Instigator / Pro
3
1377
rating
62
debates
25.81%
won
Topic
#794

life is created intelligently

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
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:

This was much closer than it should have been.

Pros entire argument, put charitably is made up of arguing that there isn’t a great explanation, or that there are unknowns related to a naturalistic origin of life, and that the apparent matching of organisms to their environment, together with ways in which the environment and natural objects can benefit humans is evidence for a divine creator.

This on its face meets initial burden of proof but only due to it seeming a reasonably intuitive proposition. The argument itself doesn’t seem strong, and appears a clear argument from ignorance

Cons follow up, with a short explanation of evolution; this argument is minimal and doesn’t go into a great deal of detail, but does appear to answer at a high level pros contention.

IE: if pro doesn’t know why these aspects of life can originate, the well accepted theory of evolution is a valid explanation.

The remainder of pros argument is largely the same, and is answered by cons opening argument.

With the exception of where pro argues that evolution is a failed theory, with made up frauds.

Con completely drops this argument and doesn’t reference it at all, and simply resorts to saying his opening arguments apply.

Con does dodge a bullet here, however, as pro doesn’t really go into any depth or provide explanation as to why these examples negate evolution as a whole: in my view even if accept the individual points, or doesn’t invalidate evolution. If pro had explained why evolution should be thrown out based on these examples - then con would have lost.

As pro doesn’t offer a substantial argument to overturn the explanation of evolution - even though that explanation wasn’t particularly detailed, or justified: evolution holds, and arguments go to con.

Conduct to con for the forfeit.