The Instigator
dthmstr254
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
lazarus_long
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Evolution and God

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/4/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,431 times Debate No: 1363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (11)

 

dthmstr254

Con

I am hoping that everyone here knows the basics of atheism, theism, evolution, Creation. Assuming such, I take a skeptical approach to the evidence posited for evolution.

Now, from an atheist's point of view, one has to assume that no God exists. However, atheists will concede, for the most part, that we can't prove his nonexistence or existence. I have heard it said in debates prior to this one, that God COULD have created life, but He didn't do so in the 6 day period described. However, that leaves a lot to chance, because that assumes that a God was apparently motivated enough to cause life to begin. Next it assumes that said God would be either uninterested or unable to cause it to progress. If a God did create life, would He not also be able to manipulate the way it works, speeding up biological processes such as evolution in such a way that it all occurs in a week?

If Evolution allowed that possibility to be possible, it would put into question the theory of natural selection, because logically, we have no way of testing if a mutation was caused by a supernatural being. Therefore, all mutations are thrown into question, from small mutations of genes connected to hair and eye color to genes such as the genes behind scaly skin or gills and such. How can evolution not exclude the supernatural with that can of worms?
lazarus_long

Pro

First of all, I'd like to refer anyone reading these arguments to the first few comments below, re clarification of the topic. I would again like to thank my opponent for this, and note that the topic has now been agreed to as the compatibility between belief in "evolution" (which I will take to mean all theories, such as natural selection, commonly lumped together under the heading of the "evolutionary model" in lay discussions), and a belief in God. Can you, in fact, legitimately hold both beliefs? Please note that, again per my opponent's clarification, this is not about the credibility of either the evolutionary or creationist models, only whether one can believe in both "evolution" and God.

With that clarification, I would have to say that the answer in readily apparent, and is clearly "yes." Not only is it possible to hold both beliefs simultaneously, there are very, very many examples of people (including some extremely highly-thought-of theologians and church leaders) who do so. The majority of the world's Christians, in fact, belong to denominations whose leadership has either explicitly stated that no conflict exists here, or who have chosen not to make statements specifically regarding the question of evolutionary theory but have issued statements regarding the compatibility of scientific thought and their theology which would permit this.

The world's largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has taken a very clear stand on the question. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter..." (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also speaks very plainly on the position of the Church on religion vs. scientific inquiry: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159). Further, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

Many of the major Protestant denominations have similar positions. The Archbishop of the Church of England (the Anglican Church), Rev. Rowan Williams, said in an interview with the Guardian (a British newspaper): "I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop told The Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?' ... My worry is that creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

The Anglican Church's counterpart in the U.S., the Episcopal Church, takes a similar stand, and explains the apparent discrepancy between a literal reading of Genesis and modern scientific thought as follows(from www.eposcopalchurch.org): "Theologians throughout the history of the Church have explained these concepts this way: God inspired the ancient writers to describe the world in concepts and language they and their audiences could understand, not in our concepts and language. The ancient world-picture—a "three-storied" creation of the heavens above, the earth beneath, and the waters under the earth (Ex. 20:4)—though meaningful in its own time, was replaced by succeeding models and most recently by our modern portrait of a vast universe with billions of galaxies. The Bible's theological declarations about God and creation remain true because they are not dependent upon the ancient world-picture in which they appear."

From a Lutheran pastor:

"Historically, Lutherans never got into the whole evolution-creationism debate. We avoided it, just didn't enter into it at all. As a result, some of our members have more conservative views, some more liberal, but little in the way of an official church stance. Anecdotally, I would say that most Evangelical Lutherans (what we are at Our Saviour's) believe in evolution (if you can say that evolution is something you believe in, and not something you accept as fact or deny). Definitely most Lutheran pastors and church leaders accept evolution." (Rev. Lars, Hammar,a Lutheran pastor in Arizona, in an article on evolution & theology posted on his church's site: http://www.lutherantucson.com...)

And from the minutes of the 1969 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.: "Neither Scripture, our Confession of Faith, nor our Catechisms, teach the Creation of man by the direct and immediate acts of God so as to exclude the possibility of evolution as a scientific theory."

So it seems amply clear that, in the opinions of those representing the majority of the world's Christians, there is no conflict between belief in the evolutionary model and a belief in God, or even specifically Christianity, per se.

I would have to agree that there clearly IS a conflict between belief in the evolutionary model and a strict, literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. But there seems little reason to accept the proposition that such an interpretation is absolutely required in order to hold a belief in God or the Christian faith; clearly many Christian religions have successfully reconciled this question to their own satisfaction.

Even if we were to grant that at some point, what eventually was gathered into the Book of Genesis WAS truly the inerrant, literal word of God, there is still no reason that one would have to accept that Book as we have it today as being complete, literal, and inerrant. The Book of Genesis did not even exist in written form until, per tradition, it was authored by Moses, which even per a strict reading of the Mosaic texts did not occur until hundreds of years after the time of the events it describes. Prior to that point, it would have existed only as a collection of oral traditions passed down by the ancient Hebrews. Even after the supposed writing by Moses, numerous errors in transcription, interpretation, and translation would likely have crept in. (There is ample evidence that the books of the Bible are NOT somehow divinely protected from such things; witness the infamous "Adulterer's Bible" of 1631, which unfortunately ommitted the word "not" from the Seventh Commandment!) Of course, today few if any serious theologians accept the notion that Genesis was authored entirely by Moses or any other single writer; it is instead viewed as a collection of Hebrew oral tradition from numerous ancient sources. As such, while the book is certainly still viewed with great respect by mainstream Christian and Jewish believers, it is hardly seen as something to be accepted as inerrant in a literal reading by the vast majority.

In this response, I have attempted to show how the question of holding these two beliefs is answered by the majority of Christian faiths themselves. In the next, I will deal more directly with the specific points my opponent has raised regarding the logical relationship between the two - points which unfortunately appear to be based on a poor understanding of the evolutionary model on his part.
Debate Round No. 1
dthmstr254

Con

First, I noticed that you failed to respond to the scientific part of what I had said in the opening statements. Evolution, from the way it is described in the Mcgraw-Hill books "Life" and "Biology, 8th edition," finds its motor in natural selection. Natural selection, as the motor of evolution, basically weeds out weaker mutations and allows stronger mutations to become prolific. However, it assumes that it is, by definition, a natural process. Assuming that a supernatural being DID exist and DID create life on earth, as you might say, as a cell, there is nothing saying that this supernatural being would be unable to manipulate the way that cell and its descendants progress. He could, as I said, cause the biological processes to accelerate beyond what is normal without the harmful effects that would be caused if the acceleration were caused by a natural being or object. Theoretically, a supernatural being with the abilities described, could accelerate the processes so much that evolution could be completed, leaving age-appropriate evidence of natural evolution, in the span of 6 days easily.

As to the Christian standings on there, I hail from the Southern Baptist Convention, who's stand on evolution has been quite clearly against it, and I was encouraged by professor David Kemp from Tennessee Temple University to make my own studies of the Bible include references to the Greek and Hebrew, the original languages of the Bible, to accompany my normal reading, so I am going to use said languages, specifically Hebrew, to explain why this part of the Bible is to be interpreted literally.

Gen 1:5 is, in english:

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Now, you would counter here with a statement about the sun not being created, however, the Bible describes God and Jesus as "The Light of the world" and some of the angels as "morning stars." As farfetched as it may seem, He could have ordered an angel to stay where the sun is and give light just like the sun, kind of like putting a temporary light there while he worked.

The Hebrew used in the second sentence of the verse is transcribed below:

Eloyhim qara' 'owr yowm choshek qara' layil 'ereb boqer 'echad yowm

(transcription courtesy of www.blueletterbible.org)

The words "'ereb" and "boqer" mean, respectively, "Evening" and "Morning." The standard accepted translation of the Hebrew and the corresponding Greek on the Septuagint is that of a literal translation, and most reliable translations have it as a literal translation. If modern translators are still translating the phrases in the Greek literally, then why should we interpret the English not literally?
lazarus_long

Pro

To continue, re my opponent's opening remarks in the 2nd round:

"First, I noticed that you failed to respond to the scientific part of what I had said in the opening statements....Assuming that a supernatural being DID exist and DID create life on earth, as you might say, as a cell, there is nothing saying that this supernatural being would be unable to manipulate the way that cell and its descendants progress. He could, as I said, cause the biological processes to accelerate beyond what is normal without the harmful effects that would be caused if the acceleration were caused by a natural being or object."

As I noted in my original response, I was unable to cover this particular section of my opponent's arguments due to space constraints, and will now take it up here. We need to keep in mind the question at hand - it is not whether we can find some means whereby the literal 6-day creation would be possible, but simply if belief in both "evolution" and "God" can be compatible. While it is certainly correct that, IF we assume a Supreme Being, said being COULD have arranged things to occur in a literal six days, it is also at least equally possible - and far more in keeping with the observed evidence - that this Supreme Being would simply have set up the natural laws of the universe such that the evolution of life would progress "naturally," as the evidence suggests, and in the full knowledge of what the ultimate outcome would be. Since again this is at least as plausible as my opponent's scenario, the possibility of belief in both the evolutionary model and God remains.

And given the Christian model of God, and specifically the various qualities attributed to this being, my opponent's scenario appears far LESS likely. As noted, clinging to a belief of a literal six-day creation, occuring just a relatively few thousand years ago also requires that one believe that God, to use my opponent's terms,leaves

"age-appropriate evidence of natural evolution, in the span of 6 days."

This is the creationist notion of the Earth and the Universe being created "with age," with the apparent evidence of millions of years of the evolution of life, a planet billions of years old, and with light from distant stars and galaxies already on the way, so as to give the appearance of billions of light-years of distance. What it means, simply put, is that God is deceitful. He creates things which give very strong evidence of being one way, when supposedly "in fact" the story is quite different. Further, he gives the intelligent species of his creation the ability to observe and reason, knowing full well that these abilities will lead them to what in this scenario is an incorrect conclusion. This does not seem to be at all in keeping with the Christian notions of God.

Why is this notion presented? Merely to preserve the idea of the Bible, and specifically the Book of Genesis, as being completely inerrant in a literal reading. But, unless one believes that the Bible or the Book of Genesis literally IS God, there is hardly a need for such a position in order for one to believe in God in the first place. Again, given the evidence, it is much more reasonable to believe that the Bible at the very least presents an allegorical view of the world, or at least one which was originally given to believers in terms appropriate for the time. Are we, for instance to believe that the ancient Hebrews would have received from God a text which began, "here is how DNA works..."? Not at all - even assuming that the Bible IS the literal word of God, it would be expected to be couched in terms understandable by the people at the time of its writing, even if this meant that it would be less than literally accurate as peoples' understanding of the world grew.

A literal reading of Genesis is actually far more problematic than the creationist camp would have us believe, even for their own arguments. For instance, the story of Noah and the Flood presents serious problems for the creationist viewpoint. Not only is there a complete and utter lack of evidence for such a flood, but the story itself is in conflict with the creationist's own arguments. We are told that one serious flaw in the evolutionary model is the lack of the time which would be required for this model to work - and yet, if all life on Earth derives from those animals on Noah's Ark, and the Flood occured just a few thousand years ago, we are at the same time being asked to accept evolutionary change at a far more rapid rate than anything the "evolutionists" ever proposed, simply to explain the diversity we see in the living world today. This is particularly troublesome when we note the very large number of unique species which are found in certain geographical areas of the world and nowhere else. Without such rapid change, how does the Flood story, if taken literally, explain the presence of, say, the platypus or kangaroo in Australia? It cannot, UNLESS the creationists then propose yet another set of miracles - and miracles for which there is no Biblical support whatsoever.

My opponent goes on to say:

"As to the Christian standings on there, I hail from the Southern Baptist Convention, who's stand on evolution has been quite clearly against it"

That's all well and good, but again we need to keep in mind the topic of this debate. The question is not whether one can be a good Southern Baptist and believe in evolution, but simply if one can believe in both the evolutionary model and God. These are hardly the same question, unless my opponent wishes to argue that only the Southern Baptists "really" believe in God. If not, then we certainly have ample evidence of a very large number of people and denominations who not only believe in both, but which have also presented quite clear rationales for reconciling these beliefs, many of which are along the lines of those I have presented here. If these rationales make sense, and if we are to take these people at their words regarding their personal beliefs, then not only is belief in both God and evolution POSSIBLE, but it happens all the time. Q.E.D..
Debate Round No. 2
dthmstr254

Con

I will start with the mentioned problems of a literal reading of the book of Genesis. I noted that in translation, the words in Hebrew were quite literal. The definitions of the words that I noted were very precise, as Hebrew is generally a much more precise language than English. Such a precise language would have, by result, a more literal reading. Hebrew has its own syntax rules for non-literal writing and none of them are displayed in the documents we have. The same goes for the Septuagint, where there are even seperate words altogether for non-literal reading. Since we assume that the Bible, in its original languages, was written by inspiration, if God had meant it to be non-literal, He would have put in those changes.

As to the reason so many Christians miss that is because, for the most part, a lot of those churches don't even have a standing on evolution. I have been to many churches under the denominations listed, including a Roman Catholic church. I learned something about Catholicism that is strange in its ways. Not EVERY Catholic church follows the standard Catholic beliefs. It varies from church to church. Because of this, you could have a Catholic church that believe you have to be stoned to death in the same town as one that believes that no punishment should be dealt for sin, and it could be likewise on any other belief in the church.

As for Episcopaleans, I cannot speak for them, so I will leave them alone.

Returning to the scientific side, despite the long, drawn out response, it could have been much more concise. Even then, it didn't contradict the possibility that if God created the first life, that He couldn't manipulate it. This means that we can question the main engine of evolution, that being natural selection, which does occur, if you ask me, to a limited extent.

In closing, with no way to distinguish whether or not a supernatural being has worked upon this universe in its Creation, without the use of a time machine, which I assume you don't have one, we cannot say that evolution would allow the existence of a supernatural being. This is because of the previously noted inabilites of scientific testing, which can only test the natural world. You have to decide if it is natural OR supernatural selection, they are mutually exclusive engines.
lazarus_long

Pro

First of all, my thanks to my opponent for a very interesting debate. However, I would have to say that my opponent has also failed to make his case, and in fact seems to be arguing a very different topic than the one he himself originally submitted.

He has also failed to address the objections I have raised, especially in the last round. For instance, his response regarding a literal reading of the Book of Genesis gives reasons as to why his particular denomination chooses to require this sort of interpretation, but does not even begin to deal with the problems that result from a literal reading of the book. It's fine to say that "we're going to make a literal interpretation here, because the original language itself is literal" (really? Hebrew doesn't allow for allegory at ALL?), but if such a reading leads one into interpretations which are very unlikely or even logically impossible, then there is something wrong with it.

But the key failing in my opponent's argument with respect to the topic at hand is as shown in the following, from his remarks in this round:

"Returning to the scientific side, despite the long, drawn out response, it could have been much more concise. Even then, it didn't contradict the possibility that if God created the first life, that He couldn't manipulate it. This means that we can question the main engine of evolution, that being natural selection, which does occur, if you ask me, to a limited extent."

Once again, we are NOT, per my opponent's opening remarks and his later clarification of them, debating whether or not the creationist viewpoint is POSSIBLY correct, or even likely. The topic of this debate is whether or not one can "believe in" the evolutionary model and at the same time believe in God. The above argument says nothing at all about this. Clearly, if one believes in a truly omnipotent God, God could have manipulated the "main engine of evolution." It is also POSSIBLE that this God actually created the entire universe, including all of us, our memories, and all the preceding debate here, ten seconds ago; we have no way of knowing otherwise. And it is also possible that said God would have simply created the universe with the laws we know it to exist, and "let nature take its course" in evolving life. That's the definition of "omnipotent" - literally ANYTHING is possible, and so this sort of argument says nothing either way. It is meaningless. This also makes the following additional argument meaningless within the context of this subject:

"In closing, with no way to distinguish whether or not a supernatural being has worked upon this universe in its Creation, without the use of a time machine, which I assume you don't have one, we cannot say that evolution would allow the existence of a supernatural being. This is because of the previously noted inabilites of scientific testing, which can only test the natural world. You have to decide if it is natural OR supernatural selection, they are mutually exclusive engines."

The first part of this, IF we were actually discussing evolution vs. creationism, is actually a reason NOT to believe in creation by a supernatural being. Since we CANNOT distinguish the workings of such a supernatural influence on the development of the universe, why suppose one? Occam's Razor would suggest that we should not introduce such entities where they are not required by the evidence. However, we are, again, simply debating whether or not one can simultaneously believe in both God and evolution, and the arguments made to this point show that not only is this possible, it is actually the preferable form of belief. The observed evidence suggests that evolution has taken place, and we have very consistent and reasonable models to explain how this would have happened. We further might, if we are so inclined, believe in a God who would have the wisdom and power to set all of that into motion in the first place. The ONLY thing that might stand in the way of believing in both is a requirement that we also accept a literal reading of the Book of Genesis - but it has been shown why this is not simply unnecessary, but actually problematic. To do so raises a considerable number of other problems, not the least of which is that it basically requires belief in a God who is deceitful on a literally cosmic scale. Therefore, it has been amply shown that simultaneous belief in God is not only possible but preferable, as is further evidenced by the stated beliefs of the huge majority of the world's Christian population.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
Is it truly simpler that the universe suddenly came to be from nothing (if you turn the expanding universe into reverse, going back in time, you reach a point where there was zero mass, volume, and weight, because a cone has an end.) into everything here, despite the obvious contradictions in what we know (laws of thermodynamics prohibit the natural creation or deletion of energy and matter) to be true? Or is it just an evasion that you will respond with, such as "There was never nothing to begin with." Either you throw naturalism out, the Expanding Universe Theory, or God out. Which one is it?
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
dthmstr - Fundamentally, it isn't because we can't test for something that we assume it doesn't exist. The reason we assume something doesn't exist or didn't happen, etc., is simply because there is no NEED for that thing to create an adequate explanation of the evidence at hand.

For instance, someone could claim that the reason the planets stay in their orbits is because completey invisible, undetectable elves exist which guide the planets in their assigned paths. There's no way to test this, but there's also (a) nothing in the available evidence that would suggest these things actually exist, and (b) no need for them, given that there's already a perfectly good model (the theory of gravitation) which explains the motions of the planets. It all comes down to a principle generally known as "Occam's Razor" - when presented with two explanations, the simpler one is generally to be preferred, or as it is often rephrased, "don't add entities to your argument unnecessarily." Occam's isn't a hard and fast law, but it's be shown to be the safe way to bet at the very least.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
PS: Ignoring an argument based on a sentence you don't like is at best shortsighted, at worst completely foolish.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
Mindjob, it is safe to assume that someone I debate with understands what the debate is about and the related terms, otherwise, I might as well go debate with the south wall of my house. I never said what you believe, and unless I am mistaken, my opponent understood the terms that were being used (Heck, my church has 8 year olds that understand the terms), thus, I don't see what you are getting on your soapbox for.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
If it is impossible to test for something, then why is it automatically assumed that it doesn't exist. long ago we believed that the earth was the center of the universe. At the time, it was reasonable because we couldn't test that. Now it ISN'T reasonable to believe that God created the world with age simply because it isn't a testable assumption??? That sounds hypocritical.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
I thought I dealt with the problems of a literal reading when I mentioned the Greek, and went in detail explaining WHY it should be interpreted literally, which you failed to respond to.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Con, please review what atheists and agnostics believe before starting a debate like this and starting off stating that you are going to assume that the rest of us know these basic terms. Atheists believe that you can disprove God's existence based on the rules of reason and logic. Agnostics believe that you can't prove or disprove God, even though many of us personally believe that God does not exist. There is a distinct difference. How can I take the rest of your argument seriously if you're going go act like an expert when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?
Posted by breaker11 9 years ago
breaker11
As a Baptist, it is not possible to believe in both ideas. I strongly believe that GOD is the creator of the heavens and the earth(which includes the sun, planets, and the stars). The reason you can't believe in both is for the simple fact that in the Bible it says that god created Adam and from Adam's rib he created Eve. Which means, we humans were created by GOD and did not evolve from monkeys or any other animal. And just to clarify something, GOD DID create the heavens and the earth in 6 days, and rested on the seventh day. It is discouraging to hear somebody call them self a CHRISTIAN and in the same conversation say that they believe in evolution at the same time, just because it is more "sociably acceptable".
for proof read the book of Genesis in the Bible.
Posted by lazarus_long 9 years ago
lazarus_long
OK, thanks for the clarification. I will post my first argument soon.
Posted by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
While I believe evolution to be wrong, this is simply on the possibility of the two coexisting. I may start one after this debate on the credibility of evolution.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by SCOTTMILLER66 9 years ago
SCOTTMILLER66
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by JOE76SMITH 9 years ago
JOE76SMITH
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by dthmstr254 9 years ago
dthmstr254
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mr.ROdr1duez 9 years ago
Mr.ROdr1duez
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by joehoevah 9 years ago
joehoevah
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kozakism 9 years ago
Kozakism
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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 
Vote Placed by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
dthmstr254lazarus_longTied
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