Instigator / Pro
4
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1328

The colors God chose to design animals with were made with intelligent choices

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
0
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Nemiroff
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 month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1554
rating
15
debates
73.33%
won
Description

Here are examples so you get the idea.

When Nintendo was creating Pikachu the Pokemon character they made intelligent choices when designing pikachu.
The reason why Nintendo chose to design pikachu yellow was because lightning is yellow.
so Nintendo chose to color pikachu yellow to go with yellow lightning bolts. so the coloring was intelligently chosen

The weasel is white during the winter. but brown during the summer.

God created the weasel to turn white during the winter to go with the white snow. That is an intelligent choice.

Nintendo created Pikachu yellow to go with yellow lightning bolts. That is an intelligent choice

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:

Massive BoP failure. Pro basically tries the Chewbacca Defense to prove God, without ever showing evidence which implies God to even be more likely than Pikachu.

Pro again goes into his numbers thing, trying to say that the random number of fingers and toes is proof that God counted them (and badly for those of us with six instead of five). And that mutation is the blame if the count is off, but he insists such is impossible because God does not allow it to happen (con wisely points out that we have a name for it because of how often it does... so pro's argument is if God then no mutation, but since mutation therefore no God.).

Con makes an unchallenged case for selective pressures causing some variants to die out, resulting in the limited color pallet we see.

Sources go to con for flipping pro's own source to be a concession that pro is wrong (he would not have read it and shared it with us knowing that unless he agreed that he's wrong...). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3885174/

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:

Pros incredible lack of understanding in addition to a complete lack of evidence that God did any of the things Pro alleges he did gave argument points swiftly to Con who presented far more feasible and probable reasons for the design of animals compared to pros arguments. Round 2 in particular showed Pro's complete lack of knowledge in evolution and how it works, where Pro goes so far to claim that 'genetic mutations can be prevented so evolution is impossible' and 'it is impossible for all plant eaters to evolve because they eat green grass which prevents mutations', both of which are objectively wrong and incredibly stupid statements to claim. Argument points easily won by Con.

Source points also go to con since pro's sources come from either youtube or incredibly biased and misinformed religious sites. One of his sources literally is from a Pastor talk show where Pro only cites the link and leaves it at that rather then elaborate on what the link is even arguing.

Clear-cut win by Con here.