The Instigator
ny2244111
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
diety
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points

A creator of the universe does exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,421 times Debate No: 8154
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (9)

 

ny2244111

Pro

My argument is that there is scientific proof that a creator does exist. My faith guides me to believe the Christian God is the creator but science tells us that a creator exists.

DNA is the proof. DNA is hard coded logic in a cell which is alive. To say that the world derived by chance (big bang theory and other theories), is to say that material (or matter) came before logic. This is simply impossible. If I we're to mash up the exact composition of a human body in basic elements (water, carbon, etc.) it still would not be a human. It is the logic that creates us and dictates what we will become. But who created this complex logic, which puts computer software complexity to shame?

An atheist would have to argue that the logic came from material. In other words the elements came together somehow to create this logic. It just doesn't make sense to the human mind. If you believe this, you have more faith in atheism than I do in Christianity.

Think of everything created in this world. What was the root cause of all these things, matter or logic? Of all man made things you must say logic because someone had to think of it before bringing it into fruition. But what about all natural things? If it is alive and has cells, you must argue it derived from logic as well. But who created the logic?
diety

Con

^o^. I'm going to love this one.

Ok first of all, recognize that you have the burden of proof, therefore if you fail to prove the existence of a creator of the universe then I win by default.

Now to rebut your arguments....

Ok I'm going to bracket this whole set of statements to make a point

{

"DNA is the proof. DNA is hard coded logic in a cell which is alive. To say that the world derived by chance (big bang theory and other theories), is to say that material (or matter) came before logic. This is simply impossible. If I we're to mash up the exact composition of a human body in basic elements (water, carbon, etc.) it still would not be a human. It is the logic that creates us and dictates what we will become. But who created this complex logic, which puts computer software complexity to shame?"

""DNA is the proof. DNA is hard coded logic in a cell which is alive"

First of all, that doesn't prove anything. There goes an ad populum fallacy among Christians, believing that a creator of the life on earth implies a creator of the UNIVERSE. For example, we create computers with "hard coded logic," but does that necessarily mean we created the UNIVERSE. And still, how does logic imply a creator in the first place?

O.o

"To say that the world derived by chance (big bang theory and other theories), is to say that material (or matter) came before logic."

No..... Where the heck are you going with this? This doesn't make any sense. First of all the creation of the world isn't what the big bang theory talks about. Second of all, you contradicted yourself as before you stated that DNA (which of course is made out of matter) is logic while going about how the matter that makes it up came afterward.

"It is the logic that creates us and dictates what we will become. But who created this complex logic, which puts computer software complexity to shame?"

Who did?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

}

That did not pertain to this debate WHATSOEVER...

"An atheist would have to argue that the logic came from material. In other words the elements came together somehow to create this logic. It just doesn't make sense to the human mind. If you believe this, you have more faith in atheism than I do in Christianity."

Explain to me how this has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Also, you might want to reconsider your whole "logical" argument, as you are constantly putting the term out of context.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

As far as a functioning system goes, you've got to be kidding me. There are many natural functioning systems that didn't require a creator like the solar system or the water cycle. Yet again though, this in no way pertains to this debate.

"Think of everything created in this world. What was the root cause of all these things, matter or logic?"

'Twas matter my friend.

"Of all man made things you must say logic because someone had to think of it before bringing it into fruition."

Well what about things that aren't man made like the moon or the sun. And what the heck does this have to do with the topic?

"But what about all natural things? If it is alive and has cells, you must argue it derived from logic as well. But who created the logic?"

No comment.

Ok, all I have to say is my opponent has failed to prove that the universe has a creator. Actually he has yet to give an argument that talks about a creator of the universe. Rather, he babbles about a creator of life.

According to him:

Life's creator = Universe's creator

That argument is terribly invalid. Life's creator could have been part of the universe. Heck, that's like saying WE created the universe just because we create computers.

Also, the existence of patterns or mechanical systems doesn't imply a creator as well. I gave the water cycle as an example.

That will do for now

:)
Debate Round No. 1
ny2244111

Pro

To mock the annoying style of debate you have become accustomed to, I shall copy and paste your arguments in quotes and refute them as well. : )

YOU - "First of all, that doesn't prove anything. There goes an ad populum fallacy among Christians, believing that a creator of the life on earth implies a creator of the UNIVERSE. For example, we create computers with "hard coded logic," but does that necessarily mean we created the UNIVERSE. And still, how does logic imply a creator in the first place?"

ME - We created the "hard coded logic" and that means we created the computer. However, one could argue that someone or something first gave us this logic to create a computer in the first place. This extends my argument that logic can only derive from logic. Logic cannot come from material and if you trace this theory as far back as possible, you have to believe in a creator. Logic cannot simply come into existence without some other logical force acting upon it.

Also, I could argue that your belief is "ad populum" because the education system teaches these theories to the masses. I'm actually anti establishment and you are the one conforming to popular belief.

YOU - "No..... Where the heck are you going with this? This doesn't make any sense. First of all the creation of the world isn't what the big bang theory talks about. Second of all, you contradicted yourself as before you stated that DNA (which of course is made out of matter) is logic while going about how the matter that makes it up came afterward."

ME - The first sentece for Big Bang under Wikipedia states "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. " How is this not talking of the creation of the world? Of course DNA is made of matter. So is all the information you store on a computer. It is all saved on a hard drive. But this is not the important stuff. The important stuff is what the information means. This is why I argue there must be a creator. The logic is so perfect in DNA, that only a universal creator could bring it into existence.

ME - If you believe in primordial soup, then you have more faith in Atheism than I do in my religion. It seems as though your coming up with any excuse to deny the existence of a God.

YOU - "Explain to me how this has anything to do with the creation of the universe? Also, you might want to reconsider your whole "logical" argument, as you are constantly putting the term out of context."

ME - Believing logic came before matter has everything to do with a creator of the universe. That's what i've been arguing the whole time. That a supreme creator had to be logical in order to create such a perfect universe. I'm a software developer and we use "logic" in place of code or a certain way of thinking. Defintion: http://www.merriam-webster.com.... As you can see, there are many different interpretations fo the word. Why do liberals always try to argue what words mean instead of actually debating?

YOU - "Life's creator = Universe's creator

That argument is terribly invalid. Life's creator could have been part of the universe. Heck, that's like saying WE created the universe just because we create computers.

Also, the existence of patterns or mechanical systems doesn't imply a creator as well. I gave the water cycle as an example."

ME - Of course I believe life's creator = universe's creator. As I said before, logic came before matter. If it we're the case that they we're different, I could not say that. Your implying by believing the two are different that matter just came into being all of a sudden, and somehow a creator of life was created out of this matter. It is not feasible to believe that. I believe that God was in existence first, and through his power (or logic) he created the universe. I refuted the argument of the computers earlier in this round.

You are correct when you say Nature creates patterns. But I believe that Nature was created by God anyhow. Once again, logic must come before logic. I'm getting ttired of stating that principle but it backs all of my arguments. After all, nature can create patterns but only God can create logic.

Here's an excellent youtube video of a Harvard professor extending my argument:
diety

Con

:/

Ok this is getting annoying. First of all, putting people's arguments into quotes when refuting them is how we do things here at debate.org. Second of all, as far as your arguments go, let me put it loud and clear:

YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF. YOU HAVE TO PROVE WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT A CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE EXISTS.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

"Also, I could argue that your belief is "ad populum" because the education system teaches these theories to the masses. I'm actually anti establishment and you are the one conforming to popular belief."

Uhh, no....

Science is based off of proof my friend.

As far as your whole argument, it is based off of negative proof. It's an argument from lack of imagination, simply stating that you cannot imagine how the universe came into being, therefore it must have a creator. You have no proof of this, yet you keep insisting that it's true.

"ME - We created the "hard coded logic" and that means we created the computer. However, one could argue that someone or something first gave us this logic to create a computer in the first place. This extends my argument that logic can only derive from logic. Logic cannot come from material and if you trace this theory as far back as possible, you have to believe in a creator. Logic cannot simply come into existence without some other logical force acting upon it"

Logic isn't something that "exists", rather it is a tool created by us intelligent beings to help us make sense of things. How about this: every time you say "logic" replace it with "math"

i.e. :

"ME - We created the "hard coded math" and that means we created the computer. However, one could argue that someone or something first gave us this math to create a computer in the first place. This extends my argument that math can only derive from math. Math cannot come from material and if you trace this theory as far back as possible, you have to believe in a creator. Math cannot simply come into existence without some other mathematical force acting upon it"

You see, just like math, logic is but a tool DEVELOPED by intelligent beings to help them understand their environment. Just like math, or science, or literature, logic is not a physical thing that exists in our environment, rather something that intellectual beings developed to UNDERSTAND their environment.

"- The first sentece for Big Bang under Wikipedia states "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. " How is this not talking of the creation of the world?"

Ok.... The UNIVERSE and the WORLD are two different things. The creation of the WORLD does not equate to the creation of the UNIVERSE....

(-.-)

"Of course DNA is made of matter. So is all the information you store on a computer. It is all saved on a hard drive. But this is not the important stuff. The important stuff is what the information means."

EXACTLY. You admitted it yourself. Without an intelligent being to perceive "logic", "logic" doesn't exist.

"The logic is so perfect in DNA, that only a universal creator could bring it into existence." Why do you say that? You can't imagine otherwise?

"ME - If you believe in primordial soup, then you have more faith in Atheism than I do in my religion. It seems as though your coming up with any excuse to deny the existence of a God."

O.o

I don't "believe" in the primordial soup like it's some kind of deity and have "faith" in Atheism. How can you have "faith" in the very lack of faith? If atheism is a faith, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Also you are incorrect as far as saying atheism is but a mere excuse to deny god. Although I'm not an atheist, I know that the burden of proof is on the theist, and atheists are as they are because of mere lack of proof.

The burden of proof is on the believer. Let me give you an example:

My faith is in the invisible, inaudible, tooth fairy who always leaves a dollar under my bed when I lose a tooth. You don't believe in Her? Your lack of belief is just an excuse to deny Her! You lack evidence to disprove Her existence? Aha! I win my default!

Now is it your responsibility to DISPROVE the existence of the tooth fairy? If I fail to disprove it, does that mean it exists? No, the burden of proof is on me because I claimed for such a thing to exist.

Also, this also backs up my argument about arguments from lack of imagination. I lack the imagination to understand how 5$ appears under my pillow every time I lose a tooth.... So there MUST be a tooth fairy.

"ME - Believing logic came before matter has everything to do with a creator of the universe. That's what i've been arguing the whole time. That a supreme creator had to be logical in order to create such a perfect universe. I'm a software developer and we use "logic" in place of code or a certain way of thinking. Defintion: http://www.merriam-webster.com....... As you can see, there are many different interpretations fo the word. Why do liberals always try to argue what words mean instead of actually debating?"

Ok, "perfect" is but a perspective, more like the way we've come to think of the universe. Just because we think the universe is perfect doesn't mean it requires a creator.

"ME - Of course I believe life's creator = universe's creator. As I said before, logic came before matter. If it we're the case that they we're different, I could not say that. Your implying by believing the two are different that matter just came into being all of a sudden, and somehow a creator of life was created out of this matter. It is not feasible to believe that. I believe that God was in existence first, and through his power (or logic) he created the universe. I refuted the argument of the computers earlier in this round."

We'll like I said before, that's an argument from lack of imagination. As far as logic becoming before matter..... that's like saying math or literature came before matter..... It's but a tool used by intelligent beings to understand their environment.

I can bump heads with this guy all day, but he just won't budge. I think he's confusing "belief" with "fact." He's arguing a faith, but as I said before, it's based off of negative proof.

I challenge you to answer these questions:

1) Who created this creator?
2) If logic always came before logic, what logic was there that created this creator?
3) Does the invisible, inaudible, tooth fairy exist? Why or why not?
4) If we created computers, why didn't we create the universe?

(-.-)
Debate Round No. 2
ny2244111

Pro

When you say I have to give the burden of proof, please realize that I believe I am giving proof that a creator of the universe exists. I am not arguing or at least not trying to argue on the basis of "you cannot prove a creator does not exist and therefore he/she/it does". I am stating that DNA PROVES a creator's existence because of the information contained within it.

Now onto refuting your claims...

This statement is pretty silly to me:

YOU - "Logic isn't something that "exists", rather it is a tool created by us intelligent beings to help us make sense of things. How about this: every time you say "logic" replace it with "math""

How would one deny that logic exists? Would you say that your feelings do not exist? Would you say pain does not exist? Just because things are not seen, does not mean they don't exist (Perhaps another debatable topic). Also, logic is used appropriately grammatically in my arguments. I guess it matters what definition of Logic we're using.

YOU - "You see, just like math, logic is but a tool DEVELOPED by intelligent beings to help them understand their environment. Just like math, or science, or literature, logic is not a physical thing that exists in our environment, rather something that intellectual beings developed to UNDERSTAND their environment."

I agree with you only about math, science, literature, and logic not being physical things. Of course I believe they do "exist". Math, logic, and all intelligent information, came before matter and this is why they cannot be a mere tool made by intelligent beings to understand their environment. You BELIEVE matter came before logic and therefore you might conclude otherwise.

Now on to the proposed questions you gave me:

1) I only stated that "A creator of the universe does exist" not a "creator of a creator"

2) See above

3) No, there is no information available to support this. DNA supports and proves an intelligent creator.

4) You could argue that the creator of the universe created the computer because the universe encapsulates the computer object. You cannot logically go in reverse and argue that something which was created, created it's creator.

I would like to thank my opponent for taking the debate. Religion is always an interesting topic and although I disagree with him wholeheartedly, I respect his opinion. Please understand that although I am a Christian by faith, my argument was only that A creator of the universe does exist. I leave you with this quote:

John O'Keefe - NASA astronomer: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
diety

Con

This is why I have won this debate. My opponent kept off of an argument from ignorance/lack of imagination, insisting that because DNA exists, we must assume that a creator of the universe exists. He insists and insists, but shows no evidence of HOW the DNA serves as proof.

Let me rebut this guy's final arguments

"How would one deny that logic exists? Would you say that your feelings do not exist? Would you say pain does not exist? Just because things are not seen, does not mean they don't exist (Perhaps another debatable topic). Also, logic is used appropriately grammatically in my arguments. I guess it matters what definition of Logic we're using."

I keep telling you and telling you, without intelligent beings to perceive such, NO logic does not exist on its own in the universe. Just like literature or math, these things are tools created by intelligent beings to understand their environment. WE CREATED logic, logic DID NOT CREATE us.

"I agree with you only about math, science, literature, and logic not being physical things. Of course I believe they do "exist". Math, logic, and all intelligent information, came before matter and this is why they cannot be a mere tool made by intelligent beings to understand their environment. You BELIEVE matter came before logic and therefore you might conclude otherwise."

(-.-)

Ok, information cannot exist without matter, as it is STORED. THERE! Information can't exist from mere nothingness. I keep telling you that math and logic all have their origin from our thoughts of our environment. And I don't BELIEVE matter came before logic. Logic cannot exist without intelligent beings as it is a mere tool developed by them, and it takes material to create intelligent beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Now on to the proposed questions you gave me:"

Ok, I'll take them on 1 by 1

1) Who created this creator?

"1) I only stated that "A creator of the universe does exist" not a "creator of a creator""

Well, under your logic something intelligent can't exist without something creating it. Otherwise if something can always exist, then the universe can always exist as well.

2) If logic always came before logic, what logic was there that created this creator?

"2) See above"

:)

3) Does the invisible, inaudible, tooth fairy exist? Why or why not?

"3) No, there is no information available to support this. DNA supports and proves an intelligent creator."

If DNA supports and proves an intelligent creator, then 5$ under your pillow every time you lose a tooth supports and proves the existence of the tooth fairy. However, when you admit that there is no information available to support the tooth fairy and therefore void the 5$ argument, you admit that just because something appears in nature doesn't mean it serves as undeniable evidence to prove a hypothesis. Though the tooth fairy very well could have put 5$ under your pillow, that isn't the only possible explaination. It's the same with your creation argument. Though a creator of the universe COULD exist, just because DNA exists doesn't mean we can conclude that it was because there was a creator of the universe simply because all other hypotheses have not been exhausted, meaning it's not the ONLY possible explaination.

4) If we created computers, why didn't we create the universe?

"4) You could argue that the creator of the universe created the computer because the universe encapsulates the computer object. You cannot logically go in reverse and argue that something which was created, created it's creator.""

Well, I can argue the same thing as far as DNA goes. The creator of life doesn't necessarily imply a creator of the universe, as it could just be another part of the universe.

"John O'Keefe - NASA astronomer: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.""

You claim that, but you have nothing to prove it.

I have won this debate because all of my opponents arguments were faith based. He centered his whole argument about the existence of DNA, and I simply rebutted it by saying that a creator of the universe isn't the ONLY hypothesis for such and therefore doesn't serve as proof, thereby making it an argument from lack of imagination.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, his misrepresentation of logic is another reason why I have won this debate.

:)

Please vote CON.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by blimp456 2 years ago
blimp456
To answer Con's question about who created the creator, God did not need a creator. Something had to have been infinite from the beginning of time. It could have been one of three things:

1. Matter
2. Space and Time
3. A God

1) This cannot be true because matter needs Space to exist. I don't mean outer space, I literally mean the space that matter takes up. Therefore, matter couldn't have been infinite.

2) Space and Time couldn't have been infinite because then matter couldn't have been created. Even with what we know about Quantum Mechanics/Physics a Quantum Vacuum still would not be sufficient to create matter out of pure nothingness.

3) God can be true because as I already explained, God can be infinite because something had to have been infinite. Also, based on what I explained above, if God was the thing that was infinite than all of those things, (Space, Time, and Matter,) could have logically been created.

What's that? God doesn't follow nature? That's because he is a SUPERnatural entity.
Posted by lemonlimetoast 8 years ago
lemonlimetoast
i think con definitely supported his side the best. he showed that a creator isn't the only hypothesis for why things are the way they are.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
"YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF. YOU HAVE TO PROVE WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT A CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE EXISTS."
Emperical evidence is not supposed to be what debate is about.
Debate is supposed to be about who can support their side the best.
Posted by lemonlimetoast 8 years ago
lemonlimetoast
very well put. i'm sold.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro used the word "logic" in a strange way, but his argument seemed to be that DNA could not have occurred by chance, so God must have created it. No one claims that DNA occurred by chance. All that is required is some simple self-replicating molecule that occurs by chance, then natural selection takes over. Note that whatever argument about complicated things occurring by chance that is applied to DNA must also apply to God. If one argues that God always existed, then it is more likely that DNA always existed because DNA is much simpler than God.

Con wins arguments and sources, but I gave conduct to Pro. Con was pointlessly demeaning. Bad dog.
Posted by lemonlimetoast 8 years ago
lemonlimetoast
two quotes on the topic:

..rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable. --John Allen Paulos, Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences

..the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 1040,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth. --Victor J. Stenger

also the source page might help settle things. http://www.skepdic.com...
Posted by ny2244111 8 years ago
ny2244111
From a religious point of view, there are reasons for us not being perfect. Christians believe in original sin.

From a science point of view, there are certain things called "JUNK" DNA which no one seems to understand quite yet. So you have to say that we are remarkably similar to other animals based on the DNA we can understand. But that part of DNA can be less than 1% of the information that makes up a living thing.
Posted by dataswallow 8 years ago
dataswallow
A little support I want to post for the Con side...

In a purely religious point of view (the Christian Bible version since it seems like this is the religion
the Pro side is using as support), Humans were made in the image of God Himself.
Perfect and omnipotent God created his most perfect creation Man with love and adoration, not to
mention in the image of himself. But then again, if anyone looks closely at the autonomy of us human
beings, we are frankly quite screwed up.

To start with, our eyes are built to be cumbersome and down-right ineffective. It is first of all upside
down, and the distance it takes for light to pass though the corenary to the back of our heads to
form a image is also absurdly long. Couldn't God make our eyes a bit more... I don't know, proper?
To add, it clearly shows that our omnipotent God didn't Shazam us in one blow; we have traits and
hints that show we have been tinkered with. We have hints of once having a tail (hence the tail
bone) we no longer have. Our DNA shares a starking similarities with various other animals (do I smell practice?). We stand up in the most abnormal form (for normal mammals) and are the only
animals to suffer backbone ailments (such as spinal disk issues). We have something called the
Caecum that no longer has any purpose.

The way I see it, if God really did design us and create us, one thing for certain is that He wasn't
anything near the omnipotent and perfect being you see him as. If he is indeed omnipotent and
perfect but made us like this anyway, then he either has a sick sense of humor or a streak of sadism.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by vervatos 7 years ago
vervatos
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Whoa123ify 7 years ago
Whoa123ify
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 7 years ago
vorxxox
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ny2244111 8 years ago
ny2244111
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by lemonlimetoast 8 years ago
lemonlimetoast
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LB628 8 years ago
LB628
ny2244111dietyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05