Instigator / Pro
0
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1290

God Created DNA

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Winner
0
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

No information

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

Con simply has much better sources and their logic stands much better.

Pro's position on the topic requires that he disproves all other possibilities which is much harder to do than prove a single other possibility. That is like trying to get someone to buy a single style of glasses with one million other options. Pro may want to keep this in mind for his future debates. Don't set yourself up for failure.

False alien invasion -- "How Demons came down and called themselfs god" "The demons are going to come back but this time there not going to call themselfs Gods" "Remember Demons look like humans but with wings" "Which would be correct except for the bible. TV Shows like ancient aliens do this. Where they show all the evidence that demons calling themselves god and created religions" "My god is right because my god has prophesy that come true. almost 2000 years ago Israel was completely destroyed by Babylon." "Israel was created and declared a nation in a single day in 1948 after the Hitler stuff." -- I feel like this is a good example of why pro's arguments stand less well. While this might make sense to Pro's logic and experience it makes hugely less to Con's. Con is atheist and doesn't believe in demons in the first place, so when points like "cells have a variety of mechanisms to prevent mutations, or permanent changes in DNA sequence" because a radio pastor said it and using that as a source, it doesn't do too well against them. Maybe like trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in santa that elves are real, you have to speak in your opponent's terms and on their field to convince them of something.

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

Firstly, Pro's style and inherent colloquialism makes a clean reading of his syllogism much more difficult to their obvious disadvantage. However, this is unrelated to the argument and is simply a thought for the Pro to consider in future debates.
Con consistently provided sound rebuttals and standard (yet sound) arguments to defend their position. Future recommendations to the Pro would include wording thoughts such that they provide a clear and understandable logical progression. This would also help mitigate some of the stray fallacies not addressed but apparent in their reasoning.

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

Yet another troll debate abusing Poe's Law to mock religious people...

First of all, credit to pro for the improvements on S&G.

I admit I enjoyed the religious people bleed rainbows opening, but I do wish it had pictures...

So the core of pro's case is that DNA doesn't change, except he argues it spontaneously changes every time we drink or have sex, we pass down altered DNA more likely to repeat those things (which would mean gay people don't exist, and everyone is trying to bleep their own mothers). Con of course lays on proof that DNA does change generation to generation, and links it back to our most likely origin.

Con also counters that the claim God did it, begs for other such gods to be considered; so he brings in the FSM and Aliens. Pro's defense via assertion against the FSM is that all gods are "each Demon calling themselfs god" [sic], and fails to offer any suggestion for why God would not be one of these. Con merely points out that Satan hasn't been proven (and no, Santa Clause does not prove Satan, even if he was inspired by the myth, myths inspiring more myths proves nothing).

Con also offers a syllogism, to which pro drops; that alone could cost pro the arguments (if everything above did not already).

Sources: The existence of a guy named Pastor Chuck v. government and educational sites about evolution; one is just kind of there not doing anything, and the other supports arguments.