The Instigator
Samyul
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The Theory of Evolution is False

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 10 votes the winner is...
emospongebob527
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,469 times Debate No: 26315
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (117)
Votes (10)

 

Samyul

Pro

Welcome Challenger;
As the opponent, you will argue against the fact that the theory of evolution is indeed false. You will prove me wrong when I state, "Evolution is a flawed theory, and is false." You will agree with the theory of evolution, and will stand by your belief.
The only rule I ask of you is that you simply restrict the first round to greetings/acceptance. The rest of the debate rounds will be why Evolution is true or false.
I thank you in advance for the acceptance of the debate and look forward to a good, fact based debate. I also think that it is relevant to state that I am Christian.
emospongebob527

Con

Hello Samyul!

I'm glad to be debating with you, you may now present your case.

Debate Round No. 1
Samyul

Pro

First off I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I look forward to hearing your arguments. And now, in to the debate.
The Theory:
The theory of evolution is- (according to medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com)
1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one to another.
2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.

Problem with the definition
Not only is the theory flawed, but the definition itself is. The definition states "a continuing process of change," when in fact, it is not continuing. Evolution has actually stopped for over 600 generations! Now, correct me if I'm incorrect and absurd when I say this, but there has been no cases of humans evolving in the past thousand plus years. Another excerpt from the definition, "groups of organisms change with the passage of time," is also false. No group of organisms have changed, like I stated above, in the past one thousand plus years. Not only is the theory itself flawed, but its very own definition.

How did evolution start?
Yes, this is a question to my opponent. I would like you, to please, explain the first living cell to me, considering no other scientist logically can. Also, please explain what caused the cell to form, and what caused it to evolve.
Many of the theories supporters state, (abovetopsecret.com) that lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in such a random way by which chance resulted in a living cell.
This cell then evolved in to higher life forms. This view is now immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most technologically advanced modern science laboratory is unable to create a living cell, considering the fact that they do have resources available to them such as electricity and water. The scientists still are unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. So, I ask of you to please explain the first cell on Earth to me.

Evolution is a theory
The fact that evolution is still considered a scientific theory suggests one thing, it cannot be proven true. If it was certain to be proven with out a doubt true, it would be a scientific law. There is a difference.
A scientific theory is a guess or belief that something is true, not necessarily correct. The theory may be supported by an association or group of people, and also may not.
A scientific law is something that has been proven scientifically correct and true in numerous accounts.

So I ask of you and the audience, if evolution is indeed scientifically proven authentic, then why is it still examined and considered a scientific theory? If it was to be found accurate on numerous accounts, not just one, then it would be considered a law; but it has not.

To finish up my opening statements, I would like to state the logically quote, stating "you can't get something from nothing" Life is not one colossal, arbitrary coincidence. The flawed theory of evolution is scientifically false, which is why it remains a theory. I would like to finish off by a former atheist's , and departed evolution supporter's , quote on evolution,

"A man feels wet when he falls in to water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet, because a fish is a water animal"
-C.S. Lewis



Resources used in the previous statement
medical-dictionary.freedictionary.com
abovetopsecret.com
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis





emospongebob527

Con

I would like to inform Samyul, the audience and the voters that my resolution will not be:

"Evolution is True" but will instead be: "Evolution is not false"

Rebuttals to "Problem with the definition"

My opponent's argument is surprisingly weak and is not bound in logic, but I will refute it anyway.

Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.

My opponent presents the "It hasn't been witnessed, therefore it is false" fallacy. How would you like it if I applied that same argument to the Creationism theory..... We didn't witness God create the universe therefore he didn't. Exactly. All your arguments are illogical. And an even juicier question: Has anyone witnessed God? No.
Therefore he doesn't exist. Stop applying false logic. My rebuttal to your claim is below:
Because for many species, humans included, evolution happens over the course of many thousands of years, it is rare to observe the process in a human lifetime. Usually only laboratory scientists studying quickly reproducing life forms, like single-celled creatures and some invertebrates, have the opportunity to see evolutionary change happen before their eyes. All of us can and do experience the indirect effects of evolution nearly every day, however. One of the more important evolutionary concerns facing humans today is the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes. A battle against bacteria that we have been winning with medicine for the last 50 years or so is now an even race, according to some scientists -- because of the rapid rate of bacterial evolution. Similarly, the use of pesticides in agriculture has driven the evolution of resistant insects that require more or harsher chemicals to be killed. Scientists studying Galapagos finches have seen evolutionary changes in beak size and shape in just a few years. Major evolutionary transformations take much, much longer.
Rebuttals to "How did evolution start?"

Berkeley College examines such a claim as this like this:

Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started, but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

The point of Evolution is that it doesn't start or stop at any given point. It's a natural process that happens throughout life. Evolution is caused by triggers in genes. Different animals have different triggers. These triggers can be caused by different things, but most commenly a change in habitat.


Evolution is a theory

First off I would like to criticize my opponent's brash definition:

scientific theory
is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org...

My opponent's belief that a theory is a "guess" or "belief" is quite absurd, So in contrast, evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a theory in the sense that the various facts, tested hypothesis bearing on evolution can be broadly explained as a manifestation of the same overall process. However, it is a fact because many of its compontents are so well observed and documented that they cannot be reasonably disputed.

My opponent applies the "you can't get something from nothing" premise, I would like to address my opponent that the Theory of Evolution is not concerned with the beginning of the universe it is only concerned with the progression and development of life from that point.

My opponents asserts that evolution which is both a theory and a fact is completely false. This premise is very abusive.

A theory can never be proven false, only true.

I heavily apologize but I will be unable to post my case for Evolution until the next round because of time and text space constraints.

Thank you.














Debate Round No. 2
Samyul

Pro

Thank You Con,

Now, my opponent claims that my argument is 'surprisingly weak' when in fact that statement is some what hypocritical. This is not an insult debate though, and would like to refrain from that. So I will just begin-

The Witnesses of Evolution
My opponent states when talking about the time process of evolution, and I quote, "The process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of years," Therefore, my opponent is stating that evolution is too slow to observe in a human life time. Then goes on to say that since God was never witnessed (Although he was, I will get in to this in a second) nobody can say for sure that he created the universe. So, if an un-witnessed God is not true, how is an un-witnessed theory?
Evolution may actually have been witnessed, but never directly seen, Nobody has had a first hand account of seeing evolution in action, but they have with Jesus. Jesus has been described as a historical figure not only in the Holy Bible, but other history books in the world, and has been described in numerous different languages. Evolution, unlike religious theories like God, has never been witnessed first hand by a human. No human has directly seen it happen.

How did evolution start?
I asked my opponent to describe the first cell of evolution to me in the second round, in which I would like to point out, my opponent never did. Now, there is reasoning for this in, yes my opponent's side of the argument and I will state it. My opponent says that evolution is a continuing cycle, and a continuing cycle is a circular type cycle with no beginning or end. There's no start or stop at any given point. My opponent specifically says, "Evolution doesn't start or stop at any given point," Now, this is a statement in which I believe can not be applied to a theory like evolution. Evolution is not a circular type path in which all animals are in. If you, then humans would either be evolving as we speak, which isn't true, because we have had humans as we know for over two thousand years (More than enough time to evolve) or they would begin to evolve in to a lower form, which like I just said, they have enough time. Evolution is not something that goes in a circle, things do not evolve up to a higher form then begin to evolve in to a lower being. Therefore, evolution must have a beginning.

Now that I have responded accordingly to my opponents claims, I can go in to one last topic I would like to bring up as a point to disprove evolution.

Species without a link
Now, evolution may provide reasons for how organisms such as humans, birds, dogs, ect. got here, but there are also a lot of animals "without a link" On the website http://www.abovetopsecret.com..., there's a page titled. "Ten Scientific Facts: Evolution is False and Impossible" I would encourage all of you to read all ten facts on the site, it is very informative, but fact number two is the one I would like to draw attention to. It reads-

"The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution."

There are species without a link! Evolution is a theory which can not account for all animals, which leads me to the question, "How did those animals get there?"

Now, with the new argument and response to my opponent's claims, I turn the debate over to my opponent.
Thank you.


Source-
http://www.abovetopsecret.com...





emospongebob527

Con

I would like to inform the voters that my opponent has dropped his R1 arguments: "Problem With The Definition" and "Evolution is a Theory" and I urge the voters to deduct conduct points from him because of this.

Rebuttals to: "The Witnesses of Evolution"

Evolution has been witnessed:

Live Evolution Witnessed In Controlled Environment Of Microbial Predator And Prey

ScienceDaily (Mar. 10, 2009) — Observing the mechanisms of evolution in order to understand how a species adapts to another under different ecological conditions was the goal of researchers at the Laboratoire Écologie et Évolution at CNRS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie and the École Normale Supérieure. They studied two bacteria -- a predator and a prey -- over 300 generations in a controlled environment.

For the first time, these scientists were able to demonstrate that the coevolutionary process is dependent on ecological conditions. Indeed, under certain conditions, the prey becomes resistant to the predator, which itself evolves so that it can attack this new prey. In addition, the scientists issued a warning against the previously envisaged use of this predator (Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus) as a "living antibiotic" because, like other antibiotics, this could lead to the selection of resistant pathogenic bacteria.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...;

Now to attack My opponent's second R2 rebuttal to my rebuttal:

Pro claims Jesus existed and people witnessed him which my opponent doesn't elaborate on or provide a BOP for this claim, therefore he's simply asserting Jesus existed and people witnessed him. Alright according to the principles of Trinitarianism which is more common among Christians than Unitarianism, God is three persons; The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Now having said that even after his death and resurrection Jesus never becomes God he unifies with him. Pro goes as far as saying Jesus was a God when people supposedly witnessed him. Why is this wrong; in The Bible it states;

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst . . . you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless man . . . This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses . . . Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."


(Acts 2:22-36)


Rebuttals to: "
How did evolution start?"


Humans are evolving more quickly than at any time in history, researchers say. In the past 5,000 years, humans have evolved up to 100 times more quickly than any time since the split with the ancestors of modern chimpanzees 6m years ago, a team from the University of Wisconsin found. The study also suggests that human races in different parts of the world are becoming more genetically distinct, although this is likely to reverse in future as populations become more mixed. "The widespread assumption that human evolution has slowed down because it's easier to live and we've conquered nature is absolutely not true. We didn't conquer nature, we changed it in ways that created new selection pressures on us," said anthropologist Dr John Hawks, who led the study. The researchers analysed data from the international haplotype map of the human genome, and analysed genetic markers in 270 people from four groups: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba and northern Europeans. They found that at least 7% of human genes have undergone recent evolution. The changes include lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial resistance to diseases such as malaria among some African populations, according to the study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Some of the changes were tracked back to just 5,000 years ago, and "today they are in 30 or 40% of people because they [are] such an advantage," said Hawks. Many Chinese and African adults cannot digest lactose in milk, but across Europe a lactose-tolerance gene is now widespread. One reason is thought to be that at northern latitudes sunlight is weaker, so people make less vitamin D in their skin. Vitamin D is crucial for absorbing calcium, so being able to digest milk throughout life made people in colder climes healthier. The surge in global population had also led to faster evolution since more mutations occur, the researchers said. They believe that in future, the tendency to start families later in life will drive evolution. "People are having problems with infertility, so any kind of genetic variation that increases the success of later fertility will be selected for," said Hawks.

http://abcnews.go.com...

http://www.godandscience.org...

I apologize but I will not be able to rebut my opponent's third contention until next round, due to time and text space constraints.







Debate Round No. 3
Samyul

Pro

Now in to the final round;

Rebuttal to Opponent's response in round 3
First off, when my opponent talks about evolution being witnessed my opponent quotes writing about a predator and prey relationship gradually being evolved in a laboratory. This is not stating evolution of organisms is being witnessed. It is not showing how the evolution of a species has been witnessed. Now, some would say that a natural predator/prey relationship is in fact evolution, which indeed it is, but not the growing of a species in to a new form. Also, the article is about bacteria, a micro-organism. Micro Organism evolution is happening currently. Micro organisms do evolve, but not organisms with the complexity of a giraffe or a human being. Here is a website page dedicated to the response of a book approving of evolution. There is a subtitle titled; "Why We've Never Seen it," you may read that if you like, I will post it below. The evolution of a species or organism such as a human or a dog or even a pig has never been witnessed. Because it is not happening, there is no genetic proof.

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...

My opponent also claims that evolution in humans is still taking place, when indeed, it is at an unusual halt, which evolutionists cannot explain in logical detail. Due to text restraints, and since most of my opponents last argument was direct quotes from websites, I will leave a cite defending the idea that human evolution is at a halt, never to start up again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Humans are not evolving anymore. Some may argue larger features such as height, eyes, head, bone structure, ect. But all of these, "newly evolved humans" are at random. No science has ever proven that evolution is still currently taking place, if anything, science has only proven that it is no longer taking place. If you, as my opponent can tell my one evolutionary feature that humans have now that they didn't twenty years ago, I will be impressed.


Final Statement

My final statement will be more extensive than in this debate than they have in my previous debates.
First off, the voting. I understand that this website is predominantly atheist. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Now, most, not all by any means, atheists believe in the theory of evolution. The only thing I ask is that you do not vote bias, I am not suggesting that my audience will, I just ask for them to take it in to consideration.
Next, the basic idea that evolution is a flawed theory.
1) All animals cannot be explained by evolution, and on a evolution chart, they have been filled in with imaginary animals never seen to exist
2) Evolution has never been witnessed with the except of micro evolution.
3) Lack of life on Mars proves evolution wrong.
4) Chaos from organization Proves evolution wrong.
5) Single cell complexity proves evolution wrong.
6) Birds prove natural selection is wrong

Most of these were taken from this site;

http://www.abovetopsecret.com...

All of the details on those six bullet points are explained in much detail on that website. I will also explain them in a one to two sentence explanation.
1) Self explanatory

2) Stated in the earlier part of this round

3) Mars, (according to evolution) has or once had the right conditions for evolution to take place. Why is there still no life?

4) Second law of thermodynamics proves organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists.

5) I apologize, but this may take longer than one to two sentences to explain. So I will quote the paragraph;
"Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals."

6) Also to extensive to wrap up in a brief sentence, and also too long to quote! Therefore, you will have to visit the site.


I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate, thanks to everybody in the comments having interesting side debates, and thanks to my future voters for reading the debate.


Sources-

http://www.abovetopsecret.com...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

http://scienceagainstevolution.info...
















emospongebob527

Con

Rebuttal to Species Without A Link-

I seldom see the logic that missing links proves evolution completely false for scientists do not "line up imaginary creatures that best fit the picture" as my opponent said.

Although I will provide methods scientists use to keep track of common descent-

  • Anatomical homologies - Throughout the domains of life, organisms show a distinct pattern of constraints based on homology in development and construction of the body. For example, tetrapods have five digits because the ancestor of tetrapods had five digits. When a tetrapod does not seem to have five obvious digits, a review of their development shows that they start development with five and that they fuse together later to form fewer numbers.
  • DNA and RNA code - Almost all organisms use the same three-letter code for translating RNA into proteins. There are variations, such as the code used by mitochondria and some bacteria and fungi, but the differences are only minor. Regardless of the slight differences, all organisms use the same coding mechanism for translating the code into amino acid sequences.
  • Endogenous retroviral insertions - Ancient retroviruses inserted inactivated viral genes into genomes. For a retrovirus to be inherited in all members of a species, a series of highly improbable events must occur. The virus must insert into a gamete cell and it must mutate so it is inactive. That gamete cell must be used to make an embryo that lives to reproduce and whose genome fixates into the population at random location in the genome. This rare event is usually species specific.
  • Pseudogenes - Shared errors are a powerful argument for a common source. If two books describe the same concept in similar language, it's possible they just both converged on the same wording. However, if they both share the same grammar or spelling errors it becomes improbable to assume that they did not derive from a common source. There are genes that no longer code for a protein due to a mutation or error. Species often share the same pseudogene with the same inactivating mutation. A famous example of this is the L-gulonolactone oxidase that synthesizes vitamin C. All simians including humans share one pseudogene of inactivated L-gulonolactone oxidase, but the guinea pig has a different pseudogene indicating a different mutation.
  • Embryology - The pharyngula stage of embryonic development appears to be highly conserved. At this stage, it is difficult to tell the difference between various vertebrate species. This conserved state screams common ancestry, and the field of evolutionary development has expanded our knowledge of developmental genes and their consequent embryo ontogeny to amazing levels of detail, all thanks to acknowledging common descent.
  • Chromosome fusion - Gene fusion or chromosome fusion is when two chromosomes are spliced together. As an example, chimpanzees have one more chromosome than humans do. If the two species share a common ancestor, scientists should be able to figure out what happened to that chromosome. Researchers have found that chromosome 2 in humans is actually the fusion of two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. At the end of each chromosome is a marker called a telomere, which usually appears only on the ends. In human chromosome 2 it also appears in the center, marking where the two ends fused.
  • Convergence - The phylogenetic trees constructed using anatomical homology, DNA homology, pseudogenes, endogenous retroviral insertions, and many other methods all converge on a similar looking tree. There are slight differences but the general relationships of the trees are intact. If any of these methods were flawed, they would not converge on the same tree.
As you can see the process for this is very genuine and isn't just a guess.

Rebuttal To My Opponent R4 Response-

And of course my opponent isn't sticking to his resolution, I will have to explain:


As you can see my claim for microevolution is relevant to species change and macroevolution because one is responsible for another.

Pro writes.......... "My opponent also claims that evolution in humans is still taking place"........

No explanation, only an assertion, no evidence has been provided.

Pro writes.......... "Humans are not evolving anymore"..............

You may want to reference back to my R2 explanation of this because you are obviously ignoring it.

Rebuttal to:

Point 1) Already refuted

Point 2) Already refuted

Point 3) You have given no evidence to support this claim.

Point 4) My opponent obviously does not get the concept of evolution species do not rearrange themselves, they form into higher forms of life through speciation and natural selection.

Point 5) Evolution is completely unrelated to the beginning of the universe, already addressed.

Resolution Negated.

I'd like to thank m opponent for an evolutionary spectacle! Happy Voting!

Debate Round No. 4
117 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CRSdave 4 years ago
CRSdave
And I thought this had ended 40 comments ago...
Posted by Samyul 4 years ago
Samyul
I feel as if this debate has been given so much hate because of my opponents "advertising" I am very displeased with my opponent for giving this debate a bad reputation.
And Imabench, are you saying you awarded a conduct point on this debate? Because on your vote you gave no points.
I feel like my opponent has made people dislike this debate and me (the creator of the debate) am very angry that people don't like MY debate because of my opponent.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
"1. See how I solved this situation? I told Airmax about it. Now everything is peachy-keen. Why couldn't you do the same?"

Because I was following suit with everyone else for giving a single conduct point to the pro for emo's relentless advertising of this debate.

2. They were votebombs. A votebomb is a poorly-reasoned RDF or an RDF with no relation to the actual debate. How would you like it if I gave your opponent a point on every one of your debates?"

I gave one conduct point on one debate, a votebomb around here means someone awards 5, 6, or 7 points based on a horrible RFD. Plus everyone had a good reason for giving conduct to the pro in this debate.
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
@ishallannoyyo

But God can anything, even overcome a paradox.

School biology textbooks really simplify biology and don't provide both sides of the story. Refer to the part on my previous post about only hearing the prosecution.

What were the creationist arguments you were not convinced by? Because if they were ones made by some random blogger, or your friend who flunked biology, I hardly think it is surprising they did not convince you. Furthermore, most evolutionists do not know most of the better creationist arguments, and often claim we believe in stuff we don't.

"Furthermore, I"m not going to look at creation.com. Why don" t you look at evolution.com? I try to find unbiased sources that present the information." This statement reveals your inner bias. What makes you think that just because someone is a creationist, their argument will be misleading?Just because we are creationists does not mean that we are ignorant or deceiving.

And what makes you think just because argument is on evolution.com it will be perfectly clear and concise? I won't deny that Creationists start with a bias, I mean, otherwise we wouldn't even be promoting it. But evolutionists are the same. When you present your evidence in hopes of convincing someone, and you have already concluded that evolution is correct.

Actually he is giving you a choice. Give him his due respect and love (see my other post) and acknowledge what he did, or go in hell for your for your blind ungratefulness. And also, God knows everything. He knows whether you really do love and respect him. So it's not that you've a choice of; "Oh dear. If I don't worship God I'll go to Hell." It's a choice of: "I'm grateful for what God has done for me, and I'm going to worship him because of that, not because if I don't I'll go to hell.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
jk
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
kkk
Posted by tvellalott 4 years ago
tvellalott
You can post to the forums, just don't post a link begging for votes in the middle of a mafia game.
1) We have a thread for unvoted/tied debates.
2) You didn't even give people enough time to find this debate on the front page; voting started what, like 6 hours ago.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
So I can't?:

Post to forums.

Troll debates

Concede Debates?
Posted by tvellalott 4 years ago
tvellalott
emo, if you want respect you have to earn it.
Please don't ever, ever advertise your crappy debates in a mafia game again. That sucks.
You can cease being a newb as soon as you stop acting like one. 2 months of being active is plenty to become part of the community.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
"We had to since Emo spammed the sh*t out of it so much... President Airmax had to step in to sort this out while the mods had to go and eliminate the threads he advertised in, and prior to that Emo had brought this on himself through his sheer ignorance of why you shouldnt advertise debates in other people's sh*t.... Also, Emo calling all of our votes 'votebombs' when all of them only were worth 1 point each (until you stepped in) was also a troll move by Emo, and then when he threatened to leave the site it only further underlined how much of a noob hes been...."

1. See how I solved this situation? I told Airmax about it. Now everything is peachy-keen. Why couldn't you do the same?
2. They were votebombs. A votebomb is a poorly-reasoned RDF or an RDF with no relation to the actual debate. How would you like it if I gave your opponent a point on every one of your debates?
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by CRSdave 4 years ago
CRSdave
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The above^ Good debating on both sides. I feel every evolutionist attempts to sidestep abiogenesis. because they just cannot explain it. Even though its all tied together. I give the conduct point to pro because from the looks of these comments, con has been a total troll. I also believe pro had the source count edge.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tut tut
Vote Placed by tvellalott 4 years ago
tvellalott
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh my goodness! This is one of the worst attempts to debunk evolution I've ever seen. Arguments to Con (though you weren't particularly strong) simply because Pro was so, so weak. Conduct to Con because Pro continuously made red herring and strawman arguments. Gah. My brain hurts.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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: The current votes which are not related to anything within the debate are from Chicken and Ober, resulting in 2 - 0 for Pro. I will be countering this to an 2 - 2 balance by voting 0 - 2. If any of the votes which are not related to this debate change, please PM me so I may remove or correct my counter. Thank you,
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Next time dont advertise so goddamn much
Vote Placed by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Votes off.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Oberherr has the right idea
Vote Placed by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for being an annoying spammer and advertiser on the forums.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Samyulemospongebob527Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I have strong suspicions of plagiarism from both sides that I cannot prove. I tended to agree more with Con in the end. To convince me requires a lot of good arguments, so they go to him. The most convincing, in my opinion, was the ERVs argument.