The Instigator
jh1234l
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

World Online Debate Cup-Evolution 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 10 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,620 times Debate No: 59194
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (10)

 

jh1234l

Con

Purpose

This debate is created for the World Online Debate Cup, hosted by Lars Dobbertin-King (Admin, Larztheloser). The rules can be seen here: http://www.edeb8.com... and the current standings can be seen here: http://www.edeb8.com...


Debate Rules

I will take the negative position that evolution is not true. As I have the negative position, the burden of proof, which will be abbreviated in the debate as "BOP", lies on Pro, 9spaceking.

Because the BOP lies on 9spaceking, I would ask that he starts the debate on round 1 (no acceptance). As he has an extra round 1, he should not post new arguments in the last round.

Structure

Round1: rules and first arguments
Round2-3: Arguments and rebuttals
Round4: Rebuttals only, plus conclusions. (Things like persuading others to vote for you, accusations of plagirism, watching Frozen while stuffing potato based starchy snacks into one's face, and etcetera go here.)
9spaceking

Pro

Excellent. It seems the odds are in my favor, regardless of who the BoP is on.

Yes my friends, I know I could troll my opponent by saying evolution exists throughout Pokemon but my opponent could easily rebut this by limiting it down to the real world...or he could counter-troll me by saying we can't possibly get the gems to evolute any Pokemon within the real world, and "evolution" wouldn't be true... :P

Evolution: the change of organisms over time
True: a correct, proven statement/fact
And now, without further ado--
my argument.

1. The Fossil Record
This is simple. "Rocks found in different layers of sedimentary rock deposits" would be a easy way to say that evidence of transition between major groups of evidence. Here's the big "picture:

There are actually lots of complete fossil records. One example is the horse:


Another example is the common scallops:
Changes in the fossil scallop Chesapecten through about 13 million years, shown particularly by the variation in the ‘ear’ on the upper right of each shell (see arrows) and in the ribs on the shell. (Modified from Ward and Blackwelder, 1975)

These examples all show that in fact, animals do change over a long, long time.

2a. Similarity of anatomy within different animals
Take a look at the picture below.

Now take a look at the picture below.
Four species of Devonian trilobites (upper row) compared with four species of Ordovician trilobites (lower row).

And finally, take a look at the picture below.


All of these pictures show similarity within different animals' development, and skeletal structure. For example, both the human, whale, cat and bat have a humerus, a radius, an ulna, metacarpals, and phalanges. The only explanation for the similarity within all these animals is evolution. If this does not convince you, it must be noted that whales also have a completely useless organ...

This is irrefutable proof of the evolutional history of whales. Thus, this is true evidence that evidence exists, along with a common ancestor.
2b. Chemical similarity
Despite how many different kinds of life exist on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things-- evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life. In addition, not only does life have to have DNA, it has to have 7 other things, homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction, as noted by [1]. This only shows that all life are so similar, hinting of a common ancestor and passing down of similar traits as well as different traits. (But these 7-- 8 including DNA--remained)
In fact, to stress this, most living things obtain energy by reproduction, or consuming those reproducers, or consuming the consumers whom consume the reproducers. This just shows another similarity.
Morever, humans have shown massive similarity to chimpanzees/apes. They share more than 97% of DNA [6] and chromosome 2 is corresponding to the apes'. [7]

3. Geographic distribution
Major isolated land areas and island groups, for example, the Galapagos Islands, have often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. To demonstrate this, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals such as horses, bears, dogs, or cats. [2] Land mammals were entirely absent from Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plants, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's interestingly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.
Again, back to the Galapagos Islands. Ever since Darwin stepped onto there, strange animals lurked there that were nowhere else in the world. [3][4] The isolation in addition to evolution is the only explanation to Darwin's find of such unique animals as the Galapagos Turtles, Blue-footed Boobies, Darwin's "finches" [4] and other strange animals.

5. Genetic Changes Over Generations
This is easily demonstrated with the ever-so-changing bacteria, a species very prone to mutations.

Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria
illustration of an experiment showing the evolution of antibiotic resistent bacteria as a result of an antibiotic killing off non-resistant ones and those then reproducing to become a large population that is genetically different from the parent population
Although evolution happens over a very very long time, this is a very quick version that occurs to very few species, particularly bacteria. As demonstrated above, bacteria can mutate so much as to resist the medicine, and through Natural Selection, produce a whole new species.

As if those above arguments weren't enough, people can often use selective breeding to produce very different species. I mean, all of the animal within the picture below are classified as dogs, but they are very different kinds of dogs that obviously show evidence of evolution, however un-natural the process may be.

This is strengthted by the fact that the wolf, dog, and fox all are different species but still share 99.8% of their genes! [5]
canine family tree photos (wolf, dog, and fox) showing the close genetic relationship between wolves and dogs and a somewhat more distant relationship with foxes

Another example is the fast-producing different kinds of insects. They quickly become resistant to any of our bug spray because of the possibility of getting a mutant gene that somehow counters our diseases.

I would type more evidence of evolution, but my fingers are too tired, and I only have about 150 characters left.
So....onto you, con!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(continent)#Human_habitation
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://genome.cshlp.org...
[6] https://answersingenesis.org...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...(human)
Debate Round No. 1
jh1234l

Con

Thanks to Pro for accepting.

1. Transitional Fossils

Pro gives many examples of transitional fossils. However, the examples are across species, rather than across kinds. (e.g. a primate common ancestor to modern primates and humans).

There's also a flaw with the transitional fossil claims. The scientists have compiled a lot of alleged transitional fossils, as you can see here: (http://www.talkorigins.org...) However, when you click on the link, all you get is speculation that it's a transitional fossil because they "look similar", and their order is arbitarily decided.

" Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing)"

Is basically just like

"It has these traits, and looks like a Dinosaur, so I'll slap it inside the timeline without any DNA evidence".

As the transitional fossil claims are ordered arbitarily because "they look similar", they cannot be relied on.

2a. Fetuses

The fetus image that pro used as evidence for evolution was actually faked, and the data was made out of thin air. (http://www.nwcreation.net...) It was made by Ernst Hackel, who blamed the artist of the image for the errors, when he himself drew the entire thing.

2b. Similar anatomical features

The trilobites are, again, change within species. Change within species are not evidence for evolution, in fact, creationists support microevolution but reject macroevolution.

The similar skeletal structures are harder to refute. Let's dissect Pro's argument.

P1: If there are similarities between skeletal structures, it can only be explained with evolution.
P2: There are similarities between skeletal structures.
C: Evolution is true.

All I have to do is to show that one of the premises is wrong. So, I will prove that P1 is wrong, so that the conclusion does not follow.

Con implies in his argument that evolution is the only explanation for the phenomenon, when there are many. One explanation is that they were all made by the same creator, so they have similarities. If the " it can only be explained with evolution." part of P1 is wrong, then the Conclusion becomes "Evolution may be true".

2c. Whale Pelvis

Evolution states that whales evolved from a land mammal. The shrunken bone could not be a pelvis, because if a land mammal's pelvis gets shrunk through evolution, it would not be able to walk on their legs. This shrinking of the pelvis would also crush reproductive organs, as the tail would have to move a lot for the whale to be able to swim. (http://truthvanguard.com...)

2d. Chemical similarity

My opponent made another logical error, just likein 2b. See my refutation in 2b.

Also, the's no evidence that chromosome 2 merged, and neither is there evidence that this happens in nature.

3. Geographic distribution

The common ancestor for darwin's finches is still afinch. The turtles' common ancestor is still a turtle. There are limits for DNA, and the finch is still a finch and still a finch. (http://creationwiki.org...)

4. Genetic Changes

Antibiotic resistance is just natural selection, and no new genes grew from random chance. The genes which caused the resistance already existed. (http://creationwiki.org...)

Dogs are a subspecies of the domestic wolf (http://creationwiki.org...) no new species have been created.

The bug spray is also just like antibiotic resistance, no new genes were created, no genes are changed through mutations.
9spaceking

Pro

REBUTTALS
1. Fossils: Transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates to humans have actually been found. [1] In fact, there are no known gaps between dinosaurs and birds. [1] This falls in line with the definitions of evolution. Also, if we assume evolution to be true, then every fossil is a transitional fossil, between two or more species. However, the transitional fossils do line up, against the assumption that evolution is false. Thus, the argument is easily refuted.

2a. Fetuses
Okay. Then explain all of these images. It is impossible that the same guy drew all of these.





Oh, and my opponent forgot to rebut my pictures of Trilobites.

2b. Similar anatomical features
My opponent is only half correct. The full statement goes like this:
P1: If there are similarities between skeletal structures, it can only be explained with evolution, or common ancestry.
P2: There are similarities between skeletal structures.
C: Evolution is true, or common ancestry is true.

PP1. If common ancestry is true, but many species look different and are different, then evolution is true
PP2. Common ancestry is true ("same creator"), but many species look different and are different
C2: Evolution is true

2c. Whale Pelvis
This is an interesting point. There is no reason to suppose a land mammal's pelvis shrunk through evolution, neither is there evidence of this.

This is what I was trying to prove (not enough characters last round):
P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming.
P2: We see new species forming.
C: Evolution is (likely) true.
(Whales form from...whatever was before it, therefore evolution is true)
However one example is simply not enough. Here are two more examples:
1.Drosophila paulistorum
Drosophila paulistorum is a type of fruit fly which had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species.

2. Goatsbeards

Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced, which interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from.[2] This is proof that they are different species.

2d. Chromosome 2 merged? Oh yes, there is evidence. Source [3] gives evidence within professional research that chromosome 2 fused together. :D

3. Geo-distribution
Um, but the turtles are a different species and the finch as well. It's kind of like my dog point, you know. They have different traits but dogs are still dogs!

4. Genetic changes:
Natural selection explains evolution. Only the toughest survive. If different situations keep on happening, a new species must be created and sustained in order to survive, which is evolution in its core. My opponent fails to come up with the conclusion that natural selection equals to evolution!!

My opponent has failed to rebut my point about overall similarity (7 points!) that all life share, as well as the human-ape DNA similarity.

I would like my opponent to please take his time and work on a longer rebuttal.

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[3] http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 2
jh1234l

Con

1. Fetuses

In the fetus drawings that are not faked, the fetuses clearly no longer matched up really much.

2b. anatomy

My arguments still stand, as con asserts that only evolution can explain this phenomenon, when there are other explanations. Therefore, P1 is false, and C does not follow.

2c. Whale Pelvis

Pro conceded this argument.

3. Speciation

This argument does not count, as pro plagirized from one of my previous debates. (http://www.debate.org...) Let's compare the two text strings. The parts that were identical is underlined.

My opponent: Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced, which interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from.[2]

My old debate: Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced. They interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from.[2]

My opponent: Drosophila paulistorum is a type of fruit fly which had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species.

My old debate: Drosophila paulistorum, a type of fruit fly, had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species.

Because Pro plagirized some of his arguments from one of my old debates, the arguments point should go to me (as they are my arguments and my arguments were awesome).

4. Chromosome Merge

Pro's link only states that the genes were the same, but what I asked for was evidence that this happens in nature.

5. Natural Selection


However, evolution is mutations + natural selection. In your examples, the mutations did not happen, the alleles were already there before the selection occurs.

Because pro's arguments were plagirized (oh so blatant because they are from the same person who is Con), and he did not meet his BOP due to the fact that I poked many holes in his arguments, vote Con.
9spaceking

Pro

REBUTTALS
1. Fetuses
The only thing that mattered was the initial stage: they all looked very alike

2b. Anatomy: my opponent failed to rebut my contention that Common Ancestry=Evolution

2c. I have two more examples... -.-

3. Speciation. I'm sorry. You may now deduct conduct point from me. I will now give an entirely new, not plagirized argument.
The Family Tree argument:

Within the "family tree", the closest relatives are put together. For example, birds and crocodiles are so close, and birds have more relation to crocodiles than any other animal on the tree. However, since crocodiles have no feathers, we can therefore conclude that their ancestor must have had feathers. This may sound flawed, however, none of the other animals' ancestors' have feathers at all! The only possible way for my opponent to falsify this is to have any trait requiring 2 instances or more, in the same way in two completely separate locations in the tree. Any mammal having feathers, or primate with humps, etc, would all prove evolution wrong.

4. Chromosome merge
Nothing suggests that this didn't happen in nature. Why, humans didn't exist before chimpanzees, so there is no possible way this happened through natural selection or some artificial juice or something.

5. Natural selection
Alright, I'll give you a good example: no two non-twin humans act and look exactly the same. This is easily explained by the source: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov.... Because so many mutations occur, we look different. However, since we modern humans do not have too much of a history, so we haven't developed a new species. In contrast, the whole ape-to-human evolution lasted really long and has lots of evidence, as presented in the link following. http://en.wikipedia.org...
I may have lost conduct but the majority of my arguments still stand! Make your final round good and worthy!
Debate Round No. 3
jh1234l

Con

1. Fetuses

The initial stage being similar is just another one of the "only if" fallacies, as explained in 2b.

2b. Anatomy

I did refute the contentions, by arguing that the logic was wrong, as it assumes that Evolution is the only possible explanation, invalidating the first premise.

TL;DR: Pro's case would have worked out, but its conclusion does not follow as its first premise assumes that evolution is the only possible explanation for this phenomenon.

2c.

The second example (From the second, not third round) was also plagirized, unfortunately.

This debate: P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming.
P2: We see new species forming.
C: Evolution is (likely) true.

Source of plagirism: P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming.
P2: We see new species forming.
C: Evolution is (likely) true. (http://www.debate.org...)

3. Speciation

This assumes that evolution is true, as the tree of life is ordered according to evolution's closest relatives concept. (Circular reasoning)

Also, camels have humps (http://en.wikipedia.org...) and are mammals. (Unless it's a different kind of hump. )

4. Chromosome merge

Pro has pushed the burden of proof onto me.

"Nothing suggests that this didn't happen in nature. "

Well, guess what? If the burden of proof worked like that, then:

"A huge banana is floating over your head and the only reason you can't see or otherwise know it's there is because it moves really fast. It's true because nothing suggests that this is not true."

The above is equally valid as pro's argument, as both push the burden of proof to the negative side.

"Why, humans didn't exist before chimpanzees, so there is no possible way this happened through natural selection or some artificial juice or something."

Pro misrepresents my case. I did not ask you to prove that it was not caused by random scientists injecting artificial juice into animals. I asked for proof that it can happen in nature.

5. Natural Selection

Pro's rebuttal was irrelevant to my rebuttal that the natural selection examples did not include mutation, a central part of evolution.

CONCLUSION

Pro did not meet his Burden of Proof, as he failed to show that Evolution is true. All I (con) had to do is show that there was reasonable doubt of evolution, as I did by showing that Pro's arguments have a lot of flaws. This is because Pro has the BOP.

Also, because Pro plagirized parts of his case, and fails to provide logical arguments, vote con.


9spaceking

Pro

This has been an interesting debate. Since I may not have any new arguments, I suggest the voters look through my opponent's arguments. Most of them are flawed and have some kind of logical fallacy within them. The new "source of plagirism" does not work out too well, since I used a different way (actually: 3 ways) to prove it. By the definition of evolution new species should be forming, thus, there is pretty much no other way to word this.
In conclusion although I forfeited my conduct point, the argument is still in the game; voters should look carefully at my opponent's arguments/one-sentence-rebuttals and see if they make sense or are just claims not backed up by any sources.
Vote me.
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lolz, not really...XD
Posted by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
Typical vote on this debate: I didnt read the whole debate, but 9space had PICTURES! Really flashy and pretty PICTURES! Therefore 9space should win!
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
woooo!
I'm the first person to ever win a debate after a plagiarism...right? lol
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

The more I think about it, the less I'm able to justify a vote for either side. If I vote Pro, I have to both accept his argument in R4, and extend it to all of Con's points, something I'm loathe to do since it doesn't apply well. If I vote Con, I have to add burdens arguments to his posts that don't exist, and ignore the justifications he gave in lieu of that. I can't in good concience do either of those things. My vote will stand as is, with only the conduct point allocated.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
you're just mad becuz I'm the first person to ever win a debate even after a plagiarism.
Posted by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
everone voteing con pleas becuase profaled to meet bop as I refuted all of argument adequately (4example how thelogic behind someof pro arguement fallacious and asume that evolution is only explaination) Pro has BOP becuz he is afirmative position and stutus quo only maters for bop if in policey debate
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
just a notice, I borrowed the Family Tree Argument from a fellow smart debater.
Posted by jh1234l 2 years ago
jh1234l
Some have argued that the status quo is relevant to bop only in policy debates, not emperical ones. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
er...3 points
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
oh snap! i'm winning by ONE POINT!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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:12 
Reasons for voting decision: An overall interesting debate. I admire con for actually putting up a good fight. Conduct goes to con because using someone else's debate isn't cool. S/G tied. Reliable sources go to pro because con used a website that is specifically for supporting creationism. This is a big no no in religious debates and even debates in general. Let me note that I had to think for a little while before choosing who won convincing arguments. While con made me doubt pro's arguments, pro fired back with equally strong arguments. In my mind, it is tied. Overall, pro could've, would've, should've done a better job, but it is a 2-1 decision for Pro! Congrats!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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: The more I look at this debate, the more uncertain I am. On the one hand, the resolution clearly states "Evolution is true," and thus it seems simple enough to me that Con only need prove that evolution exists in some way, shape or form. On the other hand, Pro gives me the only burdens analysis in the debate, though it is mainly elucidated in R4, which is a little late. Lacking any burdens analysis from Con in the debate proper, however, makes me uncertain. Overall, I can say that, at face value, Con fulfilled his BoP. But that is my perception of it, and not one argued by Con himself. So I either have to intervene in one of two ways. I either grant the analysis by Pro in R4, which is a problem for me since last round arguments are things I tend to ignore, or I grant the unspoken BoP taken on by Con exists. I'm not yet sure which I will do, so for now, I'll give conduct to Pro for plagiarism, and leave it there.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
ChosenWolff
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has the BOP because he took the affirmative stance that evolution is not real. Pro plagiarized, so that's a immediate withdraw of conduct. Most of Pro's arguments weren't his own for the first round, and he even had a fake image, but most of the things he did say, of his own words, were affirmed. Con didn't take anytime to refute these points, therefore, I didn't negate any of them. As the debate progressed, Con just kept playing the plagiarism card to ignore the legit arguments. He only refuted, and never made a convincing case of his own, therefore, I can't really say he fullfilled the BOP. Pro, as a piece of advice, don't plagiarize off you'r opponents own debate. Do you really think he wouldn't of noticed, although it seems Jh plagiarised off the internet as well, so I'm not picking favorites. Pro, you should of refuted last round, but as you said, any arguments made by con were riddled in fallacy's and falsely equated things anyways. S&G for having two HUGE conduct violations
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe in the existence of change too strongly to give this a fair vote, therefore null.
Vote Placed by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not fill their BoP. Pro's arguments were convincing, and though he surrendered a conduct point, he argued better and therefore gets arguments.
Vote Placed by TruthHurts 2 years ago
TruthHurts
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con, obviously, for Pro's plagiarism. However, when it comes to arguments, two important things must be noted. Firstly, for having the presumptive BOP in the round, Con never really builds a convincing case, which is bad. Secondly, Con is never really interested in rebuttals, as many of them were quite sparse, and overplayed the "fake" or "plagiarism" card. In short, Pro's arguments about speciation were convincing (as were transitional fossils), and Pro was able to show the only answer to this is evolution.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro plagiarized. Con failed to refute evidence of speciation.
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- 9spaceking Plagiarized Convincing Arguments- 9spaceking ultimately made them more convincing with the pictures and diagrams.
Vote Placed by RainbowDash52 2 years ago
RainbowDash52
jh1234l9spacekingTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Rules of debate state bop is on pro, and pro failed to fulfill bop.