It is a fact that God put medicen in plants
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 7,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Burden of proof
I have to prove that it requires great intelligence to create the medicine in plants and only god can do it.
Con needs to show that it does not require intelligence to create medicine in plants and this medicine can come naturally via evolution and big bang
The central premise of pros argument - that God created plants was unsupported. Con went through and repeatedly pointed out that pro has not justified his central claim : as he did not at any point show that the complexity of medicinal plants, or their actions was so extreme that it warranted only a divine creator to make them. Con pointed this out, and it was unanswered by pro, who seemed to feel pointing out examples that supported the first premise of his syllogism would be enough to prove the conclusion. Pro made an immense number of individual points: most falling under two main categories: plants are good, therefore God and evolution can’t happen.
The former as explained are all irrelevant, and the latter seemed wholly undermined by pros evidence.
Con on the other hand did well to justify the inherent evolved nature of plants, and tied back the remainder of arguments to this point: simply pointing con to the evidence to support evolution. Evidence and detail for how we can determine that plants had evolved and pros case appears to simply to be saying evolution can’t happen.
It’s not entirely clear why pro claims evolution can’t happen - it seems to be mainly that plants are too complex (which doesn’t answer cons argument), or that the mutations and genetic damage that pro has argued occurs and can potentially be fixed by some plants, don’t actually occur. In my opinion pro doesn’t do enough to justify this assertion, nor answer any of the detailed proof that con provides.
Thus; we’re faced with pro making an unsupported assertion vs con supporting evolution and the notion that plants evolved with facts: and the facts will win every time. Win to con.
Non sequitur + Argument from ignorance fallacies by Pro
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.
Almost every debate i do. I end up having 1000 characters over the character limit And i end up having to rewrite it.
If you want them to be easier to read, only skip one or two lines. Not twenty. And in one of our recent debates, you skipped around a hundred lines - which makes me think that you're just trying to make your argument look larger.
I thought it makes it easier to read. But maybe its only easier for me
Why does crossed skip twenty lines between each sentence? It makes his arguments unbearable to read.
medicen
I think con has this one - medicen isn’t real