Instigator / Pro
1
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1204

Life is created by God

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1
1442
rating
22
debates
34.09%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro: This is not an endorsement of you being right, merely of the debate outcome being akin to full forfeiture.

Con: Always do your work in a text editor (Google Docs for example saves itself as you write, so no data loss even if your computer crashes), not on the webpage.

Were this a single round debate, or even a two round debate, I would give this to con. Even while both sides forfeited in R3, that round still happened; pro left off with his defenses (weak as they were) unchallenged, whereas con left off having dropped everything (not the same as a forfeit, it was more like a waived round, but still not ideal... the simple phrase 'still not proof' would have gone a long way).

So pro tried to prove God didit with a bunch of numbers (largely false numbers, but such did not come up in the debate arguments), and carbon based organisms having some success at eating carbon based plants. Con said it doesn't prove God and that bad things exist, but then effectively dropped out for R2 and R3.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro starts off the debate by pointing out some numerical similarities in the Universe. For example, he says that the Sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, and the Moon is 400 times closer to the Earth than the Sun. This is false, the Moon is actually only 389 times closer and not 400. Many of his other similarities are also false, such as the claim that the cirfumference of the Moon is 27.322% of the Earth's circumference. The actual number is 27.251%, not 27.322%. With a little rounding here and there, it's possible to twist the facts and present the universe as one massive set of coincidences. This, however, is not the case. His other "coincidences" are well-known scientific facts and have nothing to do with chance, such as the fact that the number of protons and number of electrons in the universe is the same.

Pro's second argument for intelligent design is the special healing abilities of some plants. "Some plants are good" does not mean "God did it". As Con points out in his first round argument, there are thousands of plants which have no healing abilities, and thousands more which are harmful to humans. Therefore, the argument that some plants can heal humans does not prove the existence of a supernatural being, so Pro's points quickly fall apart.

Con's argument is simple but precise. He points out that Pro's coincidences are just rounded up to sound incredible, and that there is no reason for an intelligent being to create harmful plants. Furthermore, he says that even if this all were true, this is still not proof of God, since a few coincidences and medicinal plants does not prove anything.

Pro essentially repeats the same things in his R2 argument. He repeats the claim that the Moon is 400 times closer to Earth than the Sun, which is false. He repeats another claim, which is also false. The equality of protons and neutrons exists not because "God counted them", but because protons are positive and electrons are negative. Simply repeating your arguments over and over is not proof of anything. Pro was already destroyed in the first round, and his second round argument did nothing to bring him back.

Finally, I would like to say that Pro's grammar and organizing is the WORST I HAVE SEEN IN MY LIFE. He never capitalized any words. He skips twenty lines between each paragraph. He arbitrarily uses bold and italic for no reason whatsoever. Pro's arguments are very hard to read and I assume he's just doing this to confuse his opponents. So, Pro wins because of better arguments and much better formating. R'amen.