This is a discourse not science class both sides of the argument should have evidence.

Who says there are only two sides? There are dozens or hundreds. I can make a new one - programming is best done with a candle burning on the table and a glass of wine or whisky available. It works for me, so I say it should work for everyone. I call it "Romantic Driven Programming" or "RDP." Now, what's the evidence that you have against RDP as a best practice?

You don't have any, do you? So obviously I can now promote it as the new universal methodology.

(Or more directly, you think the argument is that there is evidence for and evidence against TDD. My argument is that there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion.)

Given that this is a discourse, have you read any of the discussions of the topic of TDD? For example, "Making Software" (e.g Oram and Wilson) has an excellent chapter summarizing the research results. If not, then it's a rather unbalanced discourse, no? You pointed to a list of papers, but didn't describe what you wanted to discuss from them.

For example, some of the research compares test-first with test-last. I'm a proponent of test-during, and don't think that test-first and test-last are the only two ways to compare things.