Instigator / Pro
10
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#737

Evolution, despite being officially considered a theory, is actually a fact.

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...

Speedrace
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Description

No information

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:

“DNA proves we are related to other hominids irrefutably and that all species on earth are related”

On what basis can you make this claim?

I was searching for an answer to this question throughout pros arguments, and didn’t find it.

Resolution is king, and as this is a debate - my first expectation would be that pro offers a constructive argument as to why he can make his claim. He doesn’t offer such an argument. The entire premise of his position assumes that individuals like me understand what he’s talking about, and make the argument for why this evidence demonstrates evolution based on our own understanding of it.

As a result, I can fully accept everything pro offers, but it doesn’t end up being clear to me why they end up making evolution “a fact”.

While I don’t feel that con does a great job casting doubt on evolution; he clearly sets up rational reasons to disbelieve that evolution is a “fact”, in the way that pro presents it. The arguments for DNA relatives, arguing that the analysis requires a presupposition of Gods existence, and the argument from symbiosis were the best parts of pro response. pros defense of the former offered no explanation of how DNA allows us to infer ancestry; and for the latter was merely dismissed by pro. These two are enough in the absence of pros burden to cast doubt on the resolution.

The fossile evidence argument from con was terrible - 200 transitional forms? Why are there any?

My main issue here is that I would have to inject my own understanding of evolution here to award this debate to pro - as he offers no justification of his claims. Cons position is not great, but does just enough to cast doubt on the resolution.

Arguments to pro.

All other points tied.

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:

Pro would have better off just making the topic Evolution. Pro's topic suggests a contradiction between theories and facts that is not so. Many famous theories can be facts; many facts are famous theories.

Pro's supports are sound enough although the quality of the one source and the degree of effort in presentation are both fairly sub-par. Con's stronger effort in reply is cheering but ill-reasoned.

Pro argues that DNA maps out the inter-relatedness of all life. Con argues that the map is proof of intelligence design. How is evolution made less factual by some theistic veneer? If God made DNA then God likely designed evolution- why wouldn't a God designed adaptation system be just as factual as a non-God designed adaptation system? Irrelevant counter.

Pro argues that the fossil record documents intermediate stages in species transitions. Con argues that Wikipedia cites less than 200 fossils that substantiate Pro's claim and gives us a link to better evidence than Pro's.

Pro argues that vestigial characteristics are evidence of no-longer-adaptive traits. Con does not oppose.

Pro gives us a link to further arguments and even claims in R2 that Con must respond to those arguments. In fact, that's a violation of DART voting rules:

The voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable. This includes reasoning that stems from already-placed votes, comment sections, and separate forums. Votes that impermissibly factor in outside content and which are reported will be removed.

Con wisely dismisses Pro's claim to any credit for argument on some other site because voters here may not consider them.

Con was off point on the first contention, more supportive of Pro's argument than Pro in the second, and fine with third contention. Con lost this argument.

Conduct to Con for Pro's assertion of other people's arguments on other sites. Let's avoid the like in future.