The Instigator
Justinisthecrazy
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Creationism is real

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 7 votes the winner is...
TheSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,008 times Debate No: 7210
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

Justinisthecrazy

Pro

I will take the affirmative and argue that Creationism is.

1) The sun is shrinking
In 1979, scientists Eddy and Boornazian cautiously announced that their studies of solar measurement records from Greenwich Observatory in England, and the US Naval Observatory in Washington, conclusively showed that the sun was shrinking. Its diameter was decreasing at a rate of almost six feet per hour.1

There were potentially astounding implications. The announcement by Eddy and Boornazian with respect to the age of the sun (and hence the solar system), along with the apparent conflict with previously held ideas about how the sun produces its heat and light, did not go unnoticed. A vigorous healthy debate among solar astronomers began.

After their own analyses of the Greenwich and Washington data, plus comparisons of solar eclipse records, and consideration of photographic and other relevant evidence, many colleagues agreed with Eddy and Boornazian but the consensus seemed to be that the shrinkage rate was less than half that initially suggested.

If we go back several millions of the years the sun is much larger and the EArth is unihabitable because of the intense heat it provids.

2)Big Bang Theory
The Big Bang is a theory that has alot of reliable scientific backing. And the science of the Big Bang provides considerable evidence of a Creator, since it implies a specific point of creation- and specifically that time has a beginning.

Some scientists find this point rather unsettling, and are scrambling for other theories to the beginning of the universe (despite the solid evidence for the big bang). But most that accept the big bang also accept that there is a cause (creator) behind the event, even if they don't try to articulate who or what that creator is.

3) Creationis vs Evolution
Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are we looking for?

Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. So, while recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it certainly has theological implications Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.

Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected) descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor who originally evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism - "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.
TheSkeptic

Con

I thank my opponent for creating this debate with some more fresh arguments. My opponent's resolution may be a little confusing, but I'm sure it's clear with both of us that he is attempting to prove that Creationism is true/proven by the evidence he lists.

=====
The Sun Is Shrinking
=====

>>>In 1979, scientists Eddy and Boornazian cautiously announced that their studies of solar measurement records...<<<

They presented an abstract at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society entitled "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953"[1]. It's funny, because when Russel Akridge submitted in creationist circles "Impact 82 - Sun is Shrinking", he never referenced Eddy and Boornazian. This is because they both RETRACTED their results later, the contentions against this finding was very high. The first error in this argument is to assume that the sun is shrinking, when this claim is highly contentious if not wrong.

But let's get past that. Let's assume that the calculations were in fact correct. However, the second more preposterous assumption is to think that the shrinkage is CONSTANT, and not perhaps CYCLIC. It's like watching the tides go in and out in a beach and declaring that the waves always pull back and thus the world is only a few weeks old. If it was a constant rate, kind of like radioactive decay, then it would be fine and dandy for creationists to do the math and figure it all out. But the sun simply doesn't work that way.

Simply put, the sun oscillates. Gravitational collapse is why the sun shrinks, but creationists falsely declare that this where the sun get's it source of energy (thus seemingly proving that the sun always shrinks). This would be to ignore the last 60 years of science, because nuclear fusion has been discovered a way that heat can be liberated in vast quantities[3]. This, among many times, shows how fallacious this argument is.

=====
Big Bang Theory
=====

My opponent claims the Big Bang Theory is proof of Creationism, because it "implies a specific point of creation- and specifically that time has a beginning." While that may seem like a nice and tidy way to sweep it under the rug, Occam's Razor says otherwise.

I argue that the Big Bang was caused by natural means. What was the identity of this cause? We don't know, but we know that it's possible:

1. Virtual particles

Virtual particles[4][5] show the feasibility of things being uncaused, or something coming from nothing.

2. Hartle-Hawking state

The Hartle-Hawking state is a wave function for the Universe. Being part of the theoretical and developing branch of quantum cosmology/gravity, the Hartle-Hawking state is a function for the initial conditions of the universe, i.e. it could explain how the Universe started. To make things even better, the Hartle-Hawking state complies with the Wheeler-deWitt equation, which is basically a pre-requisite for any equation in quantum cosmology[7].

This is all for now, due to the dwindling character limits.

=====
Evolution
=====

>>>Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.<<<

No. The word "design" is a subjective word that only applies to the aesthetics of a biological function/formation. While some things in biology are more complicated and thus seemed "designed", evolution can properly explain how it was formed. There is no need for a middleman called "the Creator". For example, look at fractals[8]. A fractal is "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts..."[9]. Clouds, snowflakes, lightening, and even blood vessels are examples of fractals found in NATURE. While they seemed intricate and complex, the science behind their formation is well-documented and proven. Why not the same for all life?

>>>Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected)<<<

No. Evolution has two basis: mutations and natural selection. Mutations are random. Natural selection is a process that is NOT random.

>>>Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers...<<<

Such as?

=====
Conclusion
=====

My opponent's sun shrinking theory is outdated and factually inaccurate. His Big Bang argument is in violation of Occam's Razor. His argument against Evolution is filled with open claims that he has yet to back up.

---References---
1. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu...
2.http://www.tim-thompson.com...
3. http://www.evolution-creationism.us...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com...
6. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://en.wikipedia.org...
9
Debate Round No. 1
Justinisthecrazy

Pro

WE can drop my sun is shrinking you have negated that contention

The Big Bang is a theory that has alot of reliable scientific backing. And the science of the Big Bang provides considerable evidence of a Creator, since it implies a specific point of creation- and specifically that time has a beginning.

Some scientists find this point rather unsettling, and are scrambling for other theories to the beginning of the universe (despite the solid evidence for the big bang). But most that accept the big bang also accept that there is a cause (creator) behind the event, even if they don't try to articulate who or what that creator is.
All it describes is a process by which all the matter that exists got from where it started to where it is now. It doesn't even attempt to explain how that matter came into being in the first place. Thus leaving to the interpretationt hat there is a creator

2)Evolution to battle
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Evolution not a scientific law and no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true, humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos with skin that is half way between white and black. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Therfore evolution is a flase accusation of how the EArth was started and from my Bing Bang theory explanation There should be no need to vote neg and the ballot should read aff
TheSkeptic

Con

=====
Sun is shrinking
=====

My opponent has forfeited this argument. Voters, take note of this.

=====
Big Bang Theory
=====

My opponent has said nothing new or hasn't even refuted my points. Yes, the Big Bang only talks about what happened after the singularity expanded, because classical cosmology (the Big Bang being the prime focus) only deals with how the universe began/develops. HOWEVER, quantum cosmology seeks to explain the initial conditions that can bring forth the singularity, thus the Big Bang, thus our universe.

Seeing as how I have given some examples, like the Hartle-Hawking state, and you haven't refuted any of my points, this argument goes to me.

=====
Evolution
=====

>>>The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology...This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.<<<

These lines betray my opponent's ignorance of science quite definitely. The colloquial definition of theory is "a guess", but in SCIENCE it means the total opposite. The theory, in fact, is the strongest tool of explanation a scientists has. You're thinking probably goes like this:

Hypothesis
Facts and laws may interchange, but you know what I mean. A scientific theory seeks to explain a set of phenomena and give accurate predictions. A theory explains WHY something happens, while laws state that something DOES happen (and is usually more broad). In no way is a theory inferior to a law, in fact may scientific theories contain various laws in them. Gravity is a theory. Would you say that gravity is then unfeasible? No.

>>>A scientific law must be 100% correct.<<<

Nothing empirical can be 100% correct.

=====
Evolution - Dog breeds
=====

First, "breed" isn't a scientifically accepted term for taxonomy; it's a term that's used by independent dog organizations who they themselves diagram over specifics. A breed is equitable to the human version, "race". To make such a drastic evolutionary change such as having a feline being the product, it would take much longer than it is. Domestic dogs have been around, at most, for only 15,000 years[1]. Also, do note that we are somewhat taking over natural selection by selective breeding - there is no pressure or tension for one trait to become more dominant the others since there is no battle over reproduction or any other scenario in which speciation occurs.

>>>Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection.<<<

Uh mutations dude. Are you kidding? DNA is something shared by every living organism, and you don't need to "go outside of DNA" to create new species.

>>>New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science.<<<

Because it'd take forever. A few thousand years isn't enough.

>>>In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.<<<

While there are some studies concerning the partial effects of some genes, like LRRMT1[2] which could give some disposition to left-handedness, the main cause is environmental causes. It's not a protein, and has nothing to do with evolution.

=====
Evolution - If evolution was true, then X...
=====

All these examples presuppose two things: that there was a long of time for things to happen and that natural selection would choose the options given. My opponent makes the incredible claim that Eskimos have enough time to develop fur. Are you kidding? Such a drastic change in physical traits would take millions of years of evolution, and yet they've only been around thousands of years.

Secondly, you SUPPOSE that evolution would create furry-Eskimos. But natural selection is unpredictable in the sense that mutations are random. While we can expect to see a useful trait to emerge as dominant (the un-randomness of natural selection), we can't reliably tell WHAT exactly the trait will be. This stems from not only the randomness of traits, but the ability of organisms to adapt traits into different functions, this is called exaption[3]. For example, the horse's foot was three toes and now one, or the panda's thumb.

>>>Therfore evolution is a flase accusation of how the EArth was started...<<<

Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Earth or abiogenesis.

=====
Conclusion
=====

My opponent has conceded the sun shrinking argument. He has given NO argument in favor of the Big Bang by God argument, and his misunderstandings of evolution parallel that of a child's.

---References---
1. http://www.nature.com...
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Justinisthecrazy

Pro

"If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain." -Wonders of God's Creation, Moody Video Series
Ok.. let me get this straight. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 millions years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) On the other hand... Evolutionists say things evolve after there is a need for change.
Question... How is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over 3 millions years, when all we can live up to is 90 years?

http://www.alienseekernews.com... Click the link it has an arguement
Basically proving that giants existed and that God's word talks about it making it real and making god the creator

If the universe is billions of years old, orbital mechanics require that spiral galaxies and galaxy clusters should have blurred or spun apart long ago. How do Big Bang advocates explain their present shape? Is there any direct evidence for the "missing mass" of the universe (Cold Dark Matter)?

If science must always be open-minded and willing to revise or discard a theory if the evidence requires it. The fact that Darwinism is open to criticism and revision is clear enough in the current controversy over the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Over the past 130 years we have built on Darwin's theory and superabundantly substantiated it with all kinds of evidence he would never have dreamed of. Yet at the same time we have had to reject some of his conclusions, such as his mistaken concept of heredity. Nobody has been dogmatic about Darwinisn or considered it a sacred cow immune from attack. People build their scientific reputations around finding novel interpretations of nature; no one has ever become famous for doggedly defending old biological ideas.

The first law of thermodynamics says that the total energy of a closed system must remain constant over time (with a tiny limitation imposed by the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, but that is not important here). For a theory about the universe to violate the first law of thermodynamics, the theory must stipulate two distinct points in time (call them T and T*) such that the total energy of the universe at T and the total energy of the universe at T* do not match one another. The creationist argument implicitly assumes that Big Bang theory stipulates a time t < 0 prior to the origin of the universe, at which time there was no energy at all (because the universe did not exist), which they contrast with the origin of the universe, when there presumably was (and since which there ever has been) a positive net balance of energy.

We can consider this problem from both the perspective of general relativity alone and the perspective of quantum gravity. You may wish first to establish some background by reading section (i) of my reply to the assertion that Big Bang theory must be false, because something cannot come from nothing

(i) If we use general relativity alone, then the origin of the universe is also the origin of spacetime. That means that on this view there can be no such thing as a time t < 0. But if there is no time t < 0 when there was no energy, then the presence of any amount of energy at t = 0 cannot violate the first law of thermodynamics. I would like to interject that it is very odd that creationists would think that virtually the entire physics community would unwittingly come to accept a theory that violates one of the fundamental laws of physics.

(ii) If we add quantum mechanics to the picture, then we are faced with Lee Smolin's three options covered in the linked article above: (A) there is still a first moment in time; (B) the universe continues indefinitely into the past; (C) time breaks down in the very early universe. Scenario A does not violate the first law of thermodynamics for the reasons discussed above. Scenario B does not violate the first law of thermodynamics as long as the total energy of the universe remains constant at all times; unsurprisingly, models that actually fall under scenario B respect the first law of thermodynamics. I am still unclear about exactly how scenario C is supposed to work, but if there is no succession of time in the early the universe, then it would seem that the first law of thermodynamics cannot apply to the early universe, either.

Because I dropped my first contention does not mean he should win It just means he has negated one of 3 contentions
Therefore creationism must be real vote affirmative
TheSkeptic

Con

>>>Question... How is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over 3 millions years, when all we can live up to is 90 years?<<<

Even ASSUMING this fact is correct, since your source to this claim is from a Creationist video series, this isn't even a problem at all. Just because the brain has a maximum capacity for object X, doesn't mean that it HAS to have the maximum amount of object X. Just because we can memorize much more DOESN'T MEAN we have to store our brains until it's full.

=====
Bones of a Giant
=====

You know what's great about the internet? You can find tons of information, and tons of crap. Let me break down this so called evidence for Creationism:

Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, the place where this photograph takes place, is a Creationist museum[1]. While this isn't proof against this photo, it definitely strikes down the credibility of this museum. Scientists go from facts to conclusion, while Creationists go from conclusions to facts. In fact, this museum is famous for it's many inaccuracies, and even outright hoaxes[2]. You should check that link, because the person who exposes it all is actually part of a Christian based science organization.

But enough about their lousy reputation, what about the fossil of a giant femur? Well, I've seen this photograph a million times already, and it's a hoax. In fact, even the Mt. Blanco website admits that the femur was sculpted to "illustrate" a story[3][4]. These so called "photographic evidences" are plainly hoaxes.

Also note that if a human were to be this tall (in comparison to the femur), this femur would NOT look like this. At this height, human bones would be much bigger and probably change (hollow interior, etc.). Also, the joints would have to be modified for the additional weight - the giants would look more like 4 legged dinosaurs in an awkward way. This is why movie monsters like King Kong and Godzilla can't exist - they are too big and oddly made for their size. When you increase the height of an animal, it's volume increases the same. So if a human were to be hypothetically 100 times bigger, then it'll be 100 times heavier. However, it's muscles and sinews would only make it 10 times stronger. So relatively speaking, it will overall become weaker and in fact would need a different skeletal composition to sustain the extra weight. Now apply this concept to the giant femur - do you really think nothing will be different?

=====
Questions concerning the Big Bang, orbital mechanics, and cold dark matter
=====

First, I find it quite displeasing that you just copy-pasted those from IRC.org (Creationist website). Likewise, since the character limit is 5,000 instead of 8,000, I don't have the appropriate space to attack your constant new arguments. However, I can do away with these three questions even though I'd be nice destroying it. Even if you disprove the current theory of Big Bang and so forth, it DOESN'T prove Creationism. To say so would be a false dichotomy. It's feasible that another explanation that isn't the current one or the Creationist one, is true.

=====
Random paragraph about Darwinism
=====

This isn't an argument, more like the introduction to an essay. I'm just saying this so naive voters won't say "HA! HE DIDN'T REFUTE THAT PARAGRAPH!"

=====
First Law of Thermodynamics
=====

It's disgustingly obvious that my opponent has copy-pasted yet another argument from somewhere. He's been doing this for the entire debate, and frankly, I'm getting annoyed by this. And what's hilarious is that this gigantic argument is an articulate contention AGAINST CREATIONISM. Just read the following:

"I would like to interject that it is very odd that creationists would think that virtually the entire physics community would unwittingly come to accept a theory that violates one of the fundamental laws of physics."

Yes, I would too. I would also like to interject that it's very humorous when my opponent not only shamelessly copy-pastes from a website, but he lacks the simple fortitude to check that he's copying the right argument.

=====
Conclusion
=====

I am absolutely unimpressed and disgusted. Unimpressed by the many arguments that my opponent has used and conceded. Disgusted by the wanton copy-pasting he has done throughout this debate. If he has no decency to type his own d*mn argument, then I dare say I won't take up a debate with him next time.

Anyway, his argument has been sufficiently refuted, vote CON.

---References---
1. http://www.mtblanco.com...
2. http://www.asa3.org...
3. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us...
4. http://www.mtblanco.com...
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mecap 7 years ago
mecap
Skeptic Wins and Pro (Justinisthecrazy) LOVES Copy-pasta:
Round 1: http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Round 2: http://www.freerepublic.com...
Round 3: http://www.vuletic.com...

Justinisthecrazy didn't offer ANY original argument, nor did he site his sources, he just copied and pasted the same BS that all those web sites claim.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Con easily won, having rebutted every point Pro made and providing references for it. Con's analysis was right on target, well done.

I advise Con to avoid the comments about "disgusting" and such. That verges on bad conduct. It's okay in comments, but not in the debate.

I don't have a problem with copy-and-paste so long as it is relevant material and the pasting person is willing to defend the arguments exactly as if they were his own. the problem is most often that the material copied is filled with irrelevancies. Introducing irrelevancies casually is actually a minor conduct problem -- like staring out the window when the teacher is talking.
Posted by beem0r 7 years ago
beem0r
Hahahahahahahah.
Posted by mecap 7 years ago
mecap
Besides hearing all the regular rhetoric about evolution (nothing new from the creationist side), I think there are some interesting things that need to be considered on the topic of the Big Bang:
Einstein was one of the first to postulate a Cyclic Universe (Big Bang and Big Crunch for infinity)... he couldn't come up with a proper explanation, but other scientists have done some pretty remarkable work on the topic. The basic idea is that the Universe expands from a point of infinite singularity, and then once the Universe expands enough it will crunch back into a point of infinite singularity...

The point is of size and density which is infinitely small (roughly equivalent to zero), and the universe exists in this state for an infinitely small amount of time (roughly equivalent to zero). The reason why the universe does not exist in this state is because it's not a STEADY STATE...

Furthermore, when approaching the point of infinite singularity the concept of time is completely obliterated due to the collapse of space and time... the collapse of time results in not just one single moment of time, but an infinite number of theoretical time moments which mesh together in an infinite bowl rather than a single point none of which are "real", none of which represent when our universe began. The concept of having no time defies our cognitive capabilities, it's like talking about space when there is NO SPACE. Literally right now there is "space" between matter, but just try to imagine what it means to have no space whatsoever... apply the same to time!
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
hmm interesting....
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Especially if it's evolution vs. creationism haha.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
hard to debate a topic you don't believe in lol
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"But yeah, bacteria is much easier to speciate than, say, a dog."

Haha yeah, clearly, which is why labs tend to work with those things that have high new generation rates - like bacteria.

http://www.nsf.gov...
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
*first link bookmarked already*
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
I have the first link bookmarked :)

But yeah, bacteria is much easier to speciate than, say, a dog.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
JustinisthecrazyTheSkepticTied
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 Diebold 7 years ago
Diebold
JustinisthecrazyTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
JustinisthecrazyTheSkepticTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
JustinisthecrazyTheSkepticTied
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 mecap 7 years ago
mecap
JustinisthecrazyTheSkepticTied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
JustinisthecrazyTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
JustinisthecrazyTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06