Evolution is not real

Con is arguing that Evolution is real, Pro is defending that Evolution is not real.

Con begins the first round by withholding argumentation until late, but gives us a good opening as to what to expect by dropping facts and terminology that have been accepted by the scientific community as true, such as adaptation, natural selection, and speciation.

Pro starts off his Round 1 argument by suggesting that animal and insect species are capable of impressive intelligent feats, but that the gap between human IQ and the IQ of other species is too wide for it to be coincidental. Pro implies that humankind is the Chosen Species, and that if things were left to their own devices, animals and other organisms would have caught up with mankind and be on par with them in terms of intelligence. Pro asks a rhetorical question to strengthen his position, using creativity as the distinguishing trait that defines humans apart from animals.

Con starts off his Round 2 arguments by addressing these Pro's contentions in a strong way. He points out that intelligence and creativity being unique to humans is irrelevant as to proving or disproving the theory of evolution. Con mentions that animals develop the traits their environment requires in order for them to survive, and that there's pros & cons for every species. He compares human intelligence to the healing potential of axolotls and salamanders, pointing out that every biological characteristic is determined by genetics and other factors. He also points out that human empathy developed because of the feeble mortality of man, and that cooperation in groups helped them learn traits and skills to survive.
Con also points out that the evidence for Evolution already proves that it is true and that to disprove it, you need to declare how the evidence in question is wrong.

Pro starts his Round 2 argument by re-clarifying the position he is arguing and stating that he believes genetic mutations exist, but that they are separate from Evolution. Pro argues that the science contradicts itself because if evolution is something that helps species survive, then why do genetic mutations cause more harm than science claims they solve.

Con starts Round 3 by correcting Pro's misconceptions about evolution by stating that evolution is about random selection, not beneficial. He describes in detail how certain colored moths were bigger targets for predators due to their visibility, and due to being killed off so quickly, there were an infrequent amount of that particular kind of moth to breed. The more common moths were better suited for their environment, due to their camouflaging abilities and there were more of them to breed. So moths of that particular kind became more common, which is an example of evolution. Pro mentions how much of human survival comes down to genetic mutation, such as the ability to see and speak.

Pro starts Round 3 by addressing none of these arguments and derailing the subject by instead asking questions about creationism.

In round 4, Con has already substantiated most of his arguments from the previous rounds so doesn't need to argue anything else, and he addresses Pro's other questions, indulging him in a side convo about religion. However, no other arguments or rebuttals are brought forth by either side in the final round.

Con brings forth more arguments and line of reasoning for his side, even correcting Pro's misconceptions and using scientific data to back up his argumentation. Pro goes off topic a lot and has side conversations instead of defending his position. For arguments, the winner is Con.

Both sides provided sources, so I'm leaving this a tie. Grammar & spelling were equal, so legibility is a tie for both sides. Conduct was perfect from both participants, there was a mutual level of respect given between both of them. So that is also a tie.