Instigator / Pro
Points: 21

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

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
TheRealNihilist
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 22
Description
I'm going to use google docs because pictures are worth 1000 words.
Round 1
Published:
Thanks for taking this. nice new profile pic btw.


Anyway here my argument.Pls if you do not understand pls tell me. Pictures tell a thousand words.


The seval has the same ear design on both ears. This is like if i was making a custom shirt and i make both the back of the shirt and the front of the shirt the same. So it would be proportionate. there is not advantage of having the same cool ear design on both ears. Similar to how there is no advantage of a tiger having stripes that cover the entire body. If evolution created life it would not be proportionate. the tiger would only have a couple stripes. not stripes that cover the entire body to make it proportionate. The only reason why this would be done is to keep it proportionate.If evolution created life designs would be random the stripes and poke dots on animals would look more like birthmarks. But they are all proportioned. Because god knew they would not look right if they were not proportioned.




Weasels are white during the winter to match the white snow.The coloring is an intelligent choice. God colored the weasel white to match the white snow.Similar to if i have a green table and i get a green chair to go with it.. The coloring was an intelligent choice. I got a green chair to match the green table.

Published:
Thank you crossed for creating this debate.

X was created due to intelligent design would require an argument for it to be the case. My opponent did not give an argument instead simply stated what things are and said they are intelligent choices.


Weasels are brown during the summer and white during the winter.
God made many intelligent choices when creating the weasel.
The coloring was no accident. God created the weasel white to go with the white snow. So the coloring was an intelligent choice. God created the weasel white to match the white snow

His argument is that since the colors of the terrain match the animal it is proof for intelligent design. The problem here is that if we use this argument for something else as in the rapist color hair matches the victim color which shows a sign of God not existing then it wouldn't make any sense because colors of something is a non-sequitur unless of course there is something you have neglected to mention that links color to God. In order for my opponent to show color is a sign of intelligent design he must state there is an inherent link between the two. If he doesn't it goes against the resolution of the debate.

This is like how nintendo colored pikachu yellow because lightning bolts are yellow. The color they chose to design pikachu with was an intelligent choice. They created pikachu yellow to match yellow lightning

Okay lets say I agree with this. We can demonstrate that the creator of Nintendo thought of the idea while also finalizing it whereas we can't do the same. Do you have evidence of God coloring weasles? There is evidence for the creator of Pikachu not weasle coloring by God.


His right ears has the same exact design as his left ear. So much evidence for the jesus

(The second sentence made me laugh.)

Yes the ears are symmetrical but can you demonstrate it was from God?

Onto everything outside the link:

The seval has the same ear design on both ears. This is like if i was making a custom shirt and i make both the back of the shirt and the front of the shirt the same.

Difference is we can video tape the entire thing whereas we can't video tape God doing the same. We are lacking evidence and you have yet to state otherwise.

So it would be proportionate. there is not advantage of having the same cool ear design on both ears. Similar to how there is no advantage of a tiger having stripes that cover the entire body.

Don't understand please clarify.
 If evolution created life it would not be proportionate. the tiger would only have a couple stripes. not stripes that cover the entire body to make it proportionate. The only reason why this would be done is to keep it proportionate.If evolution created life designs would be random the stripes and poke dots on animals would look more like birthmarks. But they are all proportioned. Because god knew they would not look right if they were not proportioned.
"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction."

If Tiger's were failing because of their colors they would've become extinct a while ago. They are not extinct and since evolution is the case given fossil records your claim is invalid. 
Weasels are white during the winter to match the white snow.The coloring is an intelligent choice. God colored the weasel white to match the white snow.Similar to if i have a green table and i get a green chair to go with it.. The coloring was an intelligent choice. I got a green chair to match the green table.
We can demonstrate a person painting a table. We can't demonstrate God coloring Weasels that is the problems.

Over to you crossed

Round 2
Published:
point 1
Okay lets say I agree with this. We can demonstrate that the creator of Nintendo thought of the idea while also finalizing it whereas we can't do the same. Do you have evidence of God coloring weasles? There is evidence for the creator of Pikachu not weasle coloring by God.
No one at Nintendo ever said the reason why pikachu is colored yellow  is because lightning is yellow. The reason why we know they made the intelligent choice to color pikachu yellow to match the yellow lightning. Is because i noticed that Nintendo made an intelligent choice when designing Pikachu.I also noticed that God made the same intelligent choices when designing creatures. Weasels are brown during the summer and white during the winter. The white coloring was chosen intelligently. The reason why God chose to design the weasel white is so it would match the white snow.The reason why Nintendo colored pikachu yellow was to match the yellow lightning. If we need Nintendo to demonstrate that they made an intelgent choice when designing pikachu. How did i figure out that they made an intelligent choice when designing Pikachu.

point 1.2
His argument is that since the colors of the terrain match the animal it is proof for intelligent design. The problem here is that if we use this argument for something else as in the rapist color hair matches the victim color which shows a sign of God not existing then it wouldn't make any sense because colors of something is a non-sequitur unless of course there is something you have neglected to mention that links color to God


Cons example is invalid because no one in that situation made an intelligent choice.
Rapist hair color matches the hair of the victim example is invalid because no one made an intelligent choice when picking the hair colors.
But lets say the Rapist is crazy man and he dyes his hair  red to match his red haired victim. This example works because someone made an intelligent choice. The rapist is obsessed with his red haired victim so he makes an intelligent choice to dye his hair red to match his red headed victim. The reason why the coloring was an intelligent choice is because the color he choice to dye his hair was not random. He chose to dye his hair red to match  his victims red hair. He saw that his red headed victim  was red head and because he is Obsessed with her. He wanted to be just like her so he intelligently  chose to colored his hair red to match her red hair. Him coloring his hair red was an intelligent choice.





point 1.3

X was created due to intelligent design would require an argument for it to be the case. My opponent did not give an argument instead simply stated what things are and said they are intelligent choices.
I do have an argument just no one understands. I stated what things are and said these must have come to be by god making intelligent choices.

X was created due to intelligent design would require an argument for it to be the case.
X was created due to god making an intelligent choice.

Observation

Animals in the snow are colored white



How i think it came to be this way


God must have colored these animals white to match the white snow. He did not just color these animals randomly. he did not color them green or yellow. He made the intelligent choice to color the animals white to match the white snow. This is like if a race car driver has a green uniform so he decides to drive a green car to match the green uniform the color was an picked intelligently. Or if McDonald had a yellow building so they design the work uniform yellow to match the yellow building. The color was picked Intelligently.

point 2
His right ears has the same exact design as his left ear. So much evidence for the jesus

(The second sentence made me laugh.)

Yes the ears are symmetrical but can you demonstrate it was from God?
Only God would care about proportions.

Point 2.2
The seval has the same ear design on both ears. This is like if i was making a custom shirt and i make both the back of the shirt and the front of the shirt the same.
Con said
Difference is we can video tape the entire thing whereas we can't video tape God doing the same. We are lacking evidence and you have yet to state otherwise.


My reply

We can see the guy with the custom shirt made the same intelligent choice God made. Because they both came out the same. Showing the results of intelligent choices.The same design is on both sides of the shirt. The custom shirt designer must have created both sides the same so they match. Both Serval ears are the same. God must have created them both the same so they would match. They both made intelligent choices. They chose to design the second half the same as the first half. Is because they had knowledge that the first half is exactly the same.


Point 3

Don't understand please clarify.
The tiger stripe pattern would not cover entire body if life just appeared out of know where. The colors would be random to. only God would care if it was proportioned



Evolution fraud point 1
If Tiger's were failing because of their colors they would've become extinct a while ago. They are not extinct and since evolution is the case given fossil records your claim is invalid. 
They are not extinct because god colored them  intelligently. So they would survive not die.If we are not talking about tigers. tigers do not need advantages. so he did not design them with. Fossil record do not show animal fur color's. Plus evolution has more faked bones then real ones. They get caught on a lot of things

many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

There worst then the Bigfoot people claiming to have found Bigfoot.Nope just another guy wearing a mask.


Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction."
Why would being in the snow cause my genes to mutate and turned me white.
What is in the snow that causes my genes to mutate. I see no cause


Point 5

Weasels are white during the winter to match the white snow.The coloring is an intelligent choice. God colored the weasel white to match the white snow.Similar to if i have a green table and i get a green chair to go with it.. The coloring was an intelligent choice. I got a green chair to match the green table.
We can demonstrate a person painting a table. We can't demonstrate God coloring Weasels that is the problems.
We can observe that the painter made an intelligent choice without seeing them build it. We see the chair is green and the table is green. The logical conclusion is the painter made an intelligent choice and designed the green table green to match the green chair. We do not need to see the chair builder making the chair we can see the intelligent choices off the final product. We can observe god making intelligent choices.  We observe the weasel is white and the snow is white. God must have made an intelligent choice when designing the Weasel. He turned the weasel white to match the white snow. We do not need to see him make the weasel we can see that he did  by the design of the weasel itself.




Published:
Thanks crossed for the response. 

point 1
I also noticed that God made the same intelligent choices when designing creatures.
Do you have anyway of demonstrating God doing anything or is it well this must be intelligent design instead of seeing God do something?

How did i figure out that they made an intelligent choice when designing Pikachu.
You used your brain which took a while to develop which was first sprung up from your parents conception of you. 

point 1.2

Rapist hair color matches the hair of the victim example is invalid because no one made an intelligent choice when picking the hair colors.
Then this would also mean weasels don't have the intelligent choice to choose their color which would mean you can't use them for your main argument instead of an example. Your argument has to show God doing something. You haven't done instead of saying rapist has x hair therefore God in a different context of course. You need to show God did this during x therefore God exists and God did this. 

point 1.3

I do have an argument just no one understands. I stated what things are and said these must have come to be by god making intelligent choices.
Double standard. You have not justified this special case you simply stated it to be one. Please next round justify it or compare it to other things to not make it a special case.

X was created due to god making an intelligent choice.
Can you demonstrate God making that choice?

How i think it came to be this way

God must have colored these animals white to match the white snow. He did not just color these animals randomly. he did not color them green or yellow. He made the intelligent choice to color the animals white to match the white snow. This is like if a race car driver has a green uniform so he decides to drive a green car to match the green uniform the color was an picked intelligently. Or if McDonald had a yellow building so they design the work uniform yellow to match the yellow building. The color was picked Intelligently.
You think it to be the case but you don't know. You even use must even without explaining as if the very thing we are arguing is simply agreed upon so we have nothing to argue about. You have to demonstrate why God must be the case but a much better way of arguing this is simply showing me evidence that God did do something.

point 2

Only God would care about proportions.
Now you are only applying some kind of thought God has? I can simply say here that I care deeply about proportions so much so that I have raised cats to be healthy. Am I now God or does proportions not matter when it comes to God doing something as in designing animals? 

Point 2.2

We can see the guy with the custom shirt made the same intelligent choice God made. Because they both came out the same. Showing the results of intelligent choices.The same design is on both sides of the shirt. The custom shirt designer must have created both sides the same so they match. Both Serval ears are the same. God must have created them both the same so they would match. They both made intelligent choices. They chose to design the second half the same as the first half. Is because they had knowledge that the first half is exactly the same.
The problem is that we can see a person doing that on a shirt. We can't see God doing something to anything. You can't compare these two for that reason.

Point 3

The tiger stripe pattern would not cover entire body if life just appeared out of know where. The colors would be random to. only God would care if it was proportioned
Any evidence? I am only getting your opinions.

Evolution fraud point 1

They are not extinct because god colored them  intelligently.
So you are telling me God cares enough about x animal enough to have them live longer while not caring as much for a dodo bird? Can you demonstrate it?

Fossil record do not show animal fur color's.
Fossil record are mainly bone so fur would have to be seen using other avenues.

Plus evolution has more faked bones then real ones. They get caught on a lot of things
many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic

There worst then the Bigfoot people claiming to have found Bigfoot.Nope just another guy wearing a mask.
The page doesn't even load for me. At best you are only discrediting one specific evolution finding. You would have to demonstrate this is used to show a consensus if not then showing this is useless because it is an anecdote.

Why would being in the snow cause my genes to mutate and turned me white.
What is in the snow that causes my genes to mutate. I see no cause
I don't know. I thought you were supposed to say something like God did it. Saying you see no cause does go against you defending God.

Point 5

We can observe that the painter made an intelligent choice without seeing them build it. We see the chair is green and the table is green. The logical conclusion is the painter made an intelligent choice and designed the green table green to match the green chair. We do not need to see the chair builder making the chair we can see the intelligent choices off the final product. We can observe god making intelligent choices.  We observe the weasel is white and the snow is white. God must have made an intelligent choice when designing the Weasel. He turned the weasel white to match the white snow. We do not need to see him make the weasel we can see that he did  by the design of the weasel itself.
Yet again using something we can someone do and we can't see something do. That is the problem. Until you address that I will have that problem because that is what stops your theory from being true. Evidence for that x occurring. 
Round 3
Published:
Thanks crossed for the response. 

Link to crossed's response.

Yet again my opponent is still using the same argument. He is comparing what we can see to what we can't see. Given we have cameras and the internet we can pretty much see anywhere in the world yet we can't see God doing anything. That is the problem. We can see an artist paint but we can't see God create anything.

I have pretty much summed up every single grievance I have with my opponent in 2 lines. It was made possible by the very similar responses he made while also me picking it out.

I await a rebuttal to the problem. 

Over to you crossed



Added:
--> @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.
************************************************************************
#21
Added:
--> @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.'
************************************************************************
#20
Added:
--> @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.
#19
Added:
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
#18
Added:
--> @sigmaphil
micro evolution is junk science its silly stuff bible thumpers say, and it makes them look retarded
#17
Added:
--> @billbatard
One could argue it's micro-evolution, which is an accepted point in Creationism.
#16
Added:
--> @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.
Instigator
#15
Added:
thats evolution at work you dolt
#14
Added:
Ignore
"I await a rebuttal to the problem. "
Didn't realize it was the last round.
Contender
#13
Added:
werd
Contender
#12
Added:
--> @crossed
That was the point and it was detailed. You didn't say it was good or not.
How about now?
Contender
#11
Added:
If you mean't about the current picture. Umm she a little beaten up
Instigator
#10
Added:
ok i hate 1940 imagery that is black and white. I hate 1980s hairstyle. i dislike cars.
Instigator
#9
Added:
Its awsome
Instigator
#8
Added:
--> @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.
Contender
#7
#4
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Pros argument boils down to animals having different colours that are suitable for the environment they live in - therefore God.
Con argues that this is due to evolution. In the first round, con points out that if animals fail due their colour - they die. This is a very basic description, and I would have liked to do more.
Con also address, tersely, a key issue with pros argument: that con can point out the painter making the painting, but pro is unable to show God. He points out that pro cannot produce evidence of God actually colouring weasels.
Out of these two, pros argument appears to be unwarranted non-sequitur: pro doesn’t, in my view, provide any reason as to why God is the only explanation - the core of the argument appears mostly asserted.
Pro doesn’t offer any additional arguments - and simply repeats this over and over.
Pro does make an argument relating to evolutionary fraud, con bats this away by explaining that one “fraud” doesn’t necessitate that all of evolution is flawed.
Trimming away all the fat of this debate - it appears that pros argument is mainly asserting that animals are particular colours - then asserting God did it. Cons main argument was to produce a very basic counter explanation which is more causal - and pointing out that pro is mostly asserting his position.
I feel con may have made this easier by hammering home a basic step by step evolutionary explantation the core content of cons rebuttal pointed out the vacuous nature of pros argument and wasn’t significantly harmed by pros only counter. As con offered a necessary explanation whilst pro does not - cons case wins out.
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Resolution: BOP on Pro. Con makes no constructive, so Con has to disprove all of Pro's points.
1. Weasels/Natural Camo:
Pro opens up talking about weasels and their natural camouflage, then says that this translates to intelligent design since the colors match their environments (akin to Nintendo designing Pikachu.) I did not find this point convincing as there was no proper evidence given that camouflage could not originate from a source other than intelligent design.
Con responds to Pro's first point through a comparison that fell pretty flat. However, it does an adequate job of demonstrating the lack of logical causation present in Pro's point. Regarding Pro's Pikachu comparison, Con shows that while we know the origin of Pikachu, we can not know the same for animals. Both of these responses are fair points, however regarding Pro's argument as a whole Con would have been much better off simply showing how evolution can produce camouflage through natural selection. Pro's defenses for this point are not convincing and add nothing to the conversation. I must give this point to Con.
2. Servals/Tigers/Proportionate Markings
This point was much closer. Pro's point was that natural selection does not operate based on aesthetics, so the probability of perfectly proportionate animal markings seems low. Yet, I wish Pro had offered more of a reason as to WHY aesthetics is not necessarily evolutionarily beneficial for an animal, and presented this point in a way that it was less confusing for Con. Con's only real response to this point is that since evolution is true, while the probability of proportional animal markings seems low, it must have happened anyways. This would be a sufficient response for me to flip this point in favor of Con, but the problem is that Con really fails to prove the premise that evolution is true. A link to a Wikipedia page on fossils is not an explanation as to why evolution is true, and Pro's original point is already evidence to counter Con on this one. Aside from Pro's original point, however, Pro mishandled the response to Con's fossil argument in my view. Still, even though Con was extremely close to defeating this point, it wasn't quite enough. Pro wins this one.
Conclusion:
This debate boils down to one point in favor of Pro. While Pro's first point was not convincing, Pro's second one was. Con defeated Pro's first point but Con could not sufficiently defeat Pro's second point. Since the burden of proof was on Pro, and Con made no constructive, Con was required to defeat all of Pro's points to win since he had no offense. Since he could not manage to do that, I must give the arguments to Pro but spelling and grammar to Con since Pro's points were fairly confusing to read through. After reading through, I hope both parties can see my reasoning. If not, feel free to message me and I will elaborate more.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Interpreting the resolution:
Two-part resolution; first that God designed animals, second that the coloring was intelligent.
Gist:
Pro makes an argument by assertion, con asks for actual evidence.
Had pro not repeated the same basic things, but instead sought to provide the evidence requested, I would give this debate to him. As is, con wins on grounds of BoP (pro showed that these colors would make sense if intelligently done, but never sought to provide verification of that, or worse verification that God did it as the resolution mandates).
1. Weasels are white
Comparing them to snow was a decent opening
Countered with evidence that this was non-sequitur due to the same logic could equally be used against God (if I understand correct, someone might more easily get away with a crime due to the right hair color?); which admittedly fell flat, but it was against a non-convincing point anyway.
2. Pikachu is yellow
Made that way by artistic choice.
Countered with it being confirmed as an artistic choice, unlike the things God is supposed to have colored.
Back and forth of the same thing.
3. Cat ears and stripes and spots
I think pro was saying Jesus is visible in the ears of cats? He said cat ears somehow prove Jesus, whom had zero to do with this debate.
Con lightly mocked this off topic Jesus talk, then pulled the debate back to the topic by asking for proof it was from God. He then went on to ask for video evidence of God shaping and coloring the ears, as we can do for t-shirts (pro compared glorious cat ears to shirts). Plus a short explanation that these traits are passed down genetically, thus unlikely to be painted on by God each time.
(a picture of a tortoiseshell cat would have won this... actually it would have won the whole debate... even pointing out that the pictures of cats had asymmetrical patterns could have done that)
4. Lack of argument
Con counters that an argument for creation has not been established to then weight if the choices were truly intelligent or not, when compared against the competing theory that they developed such variety by chance and natural selection (which tends to be very intelligent, but this did not come up).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. No argument in favor of God being the one to do the coloring was offered, thus even if we buy that the colors were painted on, we have nothing to suggest that God did it. Pro is making the affirmative claim, and a huge one at that, to which he needs to offer evidence to raise above the null hypothesis.
Conduct:
I was never distracted from the debate by violations, so this is firmly within the tied range.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Which participant provided the most reliable sources?
-Both provided sources during their arguments.
-Tie.
Which participant had better spelling and grammar?
-I saw no egregious violation of spelling or grammar.
-Tie.
Which participant had better conduct?
-Both sides conducted the debate with good conduct.
Tie.
Which participant provided more convincing arguments?
- There were no term definitions or debate framework provided by either side. For example terms like God, Intelligence, design, animals, etc.
- Since the resolution is "The colors God chose to design animals with were made with intelligent choices" and no defined terms or framework were introduced I was making the assumption that both sides believed in God and therefore the argument for proving God exists is not pertinent to the burden of proof.
- The burden of proof is on Pro. So what is the burden of proof? To show that God made intelligent choices in designing animals, specifically their color.
- Since both sides assume the existence of God and God by definition is intelligent, then all Pro has to do is show convincing examples that prove the resolution.
-Con's burden would be to provide a counter example to disprove Pro's examples. If Con would have shown, for example, an Arctic animal that was not White that may have been enough for me to change my vote but Con did not provide these counter-examples.
-Therefore my vote is for Pro.