The Instigator
RainbowDash52
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

The Starchild skull is human

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,692 times Debate No: 62095
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

RainbowDash52

Con

The Starchild skull is this skull:


I will be arguing that the Starchild skull is not human. The burden of proof is shared. My opponent's first round is with an argument. My opponent's last round will be passing without giving an argument so we have the same amount of turns to debate.
Wylted

Pro

I can accept a shared BOP, but due to the nature of how Occam's Razor works if my opponent argues the Skull is of extraterrestrial origin, he is going to have a tough time doing so. My opponent is likely to give arguments derived from the world renowned BS artist Lloyd Pye. When I'm done showing why the Starchild skull is in fact human, I'll expose Mr. Pye's BS in all it's glory.

congenital hydrocephalus.

This unfortunate medical condition also known as water on the brain causes cerebral spinal fluid to fill the brain and the pressure builds up and expands the skull[1]. This This expansion can be seen in photos of the star child skull.

Take a look at the following photos of skulls of people with hydrocephalus. These aren't pictures of aliens, but of people with a medical condition similar to the one facing the individual known as the starchild skull.

https://craniophiles.files.wordpress.com...

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

Steven Novella a Neurologist has looked at the skull and thinks it comes from an unfortunate kid who suffered from hydrocephalus.

DNA TESTING

DNA tests were conducted 1999, 2010 and 2011 that all showed the starchild skull was human.

http://www.badarchaeology.com...

Every time a test is concerned it shows that their is human DNA in the skull.

CONCLUSION

That is sufficient evidence in showing the skull is human. Most of my case will be involve debunking pseudo science. So this round is intentionally kept short.

sources

1. http://www.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 1
RainbowDash52

Con

Not Congenital Hydrocephalus

Craniofacial expert Dr. Ted Robinson analyzed the starchild skull and confirmed that the Starchild skull could not have suffered from hydrocephaly. [1]

"Dr. Bachynsky noted that there is no evidence of erosion of the inner table of the skull. Such erosion would be consistent with a diagnosis of hydrocephaly, so this condition can safely be ruled out as a cause of the abnormalities expressed. Hydrocephaly also causes a widening of the sutures, again not expressed here. There was consensus agreement to both of these observations by other experts conversant with these features."[2] (#8)

Another reason why the Starchild skull could not have suffered from hydrocephaly, is that hydrocephaly does not result in an inward dent in the skull as seen in the Starchild skull, since hydrocephaly causes swelling in the skull but not an inward dent. For example you don"t see this kind of dent in the hydrocephalic skulls my opponent gave links to.


DNA Test Results

My opponent sited this source [3] and he asserted that the DNA tests in 1999, 2010, and 2011 all show that the Starchild skull is human.

"In 2010, further DNA analysis was undertaken by the National Institutes of Health BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) programme, which "compares nucleotide or protein sequences to sequence databases and calculates the statistical significance of matches" to infer functional and evolutionary relationships between sequences as well as help identify members of gene families". The procedure found that 265 base pairs could be matched, demonstrating "that at least some of the nuclear DNA from the Starchild is from a human being". [3]

Sharing some DNA with humans does not imply that it is human. For example humans share about 98% of their nuclear DNA with chimpanzees and about 50% of their nuclear DNA with bananas. Therefor only sharing some DNA with humans does not imply that the Starchild skull is human. So when my opponent asserted that according this source [3] the 2010 DNA test shows the Starchild skull to be human, was actually incorrect.

If you read my opponent"s source [3] you will see it makes no attempt to show that the 2011 DNA tests show the Starchild skull to be human, despite what my opponent claimed. Also the 2011 and 2012 DNA test prove that the 1999 DNA tests must have been false(do to perhaps contamination), since the newer DNA tests were done with more current and advanced technologies and contradict the 1999 test results.

Also the DNA test from 2011 indicate that the Starchild skull is not human because of the amount of mutations found in the mitochondrial DNA. [4]



Based on the number of mutations found in the Starchild"s mitochondrial DNA, it is projected that the total amount of mutations in the mitochondrial DNA is between 800 and 1000. [4] And since all humans have no more than 120 mutations in their mitochondrial DNA [4], unless the unlikely event that the mutations found in the Starchild"s mitochondrial DNA does not fairly represent the total number of mutations in the Starchild"s mitochondrial DNA, the Starchild cannot be human.

Additionally, the 2012 DNA test was able to extract the foxp2 gene from the Starchild skull, 56 base pair differences have been found, while humans normally don"t have any. [5]


This chart shows the amount of base pair differences in the foxp2 gene in each animal compared to humans. [5] "Mutations of many FOX genes either give rise to different developmental disorders affecting many organs or result in death due to improper development" [6] The amount of base pair differences in the Starchild"s foxp2 gene are completely non-human, and since mutations in the foxp2 gene often result in death, it is extremely unlikely that the Starchild skull could survive that many mutations to its foxp2 gene, but we know the Starchild survived until maturity because of how worn out its teeth are. [2](#17)

Additional Evidence for why it is not human

This [7] lists 24 abnormal features of the Starchild skull which can"t all be explained with human deformities. These features include but are not limited to:

"The bone is uniformly half as thick, or less, than normal human bone. It is not thin in a specific area or areas due to abnormality, it is thin all over."

"The skull itself weighs half as much as human skulls of comparable size."

"The Starchild Skull"s eye sockets are unusually shaped and are only 0.7 inches at maximum depth, compared to normal human eye sockets which average about 2 inches deep."

"It has no brow ridges, which all primates have. Its forehead is smoothly curved straight down to its upper eye sockets, unlike humans or any higher primate."

"The Starchild Skull had no frontal sinuses, an extremely rare condition."


Conclusion

Based on this overwhelming evidence, it is almost impossible for the Starchild skull to be human.

Sources
[1] https://www.youtube.com...

[2] Preliminary Analysis Of A Highly Unusual Human-Like Skull
Dr. Ted J. Robinson, M.D., L.M.C.C., F.R.C.S (c), 2004
http://www.starchildproject.com...

[3] http://www.badarchaeology.com...
[4] http://starchildproject.com...
[5] http://starchildproject.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.starchildproject.com...
Wylted

Pro

INTRODUCTION

I want my opponent to stop ducking the looming question, the elephant in the back of the room and directly tell me what he thinks the skull belongs to.

If it's not a deformed human skull than my opponent's theory as to what it is, is needed. Is it an alien human hybrid like the skull's owner believe? If so, it's still human. Is it a different species of human? If so it's still human.

I'd love to hear exactly what my opponent thinks the skull is of. I think Occam's Razor says the skull is clearly human.

Hydrocephalus

I probably did my position and this debate a disservice by rushing my round 2 arguments and not elaborating on them enough. I apologize for that.

The deformed shape of the skull is likely from multiple versions of modern diseases such as Progeria and Hydrocephalus as well as cultural skull shaping practices in the area and time period the skull is from.

Let's look at the some of the unusual features of the skull my opponent somehow believes makes the kid an alien or something.

SINUS PASSAGES

Lacking sinus passages isn't extremely rare as my opponent would lead you to believe. In fact about 5% of the population has no sinus passages. http://www.utmb.edu...

Far from being rare, the lack of these sinus passages are actually pretty common.

THIN BONES

Another odd feature of the skull is it's thinness. Another rare disease that could possibly account for the skulls unique shape and thinness is called progeria. People with progeria, besides have a rounded skull shape like the starchild skull would also have a thin bone structure, this symptom of progeria as well as many other diseases is called Osteitis Fibrosis. http://www.nlm.nih.gov...

I ask my opponent and the voters this question. Is it more likely that a deformed human looking skull has a set of rare conditions causing the unique shape of the skull or is actually an alien from outer space?

DENT IN SKULL

Near the time when the skull was found and also prevalent in Peruvian culture at the time was a practice known as skull binding.

The dent in the back of the skull my opponent mentions would be something found a lot of times from the same period of time.

It honestly shouldn't be the least bit shocking to find a deformed skull in Peru.

http://www.skullsunlimited.com...

DNA ANALYSIS

It's actually hard to get ahold of the skull for DNA testing, because the skull up until recently has been held by Mr. Pye, who made a career before he obtained the skull of selling the ancient astronaut theory.

Despite this and other underhanded tactics by the "starchild project" Pye founded, I still think enough evidence exists proving the skull to be human.

The Starchild skull was found to have C and Y chromosomes. http://www.nlm.nih.gov...

The Y chromosome would mean that it's from a human father. The Mitochondrial DNA from the skull has been shown to be from Haplogroup C or in other words a human mother from a Native American race.

http://rense.com...

The last source was from Loyd Pye himself admitting that Haplogroup C DNA was recovered.

My opponent suggests that earlier tests showing the starchild skull to be contaminated and gives a link to Failed fiction writer and ancient astronaut theorist Loyd Pye's article calling the results contaminated but never stating why or how he came to that conclusion. This is a case of him not liking the results so he commits what's known as the genetic fallacy. A fallacy that dismisses any evidence contrary to his position.

It's also a well known fact that XRAys make recovering nuclear DNA much harder. So recovering it early before Xray testing and then having a hard time doing the same thing later is something that should be expected and isn't contradictory to later tests as my opponent assumes.

My opponent then goes on to assert that the skull could not be human because of all the mutations in the testing of the mitochondrial DNA. This just comes from not understanding how to interpret the results properly.

"an automatically generated list of possible procedural errors designed to help geneticists check all possible flaws in their testing techniques".

http://www.badarchaeology.com...

I believe it's these flaws that Mr. Pye is talking about and is just unaware of how to analyze the data.

CONCLUSION

My opponent has failed to offer an alternative for what this skull could be. It looks human, DNA testing confirms it's human. There is no leap in believing that this is a human skull which suffers from some disorders that deform the skull, as well as cultural skull binding taking place.

The skull of this child has been treated like a piece of property by Mr. Pye, who's limited testing to people not sensitive to his views and has even had some testing done by confidential labs, with undisclosed names (last source).

An abnormal human skull, even one with unique properties is still a human skull. If my opponent is claiming it's not human, I want him to say what animal it more closely resembles than man.
Debate Round No. 2
RainbowDash52

Con

False Dilemma
My opponent"s arguments rely on the idea that if the Starchild is not human then it must be either alien or a human alien hybrid. This is a false dilemma. There are millions of animal species that have yet to be discovered, and it very well may be the case that the Starchild is one of those species. The first time scientists saw a platypus, they assumed it was a hoax [3]. But it turns out bizarre creatures do exist despite it being hard for some to believe.

hybrids are not human
My opponent stated if the Starchild skull is a human alien hybrid, then it is still human. This is false. For example, mules are hybrids of donkeys and horses [2], but mules are not donkeys and mules are not horses. Therefore if the Starchild was an alien human hybrid, it would not count as human.

Sinuses
My opponent"s source does not say that 5% of humans lack sinuses. It states 5% of people lack frontal sinuses. " The frontal sinuses are just one type of sinuses humans have. And as you can see in this X-ray, the Starchild skull doesn"t have any sinuses.



Peruvian Skull
My opponent made an argument that basically boils down to:
P1: the Peruvian skull is human
P2: the Peruvian skull is more deformed than the Starchild skull
C1: It would not be surprising that the Starchild skull was human

I will argue that P1 is false; the Peruvian skull is not human. DNA evidence shows that the Peruvian skull has mutations in its mitochondrial DNA unknown to humans. [1] This alone might not be considered proof that the Peruvian skull is not human, but my opponent must prove it is human in order to use it as evidence for his arguments.

DNA Tests
Something that is important to know is that the DNA recovery is a recent science. The human genome wasn"t recovered until 2003. And ancient DNA (like DNA from the Starchild skull) is even harder to sequence since DNA degrades over time. The only DNA tests that can give any support to the Starchild skull being human were done in 1999 and 2003. My opponent was unable to give a more recent DNA test result that supports the Starchild skull being human. Scientists have gotten a lot better at DNA recovery since then, and it is malicious to insist that those earlier DNA tests results were accurate when much newer DNA tests say otherwise.

My opponent accused me of misinterpreting the mitochondrial DNA results. My opponent"s source agreed that 342 base pairs produced no significant similarities. If your mitochondrial DNA is not human, then your mother was not human, which means you were not human, since mitochondrial DNA. It had a significant amount of non-human DNA so it was not human. The results were not misinterpreted.

[1] http://www.ancient-origins.net...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wylted

Pro

I think when deciding the winner of this debate we need to look at what is most likely. Is the Star child skull which appears human, was found along side other human bones and had human DNA human or some other creature that has yet to be discovered or is quite possibly an alien and human hybrid?

SHAPE OF THE SKULL


My opponent has claimed human skulls don't look like that. I've shown that when you look at the Peruvian skull shaping practices along a few rare diseases that could contribute to the skulls shape being a little odd. I've shown that in fact a lot of people as much as 5% don't have sinuses and when you combine that with the fact many people don't develop them until later in life the fact that an odd shaped skull coming out of and back from the time frame when skull shaping practices were widespread isn't surprising.



As far as the Xray my opponent provided as new evidence in the final round I have no ideal what I'm looking at. I'm not a doctor I doubt most of the voters are. I have no clue how to locate sinuses in an Xray. To be honest I'm not completely sure what a sinus is.



DNA ANALYSIS



I've shown DNA evidence where human DNA was recovered from the starchild that indicated the starchild descended from a native American race. My opponent has failed to show why the DNA tests confirming the skull is human is wrong. He merely speculates it is because later tests had a harder time recovering it. The later tests despite being slightly more advanced had a more difficult time recovering DNA because exposure to multiple X-rays actually degrade DNA and make it harder to recover as I explained and my opponent offered no rebuttals for.



As far as the mutations are concerned I've explained how Mr. Pye likely misinterpreted the data because he is just an ancient astronaut theorit reading papers recording a science experiment. Neither me nor my opponent have access to this paper. My opponent is just going off of a random dude with no background in science's interpretation. While I'm going off of the interpretation of somebody wih a background in science.



It's unfortunate that all this data is 2nd hand knowledge and not easily accesible to the public, but that's the way it is.



CONCLUSION



Let's apply a little common sense here. The Skull is by all appearances to the plain eye an oddly shaped human skull. Taking into account the Peruvian skull shaping practices as well as at least one rare disease affecting the shape of the skull and not to mention 2 DNA tests that recovered human DNA from the skull. It can easily be concluded that the skull is human. Vote Pro

Debate Round No. 3
RainbowDash52

Con

Evidence my opponent did not refute
I explained how the

  • Starchild skull does not have a brow ridge, even though all primates including humans have brow ridges

  • St archild"s eye sockets were too shallow to be human

  • Starchild"s foxp2 gene had too many mutations to be human to survive



But my opponent gave no explanation to any of these. Any one of these points alone is enough to conclude that the Starchild is most likely not human. The only deformities my opponent mentioned were hydrocephaly and progeria, neither of which can explain the first 2 points, and my opponent made no reference to the DNA test that extracted the foxp2 gene.

My opponent"s repeated mistakes

Peruvian skull

  • my opponent explained how Peruvian skulls have extremely deformed and argued that it is likely that the Starchild skull had similar deformities

  • I explained how the Peruvian skull is likely not human and therefor its physical features aren"t a result of deformities

  • my opponent continues to claim that the Peruvian skull shifting practice as demonstrated by the Peruvian skulls could explain the Starchild"s abnormal features without refuting my argument that those Peruvian skulls might not be human



Lloyd Pye

  • In my opponent"s first round argument, he claimed my arguments would mostly rely on the "BS artist" Lloyd Pye

  • I cited evidence from Craniofacial expert Dr. Ted Robinson

  • Afterwards my opponent claims "My opponent is just going off of a random dude with no background in science's interpretation"



Conclusion
I explained that the more Recent DNA tests are more reliable than the older DNA tests conducted when ancient DNA recovery was new. My opponent gave no reason why the first DNA test is more reliable. I gave abnormalities of the Starchild skull that my opponent was unable to give human deformities that could explain them all. Hydrocephaly and progeria can"t explain shallow eye sockets or missing brow ridge. Since the Starchild skull has physical abnormalities that can"t be explained with human deformities, and even more features that are rarely caused by human deformity, in addition to the fact that current DNA tests show it to not be human, it can be concluded that the Starchild skull is not human.
Wylted

Pro

I actually thought round 3 was the last round for some odd reason and treated it as such. I don't think there really is much to say here without bringing in new evidence so I'll just go over a few important points.

I don't think I'm required to account for every single abnormality a 600 year old skull that has no reliable chain of custody has. Especially when you consider that it's been treated as more sacred than the shroud of Turin.

I showed DNA evidence that the skull is human. The DNA was specific enough to narrow down where the starchild's ancestors were from. I've explained how the earlier tests found DNA easier because the DNA hadn't been corrupted by the effect of the radiation from Xrays.

We need to look at what the most likely scenario is. This is a human skull found next to another human. It had human DNA. It looks human, though abnormal.

This skull is only 600 years old. This skull comes from a human sized humanoid creature at the very least. It's very hard to believe a human looking creature from merely 600 years ago has escaped discovery or has went extinct without discovery, especially one that lived with and among humans.

If it's not an undiscovered species than it would have to be an extraterrestrial. It's hard to believe that an alien species would travel billions of light years and have one of their crew die on Earth and just leave his body to rot on this planet.

If it's a hybrid than what are the chances that an alien banging a human would be compatible enough to have a child.

The most likely scenario especially conidering the DNA evidence which my opponent failed to show was unreliable is that the skull is human.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Seems interesting. I'll look at it when I have time. I'd like to see the evidence for more skull capacity as well, but I believe that if you stretch the skull out that way it makes sense to have more capacity. There have been studies done to show that surprisingly cultures who shaped skulls didn't affect the individuals IQ who's skull was shaped. I could have sworn it would make them retarded, but apparently not.
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
The main argument I have heard for the peruvian skulls not being human is that although you can deform the shape of a skull significantly, you can't increase a skull's brain volume. Since the peruvian skulls have significantly increased brain volume, it indicates that they aren't misshaped human skulls.

Also while working on my last round debate, I came across a new piece of evidence for the Starchild skull, but bringing up new evidence in the final round seemed unfair. Apparently about 5 months ago another skull similar to the starchild skull was found:

https://www.youtube.com...

The fact a second skull shares the same abnormalities with the Starchild skull and that if they were human, they must have shared the same rare combination of unheard of deformities, and that compounds the unlikliness of them just having human deformities.

I am not sure if this would have changed anyone's mind about the Starchild skull, but it is worth mentioning.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Yes the elongated skulls I definitely think are human, some tribes of people still shape skulls in the same exact way, I believe. It's meant to show privalige. Even ancient astronaut theorists believe the elongated skulls are human, they just speculate the Peruvians were mocking what they seen from alien visitors. Aside from that, Actually the earlier DNA tests found human DNA, and the XRays caused degradation of the DNA material. That's why the earlier testing is more reliable.

The later testing isn't necessarily unreliable but we need to understand it's limitations. I think Sitchen's stuff is great, but a lot of experts think he's a quack and intentionally mistranslating stuff. My personal belief is that we haven't been visited by aliens, but if we have than Sitchen's theories are probably the most accurate.
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
The reasoning Lloyd gave for using secret labs was that most labs didn't want to be associated with a claimed to be alien skull, so they used secret labs, which seems plausable to me.

Even if you don't trust the more recent dna tests because they controlled the testing, it has several physical features that are unexplainable with any known deformities. I would think it being a new species would be more likely than it having several deformities so rare that they are unheard of.

I have already read the book of enoch, and I am familiar with the basics of Sitchens stuff. Sitchens explanations of the annunaki are probably the most plausable explanation I have heard, although I am not completely convinced.

Also, the elongated peruvian skulls, you think they are human too?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I think it's human. Lots Pye is an honest guy, but he wants to believe an will even rationalize things to the point of ridiculousness. The foundation he started is full of crackpots and they control the testing too much. They've even went so far as to have testing done by secret labs. I think despite this, the evidence points to a human skull.

If you believe in aliens and think they've visited the Earth, look into Zachariah Sitchen's stuff. His stuff is way more convincing than that.

I'd start with the book of Enoch, but really any of Sitchen's stuff is good. There is only a handful of people in the planet who are actually capable of translating ancient Sumerian as well, so what he writes about is hard to disprove.
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
Wylted, now that the voting is over, I am curious what your beliefs on the starchild skull were before and after the debate, if you don't mind answering.
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
WhiteFlame, I appreciate your detailed RFD, but I actually did give an explanation as to why it is a simple likely explanation that the Starchild skull is not human in the first paragraph of my round 3 argument. If you want to say that it wasn't a good argument, that is fine, but I think it is unfair to say I didn't address whether it is the more simple and likely possibility and thus if Occam's razor goes with or against me.

Just for the record I really care more about spreading truth than just winning. I don't want people to think I am just commenting here to only change votes.
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
I guess I am surprised people consider the 1999 dna test more reliable than the 2011 and 2012 dna tests.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Give her a break. I had to twist her arm to get you the conduct piint
Posted by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
I would also appreciate a more detailed RFD from jonjonbon, but it says she is not accepting messages at this time. "more reliable evidence and logical argumentation" is about as vague as it gets.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
RainbowDash52WyltedTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. This is due to Pro's failure to "pass" the last round as requested by Con in R1. S&G - Tie. Neither made any major spelling or grammatical errors. Sources - Tie. Both weren't direct sources but rather 2nd-hand as Pro points out, thus I leave this tied. Arguments - Pro. I noticed a few dropped arguments from both sides. Con dropped the arguments for diseases raised by Pro after R2, as well as the C & Y chromosomes. Pro dropped a few of the physical features arguments. I view the drops by Con as more detrimental though due to the conflicting evidence of C & Y chromosomes being very important to the main line of argumentation regarding DNA. Also, Con never rebutted against Pro's point of DNA tests being less effective due to wear and tear from previous x-rays. This leads me to accept the earlier DNA tests as more accurate, regardless of newer technology since it still fails to correct the errors. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RainbowDash52WyltedTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Ugh. I can't really state where this debate went wrong, but it seems to me like something went wrong here. Con spends much of the debate just poking holes in possible ideas for how the starchild skull could be explained and still be human. Pro tries to show that each of these reasons is flawed. Pro isn't fully responsive to every point made by Con, which is what throws this into question. Do the points made by Con show that there's uncertainty? Yes. But Pro doesn't have the full burden of proof. He gives me a lot of reasons why it could be human and provides me with Occam's Razor as a way to measure whether Con has met his burden. Con never really addresses this, and that's the problem. It's the sole weighing mechanism in the debate, and Con allows Pro to run away with it. Even if the deformities and huge genetic mutations have never been seen before, I would still have to buy that it's more likely to be human than not. Hence, I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
RainbowDash52WyltedTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: pro showed excellent evidence for the fact that the skull was human, and highlighted the fact that, regardless of the DNA mutations, the skull is still human. Conduct to con because pro was supposed to PASS the last round
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
RainbowDash52WyltedTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was not supposed to post in the last round, which necessitates a loss of conduct points. As for arguments, basically all that needs to be said is that pro provided the most likely position through more reliable evidence and logical argumentation. Con had the burden to provide sufficient reasoning to believe the starchild skull is not human. Con did not do that.