The Instigator
FritzStammberger
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Enji
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Enji
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,279 times Debate No: 30160
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (84)
Votes (7)

 

FritzStammberger

Pro

There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

Please provide your absolute best piece of evidence that Darwinism is true.

(One kind of animal mutates into another kind of animal over millions of years by random mutation and natural selection.

Every animal and plant breeder knows there are limits to the variations.
(genetic homeostasis).
the maintenance of genetic variability within a population through adaptation to varied or changing environments and conditions of life as a result of shifts or resistance to shifts in allelic frequencies.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I suggest we focus on just your single BEST piece of evidence.
Enji

Con

In On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.” I will show that scientific evidence conclusively shows that this is true.

Contrary to my opponent’s claim, there is no limit to the variation of inherited characteristics over time. Variation in inherited characteristics arises on account of the accumulation of mutations through successive generations. The accumulation of mutations has been observed to result in speciation of plants and animals as seen in ring species. [1]

Cladistics is a method organizing species based on their evolutionary relatedness. By considering synapomorphies (characteristics which are shared by two taxa but not by other outgroups), taxa can be organized into a cladogram showing the relationships between organisms. Using Bayesian inference and temporal data from fossils, the cladogram which best fits the observed data can be found (regardless of the completeness of the fossil record). Out of 1034 different possible trees for 30 taxa, the congruence of cladograms constructed based on different types of traits (for example, molecular traits and morphological traits) is shown to be well within statistical significance and is strong evidence for evolution. [2][3][4]

In “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry”, Douglas Theobald compared the likelihood of a universal common ancestor for explaining the observed homology between organisms with the possibility other hypotheses of multiple ancestors finding that a universal common ancestor is about 102,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis (to put that number into perspective, NASA estimates that there are only about 1080 atoms in the observable universe). The closest competing hypothesis was evolution with descent from separate ancestors for bacteria and for Archaea and Eukarya, not biblical creationism. [5]

Darwin’s proposition that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor is conclusively shown to be true.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[3] http://www.sciencemag.org...
[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[5] http://www.nature.com...

Debate Round No. 1
FritzStammberger

Pro

1. My opponent stated;
"Contrary to my opponent’s claim, there is no limit to the variation of inherited characteristics over time."

- Yes there is!

"Farmers have been breeding pigs for a long time but you will never breed a pig the size of Texas, there are limits to the variations."

- Kent Hovind

2. Ring Species.

- THEY ARE STILL SALAMANDERS!

you can get variations of salamanders but you will NEVER get a sala-MAN!!! (that's my line, pretty good eh?)

3. " Cladograms only demonstrate a nested hierarchy of biological characters; they tell us nothing about what produced the pattern.

Many problems of phylogenetic inference that cladistics claims to solve still remain largely unsolved, such as distinguishing between homology and homoplasy. Perhaps the largest problem, however, is the illusion of evolution that cladograms and the language used to describe them give to the public. They both create the illusion of a resolved genealogy despite some cladists’ disavowal of any strict genealogical connotations."

http://creation.com...

4. synapomorphies

you ASSUME these arise through common ancestry.

this could be evidence for a common designer.

"Similarity in form does not guarantee a common ancestry, and this is an interpretation of the cladogram."

http://creation.com...

"there is no way to tell from the fossils if any lineage has been preserved. Cladistics doesn’t demonstrate evolution. Cladistics is a classification scheme, nothing more."

http://creation.com...

“But doesn’t the fact that organisms lend themselves to being arranged in nested hierarchies of polarized traits (that is, cladograms) itself prove that they evolved that way (or at all)? Hardly. Assuming evolution a priori, one could construct a cladogram that has an 18-wheel truck as its crown group, and which shows a clearly transition-filled, incremental appearance of ‘truckness’, beginning with the stem-group unicycle. Note also that the human, elephant, and bat is each highly-derived fish, just as an 18-wheel truck is a highly-derived unicycle. Such is the reductio ad absurdum of cladistic methodology.”

Woodmorappe, J., Evolutionary cladograms and malevolent, strawmen creationists: a review of Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters by Donald R. Prothero, J. Creation 23(3):39–43, 2009.

This is an excellent paper on this subject here:

http://creation.com...

I think I have demonstrated that these arguments for evolution presented here are no where near conclusive proof of "evolution" nor are they the only interpretation of the scientific data. I can go arrange the boots on my front mat into some order and say look this boot evolved from this shoe over here.

As is stated above:

"the human, elephant, and bat is each highly-derived fish"

IS the reductio ad absurdum of cladistic methodology.


We may remain on this subject if my opponent likes or he can try another argument. Darwinian Evolution is simply not true. It is a lie and if you are open minded you may have to consider for a moment that you have believed a lie. The sooner you admit this to yourself the better. I believed it too for roughly 20 years yet where I once was blind, now I see.
In Jesus name, amen.


Enji

Con

I would like to thank Creation.com for replying, however I would request that FritzStammberger use sources to support his own arguments, rather than simply copying and pasting arguments from the sources.

Use of cladograms in inferring common descent:

My opponent's source, J Woodmorappe, claims that assuming a priori evolution is true, one could construct a cladogram showing common descent in wheeled vehicles. What my opponent's source actually assumes is that one can create an objective hierarchy for wheeled vehicles. This is false. Wheeled vehicles lack synapomorphies which can be used to infer common descent or show a nested hierarchy of traits and various traits which one could attempt to use would reveal a plethora of different nested hierarchies. Using Woodmorappe’s example, should one consider a tricycle to be closer related to a bicycle because it is a single-seat, pedal-power vehicle or to a three-wheel motorcycle because it is a single-seat, three-wheeled, better-stability-when-still vehicle? Is motorized scooter closer related to a motorcycle because it has a motor, or to a unicycle or a bicycle? More problems are encountered when attempting to organize automobiles or bicycles or trucks into their own cladogram. Because the traits being considered aren't inherited from a common ancestor, taxa show a mix of traits, not a nesting of them, and various models can be created in an attempt to organize them. Using Bayesian inference in an attempt to determine which hierarchy of wheeled vehicles is best supported by the data would suggest that common descent did not occur. Similarly, Carl Linnaeus attempted to classify minerals using a methodology similar to cladistics; however this classification was not supported by empirical data or statistical analysis because minerals are not descended from one another and his taxonomy of minerals is not accepted today. [6][7]

The difference between evolution and cladograms of cars or minerals is that evolution is a Markov (random and memoryless) process whereas the design process of cars is not. Mathematical models can be used to test the correctness of phylogenetic inferences, demonstrating that evolutionary hierarchies are objective, unlike hierarchies of minerals and wheeled vehicles, and that cladistics is a valid methodology for determining kinship between taxa. The maths involved in biology conclusively support a universal common ancestor. [5][8][9]

My opponent claims that synapomorphies are evidence of a common designer. However, as shown by Theobald’s article (which does not assume that homology implies common descent), synapomorphies and other evidence overwhelmingly support a universal common ancestor over creationism or alternative evolutionary explanations. [5]

These criticisms also fail to address the nesting of hierarchies constructed based on different data. “If the two [molecular and morphological] phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently.” [10]

There is no limiting mechanism to evolutionary chage:

All of an organism’s inheritable traits are encoded in an organism’s DNA (making up the genome). Change and variation between generations, as observed in ring species and other speciation events, arises on account of mutations in the DNA. These changes are then passed down to offspring. Ring species such as the salamanders in California show that mutations and changes in inherited traits can accumulate to genetic significance, limiting interbreeding between end species and showing demonstrable morphological differences. [11]

My opponent suggests that since we haven’t directly observed change to the extent he desires (e.g. salamander to man, pig to the size of texas) that there is thus no evidence of a change in kind. My opponent must explain why changes in inheritable traits can accumulate past the species level as shown by ring species and observed in other speciation events, but cannot accumulate further with more time. The mathematics involved in biology and phylogenetics show that a universal common ancestor (and as such, nothing preventing the accumulation of changes in inherited traits past the species level) is best supported by empirical evidence.

[Citations are continued from Round 1]

[6] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[10] http://rana.lbl.gov...
[11] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
FritzStammberger

Pro


The Nesting of Hierarchies



I'm going to blow your mind here.



The nesting of hierarchies is because God designed the universe as a holographic fractal.



the different creatures are created within different holographic fractal latices.



for instance humans are a holographic fractal of 1 - 1.618 (golden mean)



infact all creatures may be variations of this golden mean fractal pattern.



This explains why dogs always produce dogs and cats always produce cats, they are different fractal sets.



if this theory is true then there is an optimal human fractal.



an optimal dog fractal.



an optimal cat fractal.




If this theory is true then we would expect to observe that certain frequency vibrations will affect health. This is a way to test this theory.



(this idea was inspired last night.)


Enji

Con

My opponent has presented an unsupported hypothesis without explaining what his hypothesis is or what logical or empirical justification there is to believe it. This makes it rather difficult to respond. However, his hypothesis, as explained, does not explain the nesting of traits nor the twin-nested hierarchy. It also fails to address the conclusive mathematical and empirical evidence for phylogenetics showing all organisms having a universal common ancestor. Evidence shows that, contrary to my opponent's claims, creatures can change over successive generations by significant amounts (e.g. from an original placental mammal to the variety of placental mammals seen today) - thus, my opponent's fractal hypothesis which proposes that different creatures are different fractal sets which can not change into one another is shown to be false. [5][12]

[12] http://www.sciencemag.org...
Debate Round No. 3
FritzStammberger

Pro

Let me ask you a simple yes or no question.

Do you honestly believe that your ancient ancestor was a fish?
Enji

Con

Humans and fish have a common ancestor.
Debate Round No. 4
FritzStammberger

Pro


"Humans and fish have a common ancestor."



This shows the absolute idiotic lunacy of the theory of evolution.



To actually believe that your great great great..so on… ancestor was a fish?? That is pure 100% speculative BELIEF. This is NOT science! this is not testable, repeatable, demonstrable, logical, plausible or even remotely possible.



to say that a creature as complex and endowed with logic, reason, morality and the creative potential that humans posses is descended from a fish, and before that a rock, and before that nothing at all is absolutely absurd and repugnant to reason.



This theory can only be explained if satan is real.



If satan is a real being who wishes to corrupt mankind and lead man away from God then this is exactly what he would say, "you came from a fish", "by accident" this just makes me shake my head.



I am dumbfounded that intelligent grown men can believe such an unsupported, illogical, speculation about how they got here. I wonder, if national geographic had a little drawing of a fish morphing into a human instead of a monkey would anyone still think this was reasonable??



This theory is childish, it is a lie and a deception.



one day this theory of evolution will seem as backward as the sun rotating around the earth (which was fiercely supported by mainstream science for hundreds of years).



Not only have I a countered all of the arguments in this debate for evolution but I have provided a possible alternative that creatures are created by God using fractal geometry just like trees, just like flowers, just like all creation testifies.



"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." ( Romans 1:20 )



- Thus, there is NO proof that Man came from fish.


yet


- The entire Earth and everything in it testifies that God created everything.(using fractal geometry)



"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"


Genesis 3:1 (serpent can be better translated 'shiny one')



If satan can get you to doubt the first page of the bible he is hoping you will reject the REST of the story. I encourage you to pick up a new testament and read it with an open mind and an open heart and ask yourself if this could be talking about the actual creator of the universe.


In Jesus name,


amen


Enji

Con

My opponent may be surprised to learn that humans and bacteria also have a common ancestor - in fact, all life on earth shares a common ancestor. My opponent's incredulity is not an argument against this.

I have shown that evolution (change in inhertiable traits over successive generations) is possible through the accumulation of mutations resulting in genetically significant change as seen in ring species. I have provided conclusive evidence showing that evolution from a universal common ancestor is 102,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis which is evolution from separate common ancestors for bacteria and for Archaea and Eukarya. I have shown that cladistic analysis of empirical data from the fossil record, morphological data, and molecular data is useful and accurate in determining phylogenetic trees showing the evolutionary relationships between organisms. I have explained that cladograms constructed based on unrelated traits reveal the same evolutionary relationships and that this didn't have to happen and that this would not be expected if evolution were false. Darwin’s proposition that all life on earth is descended from a universal common ancestor is conclusively shown to be true.

Debate Round No. 5
84 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
ROFL Devient!
If god didn't want people having sinful sex, god shouldn't have made the penis and clitoris so damn sensitive and the sensation pleasurable.

Silly, stupid god!

Though if sex wasn't pleasurable, we, nor any humans would be here and the world would be dominated by apes who do find sex pleasurable.

Aye M8! |':-D=
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
So here's the deal kids, here is what religion is teaching our children: Everytime god makes something beautiful, that pesky devil finds a way to twist it and make it ugly. Stupid devil!

Perverting the act of sex is the main way the devil goes about hurting god and people. satan is so sneaky that he uses sexual temptation to lure us into degrading ourselves, without god in your life, the devil will win because you are weak, you are nothing, you need god, you are nothing without him, without god you are a sick pervert, he is your master, he is the one calling the shots, he is running the show, you are just a puppet slave in a fictional masochists world :)

Plus since we were born with sin, its in our nature to just give into satans lie that "if it feels good do it". Thats satans way of tricking you. You are just a dumb, worthless, stupid perverted human without god, and god protects you from satan, because if he doesnt protect you, you will give in to degrading yourself because you are weak, you are sick and you are nobody without god, and dont you forget it :)

The bottom line is this according to religious doctrine, the world, our flesh and the devil, have twisted our sexual impulses so much, that god had to step in and set some "laws" so we can know "good sex" from "bad sex".

If god doesnt step in and set some rules, who is gonna protect you from the devil?

You are just a measly human, youre stupid, youre impulsive, youre ungrateful and worthless and you are not in control of your life, god is and dont you forget whose property you are, god bought you at a price you worthless twit, now bow your head and pray or go to hell :)

Awwwww, what a Sweetheart that lord is :)
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
fitzhamburger, "This theory can only be explained if satan is real"

I agree, kinda, the theory of evolution is either satan, or all religions are wrong :)

You are saying the probability of being born into the correct belief supercedes the validity of known 21st Century understandings :)

I'm sorry I don't want to call you dumb or stupid I just think theism is dumb and stupid, but I realise it's not your theism, anyway just don't take it personal :)
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
The teacher made some totally dumb comment like you made Fritzy, such as: "There are no contradictions in the bible". When anybody reading the bible properly, even theologians admit, that there are hundreds of contradictions in the bible. Most religious teachers (indoctrinating / brain washing usurpers) cherry pick around the contradictions, so the victim/student isn't aware of them.

Aye M8! :-D-
Posted by Sagey 4 years ago
Sagey
BTW Fritzy: I never indoctrinated my daughter, nor any of my children into Atheism. I even let her attend religious instruction classes. I just taught them how to read and taught them how to research anything they find interesting. The best thing any parent can give a child is a healthy open, inquiring mind, plus the ability to learn and research.
I am trained as a researcher, so I passed that onto my children.
Once they knew how to approach resources, I simply allowed them to read anything they desired. My daughter was into biology and thus started learning biology and health sciences from the age of 8. Having an open mind, she also questioned the teachings of the religious instruction teacher and discovered the teachings as wrong, then questioned the teacher in class who kicked my daughter out of the class, even though the buybull proved her right.
She showed what she had learnt to the rest of the class afterwards and from then on, nobody in the class would believe the teacher.
All my daughter's class are now atheists, thanks to the RI teacher's ignorance of the buybull and stupidity in denying my daughter justice. Had the teacher done some research, then complimented my daughter on being correct, the class would likely had trusted the teacher.

Such are the dumb narcissistic idiots that teach religion in school!
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
fitzhamburger, I weep for your children or future children.

Poor little thing being indoctrinated before even able to think critically. Now they will be going to go through life thinking that the reason for everything is a sky daddy. Oh well, I think people who begin as theists and who get educated enough, are more likely to turn Intellectual Advocates later in life like I did :)
Posted by ishallannoyyo 4 years ago
ishallannoyyo
LOLOLOLOL. This is hilarious.

Fritz - "If I can convince one person I'm not a monkey" We did not evolve from monkeys you fool. We evolved from a relative of the ape species.

Fritz - "Salaman (transitional forms)" Someone doesn't understand evolution. We don't see salamans, we see that early neanderthal became us.

Fritz - "Your daughter has been indoctrinated" I could say the same for you.
Posted by WellingtonThomas 4 years ago
WellingtonThomas
And again, don't claim it is not bias. You have been presented with an alternative, whether or not you acknowledge the evidence. You cannot maintain the validity of your own 'Fractal theory' as an unevidenced alternative if you do not acknowledge Darwinism as (at the very least) an equally unevidenced alternative here.
You cannot casually dismiss a point as "silly" in a debate. That undermines the point of a debate.
Posted by WellingtonThomas 4 years ago
WellingtonThomas
Well, if we're talking on a personal level, I'm never going religious. Religions demand far too much obedience, opens you up far too wide for casual manipulation.
As an atheist, I can reject a text, or any component of a text, irregardless of the category I am in.
As a strong Christian, you are technically obliged to agree with your holy text, because it has your gods little sticker of approval on it. That means you must either agree with the bible on such issues as: That it is perfectly fine to own a Canadian if you're an American citizen, that it's fine to sell your daughter into slavery, etc.
It's like comparing modern America to a dictatorship. In America, you have freedom in the technical sense. But you can still be manipulated, lied to. But you can disagree this and still be an unharmed American citizen (well, unless Alex Jones says otherwise apparently).
In a dictatorship, you disagree, the consequences are more severe. Exile, death.
You see my point?
Also, your view that humans as monkeys is a ludicrous idea, is bias, not logic. Do not claim otherwise by introducing that into a debate.
You do have a point perhaps, with atheists turning Christian. Not in that exact form obviously. I started Catholic because that was how I was raised, turned Christian at age 6 and a half, and went Atheist at age 12. But I think whatever belief one has at a certain stage in your life, you are the most likely to reject.
Posted by FritzStammberger 4 years ago
FritzStammberger
Sagey, I weep for your daughter. poor little thing being indoctrinated before she's even able to think critically. Now she's going to go through life thinking that she is a monkey. Oh well, I think people who begin as atheists are more likely to turn christian later in life like I did.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by induced 4 years ago
induced
FritzStammbergerEnjiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros sources are propaganda, and Pro wasnt very logical. Pro jumps to conclusions while claiming that Con jumps to conclusions
Vote Placed by badbob 4 years ago
badbob
FritzStammbergerEnjiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate but I give nod to pro
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
FritzStammbergerEnjiTied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's debate style makes me laugh. He says stuff like "in Jesus' name, amen" as if he isn't aware this makes his arguments repelling to atheists. I gave him convincing argument points for his pig argument, sala-MAN argument, and the touchdown: it is silly to think Con's ancestor was a fish. Conduct to Pro because he asked Con a simple yes/no question and Con dodged it. S&G was tied and I give Con sources because he directly cited peer-reviewed articles but Pro cited a blog-like site. The holographic fractal argument flew right over my head, I must admit.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
FritzStammbergerEnjiTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro has strawmanned con's case. Con claimed that humans and fish have a common ancestor, but pro misinterpreted it as "fish are ancestors of humans" Sources: con provided some non-evolutionist sources, while pro only used creation.com, a really biased source. Arguments: Pro's whole case was like "I must be right, you must be wrong, if I misinterpret your case and then use biased sources and strawmans and fallacies I still win because it is the truth...."
Vote Placed by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
FritzStammbergerEnjiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con... because of well... a lot of reasons, especially his Round 5 statement. Pro used unreliable sources.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
FritzStammbergerEnjiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to CON for using uncontroversial and unbiased sources which, in context, supported his claims that evidence exists for evolution. Convincing to NEITHER, as while PRO simply resorted to silly and nonsensical arguments, CON cannot and could never argue convincingly against the problem of induction. While things may be very certain, no inductive claim can EVER be conclusive; the resolution is technically OBJECTIVELY true. Even so, conduct to CON because PRO made such a bad faith resolution, and mischaracterized the claims made by science; he's a sneaky ****er, and shame on him for it! S&D also to CON due to PRO's awful formatting in his posts.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 4 years ago
GaryBacon
FritzStammbergerEnjiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were definitely better. Whereas Con rebutted all of Pro's points, Pro ignored some of Con's points. As for sources, Con used more sources and also more objective sources. Pro used sources that were clearly biased.