The Instigator
Keyser_Soze
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
omelet
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

A pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
omelet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,867 times Debate No: 10933
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (8)

 

Keyser_Soze

Pro

I stand resolved that a pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.

Definitions:

Pink - of the color pink [1], as seen here:
http://www.spicybiscotti.com...

Invisible - incapable by nature of being seen [2], as seen here:
http://www.amcgltd.com...

Unicorn - a mythical animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse, the hind legs of a stag, the tail of a lion, and a single horn in the middle of the forehead [3], as seen here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
omelet

Con

I negate the resolution.

Definitions:
A - the indefinite article. Refers to one member of the noun it refers to.

Example usage and explanation of meaning: "A man is robbing John's house"
This does not mean that "robbing John's house" is a quality all men must have, it simply means that there exists one unspecified man who is currently "robbing John's house."

Though "robbing John's house" is already functionally an adjective (it's a participle phrase, the adjective form of a verb phrase), I will use more common adjectives to avoid a point of contention.

"A man is hungry and alone."
Once again, this does not mean that all men are hungry and alone, it simply means that there exists one man who is hungry and alone, whether hungry and alone are essential qualities of being a man or not.

This brings to my main point: while my opponent contends that one unspecified pink invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible, I contend that there are no pink invisible unicorns. "A" refers to a single entity within a set, but "invisible pink unicorns" is an empty set. For the resolution to be true, at least one member of that set must contain the attributes "pink" and "invisible," but that's impossible if there are not even any members in the set.

Allow me to now show why I believe there are no members within that set. I have two reasons, and I believe you too will be convinced by these reasons.

I. There is no evidence for pink invisible unicorns existing.
II. The concept of a pink invisible unicorn is contradictory. To be pink, a thing must be visibly pink. To be invisible, a thing must not be visible at all. This is a contradiction in terms, which makes the existence of pink invisible unicorns impossible.

1. The resolution is true if and ONLY if there exists at least one pink invisible unicorn that is both pink and invisible.
2. There are no pink invisible unicorns. (see above reasons I and II)
3. The resolution must be false. (1, 2)

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Keyser_Soze

Pro

Allow me to begin by saying "Thanks!" for choosing my topic for your debate enjoyment, that goes to my opponent, as well as the audience reading these words. Also, could you source some of the stuff you use please?

I will now begin by rebutting my opponent's claims.

"I. There is no evidence for pink invisible unicorns existing."

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Simply speaking, just because there is no evidence of a pink invisible unicorn, does not mean there is not a pink invisible unicorn. But considering you probably won't except that, I will argue that the Pink Invisible (or invisible pink) unicorn is the goddess of my religion, the IPU [1], and will thus argue using the Kalam cosmological argument [2]:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

I claim this "cause" as a Pink Invisible Unicorn. So first we must note that their is nothing before the beginning of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Because of this, it follows that the cause must be uncaused and personal (Personal in order to create in the lack of antecedent determining conditions). It must also transcend both matter and time in order to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Now if you ask, "wouldn't the unicorn also need a creator?" note the first premise that "whatever begins to exist has a cause". The IPU was always in existence, according to my beliefs, and therefore has no cause, for it was always in existence.

Although I find this argument valid, I ask that you just drop this contention, cause it's not fun to argue, and were just getting off topic of what's really fun. Though, this is just a suggestion. You can do what you want.

"II. The concept of a pink invisible unicorn is contradictory. To be pink, a thing must be visibly pink. To be invisible, a thing must not be visible at all. This is a contradiction in terms, which makes the existence of pink invisible unicorns impossible."

I have a number of theories that would yield the result of a unicorn which is both pink and invisible at the same time, they are as follows:

========================
1. An invisible unicorn, painted pink.
========================
Consider the following, a unicorn that is invisible is captured using heat vision technology. The captors then decided to coat the invisible unicorn using paint. Though the unicorn is invisible, she is now covered in paint that is of a pink nature. Even though her invisibility cannot be seen, as it is covered with paint, her invisible nature is still in existence. At that present time, the unicorn is both pink and invisible.
Here's an analogy to better understand this argument. If one were to coat a white wall with red paint, both the wall and the paint would have different frequencies of color from the visible color spectrum that we as humans have the ability to see, the paint as red, and the wall as white, though the white cannot be seen, it is till there under the red, and if it were seen, would be the frequency of a visible white color.

===========================
2. The Invisibility Cloak (� la Harry Potter)
===========================
A pink unicorn creates an invisibility cloak, for she is Goddess, and begin to wear it. She is then seen as pink under the cloak, as well as seen as invisible. She is both pink and invisible.

============
3. The Blind Man
============
The unicorn is in the eye of the beholder. If a blind man were to come across a pink unicorn, he would not see it, because he is blind. Now, though he is blind and incapable by nature of being able to see, he cannot see the unicorn's pinkness. Thus, to the blind man, the pink unicorn is invisible.

I look forward to your arguments and hope you and the audience have awesome fun.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
omelet

Con

I didn't think I needed a source for the fact that "A" is the definite article, meaning it refers to one unspecified unit of an object. Common knowledge, such as the definitions of "pink," "invisible," or "a," need no sources - unless there is for some reason disagreement on their meaning. My arguments are my own, as this is not a topic that is discussed on a scholarly level.

RE: Lack of Evidence

My opponent points out that a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is certainly true, but there is no reason to think things without evidence exist. With evidence, beliefs can be justified. Without evidence, there is no justification for holding a belief, such as that there exists an invisible pink unicorn. Assuming that one exists without evidence is even worse when we realize the logical impossibility of the thing - not that one would be likely to exist if it was possible.

My opponent decides to argue that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is the goddess of his religion, and that the Kalam Cosmological argument proves its existence. I believe it is my task to explain the irony here.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the goddess of a parody religion. The purpose of this parody? To demonstrate that general logical proofs for a nondescript "cause" or "creator" cannot be used to show the existence of a specifically defined diety. I'm not even going to argue against the Kalam Cosmological Argument, since it does nothing for my opponent's case.

Here is my opponent's logic, using the conclusion of the Cosmological argument as a premise:
1. The universe has a cause.
2. I believe in the IPU.
3. Therefore, the universe is caused by the IPU and the IPU exists.

3 is a non-sequitur - it does not follow from 1 and 2. The cosmological argument argues for a nondescript cause, it does NOT argue for any specific cause let alone an invisible pink unicorn.

My opponent then suggests that I just completely drop his point instead of arguing it. If he did not wish to respond, he should not have made the argument. I would wager he only made that argument so he could make needless references to outside material in order to win the "most reliable sources" points.

If my opponent wishes to concede that there is no evidence that invisible pink unicorns exist, and therefore no evidence for the resolution being true, he is free to do so. I suggest he not respond if he wants to drop this point.

=====

RE: Impossibility of an invisible pink unicorn

First I'd like to note that my opponent's own source notes that it is a paradox to be both invisible and pink. Good use of sources, right?

However, my opponent has "number of theories that would yield the result of a unicorn which is both pink and invisible at the same time," and I will address them.

====
"1. An invisible unicorn, painted pink."
====
This of course assumes that an invisible unicorn is possible at all, but I will not press that point.

However, no matter how we interpret this, the unicorn is not both invisible and pink.

If we say that the unicorn is still invisible but the paint can be seen, then it is not the unicorn which is pink, it is the paint on top of the unicorn.

If we say that the pink paint makes the unicorn itself pink, then the unicorn itself is no longer invisible, as it can now be seen.

In my opponent's analogy, there is a white wall with red paint on top of it - the wall is not red, the paint on top of it is.

As you see, it is still impossible to be both pink and invisible at the same time. To be pink, something must be visible, and it must be visibly pink.

====
2. The Invisibility Cloak (� la Harry Potter)
====
Again, my opponent is arguing things that are scientifically impossible. An invisibility cloak is not possible, and even if possible, there is no reason to think one currently exists and currently happens to be surrounding an invisible pink unicorn. My opponent's case is nothing but baseless conjecture. My opponent's appeal to magic and works of fiction is evidence of this.
Further, this would not satisfy my opponent's definition of invisible: "incapable by nature of being seen." It is not the unicorn's nature that makes it incapable of being seen, and it is only incapable of being seen from certain vantage points.

====
3. The blind man
====
My opponent fails to properly apply the definition of invisible he provided. "Incapable by nature of being seen." It is not the unicorn's nature that makes it invisible in this example, it is the blind man's lack of eyesight.

==

Note that even without the refutations of my opponent's examples, my opponent has given us absolutely no reason to believe that unicorns, let alone pink ones, let alone ones that are paradoxically pink and invisible, exist. He has failed to affirm the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
Keyser_Soze

Pro

I'd like to thank everyone again for opportunity for this debate to occur, and apologize for being thick headed.

Let's start with

=========
Lack of evidence
=========
The existence of an alleged invisible pink unicorn is put into question by the opposing side. As I had stated in round 2, I feel the invisible unicorn exists because of the bases of my religion, it fills the void of what had "preceded" the creation of everything. We followers of the IPU believe she is a divine being and creator of all that exists or will come to exist [1]. Though my opponent states it does nothing for my case because it makes no sense as to why because I believe in the pink invisible unicorn, that said unicorn would create everything, it is BECAUSE I believe in said unicorn and the basis of my religion that I can see only the unicorn, as a divine being, could have created everything. Science has yet to determine what came before, and, the unicorn as an all powerful being, would fill said void.

=========
Paint argument
=========
My opponent suggests that the unicorn is not both pink and invisible due to it being the paint which is pink, not the unicorn. First, let me change this argument from "paint" to "dye", because it would be ridiculous to paint a horses hide when dying it would be much more effective. Now let us consider hair. If one were brunette and were to dye his/her hair blonde, one would consider that hair blonde. Anyone on the street would consider it blonde, regardless if it just a layer of false blonde dye on top. Although it was not inherently blonde, it is considered blonde, the hair has then both colors, although one is not visible, kept under the blonde. The same works for a invisible unicorn that is dyed pink. Of course you argue now that making it pink makes it visible which no longer makes it invisible. I address that by asking you what is truly considered a visible color. Humans distinguish color using color vision. Color vision is the capacity of an organism or machine to distinguish objects based on the wavelengths or frequencies of the light they: reflect, emit, transmit. Although the invisible unicorn is pink, the frequency of the light spectrum that is viewed as invisible as well as the frequency of the light spectrum that reveals pink is still on the unicorn. Therefore, because both frequencies exist on the same unicorn, the unicorn can be considered both invisible and pink.

=========
Cloak Argument
=========
My opponent disregards the existence of a cloak that can cause invisibility. Science exists that shows, in theory, that materials exist that could have cloaking capabilities [2][3]. As said previously, the divine unicorn could in fact create such a wonder even though man has yet to discover exactly how to create an invisibility cloak. I prefer the word "faith" rather than "baseless conjecture" (man, one that hurt my feeling :'( ). Anyways, seeing as we have yet to define nature, I guess I will, because there may be some who don't already know it.

Nature [4] : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual

Now because nature is defined as such, and the powers, or "inner force", of the divine unicorn is what created the cloak, than we can say, by the unicorns "nature" he created said cloak. And last you argued that at some vantage point the the unicorn would be seen. Well sir, that is just baseless conjecture that someone would sit under a unicorn! : )

====
3. The blind man
====
You argued I did not meet the definition. Seeing as nature is how I defined previously, than I can argue that if the unicorn caused the blindness in the man, then it is by the unicorn's nature he caused the blindness, and thus his invisibility still stands. And in case you argue later that there are still others that can see, well the unicorn can blind them all.

=========
CONCLUSION
=========
Let me start by saying thanks for everyone's time today. Now the point came down to how I can only win if I could prove that a unicorn exists, it is pink while also being invisible. The first hurdle is to except my claim of the existence of a unicorn. I still feel I have claimed his existence undoubtedly, due to the only argument against it was a non-sequitur, which I carefully explained, making it completely plausibly that said unicorn exists, just as God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster can exist. My opponent makes nothing but arguments on existence. Through my analysis of color vision, as well as what constitutes something as being colored, as well as my examples, explain without a doubt that a pink and invisible unicorn is both pink and invisible.
Many of you probably will look at my arguments and think its nothing but trying to be funny, but it is logical when you think about it from the perspective I offer.

Thanks for the debate, I hope y'all had fun!

[1] http://filer.case.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

=========
Some final words (off the record)
=========

"If he did not wish to respond, he should not have made the argument. I would wager he only made that argument so he could make needless references to outside material in order to win the "most reliable sources" points."

You expect the worse of me sir, and yet you don't even know me... that is just a blatant attack on my character.
omelet

Con

====
Lack of Evidence
====
My opponent brings u again that he "feels" the IPU exists because of his religion, but that is not an argument - and neither is his testimony valid in this debate, as he has a perfect motive to lie. Again, it's even noted on the very source my opponent gave for his "religion" that the IPU is a symbol of atheism and is a parody religion.

He uses a site that continues this parody as a source. [http://filer.case.edu... - it's a student's site]
But even if the source was not a parody, all I would have to do is explain that this person's belief in the IPU is not evidence for the IPU actually existing.

My opponent testifies that he knows, because of his faith, that only the IPU can be the cause of the universe. First, his testimony is unsubstantiated and of no demonstrable value to us. Second, premises do not lead to conclusions that are any more certain than the premises themselves. If one of the premises is based completely on faith and has no real reason behind it, then the conclusion will be just as worthless. An example should suitably illuminate this fact.

1. If Santa is real, he brings presents to good boys and girls.
2. Santa is real.
3. Therefore, Santa brings presents to good boys and girls.

Note that the conclusion does not hold when #2 is wrong. So if such a premise is based off nothing but faith rather than reason, we really haven't given a good reason to believe the conclusion is true. In fact, the conclusion is even less likely than #2 is, since it would still be false if #2 was right and #1 was not.

And thus, allow me to provide a syllogism:

1. As instigator of this debate and as PRO, it is my opponent's task to give us reason to believe that the resolution is true.
2. For the resolution to be true, IPU must exist.
3. As evidence for "IPU exists," my opponent has used solely faith rather than reason.
4. Therefore, my opponent has not given us reason to believe the resolution is true. [2, 3]
5. Therefore, my opponent has failed in his task in this debate. [1,4]

That may only be enough to tie it alone, but my other argument places the likelihood of the resolution firmly in the "(very) unlikely" area. See it below.

====
Unlikelihood of the IPU
====
Again, by my opponent's source's own admission, the IPU is a paradox, and those who pretend to believe in it are actually by and large atheists parodying religion. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

True paradoxes cannot exist, since they violate the law of non-contradiction. Thus, if an IPU is a paradox, it cannot exist - it's likelihood is a firm 0%.

However, my opponent has attempted to argue that it is not a true paradox, it only seems like one. He has argued for a few cases where perhaps "pink" and "invisible" could potentially correctly describe a unicorn simultaneously.

====
Paint argument
====
My opponent abandons the paint argument, instead opting for an argument about dye. He claims that red hair dyed blonde is both blonde and red. This is false. If the red truly still exists under the blonde dye, then it is merely the dye that is blonde, just as it was with the paint. If the hair itself is truly now blonde, then there is no red underneath it, since it's not just covered up as it was with paint. It's not red anymore.

But allow me to take a slightly different approach. Invisible is not a color. Even if dying hair from one color to another made the hair have both colors, it is still impossible for the hair to be both pink and invisible. If you can see the hair (which you must for it to actually be pink) then it is not invisible, since invisible simply means that something is incapable by nature of being seen. The hair might be invisible once more when you remove the pink dye, but it is not invisible while it is pink as is required by the resolution.

Despite the fact that I've shown this argument to be nonsensical, note that my opponent never gave any evidence at all, nor even claimed to have faith that there exists an invisible unicorn which has been dyed pink. Even disregarding the impossibility of his claim, this is conjecture of the wildest sort.

====
Cloak Argument
====
My opponent first provides the Wikipedia page for "metamaterial cloaking," claiming that "Science exists that shows, in theory, that materials exist that could have cloaking capabilities." Unfortunately, such a claim is not made on the page he refers to. Science has not shown true invisibility to be possible. Further, it is not my job to look through an entire page of stuff looking for something that even slightly resembles support for PRO's assertion. He should have provided us with that.
My opponent also provides the link to "Philadelphia Experiment," which is widely believed to be a hoax. My opponent's source admits it's widely believed to be a hoax. I don't know why he thinks this provides support for his case.

But even ignoring that - even if such a cloak were even POSSIBLE: My opponent's case then relies on the IPU being divine and having created the cloak himself, since otherwise he wouldn't be invisible "by nature." But there's one more problem that even this preposterously unlikely scenario doesn't cover - from inside the cloak, the unicorn can still be seen. My opponent mentions that it's unlikely that someone is sitting under the unicorn and thus inside the cloak, but this is wholly irrelevant. From inside a steel box, I can't be seen by someone who's outside of it. That doesn't mean I'm invisible, it simply means people outside of it aren't in line of sight with me. To be incapable by nature of being seen, one's incapability of being seen must rely solely on their nature - not on the positioning of other people. I'm not even disagreeing with my opponent's last-round definition of "nature" here.

====
The Blind Man
====
My opponent argues that with his definition of nature, the resolution would be met if there is an IPU and that IPU caused blindness in a guy. This is false. To be invisible, one must be "incapable by nature of being seen" in general, not just "incapable by nature of being seen by that blind guy over there on the side of the road." Just because a blind man cannot see me does not mean I cannot be seen. We know for sure that there are indeed people who are not blind and who are able to see colors in the visible spectrum such as pink, so the mere existence of some people and things which cannot see does not mean that anything is invisible.

====
Conclusion
====
My opponent claims that he has met his burden. He says he has shown you that the existence of an invisible pink unicorn is "plausible." If we accept his examples and call them all plausible, then he is correct (though I have dispelled all his examples in reality). He fails to realize that he needs do much more than show that the resolution is plausible. He must give evidence that the resolution is actually true.

For example, if I started a debate "I have over a million dollars in my bank account," while that may be plausible (much moreso than this resolution), I can't just say "IT'S POSSIBLE" and expect people to vote for me. I would have to persuade people that I'm actually correct, not just that I _could_ be.

It is the same with my opponent. He is the guy claiming to have a million dollars and failing to provide evidence, merely arguing that we don't KNOW he's lying. Except worse, my opponent is in reality claiming something that is more than improbable and baseless, it is also impossible.

Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and thanks for reading and voting.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Luckily, PRO accepted my argument about what using "a" meant, so he accepted that IPU's existence was necessary for his resolution to be true. That's when I pretty much knew I'd win.
Posted by SexyLatina 7 years ago
SexyLatina
Anyhow. Pro could have brought up the argument that the unicorn is slightly communist-leaning. Urbandictionary also says that "pink" refers to something "faggot-like".

But that would have been stupid. Con's approach was clever but beatable without too much difficulty, and so I vote Con.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
While I disagree with CON, I think that PRO could have done a lot better, so my points go to CON.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
RFD
Conduct - TIE. There were no major conduct problems, aside from CON conjecturing that PRO's useless sources may have been cited just so people would feel they had to vote for him on sources. I believe this was warranted, since PRO specifically called CON out for not using sources even though CON was not making claims that requires sources.

Spelling/Grammar - CON. I noticed some mistakes in PRO's arguments. A few times he used "than" instead of "then." Incorrect verb forms a few times. Probably other stuff I can't remember right now.

Arguments - CON. I believed my arguments were much more compelling, and PRO didn't even argue that the resolution was true, only that the resolution was possible and that he believed it was true.

Sources - TIE. I was tempted to vote CON here. PRO used sources, but aside from the dictionary they were either useless sources, they were not serious, or they even worked against him. Using the dictionary isn't something I give these points away for, and none of his other sources merited points either.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Sorry I haven't gotten around to posting my final round, I'll try to do that tomorrow/today (Jan 25).
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
L-M: My house doesn't exist in my imagination. "My house" refers to the place in which I reside. I may imagine my house, I may have ideas pertaining to my house, but my actual house is a physical entity which only exists within physical reality.

To say that a mental image of a unicorn is indeed a unicorn is to adopt a ridiculous definition of unicorn. The mental image is just that, a mental image. My mind does not create another physical reality (or create any type of existent reality at all, though the workings of my brain are indeed part of reality). Therefore, my imaginations are not real. They are imaginary. Meaning they don't exist in reality.

But it would probably have been a fun semantics argument to go at for a while.
Posted by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
"Seem more intelligent?" What purpose would that serve, exactly, except to garner the "this guy sounded more intelligent because he used complex phrasing" vote?

It wasn't a fallacious argument from ignorance. I wasn't claiming "we don't know if it exists, therefore it necessarily doesn't," I was claiming "there's no evidence for it, so we have no justification for believing it exists." Added to the fact that it's paradoxical and complex, we should certainly not assume its existence is >50% likely, which is what the resolution would require to be >50% likely (to be affirmed).

Even if we accept all of PRO's examples against objection two are valid, his examples are so on the fringe that we certainly shouldn't assume that they're >50% likely to be true. The likelihood of a unicorn existing, let alone one that is invisible, let alone one that is invisible and then has been painted pink is quite a leap of faith. Anyone who evaluates the probability of that at anywhere even close to 50% has something wrong with their brain. The same can be said of the other examples.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Things like invisibility and color are "secondary qualities". This means that they only exist because of perception. A distinguishment between primary and secondary qualities would make this debate seem more intelligent. But ah, it's too late to make a difference.

I'm probably going to vote CON. PRO's arguments are very weak. PRO failed to point out the argument from ignorance and instead tried to make a case for the existence of the invisible pink unicorn in response to the first objection. This was a poor move that lead to failure. In response to the second objection, most of those scenarios would have affirmed the resolution; however, PRO's rebuttals were too weak to maintain them. I'll be back with a vote later.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
"I could say that the idea of a man who is robbing my house exists, but I can't say that a man who is robbing my house exists (well I could, but I would be lying)."

I beg to differ. The man inside your house would exist. The question is "where?" In this place which we colloquially title "reality?" No. Within your own imagination? Yes. Basically, two different scales of existence, with one scale being higher tiered than the other . . . I think.

Anyways, in a debate, I suspect that the arguments would concern what it means to exist or if things which exist as ideas can be distinguished as anything other than an idea (i.e. here, I'm saying that the pink invisible unicorn exist in the FORM of an idea, to which you might say that the idea exist in the form of a pink invisible unicorn).

And now to go to bed.
Posted by SexyLatina 7 years ago
SexyLatina
Invisible things are not invisible, they are entirely transparent. Therefore, put the invisible unicorn in front of something pink and it will be showing pink light, thereby being both pink and invisible.

By the same token, put something large in front of the pink unicorn. It is suddenly not visible due to the obstruction, yet it is still pink. It is both invisible and pink.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by dankeyes11 7 years ago
dankeyes11
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 7 years ago
SexyLatina
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by omelet 7 years ago
omelet
Keyser_SozeomeletTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04