Cogent_Cognizer

As con pointed out in round 2, pro used a formal fallacy or non sequitur. This is, perhaps, the biggest mistake to make in a debating argument. Assuming their premises are true, those premises make no mention or reason for a god to even exist, so to come to the conclusion a god is responsible for such plant life simply doesn't follow the premises. Pro never again offers premises which include evidence of such a god, or evidence that a god had to create such herbs and plant-life. They then use informal fallacies, such as the bare assertion fallacy as con pointed out, but also uses the appeal to ignorance in round 2, where they ask "how could evolution create a plant like a turmeric with properties that can reverse damage done by schizophrenic medication. The answer is it can not. This would require great intelligence." It fits this fallacy to a tee, given it's about arguing that someone hasn't proved something, therefore the opposite is true. Though con is indicating how it's possible for evolution to have done this even, so in a way it's worse since pro seems to be dismissing con's evidence for evolution creating these plants. Pro accepted the burden of proof in the description. Their arguments, on their own, have proven to be fallacious. Due to BOP rules, con didn't' even technically need to provide evidence to a contrary position, and merely rebut what the opponent had said, but they did provide evidence to a contrary position. Con is a clear winner here for the debate. No matter what evidences pro shows for their premises, it didn't matter given the premises do not even support the conclusion to begin with.