The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

You choose the topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/21/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 202 times Debate No: 91619
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Post three topics and I'll pick one of them.

The only rule is to be a dick.


Topic: Validity of Evolution
If evolution was scientific is must be observable and repeatable. The major foundation of evolution is animals changing kind over billions of years. Any rational being must notice that evolution can't possibly be observed because no mortal can live billions of years. Homology which is the comparison of animals anatomy is not evidence because it only points towards a common purpose and not common design. Natural selection doesn't point towards an evolutionary world view because for evolution to be possible new genetic info must be added. Info is lost in the process of natural selection. Where is the science of evolution? Is there evidence of progressive changes in kind?
Debate Round No. 1


Dude, three topics. Not just one. What if I wanted the chance to choose a topic that wouldn't have automatically been voted against by the conservative bloc? These kinds of topics are bad on so many levels, but for a debate with only 3000 characters it borders on being satirical.

Aside from that the way the topic and initial framework is presented skews the burden of proof. One would think that current scientific trends backed by the academy would take presumption over personal skepticism, but the way you're laying out the topic's framing reverses that burden of proof. There are plenty of scientific disciplines that necessarily depart from laboratory experimentation; we can't test and retest certain things, but that doesn't bar us from observing the natural world through a skeptical, scientific lens. Psychology studies dealing with trauma, environmental disasters, and astronomical phenomena are good examples of observational science. Repeated experimentation can't always happen due to ethical or pragmatic reasons, but that doesn't mean we can't study the effects of such things. Recording the effects of trauma as well as treatment is a scientific approach, even if a counselor doesn't inflict simal trauma on others to form a control group. Evolutionary science is something we can actively see on the small scale, and passively study the effects of on a larger scale.

This isn't a balanced topic, it's a request for me to change your opinion. Any argument I provide that fails to meet that goal is one you'll outright dismiss. This topic has not grounding, no balancing in terms of fairness, and can have no real educational benefit. Further, I can't stress enough that this is a topic that deserves a specific focus and nuanced framing to be a valuable one.

Basically this debate boils down to an easy vote for Pro. Con shoots him/her/theirself in the foot before we can even begin an equitable discussion. Combine poor framing, a bad understanding scientific disciplines, and a failure to follow a minimal set of directions and Con has no ground to make up.

Vote Pro on presumption/framework.


Sorry about that I'll post three topics:
1. Evolution or Creation?
2. Vaccines for children?
3. Should drinking age be lowered?
Debate Round No. 2


I just realized that I wrote 'the only rule is to be a dick' rather than 'to not be a dick'. Lol.

Vaccines for kids
The argument is really pretty simple: there is absolutely no reason for kids to die of preventable illnesses.

Vaccines work by imitating infection and training the body to fight those infections[1]. Weak, dead, inactive and/or incomplete viruses are put into the body and the body's immune system is able to use these viruses to produce antibodies against them. It's no different than using a training simulation to teach someone how to do something in real life.

Vaccines are also important for protecting those who can't be vaccinated due to health reasons or age. Some vaccines require children to be a certain age before they can take them, so by making sure that other children are vaccinated on schedule we keep otherwise deadly viruses from spreading through a phenomena called 'herd immunity'[2]. When everyone who can be vaccinated is vaccinated, we create a sort of buffer which keeps the disease from spreading further. It would be like if you surrounded a fire pit with stones - sure there are things outside of the pit that could still catch on fire, but those stone create a buffer that makes the spread unlikely.

There is rarely any reason not to vaccinate a child. Sometimes a child's specific medical history may warrant avoiding or putting of vaccination entirely if they have an autoimmune disease or some other medical problem, but these specific instances are ones that a child's pediatrician will diagnose. On balance, there is a net benefit to vaccinating children.

Vote Pro.


keraro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


keraro forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AribtraryMoniker 5 months ago
Posted by RedAtheist912 5 months ago
Easy win for ViceRegent.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 5 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented 3 topics (eventually) and only Pro argued. Con just forfeited. Therefore, Pro wins by default.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 5 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF