The Instigator
truthseeker613
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

evolution

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 7 votes the winner is...
petersaysstuff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,992 times Debate No: 15934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (48)
Votes (7)

 

truthseeker613

Con

I challenge any one to prove that evolution is the processes by which everything was created. micro evolution can be taken as a given. by micro evolution I mean improvement within a spices. the last response in the debate may not include any new argument, only response clarification and summarization. This is not a debate about existence of god. god could have created the universe, through evolution. How ever if there is no evidence for evolution life itself is evidence of a creator. Burdon of proof is obviosly on pro to give evidence for evolution.
petersaysstuff

Pro

I look forward to this! :)

So first off my opponent seems to think that evolution is the theory by which life (or the universe as he states later on) came into existence but this is just false. Evolution is defined as follows: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"[1]
The key part in this statement is here:"...thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms..."
Here we can see that evolution is not a theory of life began but how life changes. So here my opponent has either two options, a)to revise his resolution or
b) provide a counter definition which agrees with his assumption
(keep in mind it must also agree with his claim that says:"god could have created the universe, through evolution." meaning that evolution would have been a part of the beginning of the universe.

I'm excited to see which my opponent chooses.

[1] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Con

I apologize for my wording you are correct I was wrong. I am specifically challenging the process of evolution used to explain the diversification of all life on planet earth.
petersaysstuff

Pro

Ok, let's go.
According to my definition, which was not contested, evolution does diversify. The definition I provided is as follows: "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"[see #1 footnote from last round]
The key part in this definition is;"...to have developed and diversified from earlier forms..."
This clearly shows that according to the definition of evolution life MUST diversify. VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Con

I have read your words over and over. I am not shore that I see were you have proved that the process of diversification was evolution.
Evolution was defined as "The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth"[1]
Just because there are a variety of species doesn't mean they evolved from earlier species.
As far as I can tell all you have stated was that If evolution occurred it would result in diversity. I don't see any evidence.
That being said I fail to understand why you told people to vote pro.
petersaysstuff

Pro

First off, I have shown that the process of evolution diversified life due to the fact that over time organisms change, as my definition states, and if multiple organisms change then that constitutes a diversification of life. Also, my definition actually says that different kinds of organisms developed and diversified from earlier life forms. If you still argue that evolution cannot cause diversification than this will merely be a semantics debate seeing as my definition proves my point exactly.

//Just because there are a variety of species doesn't mean they evolved from earlier species.//
No where in my definition is this stated but I will run with this anyway. If you look in the fossil record you see organisms changing from one to the next in a linear fashion ergo we can see that evolution does cause diversity.

//As far as I can tell all you have stated was that If evolution occurred it would result in diversity. I don't see any evidence.//
You never countered my definition and since you never countered it, it shall be what is used. The definition is all the evidence I need until you refute it/provide a counter definition. Once this is done then we can have an actual debate but seeing as you are arguing semantics without providing a counter definition your case is really falling.

Thus we can easily see that since my definition a) proves my point and b) has been agreed upon there is no reason to vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Con

I am afraid the communication here is not working so well, I hope the following point helps. Perhaps you forgot that the burden of proof is on you. You are focusing on your definition rather than evidence, I don't see how your definition alone qualifies as evidence/proof.
I quote your 1st paragraph: "First off, I have shown that the process of evolution diversified life due to the fact that over time organisms change, as my definition states, and if multiple organisms change then that constitutes a diversification of life. Also, my definition actually says that different kinds of organisms developed and diversified from earlier life forms. If you still argue that evolution cannot cause diversification than this will merely be a semantics debate seeing as my definition proves my point exactly."
How does the fact that "over time organisms' change" prove that evolution is the process by which life diversified? I agree that it could be true, however you have not provided evidence that all life developed from earlier forms. (For clarification purposes, what is the evidence that all life developed from earlier life as opposed to for example a divine being creating each species separately, rather than each species evolving from other species?
I quote your next paragraph:
" //Just because there are a variety of species doesn't mean they evolved from earlier species.//
No where in my definition is this stated but I will run with this anyway. If you look in the fossil record you see organisms changing from one to the next in a linear fashion ergo we can see that evolution does cause diversity."
True, you did not state it, but in my defense, I didn't say that you said it, rather seeing that no evidence was given it seemed to me that this was your logic so just in case, I dealt with it. I am however relieved that you finally mentioned some evidence in passing about fossils. This I think is the main point but you for some reason felt it only a side point. I am trying to resolve this recurring matter in the message section.
With regard to the fossil record I would appreciate some examples, details, and sources. In addition please explain why in the majority of fossil records we do not find a gradual consistent evolution over millions of years. The examples should be not of micro evolution but rather macro. Micro evolution has reportedly been observed happening, on a small scale with relatively simple organisms like bacteria. And on a greater scale it has been done in breeding. However evolution from one species to another has never been observed even with human intervention such as breeding. Any attempts to do so have ended in sterilization when the animal was bred to far. (I wrote in the message board that I would discuss this at length. I have decided I will hold off for now, unless I am asked for it.).
I quote your final paragraph:
"Thus we can easily see that since my definition a) proves my point and b) has been agreed upon there is no reason to vote con."
As I have stated I don't see how your definition proves evolution is the process thru which life was brought about. (I don't see how any definition on its own can be proof or evidence.). On a lighter note I thank you for changing your language from "vote pro" to "there is no reason to vote con." I remind you that the burden of proof is on you, and I look forward to hearing some strong evidence from you.
petersaysstuff

Pro

The reason I am focusing on a definition is due to the fact that you are saying that the definition is wrong whislt not providing another.

//How does the fact that "over time organisms' change" prove that evolution is the process by which life diversified?//
Well first off evolution is change in life over time so I don't see what you are arguing. Second of all, if organisms change, that is diversification and since the change was by evolution the organisms diversified likewise.

//however you have not provided evidence that all life developed from earlier forms.//
If you look back into the fossil record you see the following: More complex organisms closer up and the deeper you go the simpler they get. And take for example, if a chicken in your backyard turned into a cat (it wouldn't happen but let's run with it) that would be a change from an earlier organism. Any change is from an earlier state.

//In addition please explain why in the majority of fossil records we do not find a gradual consistent evolution over millions of years.//
Not all animals fossilize. We are lucky to have the amount that we do but even if we had no fossils the fact that all DNA if you look back and construct a diagram forms a branching pattern with massive diversification.
The funny thing is we do. But I will give you a specific example, chickens have the DNA for making teeth although they do not have them currently. Why you may ask. Chickens evolved from dinosaurs. If you compare the DNA of chickens and dinosaurs the similarities are remarkable. Also, the fact that they have the exact same gene for making teeth as dinosaurs do is an added bonus.[1]

About micro and macro, macro is just lots of micro evolutions...

//However evolution from one species to another has never been observed even with human intervention such as breeding//
False. Humans in labs have breed fruit flies into entirely new species.

//Any attempts to do so have ended in sterilization when the animal was bred to far./
Again you are wrong. It is true that the new species cannot breed with the old but that is the very definition of a species but they are viable and thus your argument falls.

Next off, Darwin's finches are a prime example of a time when evolution via natural selection has cause diversity.

Here I have provided you with more evidence and you will win if you disprove the chicken/dino evidence, disprove the fossil record and disprove Darwin's finches. Also may I remind the readers that my opponent has provided no definitions to any thing.

If there is anything else you want ask but here I must say that if you can find a poodle in the precambrian era evolution is false. You should be doing work to disprove evolution. That is how the peer review forum works yet you ignore this and do no work for your case at all. I want to see what your next move is good sir.

Macro: "arge-scale"[2]
Micro: "mall-scale"[3]

[1] http://www.timesonline.co.uk...

[2] http://www.google.com...

[3] http://www.google.com...
Debate Round No. 4
truthseeker613

Con

I ask my opponent to show where I disagreed with the definition presented.
My opponent brings some actual proof, "the fossil records". To my chagrin he does not bring any specific examples or sources. Regarding the accuracy of using the fossil records I present the following points:
First, regarding the accuracy of depth to age connection I present the following quote :( I give credit to shmuel waldman for the following.)
"It is, indeed, a well-established fact that the (physical-stratigraphical) rock units and their boundaries often transgress geologic time planes in most irregular fashion even within the shortest distances."—*J.A. Jeletzsky, "Paleontology, Basis of Practical Geochronology," in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, April 1956, p. 685.
Next it seems to me curious that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago they seem extremely complex and advanced.
The problem with the fossil records is known as the missing link, long periods of time with no change followed by seeming rapid change. My opponent ans. this by stating that fossils are rare occurrences. The following is a partial list of quotes from experts on this topic, the full list can be found at www.genesispark .com:
"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)
"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)
Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood (Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)
"We are faced more with a great leap of faith . . . that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks . . . than any hard evidence." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57.)
"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22.)
"To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," 1983, p. 81.)
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)
"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)
"People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable." (Gee, Henry, "Face of Yesterday," The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.)
Next my opponent mentions a fascinating study in which birds grew rudimentary teeth by activating genes. 1st I find it quite perturbing and unscientific that the web site didn't bother posting any pictures, nor peer review. Next point is that the article states that today birds don't have teeth, a quick web search came up with 10 birds with some sort of teeth.(and they even had the sense to put up pictures instead of expecting people to believe them.) ( Next I question why the birds would have lost these teeth, as teeth are generally helpful not harmful). Next point is that rudimentary teeth are a relatively small thing compared to the diff. between birds and dinosaurs. Lastly, and most importantly as the article itself states birds at one point in time, (and some still do), did have teeth this would make the loss of teeth micro evolution not macro.
Regarding the dinosaur bird link: (I give Dovid Gottlieb credit for the following)
Larry Martin [one of the world's foremost experts on the birds of the Mesozoic era], The Sciences, March/April 1988: "I began to grow disenchanted with the bird-dinosaur link when I compared the eighty-five or so anatomical features seriously proposed as being shared by birds and dinosaurs. To my shock, virtually none of the comparisons held up....the moral of the story is that such poor attention to detail has been repeated with almost every feature cited to support a bird-dinosaur relation. No wonder that [the book criticizing the link] has an undercurrent of righteous outrage, or that it has been so bitterly attacked by the practitioners of the faulty logic it exposes."
Regarding "macro is just a bunch of micro", It's not as simple as people think to quote S.J. Gould "the small does not always aggregate smoothly into the large". To quote an analogy from Professor David Gottlieb, "just bec. you see ants working together in groups of hundreds to build an ant hill doesn't give one the right to say trillions of ants working together built the pyramids.
With regard to the fruit flies my opponent offers no source.
My opponent mentions Darwin's finches; this is irrelevant as this is micro evolution.
I've run out of space.
Regarding BoP see R1 and comments.
petersaysstuff

Pro

I will first talk about what my opponent's original advocacy was, then move onto his specific points. His advocacy as stated in round 2 is as follows: "I am specifically challenging the process of evolution used to explain the diversification of all life on planet earth." Ergo if I show that evolution diversifies life I win. I will touch on Darwin's finches first, "My opponent mentions Darwin's finches; this is irrelevant as this is micro evolution."
It is true that this is an example of micro evolution but that doesn't matter a) it is diversification thus proving that evolution promotes diversification and b) if you look to my definitions of micro and macro in round 4, it's easy to see that lots of small changes, micro evolutions, lead to a large change, a macro evolution. My opponent saying "it's macro evolution" is a cop out. He is avoiding an argument and you should vote him down just for this. Even if we ignore all my evidence and assert that the fossil. record is flawed and that the chicken-teeth thing is flawed it doesn't matter. I should still win because I have shown that evolution can diversify life.
Moving on, "I ask my opponent to show where I disagreed with the definition presented."
My definition defines evolution by the process by which organisms diversify so here you can either a) accept that definition and you loose because you have accepted a definition which contradicts your advocacy or b) you disagree and thus you must provide a counter definition which you failed to do thus you loose here too.

Next, "Next it seems to me curious that dinosaurs were around millions of years ago they seem extremely complex and advanced."
11 million years is nothing on an evolutionary time scale. The earth is 4 billion years old. 11 million years is a blink of an eye on the evolutionary time frame. And if you look back past the dinosaurs, guess what you see? Organisms getting simpler.

I also want to dispute his massivly baised source, Genesispark. Sure it is a source but everything here is baised. But regardless you have given no evidence, you have just copied and pasted quotes. If we are allowed to copy and paste quotes then that takes all the fun out of debate. But to make things fair allow me to copy and paste quotes.

Regarding the "gaps"
"The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens. One of the first of these gaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. Just two years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 million year old fossil of Archaeopteryx was found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony tail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal features of both. This discovery verified the assumption that birds had reptilian ancestors"
~~ http://anthro.palomar.edu...

"Since the discovery of Archaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps filled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from our human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. Since the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well-dated intermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species leading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years. This evidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series."
~~ http://anthro.palomar.edu...

^^These are specific things from the fossil record and here is more http://anthro.palomar.edu...

This source outweighs his due to the fact that this is from the Anthropology Department at Palomar college and not some "Creation Science" website.

Moving on, "1st I find it quite perturbing and unscientific that the web site didn't bother posting any pictures, nor peer review." And Genesispark does? Genesis park is a biased site with not evidence. My site has specific evidence whereas yours has none.

" Next I question why the birds would have lost these teeth, as teeth are generally helpful not harmful"
Modern day birds have no need for teeth... Teeth are used to chew meat and modern day birds are not carnivorous.

Overview:
My opponent dropped Darwin's finches and I should win on that alone. Also my opponent has done none of his own work regarding, well, anything. He merely copied and pasted quotes from a biased, not peerreviewed, evidence lacking site. Also, my opponent dropped the fruit fly argument by saying I have no source. Here is some evidence: http://www.jstor.org...

Bearing all I have said in mind I urge you to vote Pro seeing as con has dropped most of my arguments and has done no original work.
Debate Round No. 5
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by smith2222 5 years ago
smith2222
truthseeker?????????? dosent believe in evolution??? what kind of truth you seeking a psuedo religious truth or the actuall cold hard facts, real truth however strange it may be, evolution is a factor that affects all things, change is inevitable. there was nothing, then everything we can percieve. this is a change, that i would say is for the better.change for the better/ evolution same thing????
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
How did I "trick" him?
Posted by Lightkeeper 5 years ago
Lightkeeper
He agreed to that definition and so would I. It's only after he realized that you were trying to trick him that he tried to change the definition. Disingenuous tactics buddy.
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
LOL. I provided a definition that he agreed to then he disagrees after. If anything he is playing a word game by changing advocacy based on a definition.
Posted by Lightkeeper 5 years ago
Lightkeeper
Not really. You set him up by providing a definition, getting him to agree to it (he had no idea you were gonna go semantic on him) and then nail him with a purely semantic argument. And "thought to" (wether or not it's uniform across science) makes a world of a difference. By agreeing to a "thought to" definition, he's not necessarily agreeing that evolution is the true process.
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
The phrase "thought to" is similar in all definitions of a scientific theory. We do not know 100% ergo we think so. And with Round 1 I wanted to clear up what he wanted.
Posted by Lightkeeper 5 years ago
Lightkeeper
You used a definition and played a semantic game. Your first round had nothing to do with evolution. And you wrongly relied on a definition that you yourself posted. It's true that Con agreed with the definition. But the definition he agreed with (and you proposed was) "Evolution:"...thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms"...Notice the phrase "thought to"? By agreeing with this definition, Con doesn't agree that evolution IS the process responsible for the diversification of species. Rather, he only agrees it's the process THOUGHT to be it. It was still up to you to defend your position. And this was meant to be a science debate.

Also, even if the definition didn't contain the words "thought to", merely agreeing with its definition doesn't amount to conceding that evolution is indeed the process responsible for biodiversity. Otherwise, no debate could ever proceed on its merits as agreeing with the definition of a concept would mean agreeing that the concept is true.
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
Thanks MeCap.
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
A silly word game? ROFL! I used a definition.
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
Are you guys kidding? Gr33k vote bombed...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
truthseeker613petersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro please point to a specific source rather than google results. To me pro's case would have been tighter if he proved micro evolution caused macro. He shows micro occurs and that there are intermediate species but not that macro is a series of micros.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
truthseeker613petersaysstuffTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tried to shift the burden of proof to Pro and failed to adequately rebut Pro's arguments. Sad.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
truthseeker613petersaysstuffTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: con droped numerous arguments.
Vote Placed by mecap 5 years ago
mecap
truthseeker613petersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Update: counter the vote bomber. Pro defended the definition of evolution and provided good sources... Con failed to specify exactly what part of evolution, as defined, is not valid and used unreliable sources (gnesis-what?).
Vote Placed by Lightkeeper 5 years ago
Lightkeeper
truthseeker613petersaysstuffTied
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: Pro played a silly word game and misused his own definition by ignoring the word "thought to". What a waste of an interesting topic for a scientific debate. Con had better use of sources although they themselves lack credit. However pro never bothered to even consider this or any other issues relevant to the topic. Too bad because evolution is a proven fact.
Vote Placed by gr33k_fr33k5 5 years ago
gr33k_fr33k5
truthseeker613petersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no argument. . . he tried to win off of clever word play and refused to argue to the specificities con had. . . it was a joke
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
truthseeker613petersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped arguments, and even by shifting the BoP to Pro, could not negate the argument by Pro, mainly because they did not open with a clear definition of evolution, and second made many assertions which are clearly false (speciation has not been observed). However Pro could have been more focused in arguments.