Source justification. Awarded to PRO as the debate was about Darwin and The Bible,. Pro references both and specified editions and versions for clarity. Reliable first source of the topic at hand. CON relied on Wikipedia, which is not a primary source. It is remarkable that CON did not references once either of the core documents for which the debate was about. My other reasons as set out in comments #23 and #24 below still apply.
I have not changed them, even with the please of Con.
I am surprised at your aggression in your response to my vote. Please protest if you feel it does not meet the community standards for an RFD.
A few points, you stated that the Nazi example is extreme. That does not take away from my perception. Leveraging something so extreme falls under number of logical fallacies. When the CDC looks at "Woman's Health (and the Harm Done) Health can be argued for the woman and the unborn. " You are combining the health number of one, to the other. Effectively calling them one organic machine.
You may not view it that way. And I will fight for your right to disagree with me.
Pro quickly dismantles the relevance of Darwin's religious beliefs. Pro does an excellent job bringing the debate back to the roots, with solid references from the OOS, and a connection back to the original question.
Con demonstrates some interesting debate techniques. Con admits to not reading the totality of the argument before responding.
"at the time of writing the above, I had not yet progressed to the end of my opponent's argument," I find it a telling admission, and consistent with their style. Con also uses this round to question the accuracy of the Bible from a translated perspective, however, fails to demonstrate the relevance. The key objective of the debate was to show "co-operates". The inclusion of Hebrew was unnecessary, and appears to be a 'texas sharpshooter'.
In closing RD3. Con again appears to insist on upward compatibility, which I view as erroneous logic, as I addressed above.
RD 4 - (Winner PRO)
Pro does question the extensive use of Wikipedia as a source. Pro does not demonstrate any misquotes, or places where Cons arguments are misattributed, or taken out of context. I think this was a case of screaming fire, without even smoke. I do not think this was a firecracker distraction and was based on genuine concern. The credibility of this concern would have been exponentially higher had a single reference related to Cons arguments been presented
Pro state accurately "on an extended journey beyond the confines of the debate ". As seen in the previous entries, Pro is clearly very focused on the confines of the debate and this round is no exception. Pro made some compelling association defending the co-operative stance of the debate. Some may wonder if it is appropriate to leave such arguments to the last round. No restriction on new arguments was made at the onset. And considering the eclectic nature of Cons rebuttals, I see this as an attempt to ensure the corpus of the debate is maintained.
Con
Con does a very detailed job at defending Wikipedias honour, and failing to see that Pro had no specific accusation. Con got easily sucked into a rabbit hole of irrelevance, something they should be aware of.
Con lost sight of the topic of the debate. Even when they brought up a valid point, the topic was wrong. "My opponent repeatedly throughout this debate used passages from the Holy Bible that made no reference to any form of evolution, nor even remotely implied such, and he then compared it the works of Scientists, and then used psuedo-scientific explanations to try and explain just how the biblical scholars were actually talking about evolution."
The topic was about the book of Genesis and a very large percentage of biblical references were from that book. That statement made by con could be considered an admission to the debate premise. This comes back to debate term co-operate. And the final fatal admission made by Con was "Therefore i (sic) do not require to discuss Charles Darwin in order to show that texts in Genesis do not co-cooperate with our current understandings of evolution,"
When I first started reading this, it appears as if Pro had opened up a logical flank to be brutally attacked on. The statement "but much of the Bible is allegory, or metaphor, and it may have been a simple expression of inter-species evolution on an accelerated schedule." I thought would be the home base for assault by Con. It was not.
Pro produces another potential error when implying that stem cells are the source of evolution, which is why a "rib" was used. Pro provides no support for this premise, however, Con does not address this.
Pro did a good job wrapping the architecture of Genesis, and the basic principals of Darwin's evolution and their RD1 was very consistent with the debate topic.
Con took time to try to redefine evolution, already set forth in the debate description. I find this behaviour perplexing. Con tried to use the complexity of quantum mechanics to show creationist problems cannot be solved.
Con interestingly delves into the origins of the book of Genesis, and rather than challenge the narrative, proceeds to challenge its reliability as an accurate historical representation. Con concludes that Genesis is not a blueprint for the evolution theory. I find this logic flawed, and not consistent with the original question. Con appears to say "Because you say that the two theories co-operate, you must prove that one was intended to influence the other". In summary, Con took the entire round one to say that the bible is not a book of science, which Pro had already established.
RD 2 - (Winner PRO)
Pro addresses Cons statements and addresses the relevance in a professional way. Pro does a great job on the majority of references being from OOS, and Genesis. Pro concluded RD2 by bringing the topic back around its original axis and postulates some scientific reasons why there may be a cooperation between the two narratives, Genesis and Darwinism.
Con uses this round to attack the theistic tendencies and authenticity of Darwin. Con does a good job of this, however, I was left wondering what the overall value to the argument this would add, particularly when Con admits that the belief of Darwin is irrelevant.
Con concludes with "So, it appears the Adam and Eve narrative is not consistent with evolution theory unless the goal posts shift to Mesopotamian mythology being derived from earlier Sudanese mythology." I see this as an illogical statement. The topic of the debate did not say a co-operation between the texts in question was exclusive.
Why does the debunker have to be so extreme? It looks like you are trying to argue that no matter how extreme you are, free speech should be protected, You are using chemstrails as an "unoffensive" topic.
Is there any way we can increase the character limit If my opponent agrees. He has dropped an impressive quantity of studies, and I will need the space to address them.
Are you restricting the conversation of evolution to only Darwin, or the more general all-encompassing and further developed evolutionary model?
Are you restricting all biblical references to Genesis or can other passages in the bible that address the creation be used?
It appears as if this debate is so specific, and constructed to precisely, that it is engineered to be non-debatable. If you agree to the general principals of evolution, and other passages in the bible specifically about creation, then I will take this on as my first debate here.
Source justification. Awarded to PRO as the debate was about Darwin and The Bible,. Pro references both and specified editions and versions for clarity. Reliable first source of the topic at hand. CON relied on Wikipedia, which is not a primary source. It is remarkable that CON did not references once either of the core documents for which the debate was about. My other reasons as set out in comments #23 and #24 below still apply.
I have not changed them, even with the please of Con.
I don't understand how you can give the win to someone who said "I concede"
I flagged my ow vote and made a comment before yours.
Dangit. I made a mistake
Conduct point should be neutral.
If this comes down to one point, please change it. Sorry.
I am surprised at your aggression in your response to my vote. Please protest if you feel it does not meet the community standards for an RFD.
A few points, you stated that the Nazi example is extreme. That does not take away from my perception. Leveraging something so extreme falls under number of logical fallacies. When the CDC looks at "Woman's Health (and the Harm Done) Health can be argued for the woman and the unborn. " You are combining the health number of one, to the other. Effectively calling them one organic machine.
You may not view it that way. And I will fight for your right to disagree with me.
I do not understand the title.
"Pediatric study shows tdap does not cause Autism in under 6 year olds"
Is this one pediatric study, What is trap?
Do you mean "A pediatric study shows DTaP does not........"
That is very sensible. I would be happy to have private feedback from both of you.
RD - 3 (Winner PRO)
Pro quickly dismantles the relevance of Darwin's religious beliefs. Pro does an excellent job bringing the debate back to the roots, with solid references from the OOS, and a connection back to the original question.
Con demonstrates some interesting debate techniques. Con admits to not reading the totality of the argument before responding.
"at the time of writing the above, I had not yet progressed to the end of my opponent's argument," I find it a telling admission, and consistent with their style. Con also uses this round to question the accuracy of the Bible from a translated perspective, however, fails to demonstrate the relevance. The key objective of the debate was to show "co-operates". The inclusion of Hebrew was unnecessary, and appears to be a 'texas sharpshooter'.
In closing RD3. Con again appears to insist on upward compatibility, which I view as erroneous logic, as I addressed above.
RD 4 - (Winner PRO)
Pro does question the extensive use of Wikipedia as a source. Pro does not demonstrate any misquotes, or places where Cons arguments are misattributed, or taken out of context. I think this was a case of screaming fire, without even smoke. I do not think this was a firecracker distraction and was based on genuine concern. The credibility of this concern would have been exponentially higher had a single reference related to Cons arguments been presented
Pro state accurately "on an extended journey beyond the confines of the debate ". As seen in the previous entries, Pro is clearly very focused on the confines of the debate and this round is no exception. Pro made some compelling association defending the co-operative stance of the debate. Some may wonder if it is appropriate to leave such arguments to the last round. No restriction on new arguments was made at the onset. And considering the eclectic nature of Cons rebuttals, I see this as an attempt to ensure the corpus of the debate is maintained.
Con
Con does a very detailed job at defending Wikipedias honour, and failing to see that Pro had no specific accusation. Con got easily sucked into a rabbit hole of irrelevance, something they should be aware of.
Con lost sight of the topic of the debate. Even when they brought up a valid point, the topic was wrong. "My opponent repeatedly throughout this debate used passages from the Holy Bible that made no reference to any form of evolution, nor even remotely implied such, and he then compared it the works of Scientists, and then used psuedo-scientific explanations to try and explain just how the biblical scholars were actually talking about evolution."
The topic was about the book of Genesis and a very large percentage of biblical references were from that book. That statement made by con could be considered an admission to the debate premise. This comes back to debate term co-operate. And the final fatal admission made by Con was "Therefore i (sic) do not require to discuss Charles Darwin in order to show that texts in Genesis do not co-cooperate with our current understandings of evolution,"
RD1: (Winner PRO)
When I first started reading this, it appears as if Pro had opened up a logical flank to be brutally attacked on. The statement "but much of the Bible is allegory, or metaphor, and it may have been a simple expression of inter-species evolution on an accelerated schedule." I thought would be the home base for assault by Con. It was not.
Pro produces another potential error when implying that stem cells are the source of evolution, which is why a "rib" was used. Pro provides no support for this premise, however, Con does not address this.
Pro did a good job wrapping the architecture of Genesis, and the basic principals of Darwin's evolution and their RD1 was very consistent with the debate topic.
Con took time to try to redefine evolution, already set forth in the debate description. I find this behaviour perplexing. Con tried to use the complexity of quantum mechanics to show creationist problems cannot be solved.
Con interestingly delves into the origins of the book of Genesis, and rather than challenge the narrative, proceeds to challenge its reliability as an accurate historical representation. Con concludes that Genesis is not a blueprint for the evolution theory. I find this logic flawed, and not consistent with the original question. Con appears to say "Because you say that the two theories co-operate, you must prove that one was intended to influence the other". In summary, Con took the entire round one to say that the bible is not a book of science, which Pro had already established.
RD 2 - (Winner PRO)
Pro addresses Cons statements and addresses the relevance in a professional way. Pro does a great job on the majority of references being from OOS, and Genesis. Pro concluded RD2 by bringing the topic back around its original axis and postulates some scientific reasons why there may be a cooperation between the two narratives, Genesis and Darwinism.
Con uses this round to attack the theistic tendencies and authenticity of Darwin. Con does a good job of this, however, I was left wondering what the overall value to the argument this would add, particularly when Con admits that the belief of Darwin is irrelevant.
Con concludes with "So, it appears the Adam and Eve narrative is not consistent with evolution theory unless the goal posts shift to Mesopotamian mythology being derived from earlier Sudanese mythology." I see this as an illogical statement. The topic of the debate did not say a co-operation between the texts in question was exclusive.
I am curious to see the justifications for the judging.
I thank all judges for taking the time to read. I don't think I have read so many studies in such a short period of time before.
So If I take the side saying chemtrails are an unfounded conspiracy, you will take the opposing view?
Why does the debunker have to be so extreme? It looks like you are trying to argue that no matter how extreme you are, free speech should be protected, You are using chemstrails as an "unoffensive" topic.
Is there any way we can increase the character limit If my opponent agrees. He has dropped an impressive quantity of studies, and I will need the space to address them.
Is there one particular crime to focus on, one particular assertion that he was accused of being guilty of?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/#GooBetBad
Can you confirm that your statement is "Abortion is wrong in all circumstances"
ff that is not correct please elaborate on your position.
Are you restricting the conversation of evolution to only Darwin, or the more general all-encompassing and further developed evolutionary model?
Are you restricting all biblical references to Genesis or can other passages in the bible that address the creation be used?
It appears as if this debate is so specific, and constructed to precisely, that it is engineered to be non-debatable. If you agree to the general principals of evolution, and other passages in the bible specifically about creation, then I will take this on as my first debate here.