Instigator / Pro
3
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1262

It is a fact that God put medicine in plants

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
0
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

Burden of proof
I have to prove that it requires great intelligence to create the medicine in plants and only god can do it.

Con needs to show that it does not require intelligence to create medicine in plants and this medicine can come naturally via evolution and big bang

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Another troll spam debate (given that he's previously conceded evolution is how life got here, not God, pretty safe to say the trolling is intentional)... Given the amount of copy/paste, vote against pro would be justified on that alone.

1. Didit fallacy
Pro offers his usual didit fallacy (normally each debate stands wholly alone, but at a certain point we can't pretend someone isn't spamming the same drivel), with no explanation for why any god (let alone a random one from the middle east) would have done it (or that they even exist for that matter). Con calls him out on this in a much wordier format. Summary of it from con: "If an all powerful super being wanted us to fix our illnesses: why make us sick in the first place?" Not even getting into the failing to fix said illnesses most of the time.

1. Evolution
Seems to be the better explanation for what is observed (and as for us being able to benefit from eating other carbon based organisms, well the DNA repair is listed by con as "That such enzymes and antioxidants are beneficial to other animals with DNA, is unsurprising and is explainable using EXACTLY the same trial, error and selection principles as outlined in point 1,2 and 3 in R1."), and no counter case is offered to suggest otherwise. Were this Minecraft and there were exclusively beneficial effects, pro might have a case.

S&G should be self explanatory; but pro decided to hide his points behind a wall of bad grammar, missing punctuation, wrong capitalization, extra spaces at random, etc. Con on the other hand was legible.

Sources and conduct would also be warranted, but I am not putting the extra time into them on a troll debate.