is holding up the birds") but it cannot be blamed on the big bang. Additionally, the big bang is falsifiable. If we could see infinitely far in the universe as opposed to only 13-or-so billion light years out, it would prove that the universe has existed eternally, disproving big bang theory; if there were more heavy elements than light elements, it would be strong evidence against big bang theory; if galaxies were not moving away from each other and were instead still, it would prove that the universe was not expanding, disproving big bang theory.

========
Conclusion
========

The first half of my opponent's case requires that we assume the existence of an intelligent designer with no evidence. The second half of my opponent's case, which is mutually exclusive with the first half, tries to provide evidence of ID but misrepresents Big Bang Theory and only comes up with false evidence based on faulty premises and conclusions.

This has been an enjoyable debate so far, and I look forward to my opponent's response.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.intelligentdesign.org...
[3] http://www.discovery.org...
[4] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDjUL8f6IFE
[7] http://www.cs.williams.edu...
[8] http://www.cs.williams.edu...
[9] http://www.dreamscape.com...
Debate Round No. 2
rougeagent21

Con

"I tried to find the most reliable and comprehensive definitions, even if that meant going to a different source to get them."

Comprehensive is awfully subjective. Maybe, "most in accordance with my arguments" would be a better phrase?

===================
Definition of Intelligent Design
===================

My opponent does not want to let go of his definition of Intelligent Design. (I looked on Discovery Institute's site and could not find the definition he provided) I have given dictionary.com's definition, and will now present Merriam Webster's Dictionary's version. Id is defined as: "the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence."

Once again, there is NO mention of an opposition to evolution. This is critical to the debate.

" If my opponent does concede that omnievolution is an adequate explanation (which he seems to do in half of his case, but not the other half), then an intelligent designer is an unnecessary entity."

This is not true. Omnievolution is only possible BECAUSE of a Designer. I go on to explain this later in my case, and will address it again this round.

"Even if intelligent design does not conflict with omnievolution, there is still no evidence whatsoever that such a designer exists. For example, imagine a theory that says that gravity is caused by magical fairies pulling on objects. It is still completely cosistent with the theory of gravity, but does that mean we should teach it? Of course not."

My opponent disregards the evidence I gave him. Once again, I will restate this later in the round. The fairy analogy is irrelevant to the debate. Gravity is a proven force. It is a scientific law. It has been explained thoroughly. The creation of the universe however is still completely unproven. The Big Bang is not a law, but a theory. Evolution is not fact, but educated guess. The only way this analogy would hold any merit is if we lived thousands of years ago when gravity was still unproven. We live in the twenty-first century, we know better.

"If my opponent concedes that omnievolution is an adequate explanation, he also concedes that there is no evidence that an intelligent designer exists; his evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer (in the "validity of ID" section) relies on the invalidity of omnievolution, and in particular big bang theory."

My opponent is once again mistaken. Either my opponent did not read/remember my arguments, or his computer is malfunctioning. My evidence for ID does not rely one bit on the invalidity of omnievolution. Would you please provide me with a quote where I made that statement or a few lines where I implied it?

"This evidence is flawed, but that is another matter."

This is a debate. You are supposed to tell me and the judges WHY the evidence is flawed. I cannot refute what you do not attack. Until otherwise stated, the evidence remains valid.

"For example should we, in addition to the theory that the earth is round, teach that the earth may indeed be flat? Most students would probably believe it; after all, the earth appears awfully flat. Students may end up believing that the earth is flat, even though in actuality it is not. For this same reason, we should not teach ID: students may end up believing it, since it seems more obvious than omnievolution even though omnievolution is supported by far more evidence."

Yet again, my opponent brings up another irrelevant analogy. Teaching ID is noting like teaching the Earth is flat. The Earth has been proven to be round. We have orbited it's spherical mass. Teaching the Earth's flatness would be an outright lie.

What my opponent assumes here is that:
-Evolution is fact
-ID is as absurd as a flat Earth

First of all, my opponent does not provide any evidence to back up his claims. He talks about "far more evidence" like it is common knowledge. I have backed up my statements, while his are empty husks of cyber trash. (That was not ad hominum, but ad argument)

Secondly, since his analogy is flawed, he then agrees that controversy with evidence should be taught. If I am wrong, please tell me. Opponent, do you believe that two sides of a story with evidence supporting each should both be taught?

"If we teach ID, for the sake of fairness we must also teach every other creation theory:"

IRRELEVANT. We are not talking about American Indian Myths. We are talking about the real world, how it was created, with evidence t back our claims.

"Politics does not have a clear right and wrong answer, nor does choice of store or restaurant; science does. Teaching intelligent design is more analogous to teaching that 2 + 2 = 5: it is just flat-out wrong. Should we, as an alternative to 2 + 2 = 4, teach that 2 + 2 = 5?"

Repeatedly my opponent disregards ID as nothing more than a childish idea. If ID were proven false, his analogy would carry some merit. The fact is, ID is an evidence backed theory that contests with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution. It is FAR from being proven false, and ought not and will not be ignored as a 2+2=5 equation. My opponent has yet to provide ANY unrefuted evidence that would derail ID. Science does not have a right or wrong answer for how the universe came to be, and contesting ideas backed by evidence need to be taught.

==================
Validity of ID
==================

My opponent picks my arguments apart by each sentence. This does not work. The evidence must be read as a whole, and not as any one statement. My opponent contradicts himself while "refuting" my arguments. Observe:

I said "Matter exists. How did that matter come into existence? Scientifically, it is impossible to create matter."

He said "Therefore, an intelligent designer could not have created matter."

Then I said "So if it is impossible to create matter, how did our matter come to be?"

He replied "Big Bang Theory is a perfectly adequate explanation and does not include any unnecessary entities."

So first he agrees that matter cannot be created, then he says that the Big Bang can create matter? If you want flawed logic, look no further.

ID explains the creation of the universe perfectly. It must be agreed that scientifically, matter can neither be created nor destroyed. That is a scientific law, considered as fact. Naturally, matter can only be moved. If we have matter, which we do, it must have come from somewhere. Where did it come from? Naturally, it is impossible to create matter. The answer now seems simple where the matter came from. If natural methods are impossible, then supernatural methods are the only other option. ID is backed by evidence. You are here, I am here. Your computer is here. We came from somewhere, and that somewhere could not have occurred naturally. My opponent can argue this, but his pleas will be easily thrown down by cold, hard, scientific facts.

I am just about out of characters, and cannot address his arguments any further. I look forward to doing so in the next round. Until then, I will ask my opponent one more question:

What qualifies the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and Abiogenesis to be taught in science classes? I do not want to hear why they are better than ID, I only want to hear what qualifies them to make it into science textbooks.

Thank you opponent, and thank you judges/audience for your time.

=================
Sources
=================

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.astronomy.net...
http://www.howstuffworks.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
MTGandP

Pro

Official TOC Round 1

"Comprehensive is awfully subjective. Maybe, 'most in accordance with my arguments' would be a better phrase?"
I am not attempting to bias the debate with skewed definitions, if that's what is meant. I acknowledged that my opponent's definitions for evolution and natural selection were as good as my own. The only dispute here is over the definition of ID.

====================
Definition of Intelligent Design
====================

The Discovery Institute definition can be found at [1], or indirectly at [2] or on Wikipedia. Since Discovery Institute is the primary proponent of ID, their definition is most reliable.

"My opponent disregards the evidence I gave him."
I do not. I responded to the 'evidence' near the end of my case.

"Gravity is a proven force. It is a scientific law. It has been explained thoroughly. The creation of the universe however is still completely unproven. The Big Bang is not a law, but a theory."
My opponent misunderstands the definition of "theory". Merriam-Webster defines "theory" as "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ". The difference between a law and a theory is rather small [3]: a law describes a set of actions such as gravity, while a theory provides an explanation for observed phenomena. "[B]oth a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole."

And anyway, my opponent's assertion that Gravity is proven (news flash: so is evolution) does not change the meaning of my analogy. My point was that unnecessary entities should not be created, even if they don't conflict with the scientific law or theory. Gravity is proven; adding fairies on top of it, while not technically wrong, is unnecessary. Likewise, adding an intelligent designer on top of evolution or the Big Bang is unnecessary. The Big Bang is also proven; see "On the Validity of Big Bang Theory" in round one, which is as yet unrefuted.

"You are supposed to tell me and the judges WHY the evidence is flawed."
I did, in my "Validity of ID" section.

"Yet again, my opponent brings up another irrelevant analogy. Teaching ID is noting like teaching the Earth is flat. The Earth has been proven to be round. We have orbited it's [sic] spherical mass. Teaching the Earth's flatness would be an outright lie."
Teaching ID may not be an outright lie, but it is analogous to teaching that fairies are controlling gravity. Though not technically wrong, it is unnecessary to explain the universe, and there is no evidence supporting it.

"What my opponent assumes here is that:
-Evolution is fact"
Evolution itself is not a fact, but it is a theory supported by facts. I listed facts in round one (fossil record, genetics) which stand unrefuted.

"-ID is as absurd as a flat Earth"
My opponent makes a fair point, in that flat earth as been disproven. However, ID is still just as absurd as gravity fairies.

"I have backed up my statements, while his are empty husks of cyber trash."
What about all that unrefuted evidence from round one?

"Opponent, do you believe that two sides of a story with evidence supporting each should both be taught?"
Firstly, ID is not supported by evidence. Secondly, no; I think that scientists should continue investigating until one hypothesis has enough evidence to be considered a theory, and then that one theory should be taught.

"IRRELEVANT. We are not talking about American Indian Myths. We are talking about the real world, how it was created, with evidence t [sic] back our claims."
And I have yet to see any real evidence to support ID.

"The fact is, ID is an evidence backed theory that contests with the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution."
My opponent claims that it contests with those theories, then he claims that they are not conflicting. Which is it? Either way, it is flawed, as I have shown.

"My opponent has yet to provide ANY unrefuted evidence that would derail ID."
-It is untestable and unfalsifiable, and therefore not science.
-My opponent is trying to give me burden of proof. All hypotheses are invalid until proven valid; otherwise, we would accept just anything without evidence.

==========
Validity of ID
==========

On My Contradiction:
When I said "Therefore, an intelligent designer could not have created matter", I was trying to prove a point, that being that if my opponent's claim is true then ID must be false. However, there is still no contradiction. Big Bang Theory does not state that matter was ever created; it states that matter has always existed, but that it previously was all contained within a singularity. Notice that when I say "matter always existed", it is not because the universe is eternal. Before the Big Bang, time itself did not exist. So even though the universe is finitely old, matter never spontaneously came into existence.

"My opponent picks my arguments apart by each sentence. This does not work."
I don't see why not.

"It must be agreed that scientifically, matter can neither be created nor destroyed . . . If we have matter, which we do, it must have come from somewhere."
Contradiction. Interestingly, this is the exact same contradiction that my opponent accused me of; however, Big Bang Theory is an adequate explanation.

"The answer now seems simple where the matter came from."
It has always existed. Remember, though, that "always" is finite, since time began with the Big Bang (if you can even really say that time "began".)

My opponent wrongly assumes that a supernatural being MUST be a "who" and not a "what". My opponent's case, flawed as it is, does not advocate intelligent design; instead, it advocates supernatural design, a completely different concept. He has yet to prove that all supernatural entities are intelligent.

"My opponent can argue this, but his pleas will be easily thrown down by cold, hard, scientific facts."
What, that we exist? My opponent's claim that existence supports ID is as sensical as the claim that since we exist, the universe must have been created by Shiva the Destroyer. Or that since we exist, the universe must have been created by a supernatural banana. That is, it's a complete non sequitur.

"What qualifies the Theory of Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and Abiogenesis to be taught in science classes?"
Evidence. Facts. Testability. Falsifiability. Omnievolution is more than qualified as a set of scientific theories, while intelligent design is not. The choice is clear: vote PRO.

[1] http://www.discovery.org...
[2] http://www.intelligentdesign.org...
[3] http://www.wilstar.com...
Debate Round No. 3
rougeagent21

Con

Instead of arguing every sentence again, I will cut right to the chase. Before I do so, I feel the need to clear my name on something. My opponent accuses me of a contradiction, which I must refute.

"It must be agreed that scientifically, matter can neither be created nor destroyed . . . If we have matter, which we do, it must have come from somewhere."
Contradiction. Interestingly, this is the exact same contradiction that my opponent accused me of; however, Big Bang Theory is an adequate explanation.

My opponent cuts out what I say in between. I state that NATURALLY, matter cannot be created nor destroyed. I then describe how matter can only be created SUPERNATURALLY. (Or, ABOVE natural powers) He continues to address only the sentences (or in this case, parts of sentences) that will strengthen his case. He ignores the evidence I give him. On to the core of the debate.

The resolution asks whether or not ID should be taught in school. My opponent argues that omnievolution should be taught, but not ID. I asked him what makes omnievolution quailfied to be taught, and he responded as so:

"Evidence. Facts. Testability. Falsifiability."

==================
Evidence and Facts for ID
==================

I have given this multiple times, only to be addressed partially each time by my opponent. To be as clear as possible, I will not use complete sentences in order to spell out my reasoning again.

1 Matter exists (Scientific fact) http://en.wikipedia.org...

2 Matter cannot come from nothing by natural causes (scientific fact) http://en.wikipedia.org...

3 Since matter exists, and it cannot be created naturally, it MUST have come into being SUPERnaturally.

===================
Testability and Falsifiability
===================

Both accusations of ID not being testable or falsifiable are completely non-unique. This means that the same applies to the Big Bang Theory, and omnievolution as a whole. Just as you cannot prove ID wrong, you cannot prove omnievolution wrong either. My opponent does not hinder my case, while he actually points out faults in his own.

My opponent says that omnievolution is a valid theory that should be taught in schools. Lets re-examine what a theory is. According to wikipedia:

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
-it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
-makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Does ID classify distinct observations as a class of phenomena? It certainly does. It classifies the observation that matter exists as a supernatural event.
Does ID make assertations about the underlying reality that brings about this class? Yes it does. Is asserts that an intelligent thing/being created the matter of our universe. Therefore, is ID not a valid theory?

ID has evidence and scientific facts backing it. While it is not completely falsifiable, NEITHER IS OMNIEVOLUTION. Since ID has all of the necessary criteria to qualify it to be taught in science classes, it ought to be taught. If you like the idea of single-mindedness and censorship, vote for the affirmative side.

Opponent, I thank you for an enjoyable debate. Judges I thank you again for your time and patience.
MTGandP

Pro

In order to keep it at an even three rounds, I will be passing the final round.

I thank my opponent for this fun and challenging debate, and I thank the judges for taking the time to read and deliberate upon these arguments.

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I still haven't seen ANY RFDs from JBlake or theLwerd. I have asked for them several times, but no one has produced them. When the voting period ended, I was actually listed as having won the debate. After a few days though, the votes were changed. That is why I asked for the official ruling, but it has yet to be given.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
I did. I then debated heart_of_the_matter.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Who won this one officially?
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
I am temporarily organizing the tournament in theLwerd's absence. I am awaiting one judges decision and RFD, then I will announce the winner. If theLwerd has time to send the RFDs before she leaves I will release them at that time. If not, you will have to wait on the RFDs until she returns next week.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
The judging situation doesn't look to great right now. I would not expect those RFDs to come in any time soon.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I see. Could the "real" judges post their RFDs please?
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
I don't know. Judging was assigned, but anyone is allowed to vote. What matters for who moves on in the TOC, though is what the official judges think.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
Anyone? Who voted?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I thought judging was assigned...
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
The vote-bombers were banned, obviously.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
rougeagent21MTGandPTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
rougeagent21MTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
rougeagent21MTGandPTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
rougeagent21MTGandPTied
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