The Instigator
vanssjosh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kjreichmann
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

should inteligent be thought as a science

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
kjreichmann
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,060 times Debate No: 45026
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

vanssjosh

Pro

I believe that intelligent is a science and doesn't need to have a religious agenda.
I also want to discuss it being taught in the school system along side with evolution.
kjreichmann

Con

I accept your proposal, and look forward to your arguments. However, if in the beginning of your opening argument, you could specify a few things, that would be great:

1. I assume when you refer to intelligent, you mean intelligent design, the term for creation of species by god?
2. What is the exact position you are taking and I am going against? Give a very precise definition, such as "Intelligent design, or creationism, should be taught in public schools in America in a science classroom"
3. What are the rules for the debate? What are you rules regarding forfeiting rounds? How about length preferences?

Thank you, and I look forward to a healthy debate.
Debate Round No. 1
vanssjosh

Pro

yes, sorry I forgot for some reason forgot to add the design part. I am speaking of the God of the bible. The position Im taking is that I believe it should be taught as a science in school along side evolution but objectively. Im new at this so I don't really have any rules about forfeiting. I just want it to stay respectful and healthy.

So here is my argument: The definition of religion is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" according to webster's dictionary. So I would like to ask you what makes evolution only a science and not a religion.

Second: The definition of science is "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through" so why isn't the theory of intelligent design regarded as a science.

Also I think that we can teach this in the school system without a religious agenda. Don't get me wrong though I also believe the theory of evolution should be taught so the students get a chance to be overall well educated in these theories.
kjreichmann

Con

Thank you for responding, and for your clarification. However, it comes time where I must disagree with you on certain points, so here it goes:

Argument 1:
"The definition of religion is 'an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group' according to webster's dictionary. So I would like to ask you what makes evolution only a science and not a religion." If this is your definition of religion, then I don't think that evolution is not a religion. However, I do not see the relevance of this. The defining factor of what is referred to as "religion" by the public is a lack of scientific evidence instead of faith, and in that way evolution is far different than intelligent design, and should be taught in school.

Argument 2:
"The definition of science is 'knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through' so why isn't the theory of intelligent design regarded as a science."
First, I disagree that intelligent design is a theory. A theory has scientific evidence and has been tested, and intelligent design has not been. I would refer to it as an unproven hypothesis. Again, because intelligent design has not been tested thoroughly to be proven, it is not regarded as science, according to your own definition.

Just to overview, you defined evolution as being a religion and intelligent design as a science, but the most important difference between the two (belief based on faith for religion vs evidence from repeated testing and questioning for science) is why intelligent design cannot be considered a science, and should not be taught in a science classroom. Your move.
Debate Round No. 2
vanssjosh

Pro

I wasn't saying evolution was a religion, I just wanted to bring up that idea.
Ok so here is my evidence of Intelligent design:

The Earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:23) in the time of Isaiah people believed the world was flat and somehow he knew that it wasn't.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22) again it was written in a time when people thought there was only 1100 stars. how did he know?

Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3) people didn't understand this verse when it was written but now we understand that there are atoms everywhere.

Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41) when this was written people believed all stars were the same.

Light moves (Job 38:19,20) they used to think light was in a fixed place when Job was alive.

Air has weight (Job 28:25) they thought air was weightless in the time of Job.

Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6) back then they thought it blew straight. so how did they know all this before they had the technology to make these discoveries? maybe God told them? That's the only way I can think of.

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11). Yup it is. they believed sick people must be bled.

Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6) how did they know this? Back then people believed it was f;at.

Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16) They thought it was fed by rivers and lakes only back then. How did they know this back then?

All the examples I just gave you was a the bible, now,then list of what science beliefs. How did they know all this before technology advancements?

"This scientific evidence for both models can be taught in public schools without any mention of religious doctrine, whether the Bible or the Humanist Manifesto. There are text materials and teacher handbooks that have been prepared for a fair presentation of both models, creation and evolution. There are also seminars and audiovisuals for training teachers to offer both models of origins." (http://www.icr.org...)

I would like you to ask me some questions so I can answer them the best I can if your up to that.

Where did the mutating molecule come from that created everything? If you cant answer that than I will never have any reason to consider evolution as possibly true.

Intelligent design has plenty of evidence and has been tested properly. Richard Dawkins says there is evidence that could be proof of intelligent design, but just not from a god.( aliens?) that takes more faith to believe in that a designer.

evolution is not proven yet because we still don't know where that molecule came from. From the backs of crystals? Where did the crystals come from than?

To conclude I would like to say that evolution is a faith because it takes faith to belief it, just like anything. Intelligent design doesn't need to have a religious agenda any ways so I don\t understand why its not a science.
kjreichmann

Con

I understand that not everyone speaks English as a first language, so I'll try to work with it, but I will say that it is difficult to understand your writing.

From your post, "The Earth is a sphere" to "How did they know all this before technology advancements" has no context to the argument. Why would the bible having a things that are true lead to the idea that another thing it says must automatically be true, and must be taught? Despite the fact that all of these passages are contradicted in the Bible(which I won't get into), what does any of this have to do with teaching intelligent design? Please connect your reasoning. Next, you quote a website that claims that both methods can be taught without religion. Again, you fail to explain why intelligent design should be taught in a science class when it is not a scientific theory. "Where did the mutating molecule come from that created everything?" I don't mean to be insulting, but this shows a clear lack of understanding of even the principle foundations of evolution. You are referring to abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution entirely, and the origin of original life is not connected to how multiple species exist. You reference Mr. Dawkins, and I'd like you to rephrase your point with him, because I honestly have no clue what the hell you are saying in that paragraph. Finally, you claim evolution is a faith because it takes faith to believe it. Again, why do we need faith to believe in a theory with evidence? Your last line is "Intelligent design doesn't need to have a religious agenda any ways so I don\t understand why its not a science." I would argue that many things without religious agendas are not sciences, such as astrology.

So, just to conclude:
1. Just because one thing in the Bible is true does not mean that everything should be considered scientifically accurate.
2. Just because something doesn't have a religious agenda doesn't mean it's a science.
3. Evolution is a theory that does not define the origin of life and therefore mentioning it is off-topic.
4. I'd like to ask, with being as polite as possible, for you to connect your reasoning a bit better and have a bit more sentence structure. I'm sure you have good points, but none of them seem to be coming across.
Debate Round No. 3
vanssjosh

Pro

First I would like to apologize for my lack of structure or organization in my argument, perhaps I should take more time explaining and writing.

"Why would the bible having a things that are true lead to the idea that another thing it says must automatically be true, and must be taught?" I would like to ask you the same question about evolution. Why must it be taught as a fact and why cant the student have a choice in what they get to learn?

"1. Just because one thing in the Bible is true does not mean that everything should be considered scientifically accurate."
May you give me a example of were the bible should not be considered scientifically accurate? I believe that all the examples I gave you are not contradicted anywhere in the bible and would like for you to give a basis for what what you said.

"2. Just because something doesn't have a religious agenda doesn't mean it's a science." I was not saying that everything without a religious agenda means it a science or else we could be teaching our children about unicorns. I was simply saying that intelligent design does not need to be taught with a religious agenda but with a scientific agenda.

"3. Evolution is a theory that does not define the origin of life and therefore mentioning it is off-topic." "Probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed" as Charles Darwin said in The Origin Of Species. Wait did I hear a probably? now that doesn't sound very scientific. When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions. So where did the primordial form come from? Would you not agree with me that evolution is unproven because of that statement.

"4. I'd like to ask, with being as polite as possible, for you to connect your reasoning a bit better and have a bit more sentence structure. I'm sure you have good points, but none of them seem to be coming across" I apologize for my previous inability to connect my reasoning with my ideas.

To conclude I would like to point out that evolution IS NOT PROVEN NOR IS IT A FACT. Just because schools teach it as one doesn't mean it is one. you should take a look at ow they teach it in the textbooks nowadays. No where in intelligent design does it mention biblical times, so there is no need to teach our public school kids about religion. Why can't it be the students choice what they have to learn in science? The chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! We see no gradual change in the fossil record. In Darwin's book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" fill the entire book. Why is it regarded as more proven than intelligent design when the evidence I just gave you proves its not a proved theory any more than intelligent design is.
kjreichmann

Con

1."May you give me an example of were the bible should not be considered scientifically accurate?" Again, let me ask you: what does this have to do with intelligent design being a science? If you need an answer, try all of Noah's Ark, but still, please connect to the overall topic.

2. "In Darwin's book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" fill the entire book." You seem to have many attacks that are completely pointless on the book Origin of Species. Again, one last time, what the hell does that have to do with intelligent design being taught? Even if Richard Dawkins was a complete moron, does that mean evolution is not true? Just because someone who agrees with it may have errors?

3. You have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The idea behind the method is that human knowledge is, indeed, limited. Because of this, all theories must be tested over and over again. There is no definitive truth, merely an acknowledgement of the truth as we can best determine. That truth is evolution, so while no one is certain that it is true, it is being perfected and made more true every day, unlike intelligent design.

4. "you should take a look at ow they teach it in the textbooks nowadays." Can you elaborate?

5. "Why can't it be the students choice what they have to learn in science?" Because the whole idea is that a student learns what is true from the teacher, not the other way around. Would you like them to also decide if they learn about a round earth?

6. "The chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!" Again, evidence?

7. "We see no gradual change in the fossil record." "To conclude I would like to point out that evolution IS NOT PROVEN NOR IS IT A FACT." http://talkorigins.org... Spend an hour there or so, it really dives into the core proofs of evolution that you didn't feel like addressing.

So to conclude, personal attacks don't mean anything, there is clear evidence for evolution if you just look, teachers should be saying what is and isn't true, the bible is irrelevant to the conversation, and you STILL have yet to give me any evidence for intelligent design. The ball is in your court.
Debate Round No. 4
vanssjosh

Pro

You seem to be attacking what I say rather than replying with hard evidence. You have not really given any reasons to prove anything or basis for what you are saying.
" You seem to have many attacks that are completely pointless on the book Origin of Species" It was not pointless. My reason was to point out that there is ALOT of "i think so's" or "probably" in the theory of evolution which doesn't seem very scientific.

" Even if Richard Dawkins was a complete moron, does that mean evolution is not true? Just because someone who agrees with it may have errors?" What does Richard Dawkins have to do with any thing???? And you said he "was" a complete moron, he's still alive...

"3. You have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The idea behind the method is that human knowledge is, indeed, limited. Because of this, all theories must be tested over and over again. There is no definitive truth, merely an acknowledgement of the truth as we can best determine. That truth is evolution, so while no one is certain that it is true, it is being perfected and made more true every day, unlike intelligent design" If no one is certain that evolution is true than why is it being taught as a absolute truth in our text books without question? And don't you say that it is not being taught as a fact in our schools because it is. (I see it everyday in textbooks)

"you should take a look at ow they teach it in the textbooks nowadays." Can you elaborate" Nope. That's exactly what I mean. Go and take a look at how they teach it.

"Why can't it be the students choice what they have to learn in science?" Because the whole idea is that a student learns what is true from the teacher, not the other way around. Would you like them to also decide if they learn about a round earth?" To an extent that is true but not for this. Intelligent design has enough evidence to be considered a science that can be taught in our school. You cant disagree that we don have any evidence.

"The chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!" Again, evidence?" Do some math. http://www.icr.org...

"We see no gradual change in the fossil record." "To conclude I would like to point out that evolution IS NOT PROVEN NOR IS IT A FACT." http://talkorigins.org...... Spend an hour there or so, it really dives into the core proofs of evolution that you didn't feel like addressing" ------ You didn't seem to want to address what I just said about there being no gradual change in the fossil record. I would however like to here you thoughts on why there isnt one.

Ok here is the evidence:
"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. " Bill Gates If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin-

Well it has been demonstrated. Darwin"s theory was formed on the assumption that the cell was just a blob of protoplasm. But science has discovered that it is much much more.

Teaching evolution is teaching 19th century science. Come into the 21st century because science is passing you by.

The elucidation of DNA"s information-bearing properties raised the question of the ultimate origin of the information in both DNA and proteins.
Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly.

The chances of everything just evolving by chance is about the same as the chances of taking a box of scrabble tiles and dumping them on the floor and having them spell out an intelligible paragraph. Intelligent design just makes much more scientific sense." (dessertdawg)

Did you know that the universe is expanding at just the correct speed that all life can exist? Did you know that the earth is just the right distance from the sun to where we won't freeze or burn to death? Did you know that our air has just the right mixture so we can breath? But of course, this ALL happened by chance, right? People say intelligent design is just a belief. Evolution is also just a belief, as people say intelligent design is a belief. How can everything in the universe just happen to work together so we can exist? It makes logical sense that a Creator made everything intelligently.

Cell complexity screams of a designer Natural selection has been shown by many to be a statistically impossible answer for the systemic complexity of living cells. Even the author of the majority of college text books recanted his opinions of natural selection once the complexities of the living cell became known. The cell was once considered the most simple of living organisms. They are now known to be among the most complex with numerous systems that cannot exist without the other. Every component of the living cell would have to be in place at one time before the cell could live. Natural selection is a statistically impossible solution for how numerous complex systems could develop simultaneously when each of those complex systems existance is dependent on the other systems already being developed and in place.

Cambrianic explosion proves all Cambrianic explosion is 100% proof.
There is zero evidence in the fossil record of any species transferring to another species, also proving that evolution is 100% false. Check out "Signs of Gods existence" on youtube. It is irrefutable evidence, none of this "proves" any religion, but it all proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that we were created by an intelligent designer

http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Should take a look at the link I left you.

I would have enjoyed this debate if it could have been tooken less seriously and more respectful on your end. You never gave any real evidence rather you just rebuked each of my arguments without any scientific basis. To conclude I would just like to say say that all the universe cannot come from nothing and your theory does not have a explanation of were that life giving goop came from.
kjreichmann

Con

Well, this is the last argument of the debate, so let's make this the best one.

"You seem to be attacking what I say rather than replying with hard evidence. you have not really given any reasons to prove anything or basis for what you are saying." This is the idea of a rebuttal. As the "Pro" side of the argument, you are making a claim that intelligent design should be taught in schools, and as such you have the burden of proof. I am merely refuting your arguments because you are the one making claims, and it is my duty as the "Con" side to disagree with what you say.

"My reason was to point out that there is ALOT of "i think so's" or "probably" in the theory of evolution which doesn't seem very scientific." As I said, science is not a method of thinking that points out "facts", as those are merely pieces of observable evidence. Rather, science gives explanations for these observations. We can never truly know if our explanations are the real source of what we observe, and therefore, everything in science is bound to have "probably" stuck on it. Hell, gravity is a theory, just like evolution, because it could technically be angels controlling motion. Human knowledge is limited, and all of science is a simple testament to that.

""3. You have a misunderstanding of the scientific method. The idea behind the method is that human knowledge is, indeed, limited. Because of this, all theories must be tested over and over again. There is no definitive truth, merely an acknowledgement of the truth as we can best determine. That truth is evolution, so while no one is certain that it is true, it is being perfected and made more true every day, unlike intelligent design" If no one is certain that evolution is true than why is it being taught as a absolute truth in our text books without question? And don't you say that it is not being taught as a fact in our schools because it is. (I see it everyday in textbooks)" Again, you reference textbooks in school without any sources. I am, as I am typing this, holding my biology textbook with a paragraph on evolution pulled up. It never says that it is definitive truth, just that it is the best explanation we have. To get back to our point, however, I do not believe that evolution should be taught as whole truth, but that is not part of the debate topic.

""you should take a look at ow they teach it in the textbooks nowadays." Can you elaborate" Nope. That's exactly what I mean. Go and take a look at how they teach it." Again, I don't know every textbook in the world, but clearly you are reading something different from what I am. It truly is a shame that this is the last post because I would have loved to see what you put forward. Sadly, you have no evidence, and simply saying "Go and take a look" is not enough when I have already done exactly that.

""Why can't it be the students choice what they have to learn in science?" Because the whole idea is that a student learns what is true from the teacher, not the other way around. Would you like them to also decide if they learn about a round earth?" To an extent that is true but not for this. Intelligent design has enough evidence to be considered a science that can be taught in our school. You cant disagree that we don have any evidence." Your rebuttal has nothing to do with what I said. I claimed that students should not decide what should be taught, and you responded by saying that intelligent design has evidence. Besides that, you made a baseless claim, as you did not support it with any evidence.

""The chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion!" Again, evidence?" Do some math. http://www.icr.org...; Thank you for providing a source for one of your claims, but it unfortunately fails to deliver. The article itself ignores the sheer amount of DNA replications in a single cell, and the amount of time evolution takes to occur. It's math is correct, but the logic is not, and we can write this one off pretty easily.

""We see no gradual change in the fossil record." "To conclude I would like to point out that evolution IS NOT PROVEN NOR IS IT A FACT." http://talkorigins.org......... Spend an hour there or so, it really dives into the core proofs of evolution that you didn't feel like addressing" ------ You didn't seem to want to address what I just said about there being no gradual change in the fossil record. I would however like to here you thoughts on why there isnt one." Again, the change in the fossil record is simply to large of a scale to put into one simple argument. There is so much evidence, and so many records, that it would only be possible to debate them by debating any points in the fossil record you disagree with. Unfortunately, you didn't do that, so that cannot happen now.

""DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. " Bill Gates If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -Charles Darwin-

Well it has been demonstrated. Darwin"s theory was formed on the assumption that the cell was just a blob of protoplasm. But science has discovered that it is much much more."
This part of his argument is actually fairly accurate. Fortunately, science is forever testing its theories. Therefore, the theory of evolution does not teach that this is truth, and we can move on.

"Teaching evolution is teaching 19th century science. Come into the 21st century because science is passing you by."
While it would be easy to dismiss this petty remark, a good look at the rate of scientist who accept evolutionary theory shows that it is, in fact, much more timeless.

"The elucidation of DNA"s information-bearing properties raised the question of the ultimate origin of the information in both DNA and proteins.
Scientists in many fields now recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly." Information in DNA is not like the information we know. There are merely chemical reactions that occur between mRNA and tRNA that differ depending on the chemical properties of both. This is like saying that, when a ball hits water and water is displaced, that the ball gave information to the water to displace a certain amount.

The chances of everything just evolving by chance is..." Evolution does not rely on chance. Natural selection is non-random.

"Did you know that the universe is expanding at just...Creator made everything intelligently." The Amazing Atheist has done video after video on this issue, so I'd recommend him if you have any confusion. However, with a universe this big, of course there are certain places that humans can live on. There are far more planets that humans cannot live on. So yes, we are here by chance, because there are so many planets in the universe that some are bound to be habitable. In fact, many others are!

"Cell complexity screams...systems already being developed and in place." There are two points in this paragraph to address. First, you claim that natural selection has been shown to be impossible, and give no source, so we can dismiss this as musings. Second, the pro side claims that the complexity of cells proves intelligent design. However, evolution clearly accounts for complex biological life through rapid genetic mutation and natural selection, and as such this can be, again, dismissed.

"Cambrianic explosion proves all Cambrianic explosion is 100% proof." Um... could someone leave a comment to explain this? He really didn't make this very clear.

"There is zero evidence in the fossil record of any species transferring to another species" Again, talkorigins. Plenty of examples, especially among whales. "Check out "Signs of Gods existence" on youtube. It is irrefutable evidence, none of this "proves" any religion, but it all proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that we were created by an intelligent designer" I'd love to, but many videos have that name, and he failed to provide a link. If he would be so kind as to comment on the debate with a link, that would be dandy.

"http://www.answersingenesis.org......
Should take a look at the link I left you." I've been to the site more than enough times, thank you though.
"I would have enjoyed this debate if it could have been tooken less seriously and more respectful on your end" You had every chance to point out where I was being disrespectful. Also, wouldn't taking it less seriously make me less respectful, and vise verse?
"You never gave any real evidence rather you just rebuked each of my arguments without any scientific basis." Again, you have the burden of proof. You also failed to quote any time I did this.
" To conclude I would just like to say say that all the universe cannot come from nothing and your theory does not have a explanation of were that life giving goop came from." Yes, but evolution is not designed to explain the origin of life. Truth is, there is no theory that explains this. You cannot, however, say that the lack of a current explanation makes yours valid.

Well, I hope you had fun my friend. If it means anything, you certainly improved over the course of the debate, and I hope you bring that improvement to other debates on this site. I apologize if I was disrespectful, please message me where I was. If you have any other debates you'd like to have, feel free to message me. I believe we have both learned from this a good deal. I still hope, however, that the voters do see that evolution is a theory, and intelligent design remains a hypothesis. But that is their decision. May the best man win, and it's been a pleasure debating with you. GGWP.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by vanssjosh 3 years ago
vanssjosh
Yes I agree with you bladrunner. It was my first debate and I did not understand proper conduct i.e burden of proof. Next time I will put more effort into making my debates more understandable as English is my first language!
p.s it took so long to comment because i got locked out of my account.
Posted by kjreichmann 3 years ago
kjreichmann
Thank you for the insightful comment dlaberunner, I couldn't agree more
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I'm giving conduct because Con exhibited a great deal of patience for Pro's language difficulties--though I'm not sure what, specifically, led Con to conclude it was related to English not being Pro's first language. While I feel technically S&G should go to Con, I give some slack for folks who aren't fluent, which factors into my conduct decision somewhat, in that Con's S&G was far better, and he was also exceedingly patient.

Sources were equal enough, because not a lot were used, really.

As to arguments, the meat of the points:

As Con noted, Pro, you had the Burden of Proof. It was your job to show that intelligent design should be taught as science. You gave no grounds for it to be seen as science. Your attacks on evolution were irrelevant to the question. What assertions you did make which had any relevancy were, for the most part, just that: assertions. If all you need to do is assert, Pro, then all Con needs to do is assert--and we reach a stalemate. Except YOU had the Burden of Proof, Pro, so Con wins a tie. That's obviously an oversimplification--I'm pointing out that even if I accept that complaint at face value it doesn't help you out much.

One of the most bothersome things, to me, when I read Creationists attempt to defend their idea, is that they seem to think "If I attack evolution, then Intelligent Design is true by default!", and that's simply not the case. You had to give justification for your position to be taught as science--evolution's position as science was largely irrelevant.

Regardless, it was a nice effort on Pro's part, and I feel Con did a fine job. As Pro did not fulfill his BoP, arguments to Con.

As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
vanssjoshkjreichmannTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.