The Instigator
TheAmazingBeliever
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
100 Points

Dinosaurs co-existed with mankind

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: 4/4/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,593 times Debate No: 11633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (18)

 

TheAmazingBeliever

Pro

We are told in Kindergarten that dinosaurs lived 65 billion years ago. I would like to refute this argument and provide you with substantial evidence of why I believe dinosaurs lived with man.

First of all, its not possible for you to know what happened 65 billion years ago.

The dinosaurs supposedly died by a meteorite or the ice age. I have even seen a scientist claim that they were killed by their own flatulence. The question is, how did they die?

Well, the bigger question is, are they dead? We will get into that in a minute. The vast majority of dinosaurs died at the hands of man. I live in a small town. If it came on the news tonight that there were ten grizzly bears loose in the woods of my town, in the morning, there would be none. Every redneck in the whole town would be in the woods hunting them.

I believe that man hunted the dinosaurs and made them all but extinct. Why would they hunt them? For meat. They were a menace. To be a hero. To prove their superiority. Competition. And much more.

Now, what evidence is there that dinosaurs lived with man. First off, the word dinosaur was not invented until 1841. Before that, they were called dragons. The word dinosaur wasn't even in the dictionary in 1891. The word dragon was listed in the dictionary in 1946 as "now rare".

Dinosaurs and dragons are the same thing. There is much evidence that dragons co-existed with man. What is this evidence?

-Gilgamesh slew a dragon in his epic.
-The Chinese calendar has twelve animals on it. Eleven of them are every day animals: dog, rat, tiger, etc. The other is a dragon. Now, why would the Chinese put eleven real animals on their calendar and then a dragon? Maybe because at the time the calendar was made, dragons were a real animal.
-The oldest piece of pottery in the world has a long-necked dragon on it.
-The historians Herodotus and Josephus both mention dragons in their writings.
-The Bible mentions dragons 34 times.
-Historical record from AD 793 talks about fiery dragons flying across the firmament.
-The Babylonian God, Marduk, is pictured seated on a dragon.
-Ishtar Gate in Babylon was built 2600 years ago. It has drawings of dragons on it.
-Alexander the Great reported that when he conquered parts of what is now India in 326 BC, his soldiers were scared by the great dragons that lived in the caves.
-St. George slew a dragon in 275 AD.
-Beowulf slew two dragons and the third one killed him.
-Vikings put dragon heads on their ships.
-Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years around 1271 AD and reported that the emperor raised dragons to pull chariots in parades.
-In 1611, the Chinese emperor appointed the post of "Royal Dragon Feeder". Why do you need a royal dragon feeder? Maybe, to feed the dragons.
-Coins from 1500-1600 show people slaying dragons.
-A city in France was renamed Nerluc to honor a man who slayed a dragon.
-Indians carved dinosaurs on the walls of the Grand Canyon.
-An Italian farmer killed a dragon in the 1500's because t was bothering his cows.
-Roman swords have been found with dinosaurs on them.
-A well known South African big game hunter, Mr. F. Gobbler, returned from a trip to Angola and announced to the Capetown newspaper that there was an animal of large dimensions, the description of which could only fit a dinosaur, dwelling in the Dilolo Swamps. This swamp is 80% unexplored. There have been many dinosaur sightings in this swamp.
-Lake Loch Ness is so big that everyone in the world could drown in it at the same time. Until 1933, to get to the lake, you had to go up stream 7 miles or climb a big mountain. A road was put in in 1933 and that year alone there were 52 seperate spottings of the Loch Ness Monster. There have been over 11,000 sightings to this day. Obviously some are fake, but what are the odds that they all are. Arthur Grant, a veterniarian student, neary ran into Nessie on his motorcycle on January 5, 1934 at 1:30 AM. Alexander Campbell claims to have seen Nessie 18 times in 47 years while he was the game warden of Loch Ness. Everyone that sees Nessie claims she is a Plesiosaur.
-In Pensacola, Florida, 5 teenagers went scuba diving. Only 1 survived. He claimed a dinosaur killed them. If you were going to murder your friends while scuba diving, would you come up with a better excuse for their death than saying that a dinosaur killed them? The beach reported that the kids drowned to keep business up.
-There is a creature that lives in Kenya known to the natives as the Kongamato. They dig up graves and eat the rotting bodies. When the natives were shown pictures of known dinosaurs, they identifiied the Kongamato as a Pterodactyl.

Museums of dinosaurs didn't exist when Beowulf was written, the vikings sailed, the writing of the Bible and Gilgamesh, the Indians time of drawing things on the Grand Canyon, or any of the other events mentioned above. How then, did they put dinosaurs into their artwork, literature, and architecture? Maybe dinosaurs existed with them.

It would be hard to say that dinosaurs are extinct today. To say that something is extinct, you would have to know everything about the current world and know what is going on in every area of the world. This is impossible. Evidence is provided above that sea monsters ad Pterodactyls still exist. I don't think there are many, but there are some dinosaurs still in existence today.
Ore_Ele

Con

"First of all, its not possible for you to know what happened 65 billion years ago."

It is possible, through radiometric dating, to know if the skeleton of something had died 65 MILLION (not billion) years ago. [1] While we may not know if one male dinosaur liked pretty butterflys and rainbows, but had to keep it secret from other dinosaurs for they wouldn't understand, we can know the simple age, and have been able to tell for decades now.

"The dinosaurs supposedly died by a meteorite or the ice age. I have even seen a scientist claim that they were killed by their own flatulence. The question is, how did they die?"

That isn't the question, the question is, WHEN did they die (and WHEN did they live), they could have died because God's rough draft of the earth actually was flat and they all suddenly desided to walk off of it. The why doesn't matter, only the when and that when was 65 million years ago.

" The vast majority of dinosaurs died at the hands of man. I live in a small town. If it came on the news tonight that there were ten grizzly bears loose in the woods of my town, in the morning, there would be none. Every redneck in the whole town would be in the woods hunting them."

Ya know, I'm not too sure, but I don't think we had guns 65 million years ago (unless around 10,000 years ago, we desided to destroy them all and never use them again until we reinvented them, maybe it was those fish people from Atlantis and their green energy, world peace, hippie stuff), but I'll double check that.

Also, now I'm stuck with the image of a caveman with a mullet, drinking a bud light watching dino-nascar. [2]

"Dinosaurs and dragons are the same thing. There is much evidence that dragons co-existed with man. What is this evidence?

-Gilgamesh slew a dragon in his epic.
-The Chinese calendar has twelve animals on it. Eleven of them are every day animals: dog, rat, tiger, etc. The other is a dragon. Now, why would the Chinese put eleven real animals on their calendar and then a dragon? Maybe because at the time the calendar was made, dragons were a real animal.
-The oldest piece of pottery in the world has a long-necked dragon on it.
-The historians Herodotus and Josephus both mention dragons in their writings.
-The Bible mentions dragons 34 times.
-Historical record from AD 793 talks about fiery dragons flying across the firmament.
-The Babylonian God, Marduk, is pictured seated on a dragon.
-Ishtar Gate in Babylon was built 2600 years ago. It has drawings of dragons on it.
-Alexander the Great reported that when he conquered parts of what is now India in 326 BC, his soldiers were scared by the great dragons that lived in the caves.
-St. George slew a dragon in 275 AD.
-Beowulf slew two dragons and the third one killed him.
-Vikings put dragon heads on their ships.
-Marco Polo lived in China for 17 years around 1271 AD and reported that the emperor raised dragons to pull chariots in parades.
-In 1611, the Chinese emperor appointed the post of "Royal Dragon Feeder". Why do you need a royal dragon feeder? Maybe, to feed the dragons.
-Coins from 1500-1600 show people slaying dragons.
-A city in France was renamed Nerluc to honor a man who slayed a dragon.
-Indians carved dinosaurs on the walls of the Grand Canyon.
-An Italian farmer killed a dragon in the 1500's because t was bothering his cows.
-Roman swords have been found with dinosaurs on them."

I guess Harrypotter, and Middle Earth, and the Starwars universe must all be true, but there are objects with their pictures on them, and those are proof that they exist. Wait, another thought entered my head (and it hurt a bit), maybe...just maybe, the people that put pictures of dragons on pots and walls and wrote stories about them are doing something like story telling, not recording "historical documents," but just trying to have some entertainment, or just scare the kids to keep them off your lawn.

"A well known South African big game hunter, Mr. F. Gobbler..."

Is he a turkey? Cause when I tried to look him, I found a turkey, and a lot of them. I then tried looking up him and "dinosaur" and the first response was... this very debate. I guess he isn't so well known.

"Museums of dinosaurs didn't exist when Beowulf was written, the vikings sailed, the writing of the Bible and Gilgamesh, the Indians time of drawing things on the Grand Canyon, or any of the other events mentioned above. How then, did they put dinosaurs into their artwork, literature, and architecture? Maybe dinosaurs existed with them."

Or maybe they came across the bones of them and because they didn't have the dating methods we have, they didn't know that these things were long dead and thought "HOLY FRICKEN COW VIKINGMAN!!! Look at the size of those bones! What it is it must be massive, we better watch out and warn others incase there are more of them!"

"It would be hard to say that dinosaurs are extinct today."

Actually, it is very easy to say that. "Dinosaurs are extinct today." I'll say it again, "Dino are extinct today." I'll even go 1 step further, "Dinos were extinct yesterday and will be extinct tomorrow too, but I'm not too sure about Saturday, they might not be extinct on saturday."

I think you mean "prove absolutely" rather then "say."

BTW, I have some dinosaur insurance at one heck of a price, and you'll get a bundle discount if you get the dragon insurance too.

[1] http://www.actionbioscience.org...
[2] http://media.techeblog.com... (how we killed the dinos)
[3] (youtube video)
Debate Round No. 1
TheAmazingBeliever

Pro

"It is possible, through radiometric dating, to know if the skeleton of something had died 65 MILLION (not billion) years ago. [1] While we may not know if one male dinosaur liked pretty butterflys and rainbows, but had to keep it secret from other dinosaurs for they wouldn't understand, we can know the simple age, and have been able to tell for decades now."

Okay, when you say this, you assume that that is actually how they do it though. Its not. Even if they did, radiometric dating is not perfect. I have actually talked to people who use it and they say that it is a good method, but there is much room for human error.

The reason I say that they do not use radiometric dating in determining the age of bones is because the geologic column was invented before any kind of radiometric dating was even thought of. It is not through radiometric dating that they determine the age of the fossils. They determine the age of the rock layers by things in them known as index fossils. However, they determine the age of the fossils by what layer they are found in. That is circular reasoning.

Also, lets discuss these age layers a little more. If you have ever studied the rock layers, you will find that they are stacked on top of each other like a plate of pancakes. If these layers show the different ages, why do you not find erosion marks in between them? Why do you not find layers of soil in between them? On top of that, several layers can form all at once in moving water. I believe around 4400 years ago, there was a worldwide flood. That would have formed many layers at the same time.

Finally, there have been fossilized human hands found in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones. How is this possible if they lived millions of years apart from one another?
Ore_Ele

Con

"Okay, when you say this, you assume that that is actually how they do it though. Its not. Even if they did, radiometric dating is not perfect. I have actually talked to people who use it and they say that it is a good method, but there is much room for human error."

Although it isn't 100% accurate (which nothing is), it is about 98% (leaving a few million years of wiggle room). That is accurate enough to the difference between 65 million years and 5 hundred years.

"The reason I say that they do not use radiometric dating in determining the age of bones is because the geologic column was invented before any kind of radiometric dating was even thought of."

They actually use both. Go figure, using different science to double check and avoid circular logic.

"I believe around 4400 years ago, there was a worldwide flood. That would have formed many layers at the same time."

What evidence have you on this? And please don't say the bible, not right after your thing about circular logic.

"Finally, there have been fossilized human hands found in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones. How is this possible if they lived millions of years apart from one another?"

Umm, because water erodes the layers and exposes them thus allowing humans who die in that aera to suddenly be on same "layer" as a dinosaur without actually living in the same time frame. That's kind of how we came across their bones (technically fosiles aren't really bones, but same difference).
Debate Round No. 2
TheAmazingBeliever

Pro

I don't even have to use the Bible to give evidence for the flood.

First of all, a flash flood can produce a large layer of rock sedimentation in a few hours, it doesn't take millions of years. If you took a jar of water, sand, rock, soil, and other types of dirt and shook it up, it would form into layers for you in just a few minutes.

Natural sedimentation over several ages cannot explain how so many fossils came to be concentrated in one place. Every inhabited continent contains large fossil beds where millions of fossilized species are found together in large concentrations, as if all these creatures were destroyed and buried together by massive flooding. For example, the Karoo formation fossil field in Africa contains eight billion vertebrate fossils.

Vasquez Rock has the appearance of a rugged moonscape. It's main features are massive shards of jagged rock strata, broken sharply and thrusting out of the ground to great heights. Whatever force stood those rocks on end was obviously sudden and violent, not slow and gradual.

Waldo Canyon in Colorado was at one time covered by ocean. The highest point in the Waldo park is Pikes Peak, the top of which is only 14,000 feet high. There is only a small portion of the world that is over 14,000 feet high. That means that everything under 14,000 feet was also underwater.

Providence Canyon, near Lumpkin, Georgia, is a spectacular canyon that covers more than eleven hundred acres. In the early 1800's the entire area was flat farmland. By the mid 1800's, farmers had completely cleared the area of trees and their roots systems, leaving the area susceptible to erosion. In 1846, heavy rainfall began forming small gullies and crevices. These expanded with every successive rainfall. By the 1940's nearby buildings and towns had to be moved to accommodate the growing canyon. Today the canyon comprises sixteen fingers, some more than one mile in length. At places the distance from the canyon floor to the rim is as high as a fifteen-story building. This is clear evidence that it doesn't take millions of years for major erosion to happen.

In light of all the evidence, I believe that dinosaurs co-existed with man, they did not live millions of years ago, and there could still be some around today.

Thank you and God bless
Ore_Ele

Con

"For example, the Karoo formation fossil field in Africa contains eight billion vertebrate fossils."

In no legitimate source, does anyone say that there are 8 billion fossils there, and only one mentions a massive amount (800 billion) but then goes to say, it's less like 40,000 or so. But let's just say, for the sake of blind argument, that there is 8 billion. They include (per every reference) plants and insects, and that the Karoo supergroup is about 2/3 the size of the entire continent of Africa. AND that it covers a time frame of over 200 million years. So it isn't hard to believe that over 200 million years on most of the continent, that several billion plants and animals lived and got fossilized when they died. [1]

"Vasquez Rock has the appearance of a rugged moonscape. It's main features are massive shards of jagged rock strata, broken sharply and thrusting out of the ground to great heights. Whatever force stood those rocks on end was obviously sudden and violent, not slow and gradual."

Like an earthquake 25 million years ago. [2]

"Waldo Canyon in Colorado was at one time covered by ocean. The highest point in the Waldo park is Pikes Peak, the top of which is only 14,000 feet high. There is only a small portion of the world that is over 14,000 feet high. That means that everything under 14,000 feet was also underwater."

No link and can't find anything suggesting it in a modest look over the internet. But, it is easy to point out, that tectonic activity causes mountains to form, and they can grow at a rate of a few mm per year. [3] That means after 1 million years or so, a mountain could easily be 15,000 feet or more. so what was once level, can become a mountain, and stuff that shouldn't be at the top of a mountain, could be there (like evidence of a body of water).

"Providence Canyon, near Lumpkin, Georgia, is a spectacular canyon that covers more than eleven hundred acres. In the early 1800's the entire area was flat farmland. By the mid 1800's, farmers had completely cleared the area of trees and their roots systems, leaving the area susceptible to erosion. In 1846, heavy rainfall began forming small gullies and crevices. These expanded with every successive rainfall. By the 1940's nearby buildings and towns had to be moved to accommodate the growing canyon. Today the canyon comprises sixteen fingers, some more than one mile in length. At places the distance from the canyon floor to the rim is as high as a fifteen-story building. This is clear evidence that it doesn't take millions of years for major erosion to happen."

Yep, if we strip the land of plants (whose roots tend to hold the dirt in place to minimize erosion), stuff can happen a lot quicker.

Okay, so I fail to see what any of this had to do with proving that dinosaurs lived with humans in this last round, since you only really argued about a fossil bed and erosion. But, I guess that ends this debate.

[1] http://www.highbeam.com...
[2] http://www.scvhistory.com...
[3] http://www.soest.hawaii.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
lol.... What?
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro really showed a great deal of misunderstanding with his opening confusion of "billions" with "millions." There are about 20 independent radiometric dating methods that cross-check each other. In sediment columns, seasons are marked by different types of plant pollen in the fine layers of the sediment. Continuous columns go back around 30,000 years, well after dinosaurs, but thoroughly disposing of the idea of a flood 4400 years ago. All the science is on Con's side, of course, and he cited it adequately.

As to debate issues, Pro failed to respond to many of Con's arguments. For example, the question of whether stories of dragons are proof of dragons.

There is a legitimate question as to whether Con's sarcasm was so extreme as to be bad conduct. I think it was phrased elliptically enough to avoid a conduct loss, but that's not an obvious conclusion. Certainly con should not win conduct. I suspect that voters were just emphasizing that con won overwhelmingly, which he did, by voting "all Con." S&G was a tie.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
I will admitt, I'm close to shocked that people are giving me the conduct vote (or even voting it as a tie is somewhat shocking). I really don't think I deserve it.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Kenesis - I'm sorry, I misread your post, and thought you were referring to dinosaur tracks as all being fake. My mistake.

Cerebral - It's true, I don't think anyone should give me the conduct vote. I mostly just did this debate to let of stress and to see if I was able to get online often enough to actually get back to debating. I use to be online something like 50+ hours a week, now I'm lucky if I hit 15 hours. So my research is going to be greatly effected.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Couldn't pro supply any sources?
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
OreEle is a good debater, but this was not his best one. The easy parts:
Conduct: Pro; Con's sarcasm was unwarranted in many cases (cavemen with mullets, etc) Sarcasm is often needed when dealing with YECs, but I saw no need for it here as many valid arguments could have been levied at Pro's stance.
Sources: Con; Pro offered very little and lost this point immediately when he mentioned "his friend who uses radiometric dating". The web is full of info on this so source material is ample, even for science deniers.
With those out of the way,
S/G: Meh, about even, mistakes on both sides. I'll call it a wash.
Convincing arguments: Con has a plethora of material at his disposal concerning this issue. I recommend using the werewolves and vampires when dealing with one accepting dragons, but Con did manage to present the most accurate rebuttal in radiometric dating and Pro simply regurgitated YEC responses without providing any explanation of the rebuttal. His round on the flood was irrelevant and Con accurately pointed this out. Vote for Con.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
@OreEle - I certainly didn't mean to sound offensive when I stated adults can hold absurd views. I simply think creationism is amongst the most thoroughly refuted, unscientific views there is - it certainly isn't uncommon though!

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I think dinosaur bones are fake. If you look, I was only referring to those people who claim to have found dinosaur tracks with human footprints on them - almost all such claims have been, when examined by professionals, found to be fake - as far as I know, no accredited scientists hold to them.

@mongeese - Good lord, you're right! Pokemon must be a secret message by people trying to tell us dinosaurs are still around!
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Kinesis, there's the dragon! There, in your pic!
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Kinesis - I'm usually more open minded and understanding towards people with different views and uncommon ideas, as seeing as I am one in the political arena, but the whole "dinosaurs bones are fake" arguement is both unscientific and illogical. I mean, if you could at least come up with a logical reason why scientists would do something like that, I'd at least be willing to listen.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I'm usually a fair voter, but I'm giving all 7 points to the person who isn't brainwashed with Kent Hovind's bullsh*t, and I don't care who decides to criticize me for my decision.

Oh, and FYI? In Chinese, the word "dragon" is idiomatic for "royal". For example, the emperor's throne is called "The dragon seat". The "dragon feeder" was someone in charge of the livestock inside the Imperial city.

But of course, convicted tax evaders that are intellectually comparable to the average middleschooler, who have absolutely no scientific credentials and rely on misleading information to weasel money out of similarly idiotic hillbillies, obviously *have* no contact with Chinese culture at all :P

(Save for the occasional order General Tso's they get when they gather around to talk about corn and hate on minorities, gays, and Jews)
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 dankeyes11 7 years ago
dankeyes11
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 The_Anarchist_Opposition 7 years ago
The_Anarchist_Opposition
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Doctor_Murray 7 years ago
Doctor_Murray
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 TheBoxTheorem 7 years ago
TheBoxTheorem
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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 Donutdude143 7 years ago
Donutdude143
TheAmazingBelieverOre_EleTied
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