The Instigator
1Devilsadvocate
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
alanyuen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Every one who believes in god delusional

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 3 votes the winner is...
1Devilsadvocate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,324 times Debate No: 28148
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

1Devilsadvocate

Con

Pretty strait forward.

The resolution is: "Every one who believes in god delusional". I'm CON

No trolling
No lawyering
No semantics

R1 acceptance only

No new arguments in R4
alanyuen

Pro

I accept.

(P.S. It's spelled "straight")
Debate Round No. 1
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Definitions:

Adj.1.delusional - suffering from or characterized by delusions
psychoneurotic, neurotic - affected with emotional disorder
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. " 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.(1)

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.[1] Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.(2)

(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com......
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org......


alanyuen

Pro

My opponent did not even make an argument and only recited the definition of "delusional" from a dictionary and Wikipedia, which is to my knowledge an unreliable source. Not only did he not make a point or argue his position, but he broke his own rule of "No semantics". However, since it is more difficult to argue this topic without the use of semantics and my opponent has violated his own rule, I will continue with this debate assuming justification for disregarding that rule.

(Because my opponent did not specify the religion of the god you're referencing, I will assume god means a general omnipotent and omniscient deity.)
My burden is to prove that everyone who believes in god is delusional.
I will have to show that the act in believing in a god is an act being delusional.

In every religion that has a supreme deity, and they all emphasize on having faith.
Faith is defined as such:
"a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"

To have faith or to believe in god, is to believe for which there is no proof/evidence. To be delusional is to have strong believe despite superior evidence that prove otherwise.

There is a fundamental problem with the characteristics of omnipotence. One proposition called the omnipotence paradox exposes this problem. Suppose this scenario: God creates a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it. This paradox is evidence and proof that being omnipotent intrinsically contradictory and paradoxical.

There is another problem with god's traits. Being omniscient would suggest that god knows everything that is going to happen, thus free will is nonexistent. There is no logical reason for an omnipotent and omniscient god to create such a world in which organisms have no free will. Now, my opponent may list a number of reasons and conditions for why such a god would do something like this, but according to Occam's razor, making a large number of assumptions and conditions would render my opponent's hypothesis highly unlikely to be true. The most succinct and coherent reason would be that an omnipotent and omniscient deity (god) does not exist.

In summary, these logical evidence suggests that there can be no deity that is omnipotent and/or omniscient, thus relegating such a deity from the term and conditions of being a "god". Because having faith in god is to believe with which there is no proof, evidence that god does not exist is superior to the evidence that god does exist. If you choose to continue in your belief in god, you would have to believe "despite superior evidence to the contrary." Anyone who has this belief is being delusional.

Conclusion: Everyone who believes in god is delusional.

Gibbs, Phil. "UCR Physics." What is Occam's Razor?. N.p., Web. 13 Dec 2012.
[http://math.ucr.edu...]
"Merriam-Webster." Definition of Faith. N.p. Web. 13 Dec 2012.
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...].
Debate Round No. 2
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Pro writes some characteristics of god.

This is somewhat misleading though. Classical theists did not believe that God could be 'defined.' They believed that it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans to define him. Robert Barron explains by analogy that it seems impossible for a two dimensional object to conceive of three dimensional humans.[3] (1)

Or as professor Gottlieb puts it, God himself cannot be described "We describe what god does, not who he is."
All "descriptions of god" are not descriptions of God's self, but rather describe how he interacts with us.
For example, "God is all powerful", means anything can happen, if god wills it. but we cannot describe gods self.

Pro says:
Every religion emphasizes faith, which he defines as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

That is simply false anti-religion propaganda.
There may be some with that attitude, but there are many that are not that way.

1 of the most famous examples is Dr. William lance Craig & his organization "Reasonable Faith" for Christianity. (2)
( professor Dale Gottlieb in Judaism (3).) There are 100s of books & organizations that teach (a) rational approach(s) to belief in god. Some are better than others, & many people personally don't agree with any of their arguments, but to say
"Every religion emphasizes faith" which you define as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
Is simply ignoring millions (if not billions) of believers.

Pro mentions the famous rock paradox.

The best answer to this is that it's not even a question. The term "a rock god can't lift" has no meaning, it CANNOT exist.
The term "a rock god can't lift", is an internal contradiction, analogous to the term square circle.
There is no such thing as "a rock god can't lift", so you can't ask if he can create it.
Analogy:
Can god check mate with just a king? Is not a question, because there is no such thing as "check mate with just a king".
(I give credit to Prof. Dale Gottlieb for this answer.)

Pro writes:
"Being omniscient would suggest that god knows everything that is going to happen, thus free will is nonexistent..."

1 simple answer is that the assumption is not necessarily true.
God knowing what someone will do, doesn't logically mean that he does not have free will?
We think this way because of association. Any time we know something will happen, it's because there is no free will involved.
For example watching something that already happened, or someone under hypnosis, something being dropped, the only way we know what will happen is because there is no free will involved. Thus we associate knowing what will happen with determinism.
Pro has not proved that gods foreknowledge negates the possibility of there being free will.
If my opponent does so, I will provide a slightly more complex answer.

My opponent rejects the possibility of answering his question by listing a number of reasons and conditions for why such a god would do something like this, because of occams razor.

(It's interesting to note that Ockham himself was a theist. - http://en.wikipedia.org....)

There are a few problems with using Ockhams Razor:

1) It is not used to disprove something, it is used to chose between 2 equal theories.
It's more of a pragmatic tool, than a logical proof.

2) Occams Razor itself is not by any means a universally accepted tool. There are philosophers who have created what are called Anti-Razors. (4)

3) It ignores all the assumptions that are required to explain a world without god.
For example punctuated equilibrium, & many other scientific theories.

Standard Evidence used for proving god:

1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency:

a) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the
necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

b) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

c) The universe exists.

d) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from a, c).

e) Therefore, the explanation of the universe"s existence is God (from b, d).

Pro will probably challenge b, when doing so he should provide an alternative.

Thomistic variation of cosmological argument:
a. What we observe in this universe is contingent (i.e. dependent, or conditional)
b. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
c. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

a) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

b) The universe began to exist.

c) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

d) That cause is god.

___________________________________________________________________________________

3.The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties

a) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

b) Objective moral values and duties do exist.

c) Therefore, God exists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning

a) The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

b) It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

c) Therefore, it is due to design.

Examples of Fine Tuning:

1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as one part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible. (As John Jefferson Davis points out, an accuracy of one part in 1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.) (5)

2. A change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe"s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang"s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123)."23 And it"s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers. (2)

3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by one part in 1040, then life-sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible. (Collins 1999, 49.)[37](5)

More complex examples: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Thomistic Cosmological Argument #1 (TCA1)

1. Whatever is in motion is moved by another.
2. There exist beings in motion.
3. There cannot be an infinite regression of moved beings.
4. Therefore, there must be a first mover.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are many more, but these are the basic ones, & I'm running out of room.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
(3) http://www.dovidgottlieb.com...
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor#Controversial_aspects_of_the_razor
(5) http://plato.stanford.edu...
alanyuen

Pro

**NOTE: I did not expect my opponent to regurgitate everything from -Google: What are the stupidest arguments against atheists -… Please, Con, at least read what you copy and paste. If you did and you found them as logical, I still blame you for wasting my time. I looked forward to a DEBATE, not a god damn list of arguments made by dumbasses you found on the web.

"Classical theists did not believe that God could be 'defined.' They believed that it would contradict the transcendent nature of God for mere humans to define him."Here are several reasons for why this argument is logically fallible and contradictory:
1) If something is undefined, it wouldn’t exist. Take the function y = 1/x for example. When x approaches 0, the curve becomes undefined and does not exist where x = 0. You cannot define what does not exist (e.g division by zero), and math describes how the universe works. Not only does this surface a contradiction with the proposal that god cannot be defined, but it also creates incoherence with the idea of god creating a universe that is contradictory to himself.
2) Inability to perceive the physical characteristics of a god does not coherently transcribe into something without definitions. Like Con has said, people describe god by what he does… God is defined by his actions. I described god like anyone else would, omniscient and omnipotent. God can do anything if he wills (omnipotent) and god knows all of time and space (omniscient).
3) Humans can perfectly conceive of something that cannot be visually imagined. Take an atom for example. The physical characteristics, the electrons and nucleus, of an atom cannot be correctly visualized, but the concept of the physics and behaviors of the atom can easily be conceived.


Con assumes observations that undergo confirmation biases are equivalent to actual proof/evidence. Common logical fallacy… If faith was based on actual proof, there wouldn’t be controversial issues between religions/beliefs. Debate and conflict reside with hypothesis and observations, not facts. Only madmen deny facts.


My opponent’s best answer to my question is… that it’s not a question? I’ve always assumed yes/no questions have only 2 answers: yes and no. Yes, I agree with con’s obvious statement that this is a contradiction… hence the word “paradox”!! The point is to reveal the inherit flaws of an omnipotent god. “A rock so heavy that god cannot lift” does not exist because omnipotence cannot exist, thus god is NOT all-powerful. I thank Con for stating the obvious.

"Pro writes: 'Being omniscient would suggest that god knows everything that is going to happen, thus free will is nonexistent...' 1 simple answer is that the assumption is not necessarily true."
Wtf… How is my statement an assumption… If my opponent had half a brain, he could easily see how it can be logically derived.“‘Free Will’ is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives.”If humans have free will, it means s/he is a rational agent who has a capacity to CHOOSE a course of action from among various ALTERNATIVES [1]. An omniscient god would have seen and known every action of every living thing in the universe. This would be most aptly translated as such: God has either experienced every point in time, or is present at all points in time, and if an agent can choose from alternatives, it would mean God hasn’t experienced or be present at all points of time.


It’s amusing how Con attacks Occam’s razor as a pragmatic tool rather than logical proof, when every argument he has made has always been logically flawed. It is not used to choose between 2 equal theories… That statement doesn’t even make sense. If there were 2 theories that are equal, there is nothing to choose between because they are the same. It is used to decide competing hypotheses based on many justifications, some of which are mathematical.


Sigh, Ok… Here we go… Every one of these arguments is outdated and uses logical fallacies.

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency:
1. Fallacies of Presumption. This argument assumes existence requires explanation. Explanations were created by mankind. The universe existed before mankind.
2. Incomplete Logic: There’s an explanation for all that exists. The universe exists and god is the explanation. God exists, so what is the explanation for god?

Thomistic Variation of Cosmological Argument:
1. Fallacies of Being a Dumbass: This argument is just plain retarded.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Fallacies of Copying and Pasting: This is a restatement of The Cosmological Argument from Contingency. This just proves Con is either a vegetable or he doesn’t know what he’s throwing up in the air.

The Moral Argument Based Upon Moral Values and Duties:
I’m losing brain cells…
1. Fallacies of Presumption: This argument assumes moral values and duties exist in reality/ a universal axiom.

The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning:
1. Fallacies of Presumption: This argument assumes the universe is based of “fine-tunings”. Fine-tunings are defined as acts of god. This argument requires the assumption that there is a god in order to prove… that there is a god?
2. Appeal to Probability(?): I’m not sure what to call this, but this is a common misconception about events that seem highly unlikely to happen. Something that seems improbable can still happen. There are unlimited possibilities of how life can exist in a limitless universe. We assume the only way there is life is what already exists. Our conceivability is limited.

Hopefully, Con might think for himself next round and not act like a vegetable.

[1]http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
1Devilsadvocate

Con

Basically my opponent argues that I am a stupid vegetable that is simply regurgitating the Google results of "the worst arguments for god", (I actually goggled "worst argument against god" & pros rock paradox came up. Irony.)
bla bla.
YAWN.
I have a 3 word response, argumentum ad hominem, & that you certainly won't get away with on this site.
Answer all the points made, without resorting to ad homs.
I will try to ignore my opponents smart a$$ ad homs, & address the actual arguments made - respectfully.
With regard those arguments Con actually dropped the final one, "The Thomistic Cosmological Argument #1 (TCA1)"
Being that there are no new arguments allowed in R4, this argument will remained dropped.

Can god be described:

" If something is undefined, it wouldn’t exist."
False. Many things exist, that philosophy has no definition for, for example; truth, reality, consciousness etc.

"You cannot define what does not exist".
Obviously. However, the fact that, that which does not exist cannot be defined, does not mean, that which cannot be defined can't exist. Thus the point is mute.

" Inability to perceive the physical characteristics of a god does not coherently transcribe into something without definitions."
Strawman. I never said that it stemmed from inability to perceive physical characteristics.

"Con assumes observations that undergo confirmation biases are equivalent to actual proof/evidence. Common logical fallacy… If faith was based on actual proof, there wouldn’t be controversial issues between religions/beliefs. Debate and conflict reside with hypothesis and observations, not facts. Only madmen deny facts."
Pro seems to be saying that anything about which there is controversy, is a result of there being no evidence.
There is a controversy about many things, are we to believe that every one who takes a stand in a controversy is delusional. There are several competing theories of evolution, is everyone who holds a certain way delusional?

Stone paradox:
" I’ve always assumed yes/no questions have only 2 answers: yes and no."
1st of all what I wrote does not contradict that assumption. My response was that "a stone god cannot lift" is not a coherent term, thus cannot be used to form coherent sentences. not a coherent sentence, & thus not a coherent question. So if it's not a question, it doesn't need a yes/no answer.
2nd of all the assumption is incorrect. For example, the answer to a yes/no question, could be, "sometimes".
Pros assumption is actually the basis for the "do you still beat your wife?" catch 22.
So no one need not answer with a yes/no.
If you insist on having a yes/no answer, the answer could be said to be no. & the fact that god cannot lift such a rock is because its - like a square circle - a self contradictory term, thus such a rock cannot exist, & thus god cannot create it.
Omnipotent means, god can do anything, that which is not a "thing" (i.e. cannot exist) such as a rock god can't lift, or a square circle, is not included.
But again the correct way of putting the answer is the 1st way.
This is the way professor Gottlieb puts it, as well as C. S. Lewis.
As well as Isaac Asimov - an atheist - for the physics version of this paradox.
( This is not the only answer, there are at least 5 others.)

"Yes, I agree with con’s obvious statement that this is a contradiction… hence the word “paradox”"
Con (me) stated that the term/phrase/object, "a stone god cannot lift", is itself an internal contradiction & thus logically impossible to exist, & thus the term has no meaning. A paradox is a complete argument that produces an inconsistency.
The argument/paradox that pro provided, contained within it an object which cannot exist, much as a square circle cannot exist. Since it cannot exist, one cannot ask if god can create it, there is no it to speak of.
A rock so heavy that god cannot lift” does not exist because omnipotence cannot exist, thus god is NOT all-powerful."
If you think about this sentence, it really doesn't make any sense.
If you write it out formally it looks like this:
1) Omnipotence cannot exist
2) “A rock so heavy that god cannot lift” does not exist (from 1)
3) Thus god is not all powerful (from ?)


Pros Free will paradox:
"An omniscient god would have seen and known every action of every living thing in the universe. This would be most aptly translated as such: God has either experienced every point in time, or is present at all points in time, and if an agent can choose from alternatives, it would mean God hasn’t experienced or be present at all points of time." (emphasis mine)
Pro states that "an omniscient god would have seen & known every action..".
This is simply not true. Seeing is not a necessary part of omniscience, pro sticks that word in so that he can continue -
"This would be most aptly translated as such: God has either experienced every point in time, or is present at all points in time"
Knowledge alone, does not require "experiencing" or having been "present". Seeing does, but knowledge does not.
Knowledge without "experience" or "presence", is not a logical impossibility. Generally we associate knowledge to experiencing, because that is the way that we have knowledge. It could be argued that even we can have knowledge without experience, for example, theoretical mathematics, calculating using Infinity.
The bottom line is, that neither "experience" nor "presence", is required for knowledge.

Arguments for god:

Cosmological argument:
" Fallacies of Presumption. This argument assumes existence requires explanation. Explanations were created by mankind. The universe existed before mankind."

Pro is saying that, anything that happened before mankind doesn't require explanations, because explanations were created by man. So according to pro evolution need not be explained because it happened before mankind existed. Absurd.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:
"This is a restatement of The Cosmological Argument from Contingency. This just proves Con is either a vegetable or he doesn’t know what he’s throwing up in the air."

I love wrong smart a$$ statements. With the Kalam cosmological argument, one cannot counter by saying that god must also have a cause because Kalam uses the premises, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause.". God always existed thus need not (& cannot be created). The universe on the other hand, science has discovered, had a beginning - the big bang.

The Moral Argument Based Upon Moral Values and Duties:

"This argument assumes moral values and duties exist in reality/ a universal axiom."
Yes, it does, most people are intuitively aware that there is a right & a wrong.
Most people know that it is wrong to tortcher a little old defenseless lady for no reason.

The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning:
"1.Fallacies of Presumption: This argument assumes the universe is based of “fine-tunings”. Fine-tunings are defined as acts of god. This argument requires the assumption that there is a god in order to prove… that there is a god?"
Strawman. p1 was The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2.Appeal to Probability(?): I’m not sure what to call this, but this is a common misconception about events that seem highly unlikely to happen. Something that seems improbable can still happen. There are unlimited possibilities of how life can exist in a limitless universe. We assume the only way there is life is what already exists. Our conceivability is limited.
I'm not sure what to call this either - it doesn't have a name. Obviously anything is possible, & there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything (except that one's self exists, "I think therefore I am" & even this is now questioned by philosophers.) The point of any evidence is to show that it is more likely true than not, which is what the teleological argument does.
Pro dropped my final argument which was, The Thomistic Cosmological Argument #1 (TCA1).

I thank everyone for their partisipation, Vote con.
alanyuen

Pro

alanyuen forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alanyuen 4 years ago
alanyuen
I would like to note that if this debate has been offensive in any way, it was purely for entertainment for both the audience and myself, since it was extremely annoying to spell out every point I've made in my previous argument and refute all "rebuttals" found online by 1Devilsadvocate. I have a question, are all debates here on this website like this, where both contenders either plagiarize or restate other people's works without implementation of their own original ideas? I've always assumed you mostly use references to cite statistics or research publications to reinforce your own concepts or ideas, but participating in this debate made me question this assumption.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Okay I guess I mis-understood you.

I presumed it from your statement:
"Also, the presumption of innocent is where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor or in other words the one who is against the proposition. In this case, the proposition is "Everyone who believes in god is delusional" and the one who is against this proposition is you, and you're trying to prove otherwise."

You being Pro the resolution would mean that you are saying all theists are delusional.
Until you explain why you think that they are delusional, whats there for me to say?
So I assumed that you made the BOP on me because you thought the debate was about god in which case I would have BOP.

But if that's not what you meant, fine, it doesn't matter.
Posted by alanyuen 4 years ago
alanyuen
I am very calm. "The debate wasn't meant to be does god exist.

The debate was, is anyone who believes that god exists, delusional.

A person can be mistaken about something & not be delusional.

So even if you don't think god exists, you don't have to think all theists are delusional.

but I don't mind arguing about the existence of god instead."

Never in my arguments have I concluded with such a position.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
1st of all calm down.

2ndly No I'm not trying to straw man. Tell me where I strwmaned, instead of asking dumb questions.
Posted by alanyuen 4 years ago
alanyuen
Are you trying to strawman? My focus in my argument was always to logically show why anyone who believes in god is delusional...
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
For example you wrote:
"To be delusional is to have strong believe despite superior evidence that prove otherwise."

Which I agree with & will address, but some people would argue that just being wrong alone is enough to be delusional.

So I wanted to see 1st were you were holding.
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
The debate wasn't meant to be does god exist.

The debate was, is anyone who believes that god exists, delusional.

A person can be mistaken about something & not be delusional.

So even if you don't think god exists, you don't have to think all theists are delusional.

but I don't mind arguing about the existence of god instead.
Posted by alanyuen 4 years ago
alanyuen
What do you mean? You're the instigator, so you must see the other side of the argument... Otherwise, what's the point of creating a debate if you are oblivious to any possible contending arguments?

Also, the presumption of innocent is where the burden of proof is on the prosecutor or in other words the one who is against the proposition. In this case, the proposition is "Everyone who believes in god is delusional" and the one who is against this proposition is you, and you're trying to prove otherwise.

In any case, I will be waiting for your argument!
Posted by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
I get it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

The reason I didn't make any arguments in that round is because there was nothing to argue against.

I can't show why they're not delusional, before I know the reason that they are delusional.

It's kind of like a defending attorney making his case before the prosecutor makes his case.
Sort of innocent until proved guilty, type of idea, but not exactly.

I'll be posting my arguments on Sunday night.
Posted by alanyuen 4 years ago
alanyuen
You're correct, but your entire argument was a couple of definitions, thus insinuating if you were to actually have an argument, it would be based on those definitions/meanings.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
1DevilsadvocatealanyuenTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
1DevilsadvocatealanyuenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Forfieted, Con had the upper hand untill then anyways.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
1DevilsadvocatealanyuenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit