The Instigator
baggins
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Sidewalker
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Earth does not revolve around son.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
Sidewalker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,559 times Debate No: 27205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

baggins

Con

== Resolution / Definitions ==

Complete Resolution: There is no logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours.

Please note that the debate resolution has been abridged in the title since the complete resolution does not fit in that much space. However we are debating the complete resolutin.

I will present a frame of reference with respect to which sun will rotate around the earth approximately every 24 hours. After this my opponent will proceed to show a flaw in my argument. Alternatively he may argue that such a frame is not 'logical' or 'reasonable'.

Logical: [1]
1. Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument
2. Characterized by clear, sound reasoning

Reasonably: [2]
1. In a fair and sensible way
2. By fair or sensible standards of judgment; rightly or justifiably

The words of resolution has been presented by my opponent in a forum [3]. I have used the definitons as they appear in a simple google search. In case my opponent disputes any of the terms, he should discuss them in the comments before accpeting the debate. Accpeting the debate amounts to accepting the above definitions.

Please note: it is not my contention that sun rotates around earth as seen from any arbitrary frame. Neither I am arguing that my ananlysis is the best or most logical description of the situation. However I will argue that my description is also reasonable and logical, as defined by the terms above.

First round is for acceptence. R2 and R3 for arguments. R4 is for conclusions. No new arguments may be introduced in last round.

BOP is me to present a frame with respect to which sun revolves around earth. Con's role is to either argue that my arguments are wrong, or alternatively they are not 'logical' and 'reasonable'.

== Reference ==

[1] https://www.google.co.in...
[2] https://www.google.co.in...;
[3] http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker

Pro

I accept this challenge with a great deal of appreciation to baggins, despite the fact that I have asked others quite a few times, he is the first person to agree to debate me, so thank you.

I would like to make two points in my acceptance post. I understand why the title of the debate was shortened, but it seems to me that it was shortened in a way that will make voting rather confusing because the subject of the debate and the title of the debate are somewhat inverted.

I am arguing as Pro to the complete resolution that "There is no logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours.", but a voter would reasonably take from the title, that I am arguing pro to "Earth does not revolve around son.", which is effectively the opposite of what I am arguing pro to. As this is my first debate, I do not know if at this point the title can be edited in order to make it less ambiguous and misleading, if not, let's just be sure to provide clear voting instructions at the end.

The other point I would like to make has already been mentioned, which is that this is in fact my first debate. Consequently, I'm not particularly comfortable with the process or procedural requirements of a debate here, so I will simply do the best I can, reserve the right to ask my opponent for guidance when needed, and ask baggins in advance, to please forgive me if my inexperience translates into frustration because of clumsiness or mistakes in following the rules.

The only other thing I will ask of my opponent is this, because it is my first time, please be gentle :)
Debate Round No. 1
baggins

Con

== Title Tangle ==


Complete resolution for the debate is listed in R1. I have also explained the exact role of Pro and Con in the debate in R1.


I will present a frame of reference with respect to which sun will rotate around the earth approximately every 24 hours. My opponent will proceed to show a flaw in my argument. Alternatively he may argue that such a frame is not 'logical' or 'reasonable'.


I had to abridge the resolution for the title of the debate. Unfortunately I have messed up the resolution in the title. Once my opponent accepted the challenge, it is no longer possible to edit the debate and correct my mistake. Since Sidewalker agrees with me on our roles, I think it is better to continue this debate. Readers are requested to read the debate accordingly.


== Sun rotates around earth ==


Consider a frame of reference which sticks to a fixed point on surface of earth. With respect to this frame, sun rotates around earth every ~24 hours.


I do not expect any opposition from my esteemed opponent at this point; hence I see no reason to elaborate it further. I will come back to this if my opponent contests this issue.


For the rest of the debate, I will call this frame as ‘Geo’ frame. We will call the frame which uses sun as reference as ‘Solar’ frame.


== Anticipating Pro’s arguments ==


I expect my esteemed opponent to argue that geo frame is illogical or unreasonable. Let us discuss various types of motions with respect to geo frame.



  1. Motion of stars: From this frame motion of stars is pretty simple. They dominant motion is that all stars move around earth once every ~24 hours.

  2. Motion of planets: From geo frame, the motion of planets is a superimposition of a circular motion (~24 hours) and an elliptical motion of planets around sun (with time period equal to their respective orbits). If we want to study motion of planets and apply Newton’s law of gravitation, using solar frame would be more convenient. However that does not mean that geo frame is illogical or unreasonable.

  3. Sunrise and Sunset: Whenever we talk about sunrise or sunset, we are assuming geo frame. In fact if we use a solar frame, sun never rises and sun never sets. In this situation, geo frame appears to be more appropriate in this case.

  4. Terrestrial motion: For studying our motion on surface of earth, geo frame is better. In solar frame, even simple motion along straight line on surface of earth would look bizarre. Airplanes, ships, trains and all forms of transport systems rely on the geo frame.


== Conclusion ==


From geo frame, sun revolves around earth. From solar frame earth revolves around sun (while spinning along its own axis). Both statements are logical and reasonable.


The resolution is affirmed.

Sidewalker

Pro

To be successful my opponent must provide a “logical” frame of reference from which one can “reasonably” conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth every 24 hours. He has presented the “Geo” frame of reference, defined as a fixed point on surface of Earth, and argues that from this frame, it can reasonably be concluded that the Sun rotates around Earth every ~24 hours.

I will contend that the “Geo” frame of reference is not a logical frame of reference from which you can draw the required conclusion, apparently Con’s contention is based solely on visual appearance but in order to arrive at the conclusion based solely on appearance one must reject the known fact that the earth is rotating around an axis, which is not logical or reasonable.

Con’s argument also entails a violation of the physical laws of gravity which renders his primary contention of the rotation of the Sun around the Earth impossible. The Sun is approximately ninety three million miles away from the earth, multiplying this distance by Pi to arrive at the distance the Sun must travel in an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours is around 292 million miles. To hold the sun in an orbit around the Earth at such speed, the physical laws of gravity would require the Earth to have a mass so high that it would collapse into a black hole, and yet, it is known that the mass of the Sun is about 332,946 times the mass of the Earth. Con’s contention therefore is not logical or reasonable because it requires a dramatic violation of the physical laws of gravity.

In further support of his contention Con presents four various types of motion for discussion with associated arguments around each, I will address them in the order presented.

1. Motion of stars: Con argues that from the proposed “Geo” frame of reference, all stars move around earth once every ~24 hours.

According to current scientific theory, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The closest visible star is Alpha Centauri, around 4.2 light years away; the farthest visible stars are in the Andromeda galaxy, about 2.5 million light years away. Applying Pi to these distances would give the approximate distance being traveled every twenty four hours if Con’s contention were true. Consequently, all of the visible stars would be breaking a fundamental law of physics by traveling much faster than the speed of light, ranging from Alpha Centauri which would be traveling over five thousand times the speed of light, and the stars in the Andromeda Galaxy, traveling close to three billion times the speed of light. It is not logical or reasonable to presume such an astounding violation of the laws of physics.

2. Motion of planets: Con argues that from the "Geo" frame, the motion of planets is a superimposition of a circular motion and an elliptical motion of planets and that the application of Newton’s law of gravitation would be inconvenienced but not illogical or unreasonable.

On the contrary, the motion of the planets renders Con’s contention about appearances inconsistent and therefore illogical. While the sun would indeed “appear” to be revolving around the earth in an east to west direction, as would the planets, on a periodic basis several planets would appear to reverse the direction of their revolution to move from west to east, and after a time, reverse again to continue in their original east to west direction. From Con’s frame of reference this retrograde motion of the planets would entail a breach in the physical laws of motion and gravity, rendering Con’s conclusion based on appearances illogical and unreasonable.

3. Sunrise and Sunset: Con argues that sunrise and sunset assume the “Geo” frame and there is no sunrise and sunset in a “Solar” frame.

I fail to see the relevance of this, the task for Con is to present a logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Comparing and contrasting two frames of reference in terms of Sunrise and Sunset does nothing to make his case. On the contrary, the reasonable conclusion from the existence of a sunrise and sunset is that the earth rotates, not that the sun revolves around the earth. In fact, from a fixed point on the East Coast of the US the sun appears to emerge from the Atlantic Ocean at sunrise, and on the West Coast it appears to submerge into the Pacific Ocean at sunset, but for obvious reasons, this is not a logical conclusion to draw from appearances either.

4. Terrestrial motion: Con argues that the “Geo” frame is better for studying our motion on the surface of earth, and that terrestrial motion looks bizarre from the “Solar” frame, he also says all forms of transportation use the “Geo” frame.

Again, I do not see the relevance to the task at hand for Con. This appears to be a diversion that does nothing to make his case. While it’s completely extrinsic to the debate, I would in fact argue that Con is wrong in this respect anyway. Transportation relies on the “solar” frame for proper navigation and proper functioning of critical technologies like GPS Positioning; Con’s proposed “Geo” frame would wreak havoc on the world of transportation.

== Conclusion ==

From Con’s proposed “Geo” frame of reference, it is not reasonable to conclude that the sun revolves around the earth because one must deny the rotation of the Earth, appearances are inconsistent with the conclusion, Newton’s mechanical laws of motion and gravity are dramatically violated, and most of the universe must be travelling billions of times faster than the speed of light in a vacuum in violation of Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity. A conclusion that is inconsistent with appearances and observations while dramatically violating sciences most foundational physical laws cannot be said to be logical or reasonable conclusion.

Con’s argument has been refuted.
Debate Round No. 2
baggins

Con

Many thanks to Sidewalker for his arguments.


My opponent tacitly concedes that sun revolves around earth from ‘geo’ frame. His only argument is that ‘geo’ frame is not logical.


My opponent complains…


…apparently Con’s contention is based solely on visual appearance but…


No doubt that my arguments are based on visual appearance. And that is perfectly logical.


For the purpose of this debate, my opponent has invented a dubious definition of ‘logical frame of reference’. To be logical, it must be convenient for my opponent to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity.


It is more convenient to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity from solar frame. This does not make geo frame illogical. Just like solar frame is more convenient for some problems, geo frame is more convenient for other problems. If I have to go from home to office, geo frame is much more logical.


1. Motion of stars: I argued that motion of stars is pretty simple from geo frame. My opponent points out that the resulting motion violates theory of relativity. No doubt if my opponent wants to study theory of relativity, he should use solar frame. However if he wants to view stars using a telescope, geo frame is more convenient. In either case, both the frames are logical.


2. Motion of planets: I explained that motion of planets would be a superimposition of a faster circular motion (around earth) and a slower elliptical motion (around sun). My opponent finds the resulting motion complicated. Superimposition of simple motions can lead to motions which look complicated. However there is nothing illogical about it.


3. Sunrise / Sunset: Sunrise and sunset are defined with respect to geo frame. I presented it as a example where geo frame is more convenient. If geo frame is illogical, then sunrise and sunset must be illogical.


4. Terrestrial Motion: Pro has failed to realize the impact of my argument. I have pointed out that for some problems geo frame is better and for some problems solar frame is better. However both the frames are logical.


My opponent creates a red herring about GPS systems ‘relying’ on solar frame. All the routes and directions pointed out by a GPS system are with respect to geo frame. Does my opponent wants to say that GPS systems do not use geo frame?


== Conclusion ==


As I said in the last round; from geo frame, sun revolves around earth. From solar frame earth revolves around sun (while spinning along its own axis). Both statements are logical and reasonable.


VOTE CON.

Sidewalker

Pro

Thanks to baggins for his argument.

My argument in no way concedes that the sun revolves around the earth from “Geo” frame nor does it argue that the “Geo” frame is illogical. The “Geo” frame is the one we have, we do in fact observe the universe from a “fixed point on surface of earth”. My argument was not that the frame is illogical, it was that it is not logical or reasonable to conclude from that frame, that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours, as he contends.

I did claim that his argument is solely based on visual appearance” to which he concurs, but he then accuses me of inventing a “dubious definition of ‘logical frame of reference” insisting that I have claimed that it must be convenient for my opponent to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity” for the frame of reference to be logical. This appears to be something of a “bait and switch” tactic in an effort to change the terms of the debate into an argument about whether the “Geo” frame is logical or not. The debate is about whether or not from this logical frame of reference one can reasonably conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth every 24 hours, my argument was solely that you cannot reasonably reach Con’s conclusion from that frame of reference.

It is indeed a logical frame of reference, in fact, it is the one from which we evolved logic and reason, and the one from which the universally accepted fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun was, and continues to be, reasoned. Con’s argument is therefore self refuting in the face of the fact that mankind actually concluded otherwise to his contention by applying reason.

In support of this “bait and switch” argument, Con states that “It is more convenient to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity from solar frame”, claiming “solar frame is more convenient for some problems, Geo frame is more convenient for other problems”. With all due respect to my esteemed opponent, this is not only irrelevant, it is also a preposterous contention. A “Solar” frame would be a fixed point on the 'surface of the Sun where the temperature is approximately 5,800 Kelvin (> 10,000 degrees F), consequently, any observer located on this frame of reference would be instantly vaporized by the extreme heat, it is clearly not a frame that could reasonably be characterized as “convenient” for the reasoning of any problem.

Con continues the “bait and switch” tactic of claiming that I am arguing that the “Geo” frame of reference itself is illogical in each of his numbered points as follows:

1. Motion of stars:
As I have already pointed out, his straw man “Solar” frame of reference is not a logical frame of reference from which anything can be studied, his “convenience” argument is irrelevant and preposterous, the study of relativity has always been from the “Geo” frame, and it can be reasonably argued that it never will be studied from a “Solar” frame. I in no way argued that the “Geo” frame is illogical, and this would be an irrelevant point to make anyway, under no conditions would it serve to support Con’s contention that we can reasonably conclude that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours.

2. Motion of planets:
This appears to be nothing but more distraction from the actual debate, whether or not I find the resulting motion of the planets to be complicated isn’t at issue or related in any way to the debate.
My argument was that he is basing his position on simple appearances, a point which he concedes, and that it is not reasonable to arrive at his conclusion from the “Geo” frame, even based on simple appearances because some planets give a simple appearance of changing their direction in space on a regular basis in direct contradiction to the laws of motion and gravity, so even simple appearances would be an inconsistent and illogical basis for his contention.

3. Sunrise / Sunset:
This argument is incoherent and doesn’t even support the “bait and switch” tactic. Sunrise and sunset are only simple observations from the “Geo” frame, the reasonable and logical conclusion to be drawn from these observations is that the Earth is rotating, not that the Sun is revolving around the Earth.

4. Terrestrial Motion:
I have not failed to realize the impact of this argument, I have only recognized that it is incoherent and the only impact it could have is on a bait and switch effort to distract from, and possibly even misrepresent, the true subject of the debate. It is actually Con’s "Terrestrial Motion" argument that is the red herring, I only responded to it to point out that it is flawed, illogical, and unreasonable. It’s certainly true that GPS systems provide routes and directions with respect to the Geo frame,
but that’s all they need to do. So no, I do not want to say that “GPS systems do not use Geo frame”, especially since that isn’t what I argued. What I argued is that they base their calculations
on signals that come from GPS Satellites placed into geosynchronous orbits that require valid laws of motion and gravity, which Con’s argument denies, and the Geo-positioning that those calculations derive from those signals are based on measurements of the finite speed of light and utilize Einstein’s Theory of Relativity to calculate position accurately, both of which are also denied by Con’s argument,

Con concludes his argument by contending that “from Geo frame, sun revolves around earth” to which I’d like to believe that I have thoroughly refuted beyond any doubt that this is a reasonable conclusion one can draw from the Geo frame. He has added that “From solar frame earth revolves around sun (while spinning along its own axis)” claiming “Both statements are logical and reasonable” to which I believe it has been demonstrated that at best, this is nothing more than a “bait and switch” attempt to confuse and misrepresent the subject of the debate. I am forced to conclude that my opponent’s entire counter argument is a red herring because there is no opposed “Solar” frame of reference from which anything could be reasoned since an observer would instantly cease to exist.


== Conclusion ==

Con’s task was to present a frame of reference from which it could be reasonably argued that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours” and defend it. My opponent presented a frame of reference that does not meet the challenge for many reasons. The frame of reference he put forth just happens to be the same one from which mankind has reasonably concluded just the opposite, that it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun which itself refutes his contention. I have shown that his contention would require a denial of the known fact that the earth is rotating, along with Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Clearly a conclusion based on such denial of our foundational laws of physics cannot be said to be a reasonable conclusion. Even Con’s attempt to make it all about simple appearances was shown to be inconsistent as some simple appearances also entail a breach in the physical laws of motion and gravity.

Given these considerations, the Complete Resolution, which I hold the Pro position on, “There is no logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours” has been demonstrated because, per the agreed upon terms of the debate, Con has failed to provide a frame of reference which refutes the resolution. The resolution is therefore affirmed.

In the event that the title and voting instructions are still somewhat confusing, allow me to simplify, if you want to vote in a logical and reasonable manner, all you need to do is…


VOTE PRO

:)
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
@ Sidewalker

I copied the resolution you proposed as the main resolution. That is what we were debating. The resolution was a negative statement to which I was Con (Hence the double negative). This is what RoyLatham was pointing out. I am not 'blaming' you for anything.

I wrote down the instructions, and they are quite clear.

As far as the title is concerned there is a mistake in it. I was responsible for the mistake. However since the complete resolution and instructions were quite clear, I don't think it was a major issue. I could have corrected the mistake had you pointed it out before accepting the challenge.

Which of part of this is a misrepresentation?

I do all my debate in a positive spirit. A part of that includes not debating in comments after the debate is over. I continue to think that this debate should be a win for me. I encourage readers to read and vote as per their understanding.
Posted by Sidewalker 4 years ago
Sidewalker
Oh pulease baggins, you are misrepresenting it again, and we can debate that too if you want.

I only proposed the resolution as follows "There is no logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours." - that's what you copied. You are the one who inverted the title and instructions when you issued the challenge.

Title: "Earth does not revolve around son." = was not the Pro position, it was the Con position.

Instruction: "BOP is me to present a frame with respect to which sun revolves around earth. Con's role is to either argue that my arguments are wrong, or alternatively they are not 'logical' and 'reasonable'" - Showing your argument was wrong was Pro, not Con's role.

Now you want to lay the confusion off on me? I don't think so.

Your entire argument was a "bait and switch" too....I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this comment convinces me RoyLatham and Thomas Jefferson are right

It was a lame backhanded attempt to win a debate, but underestimating me and the voters didn't work, we all saw right through it.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
The resolution was proposed as it is by Sidewalker in a forum post. I just copied it without any change.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
I'm on the verge of calling such backhanded double negative resolutions a conduct violation. It's inexcusable.

The solar system is logically treated as a unit because there are no stars nearly as close as the planets to each other and the sun. The center of mass of the solar system is defined independent of the coordinate system. The center of mass is located inside the sun. Therefore it is most logical to put the sun in the center of the system.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
What a confusing way to set up a debate in terms of resolution, title and con/pro positions. Double negatives and all. Honestly.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
@ Thomas Jefferson

"This appear to be an attempt to trick an unwary opponent."

This is a specific challenge to Sidewalker based on our discussion in forums. Please rest assured that he is not an unwary opponent. In fact, it would be correct to describe him as very wary. (Couldn't resist the alliteration!)
Posted by Sidewalker 4 years ago
Sidewalker
Microsuck,

Yeah, I saw that and mentioned it in my acceptance, it is very confusing. Baggins sort of inverted the subject in the title when he sent the challenge, so we will need to either fix it if that is possible, or be very clear at the end that all the votes should be pro votes (just kidding baggins).

Maybe you can tell me if the title can still be changed, if not we will need to be very explicit at the end about what a pro vote is and what a con vote is.

In any event, the pro position is that there is not a logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably conclude that the sun revolves around the earth. The onus is on baggins to put forth a frame of reference in which the sun revolves around the earth that I can't refute logically and reasonably.
Posted by ThomasJefferson 4 years ago
ThomasJefferson
This appear to be an attempt to trick an unwary opponent.

Clearly the sun does not revolve around the earth every 24 hours. The earth completes one rotation on its axis every 24 hours (approximately). It revolves around the sun every 365.25 days (approximately).

The creator of the debate is arguing there is a "frame of reference" to argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours. Presumably, he will make the argument that while standing on earth (as the frame of reference) the sun appears to revolve around the earth every 24 hours.

The problem is that this is not a reasonable argument and therefore cannot satisfy the resolution. It may have been reasonable if the only observable stellar phenomenon was the sun. But, from the earth we can also see other planets. By observing these planets, we can determine that these planets, and the earth, have elliptical orbits around the sun. If the Pro position wants to win this resolution, he simply needs to make arguments in line with those that Copernicus and Kepler made hundreds of years ago.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
I'm confused, baggins is defending or opposing the statement "The Earth does not revolve around the sun." BTW, in the title, "son" should be "sun."
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
bagginsSidewalkerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO wins on the motion of the stars argument... it doesn't matter what field your studying, it's not like the rules of physics don't exist becaues you're studying a different field
Vote Placed by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
bagginsSidewalkerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the double negative. Arguments because con conceded, " From solar frame earth revolves around sun (while spinning along its own axis). Both statements are logical and reasonable"
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
bagginsSidewalkerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes that if you want to use Newton's laws and the Theory of Relativity, then a sun centered frame makes more sense. Well, those are not just suggestions, they are laws. The math can be made to work fom any frame, but earth centered is not the logical one to use.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
bagginsSidewalkerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB
Vote Placed by Straight_A_Kate 4 years ago
Straight_A_Kate
bagginsSidewalkerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: ...