Total votes: 5
No contest. FF
No contest. FF
I feel like Pro was appealing to humanities ignorance in arguing that extra terrestrial life is common. I agree with Con in that we have to rule based on what we do know and we do know we haven't found extraterrestrial life. Indeed, I haven't found a satisfactory argument yet that supports that there is any extraterrestrial life what so ever. Now you can understand how much it pains me to vote in Pro's favor. Indeed, he did deserve these points.
I would have liked to see even one decent argument from either side. I had little to vote on besides two forfeitures from Pro.
Pro opened his argument by exploring several scientific phenomena the ability of silver to help regulate body temperature, and the ability of certain plants to help regulate the body’s hormones and blood pleasure.
Con forfeited round 1.
Pro presented an interesting video on how science falls utterly short of explaining abiogenesis.
Con then claimed that God must also be a coincidence.
Pro then explains how evolution runs into the same dilemma when trying to explain the uncaused cause.
Con continues to support his position that God is a coincidence.
Arguments:
Pro: I would have liked to see Pro explain the purpose of his arguments more. From what I gathered the sources presented in the first two rounds were intended to point toward intelligent design. Since Pro failed to provide explanations as to the significance of his sources his argument fell a little flat.
Con: Assuming Con’s claim that God is the product of coincidence, I still fail to see how this is supposed to counter Pro’s argument that all coincidences we observe are actually designed by God. Simply put, Con seems to be making an argument that does not address the topic of the debate.
Sources: Pro provided good citations of decent sources supporting his position. For Con, I don’t see how defining coincidence and infinite regress is supposed to counter Pro’s argument that all perceived coincidences are actually designed by God. Therefore, I must vote for Pro who provided all relevant sources.
Grammar: I noticed several grammatical mistakes by Pro. For example in the second round Pro used ‘them’ where sentence structure called for ‘those’. Grammar goes to Con.
Conduct: Since Con forfeited round 1, the best conduct goes to Pro.