The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LeeJohnson
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Evolution is proven fact. Prove the biblical god exists. That BOP is always upon believers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
LeeJohnson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 481 times Debate No: 106876
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Evolution is proven fact
Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics.

;- Frontline - Hunting the Nightmare Bactiria
- Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary
Rise Of Superbugs Resistant To Antibiotics | Full Documentary
Resistance

The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven fact

No matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact.

1. My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only religion is left to argue in this debate.

2. Rules: The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None.







dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.

LeeJohnson

Con

YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary. And while I actually watched ALL three of them, none of them benefit your argument - which is to prove Evolutionism. I hope you realize that those videos are specifically talking about one part of Evolutionism, not Evolutionism as a whole.

"My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only religion is left to argue in this debate."

Disagree with both statements above. How could anyone say on the basis of scientific evidence that the whole scheme was not set up by a provident God to arrive at homo sapiens on planet Earth? How could a scientist know that God did not supernaturally intervene to cause the crucial mutations that led to important evolutionary transitions, for example, the reptile to bird transition? Indeed, given divine middle knowledge, not even such supernatural interventions are necessary, for God could have known that were certain initial conditions in place, then, given the laws of nature, certain life forms would evolve through random mutation and natural selection, and so He put such laws and initial conditions in place. Obviously, science is in no position whatsoever to say justifiably that the evolutionary process was not under the providence of a God endowed with middle knowledge who determined to create biological complexity by such means.

Many peer-reviewed sources and authors agree that evolution has many problems, including:

1. http://www.icr.org... ---> Evolutionists disproves Evolutionism
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ---> The problems with evolution
3. https://www.amazon.com... ---> provides the reader with an interdisciplinary assessment of Intelligent Design and Darwinian theory

In truth, most evolutionists are theists of one sort or another. Their views are as sincerely and validly held as those of the atheists and have as much claim to be representative of evolutionist thinking. Atheists have every right to believe that theists are woefully misguided in failing to see the obsolescence of religion after Darwin; but that is their philosophical opinion, not an infallible proven proposition of science or logic. To conclude, many people have been misled that the evolutionary theory presents some sort of challenge to teleology and, hence, to theism, in which, it doesn't.

"The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven fact. No matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact."

This is a broad claim, with a clear bias, without backup - besides your evolution evidence, which I debunked. But, as a fellow theist, I'll also negate this too. I'll be using two main arguments: the Cosmological Argument, and the Teleological Argument.

1. The Cosmological Argument

The question of why anything at all exists is the most profound question of philosophy. The philosopher Derek Parfit says, "No question is more sublime than why there is a universe: why there is anything rather than nothing." Typically, atheists have answered this question by saying that the universe is just eternal and uncaused, but there are good reasons, both philosophically and scientifically, to think that the universe began to exist. Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past seems absurd. Just think about it, if the universe never began to exist that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality.

David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, wrote, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever. Rather, the universe must have begun to exist.

This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about thirteen billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing; for all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, "The coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally, the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."
Now, this puts the atheist in a very awkward position. As Anthony Kenny of Oxford University urges, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."

But surely that doesn't make sense. Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power. Moreover, it must be personal as well. Why? Because the cause must be beyond space and time, therefore it cannot be physical or material. Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind.

2. The Teleological Argument

In recent decades, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of the Big Bang were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate; for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe.

Now, all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. To give just one example, the atomic weak force, if it were altered by as little as one part out of 10100, would not have permitted a life-permitting universe.

Now, there are three possible explanations of this remarkable fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance or design. Now it can't be due to physical necessity because the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. In fact, string theory predicts that there are around 10 to the 500th power different possible universes consistent with nature's laws. So could the fine-tuning be due to chance? Well, the problem with this alternative is that the odds against the fine-tunings occurring by accident are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. The probability that all the constants and quantities would fall by chance alone into the infinitesimal life-permitting range is vanishingly small. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are vastly more probable than any life-permitting universe. So if the universe were the product of chance, the odds are overwhelming that it would be life-prohibiting.

In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to resort to a radical metaphysical hypothesis; namely, that there exists an infinite number of randomly ordered, undetectable universes composing a sort of world ensemble or multiverse of which our universe is but a part. Somewhere in this infinite world ensemble, finely-tuned universes will appear by chance alone, and we happen to be one such world. Now wholly apart from the fact that there's no independent evidence that such a world ensemble even exists, the hypothesis faces a devastating objection, namely, if our universe is just a random member of an infinite world ensemble then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we in fact observe. Roger Penrose has calculated that it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form through a random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison. So, if our universe were just a random member of a world ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing an orderly region no larger than our solar system. Observable universes like those are simply much more plenteous in the world ensemble than finely-tuned worlds like ours, and therefore ought to be observed by us. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, then it is highly probable that there is no world ensemble.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

"Youtube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary." Then I cannot pay any attention to you because you clearly did not watch the videos which proves evolution in action in the here and now. And you nor anyone can refute it. And I backed it up 4 times with 4 different videos. Oh and btw, 2 were PBS video"s from its show FRONTLINE which has a lot more going on for anything you have to say. See, you didn"t watch the videos did you? Nope. Because there are FOUR videos. NOT THREE. I truly hate those that cannot do simple comprehension and or flatly lie. Bye.
LeeJohnson

Con

Let's begin,

In the first two sentences, you quoted my own lines at me - and provided your reason(s) why my argument(s) are meaningless:

"Then I cannot pay any attention to you because you clearly did not watch the videos which proves evolution in action in the here and now."

Obviously, you didn't read my evidence in the third paragraph. Where I specifically state that science is in no place to critique God. But moving on, to those who read my last argument, you'll see that I said I watched all three of the videos when there is, in fact, four videos. My apologies, and allow me to elaborate. Yes, I did watch all three videos not seeing that there was a fourth - but after watching the fourth video, it still doesn't help their case - which is to prove Evolutionism.

Later, you quote:

"And you nor anyone can refute it."

Well, actually, yes I have. You just haven't negated any of my evidence, nor have you given any other sources to backup your claim - besides YouTube videos. I find this quite an interesting dodge. However:

1. https://answersingenesis.org... ---> Explains evolution from a biblical and scientific perspective
2. https://www.theguardian.com... ---> The problem(s) with natural selection
3. http://www.icr.org... ---> Is evolution proven

I'll be now quoting what @backwardseden said in the comment section, of this debate:

"So the only thing left to prove is religion. And I made it very crystal clear that "The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None." And obviously if the dimwitted dullard snot meat sow does not wish to follow those rules, that's his problem. And gosh golly gee NO ONE has EVER been able to prove god. Simple."

But you base this claim on nothing at all - besides being personal biased. I gave scientific evidence, that likely proves the existence of an Entity, from a non-theistic view. Also, "the dimwitted dullard snot meat sow."

In conclusion:

1. They haven't refuted any of my arguments
2. They haven't given any reasons why God doesn't exist
3. They're simply reiterating claims and haven't given any reason why these claims are true
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

Wow. See that"s why I hate debating with those who are clearly underdeveloped, malnourished with knowledge, christian, and are narcissists like you in any debates and pick their brain with tumbleweeds.
Um no first off I only use your first line, NOT lines PLURAL. You are flat out, as all christians are, their own worst enemy, just like god, christianity and the bible.

Let's begin from your own shelter"
"YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary." That shows how stupid and maddening YOU are.

Then you continue with a true shadowy effect of true ignorance "How could anyone say on the basis of scientific evidence that the whole scheme was not set up by a provident God to arrive at homo sapiens on planet Earth?" Tell me Splat the Snookums dog, what does that have to do with anything except for 0% of the argument? Oh duh in high powered gear evolution was proved with the vidies which is 100% irrefutable that "Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics." That"s all that was stated and in this debate NOTHING else is needed to prove that evolution is claiming its thunderous claw. NOTHING. Gosh golly gee gosh darned it all. So YOU lose that part of the debate.

So part 2 of the debate is for you to follow simpleton rules because evolution is proved "The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None." In which case YOU nor anyone has ever done.

If you don"t like it, in which case you clearly don"t, that"s not my problem, that"s yours, leave. I---don"t---care. I"m not here to please a cabbage batbrain like you that brings in nothingness and meaningless big black blank holes into a debate that has already stung its hornets nest from its opening words which you nor anyone has the intelligence to refute.

I"m so very glad I made your day better.

Please do not post another argument unless you have something intelligent to say.
LeeJohnson

Con

Onto the ignorance:

"Um no first off I only use your first line, NOT lines PLURAL."

Excuse me? It's plural.

"You are flat out, as all christians are, their own worst enemy, just like god, christianity and the bible."

Again, this is a broad claim, with a clear bias, with no backup.

"YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary. That shows how stupid and maddening YOU are."

No, it doesn't. YouTube videos as a citation are pathetic. Just because someone on YouTube says something doesn't make it true. YouTube wasn't meant to be a place to get peer-reviewed sources, but obviously, you don"t see that.

Later, when you quote my own lines back at me:

"Tell me Splat the Snookums dog, what does that have to do with anything except for 0% of the argument? Oh duh in high powered gear evolution was proved with the vidies which is 100% irrefutable that "Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now."

I find it interesting that you say that the videos confirm evolution, as truth. But that doesn't make sense because in the same exact debate, but with a different person, you state:

"I only mentioned one form of evolution. That"s it."

1. http://www.debate.org... ---> Second round, first rebuttal

I merely point this out, because I said that same exact thing in my first argument:

"I hope you realize that those videos are specifically talking about one part of Evolutionism, not Evolutionism as a whole."

With this in mind, you can't say 'evolution is proven as truth,' because you only addressed one aspect of evolution. Also, if you read any of my sources, you'll also see that one of them specifically states that there are different kinds of Evolutionism. In the near future, don't contradict yourself with illogical fallacies.

You later say:

"So part 2 of the debate is for you to follow simpleton rules because evolution is proved "The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None." In which case YOU nor anyone has ever done."

Well, we now know that isn't true, and that you gave a contradicting answer. So, in this case, you now have to prove why God doesn't exist - because if you don't, then you merely assert that evolution is false, and God is real. Also, as I said before, I gave an unbiased, logical, and non-theistic argument about the likeness of God's existence - which you still haven't refuted.

Parsing through the personal insults, you add:

"Please do not post another argument unless you have something intelligent to say"

In reality, I should be saying this to you. You are an embarrassment to the Atheist community - but then again, I should've known you couldn't backup your own claims.

Have a great day.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

Just to let you know... I had A LOT of fun composing this. Ready for your demolishing a$$ usual in which you cannot get up from and you owe me an obvious apology because of your shallowness, sluggishness, and feeble-mindedness.

But first to let you know the statement on my other argument that you made obviously towards me will not get a response. Take one lucky guess why? If you wish to change something about it, then perhaps it might. But not until then.

Onto the pile of dogma during a nuclear war that you sleep through.
"Excuse me? It's plural." Um no its not dimwitted dullard snot meat sow "YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary." is singular told in ONE sentence. Now pat yourself on the back with a lawnmower.

Now let"s continue to degrade you into your own muck...
"You are flat out, as all christians are, their own worst enemy, just like god, christianity and the bible."
Again, this is a broad claim, with a clear bias, with no backup."
You cannot prove your god exists. No one can. No one has EVER been able to. And you tell me or anyone who has intelligence and an education, unlike you, that this is a broad claim with bias and no backup? Tee hee unto the joke is you with the laughing cow butt-whore in cheese whiz on rack that is you. Go plant a unicorn tree and then invent better excuses. K? Because that suffices just as well.

Now we get into "YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary. That shows how stupid and maddening YOU are."
No, it doesn't. YouTube videos as a citation are pathetic. Just because someone on YouTube says something doesn't make it true. YouTube wasn't meant to be a place to get peer-reviewed sources, but obviously, you don"t see that.

You really are as stupid, as ignorant, and dumb, as moronic as they come. 2 of the videos are from PBS"s FRONTLINE. Oh but wait, you haven"t the foggiest clue as to what PBS is which has been in business since 1970 creating educational programs of all kinds including Sesame Street to Nova, nor as to what FRONTLINE is which has been in business since 1983 and knows one helluva lot more than your teeny tiny leviathan non genie-us tinsel mind ---EVER--- could. The third is from Journeyman Pictures who has been in business for over 20 years and provided some substantial documentaries on other topics such as "The Real Doctor Evil: Kim Jong Il's North Korea - Full Documentary" 4 fricken years ago before this country even got a whiff of it. And the 4th is mere backup for everything stated IF you were to have bothered to have watched ANY of them in which you clearly didn"t. So try flatly lying again.
Wowzers and holy spite and smite to your oxygen tank on explosion had you bothered to examine the CONTENT of the videos and not shrugged them off as just being "youtube" videos, then your rat sack brain would have been smothered right from the very start rather than YOU dragging out this fatal blow to your gills. See, me in being the kind, considerate, caring person that I am was waiting for you to invent that excuse. WHO REALLY CARES IF THEY ARE OR ARE NOT YOUTUBE VIDEOS? ITS THE content THAT MATTERS. And who in the flying rectal itch cares if its a documentary or not? Like this is SUPPOSED to be fictionalized? Let your paddled on the bottom lesson with a hand grenade weight loss program be well learned.

And yep that"s exactly what I am talking about. christians like you ALWAYS, no exceptions, none, make excuses and or flatly lie in truly pitiful attempts to cover for their sorry a$$etheh holinessess for something in which they clearly know nothing about and yet they try to pretend that they do.

This conversation is now over. You had your chance. You blew it like the corpsegrinder you truly are who cannot possibly do any legitimate research to open his mind into new and different and bold and italic subjects, but you have to open your woeful, miserable, feeble little crunchy maw instead. Bye.
LeeJohnson

Con

I want to thank my opponent for giving his view on evolution and religion, although, I just want to address a few things that bug me.

"Ready for your demolishing a$$ usual in which you cannot get up from and you owe me an obvious apology because of your shallowness, sluggishness, and feeble-mindedness."

I don't owe anyone an apology, especially you. I meant what I said. Why? Because you haven't negated any of my evidence; you just asserted it with no backup.

"But first to let you know the statement on my other argument that you made obviously towards me will not get a response. Take one lucky guess why? If you wish to change something about it, then perhaps it might. But not until then."

I don't know why that won't get a response. It's very relevant to your argument because it compromises not only the integrity of this debate but also the foundation of your argument. I suspect you won't respond to it, though, because you obviously know you messed up and won't admit it.

Later you quote:

"You cannot prove your god exists. No one can. No one has EVER been able to. And you tell me or anyone who has intelligence and an education, unlike you, that this is a broad claim with bias and no backup?"

Did you ever even read my arguments? I SPECIFICALLY state in the second round and in the comment section, of this debate:

1. "I gave scientific evidence, that likely proves the existence of an Entity, from a non-theistic view."
2. "I may note, that I don't claim that these arguments prove God's existence with absolute certainty, but they are the best arguments when you compare them to competing hypotheses."

I honestly don't know why I'm responding to this, anyways. You never even touched this section of my argument - which is hilarious, because you asked me to "prove the biblical god exists." I assume, Pro knew they couldn't beat me on this topic, so they went on to use "lazy-science" to support their supposed argument.

This is the best part, you guys:

"You really are as stupid, as ignorant, and dumb, as moronic as they come. 2 of the videos are from PBS"s FRONTLINE. Oh but wait, you haven"t the foggiest clue as to what PBS is which has been in business since 1970 creating educational programs of all kinds including Sesame Street to Nova, nor as to what FRONTLINE is which has been in business since 1983 and knows one helluva lot more than your teeny tiny leviathan non genie-us tinsel mind ---EVER--- could. The third is from Journeyman Pictures who has been in business for over 20 years and provided some substantial documentaries on other topics such as "The Real Doctor Evil: Kim Jong Il's North Korea - Full Documentary" 4 fricken years ago before this country even got a whiff of it. And the 4th is mere backup for everything stated IF you were to have bothered to have watched ANY of them in which you clearly didn"t. So try flatly lying again."

If I'm being completely honest, I doubt you even watched the videos yourself. When I refuted the videos in the first round, you didn't refute my evidence - you just asserted my claim was wrong without giving a reason why it was wrong. Having said that, you also addressed that I flat out lied; and practically said my evidence is "non-sequitur". There's one problem with this statement: you didn't give any reasons why my arguments were invalid.

Now, I just want to address something, that I should've addressed earlier:

"Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact
that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics."

This claim is IRRELEVANT to my argument. I attacked the core of evolution, giving scientific evidence and peer-reviewed studies to show the problems with evolution. After all, if the foundation of evolution is incorrect, then everything he said is meaningless.

Why I should get the vote:

1. Pro didn't negate any of my evidence - he, in fact, actually just brought up petty, irrelevant arguments, that doesn't support his case
2. Pro didn't even touch my argument about the existence of God
3. My sources outdid his by far, peer-reviewed to YouTube videos
4. He used vulgar personal attacks towards me
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 6 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Evolution is a joke because there are still monkeys in the world.
Posted by backwardseden 6 months ago
backwardseden
@ Pill_Junkie_Monkey - Absolutely 100% correct. Evolution is proved by the videos, learly. And also any idiot can simply google "superbugs" to prove that "Antibiotic resistant microbes is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics." So really the videos are not needed at all. But to simpletons with super bad brain implants like LeeJohnson who does not know how to do a simple point and click and comprehend worth a flying pregnant fetus screw, that far to hard from his mirror-shades that constantly stare back at him to accept. So the only thing left to prove is religion. And I made it very crystal clear that "The BOP to prove god is always up to theists. No exceptions. None." And obviously if the dimwitted dullard snot meat sow does not wish to follow those rules, that's his problem. And gosh golly gee NO ONE has EVER been able to prove god. Simple.
Posted by LeeJohnson 6 months ago
LeeJohnson
@MRAAJ

Thank you.
Posted by MRAAJ 6 months ago
MRAAJ
I like the way Con presented his argument pill'
Posted by LeeJohnson 6 months ago
LeeJohnson
@Pill_Junkie_Monkey

I looked through the videos analytically and parsed through their rules and objections. To sum it down, I did three things:

1. Prove that the evolution theory could be wrong - due to logical errors in reasoning
2. Pointing out a broad claim by Pro without any backup; which was that the biblical God wasn't "fact"
3. Prove that there is evidence to support theism

Whether you read it is up to you. I may note, that I don't claim that these arguments prove God's existence with absolute certainty, but they are the best arguments when you compare them to competing hypotheses.
Posted by Pill_Junkie_Monkey 6 months ago
Pill_Junkie_Monkey
"YouTube videos as a "source" for your argument is quite maddening and stupid - regardless if it's a documentary. And while I actually watched ALL three of them, none of them benefit your argument - which is to prove Evolutionism. I hope you realize that those videos are specifically talking about one part of Evolutionism, not Evolutionism as a whole." - Such sophistry! You said a whole lot of words, but you didn't communicate anything except "Hey look at me, I don't know how to logic!" Not even going to read further. You're an idiot.
Posted by LeeJohnson 6 months ago
LeeJohnson
I watched all **4 videos, my bad.
Posted by MRAAJ 6 months ago
MRAAJ
What's the beef with dsj' about?

Evolution is slow n gradual, a classic example is the common cold virus, it's constantly adapting to its environment in order to survive n attack a host.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Debating_Horse 6 months ago
Debating_Horse
backwardsedenLeeJohnsonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted for the con person because he provided good sources, his conduct was excellent, and his arguments were far better than those made by the pro person. The con person rebutted the pro person's arguments, while the pro person grew upset and unhinged and did not properly rebut any of the con person's further arguments.