Total votes: 14
Both sides forfeited, but PRO forfeited more rounds.
Pro starts off the debate by pointing out some numerical similarities in the Universe. For example, he says that the Sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, and the Moon is 400 times closer to the Earth than the Sun. This is false, the Moon is actually only 389 times closer and not 400. Many of his other similarities are also false, such as the claim that the cirfumference of the Moon is 27.322% of the Earth's circumference. The actual number is 27.251%, not 27.322%. With a little rounding here and there, it's possible to twist the facts and present the universe as one massive set of coincidences. This, however, is not the case. His other "coincidences" are well-known scientific facts and have nothing to do with chance, such as the fact that the number of protons and number of electrons in the universe is the same.
Pro's second argument for intelligent design is the special healing abilities of some plants. "Some plants are good" does not mean "God did it". As Con points out in his first round argument, there are thousands of plants which have no healing abilities, and thousands more which are harmful to humans. Therefore, the argument that some plants can heal humans does not prove the existence of a supernatural being, so Pro's points quickly fall apart.
Con's argument is simple but precise. He points out that Pro's coincidences are just rounded up to sound incredible, and that there is no reason for an intelligent being to create harmful plants. Furthermore, he says that even if this all were true, this is still not proof of God, since a few coincidences and medicinal plants does not prove anything.
Pro essentially repeats the same things in his R2 argument. He repeats the claim that the Moon is 400 times closer to Earth than the Sun, which is false. He repeats another claim, which is also false. The equality of protons and neutrons exists not because "God counted them", but because protons are positive and electrons are negative. Simply repeating your arguments over and over is not proof of anything. Pro was already destroyed in the first round, and his second round argument did nothing to bring him back.
Finally, I would like to say that Pro's grammar and organizing is the WORST I HAVE SEEN IN MY LIFE. He never capitalized any words. He skips twenty lines between each paragraph. He arbitrarily uses bold and italic for no reason whatsoever. Pro's arguments are very hard to read and I assume he's just doing this to confuse his opponents. So, Pro wins because of better arguments and much better formating. R'amen.
I agree with RationalMadman, Pro just trolled Con into a debate that was supposed to be a rap battle. He didn't even mention that this wouldn't be a rap battle in the debate description, this was clearly just an attempt to get a free win.
RFD:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15gjA1tCqvQM-fP8aU-dSqulUGMqCD6Ji9LojVUA7Klw/edit?usp=sharing
Round One:
Pro begins his argument by pointing out a few ancient civilizations that were very developed for their time. He then says that many modern scientists have claimed to have gotten information from dreams or trances. Therefore, Pro concludes that "the details of society, including all of the integrated systems such and writing, building, mathematics and astronomy were given to humans through inspiration directly from God, through dreams, visions, reveries, trance states etc."
Con correctly points out that Pro is commiting the "didit" logical fallacy. Just because we're not sure why something happened (advanced ancient civilizations or scientists getting info from dreams), does not mean that an omnipotent being is responsible. He then points out that if God is a perfect being, then his creations must also be perfect, but we are not. If an intelligent creator was responsible for our civilization, we wouldn't have wars or plagues or financial crises.
Round Two:
Pro commits an Appeal to Authority in his R2 argument. He points out that many genius scientists have believed in God, but this alone is not enough evidence to conclude that God exists. The rest of Pro's argument is some nonsense from Sumerian mythology.
Con uses the same arguments in his R2 argumet, since Pro has failed to respond to them in any way. He also correctly points out that FSM is the only logical creator of the universe. R'amen!
Conclusion:
Pro made four arguments to prove his claim:
1. There have been a few ancient civilizations which were unexplainably developed
2. Many scientists have claimed to get their information from dreams or trances.
3. Many scientists have said that civilization was inspired and created by God.
4. The Sumerians believed that civilization was started by gods.
None of those points are enough to conclude that civilization was inspired and created by God. Some of those points, like number 3 and number 4, contradict each other (Was it one God or many gods?). As Con correctly pointed out, "We don't know something - therefore God" is an invalid argument. R'amen
I didn't really understand what Pro was trying to prove here. When naming debates, he makes their names sound like book titles instead of the topics of the actual debates. However, I'm going to assume that Pro was trying to prove that African-Americans do not commit a disproportionate amount of crime in the United States, and that the statistics that support that idea are false. If that were the case, Pro failed miserably.
Round One:
Pro says he notices a lot of high-profile and low-profile crime happening recently, all of which was commited by whites. He provides no statistics WHATSOEVER, just personal anecdotes and a few bizzare stories with no sources to back them up. Pro concludes that because of these anecdotes, the statistic that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime is false. He then asks if white people are mentally disabled and genetically more likely to commit crimes.
Con says that Pro refuses to trust official FBI statistics about blacks commiting a disproportionate amount of crime, and asks Pro why this is so. This is a valid question, as Pro has not provided any facts that prove the FBI statistics are false.
This round goes to: CON
Round Two:
This round starts off with Pro commiting a number of logical fallacies. First, he engages in an ad hominem fallacy and says that Con does not posess enough logic to even present an argument. Then, Pro assumes that Con said all FBI statistics are 100% truthful, even though Con never said that in this debate. Pro then gives two links about the misconduct of the FBI.
Con investigates the two pieces of evidence provided by Pro, and finds that they both do not prove Pro's statement. The first link concerns a isolated case of misconduct by an FBI agent. As Con rightly said, this isolated case is completely irrelevant. The second link is a web page with a list of summaries. Con rightly points out that Pro should present each summary separately, and that it is Pro's job to provide sources for his claims.
Round goes to: CON
Round Three: Pro again engages in a logical fallacy, the strawman fallacy. He claims that Con said all his evidence are isolated cases, which Con never said in the debate. Pro then says that because there have been a few isolated cases of FBI misconduct, ALL OF the Bureau's statistics must be false. This is a non sequiter, the logic does not follow. Pro then accuses one of the FBI founders, Theodore Roosevelt, of racism, and calls most politicians of the USA criminals. The only source Pro provided was some bizzare "Global Research Center for Research on Globalization", which I couldn't find on the Internet no matter how hard I tried.
Con absolutely destroys Pro in the third round. He points out that just because there have been a few isolated cases of FBI misconduct, does not mean that all of FBI statistics are completely false. He points out that Roosevelt's quote is from over a hundred years ago, and ideas like Roosevelt's were normal in the past. Now, the government and the FBI no longer hold these outdated, racist ideas. Con also exposes Pro's lie about the Global Research Center, proving that the report Pro presented was not talking about the FBI as an institution.
This round goes to: CON.
Round Four:
Pro accuses Con of not bringing any argument to the table. Yet in the following sentence, he says that Con's main argument was about FBI statistics. Pro then accuses Con of only talking about FBI statistics, when this was the topic of the entire debate. It seems to me that Pro is trolling at this point. Everything else in Pro's final argument is simply ad hominem attacks against Con and white people. Pro needs to understand that just calling someone names and blaming whites for everything is not an argument, you need things like sources and quotes as well. Pro is just stating his own opinions, he is not making arguments to disprove what Con is saying.
Con summarises this whole debate with this quote: "Pro lies and continues to troll". All the debates of Pro can be summarised as lying, trolling, and being an ignorant idiot.
This round goes to: CON
Pro violated countless policies, he called his opponent a "negroid", and overall had terrible conduct.
Pro's entire argument was either spreading negative stereotypes about African-Americans or claiming that African-Americans are inferior because they commit more crime. This happens because African-Americans are disadvantaged at birth, and they are disadvantaged at birth because of racism that happened in the past. Pro, however, insists that African-Americans are inferior. This is racist and not true. Overall, I might report Wylted because he might be just a troll account.
Some truly intellectual music for you all to enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JRLCBb7qK8
I'd say this was a tie. Pro roasted Con a lot but his rap didn't flow well. Con had great flow but his lines were not that good.
Reason:
Pro's Round 1 argument was plagiarized from a Daily Wire article about gun control (https://www.dailywire.com/news/27439/6-facts-show-gun-control-not-answer-amanda-prestigiacomo). Plagiarism is bad conduct. Pro also forfeited a round, which is also bad conduct.
I would have actually given the convincing arguments point to Pro, but those aren't his arguments (they're Daily Wire's) and so he gets nothing.
Full forfeit.
Pro’s claims were unsubstantiated and he forfeited the debate.
Pro was wrong, parentheses aren’t numbers.