Instigator / Pro
21
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#1362

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
6
6
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
3
4
Better conduct
4
4

After 4 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

TheRealNihilist
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
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
22
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Description

I'm going to use google docs because pictures are worth 1000 words.

-->
@sigmaphil

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: sigmaphil // Mod action: Not Removed

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@OoDart

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: OoDart // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: See beliow

Reason for Mod Action: The argument point is borderline and thus will be deemd sufficient; however, the conduct point is not. According to the COC:

In order to award conduct points, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks:

Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate

Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic. In the case of awarding conduct points solely on the basis of forfeits, there is an exception to these steps: a debater may award conduct points solely for forfeited rounds, but only if one debater forfeited half or more of their rounds or if the voter also awards argument points (or explains their decision not to award argument points in a manner which meets the argument points voting standards).

The voter fails to show how this is 'excessive, frequent, and/or cause the debate to be incoherent or extremely toxic.'

************************************************************************

-->
@OoDart

Pro provided explanations as to why God created beings with certain colors. Con never proved them wrong, but simply said "You cannot prove God did this." Without proving God could not have done this, I must follow the most logical conclusion. Pro claimed, for example, "God chose their colors not the weasel." He gave support to the fact that weasels do not get to choose their color. He also explained how if they came through random evolution, they should have random colors. Pro gave support for intelligent design. Con went on to compare intelligent design to rape, which frankly seems like a catch-all argument in the event that you do not have any actual arguments.
Neither participant had sources.
Con had slightly better S&G but pro's mistakes were minor and did not affect the debate.
Con said "The second sentence made me laugh." in regards to a sentence said by pro. This sentence was a statement of pro's beliefs. Either con laughed at the minor grammatical error or laughed at pro's beliefs. Both of these are poor conduct.

In philosophy, a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy or non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic.
Formal fallacy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Formal_fallacy

-->
@sigmaphil

micro evolution is junk science its silly stuff bible thumpers say, and it makes them look retarded

-->
@billbatard

One could argue it's micro-evolution, which is an accepted point in Creationism.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

You know we have no documentation of any of those drawing being made. I just pulled them the picture off the internet once i concluded that they made an intelligent choice by observing them.

thats evolution at work you dolt

Ignore

"I await a rebuttal to the problem. "

Didn't realize it was the last round.

werd

-->
@crossed

That was the point and it was detailed. You didn't say it was good or not.

How about now?

If you mean't about the current picture. Umm she a little beaten up

ok i hate 1940 imagery that is black and white. I hate 1980s hairstyle. i dislike cars.

Its awsome

-->
@crossed

I mean what don't you like?

Not you said you don't like something as in name me something you don't like.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I did not say i did not like it ????

-->
@crossed

What don't you like?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

it's cool

-->
@crossed

I am going to change it. Tell me if you like it.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

That one

-->
@crossed

Which profile I keep changing it?