The Instigator
patriots16-0
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
Miserlou
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

GODS EXSISTENCE

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
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,625 times Debate No: 1690
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (15)

 

patriots16-0

Pro

I would first like to start off with thanking Miserlou for debating me if he ecepts my challenge and that i will try my hardest against you.

part 1

if there is no God then who decides who is rite and who is wrong. Is it our concious? Is it the person who is in power over us, is that who we listen to. Well if it is the person who is in power over us then i guess it was ok for me to listen to Hitler or to Stallen because they were men who were in power. Oh yes they were in power killing people left in rite. And if you still think that you can judge what is rite and what is rong off of your concious then listen to this if you havnt already guessed it. It was STALLENS concious that had him kill a reporter for spelling his name wrong in the news paper. It was HITLERS conciouse that told him it was ok to kill 6,000,000 jews. So clearly we cant base it off our conciouse or the most powerful man at the time. We have to base it off a Supreme being some one who has dominion over all creatures.

part 2

Do you see how chotic it would be if there was no God. I mean there would alwys be 2 rites to 1 problem and thats what atheism does, they will say that Hitler is wrong but they will say he is wrong not because God judged him but because its just wrong to kill 6000000 jews. Well who said it was wrong to kill. You know Al Sharpton a guy I dont like vey much do to his viw on the war on terror and other things like that, did a pretty good job debating christopher hitchens. He asked Christopher hitchens the very Question i am about to ask you and if you ask any atheist this question all they do is avoid the question and start blaming Christians for the stuff they did in the past or the real stupid ones will just sit there an twidle there thumbs.

part 3

PLEASE ANSWER THE FALLOWING QUESTION IN YOUR DEBATE: If there is no God, no supreme being to judge Hitler then how do we Know what hitler did was wrong?
Miserlou

Con

I accept patriots.

"If there is no God, no supreme being to judge Hitler then how do we Know what hitler did was wrong?"

Since this the essence of your debate, I'll start with it.

You're premise is that we need God to tell us what is right from wrong. First, are you referring to specifically the Christian god, or to gods of all religions? I'll take it as the latter for now since you have an issue with atheism.

Humans have flaws, but most people don't need to be told that systematic torture and murder is wrong. Although people like Hitler or Stalin do terrible things, I don't think there has ever been a society that has actually condoned murder. Even these tyrants didn't say "murder is okay", they said "murder of these people is okay" and tried to justify their atrocities. Christian Churches have done the same things in the past; the Spanish Inquisition killed many people and justified saying that they were ungodly and deserved it. People have an aversion to killing and must be convinced into it; that is the only way psychopaths like Hitler were able to do what they did. It should also be noted that even so, he didn't convince a lot of people in the scheme of things.

I don't think the Bible ever mentions genocide directly. The ten commandments say "do not murder", but again, the Church has murdered based on prejudice and racism. We know this is wrong because it is unfair and illogical: there has never been any evidence that particular group of people is inferior based on race, ethnicity, ect. Again, I don't recall the Bible ever addressing this directly; humans know this on their own.

"It was STALLENS concious that had him kill a reporter for spelling his name wrong in the news paper. It was HITLERS conciouse that told him it was ok to kill 6,000,000 jews. So clearly we cant base it off our conciouse or the most powerful man at the time. We have to base it off a Supreme being some one who has dominion over all creatures."

Hitler and Stalin were sociopaths. The average person's conscious doesn't allow them to kill randomly. You think that they did those things because they didn't believe in God, but it was because they were crazy and power hungry. God is not essential for morality.

And we shouldn't base our morality off who is in power, but that doesn't prove that we have to base it on religion.

"He asked Christopher hitchens the very Question i am about to ask you and if you ask any atheist this question all they do is avoid the question and start blaming Christians for the stuff they did in the past or the real stupid ones will just sit there an twidle there thumbs."

Political debates are notorious for being like this. I've watched debates where all the Christians do is blame atheists; but these leaders don't all speak for the masses.

"Do you see how chotic it would be if there was no God. I mean there would alwys be 2 rites to 1 problem and thats what atheism does"

Even if everyone in the world was Christian, you wouldn't stop morality from being debated. Think about the Church throughout history: in the 1500s it was fine to kill and enslave someone who wasn't white, but it certainly isn't now. It's impossible to get everyone on the same moral page; there are always arguments. You blame atheism for this but it's human nature.
Debate Round No. 1
patriots16-0

Pro

You did exactly what Christopher hitchens did avoid the point and so has everyone else who dosent belive in God that i have debated.

PART 1
Even if everyone in the world was Christian, you wouldn't stop morality from being debated. Think about the Church throughout history: in the 1500s it was fine to kill and enslave someone who wasn't white, but it certainly isn't now. It's impossible to get everyone on the same moral page; there are always arguments. You blame atheism for this but it's human nature.

First of all if you want to debate about the church and how they were wrong you win because i know that the church has had alot of bad history but they have done alot of good. And im not asking that eveyone in the world become a christian that is for God to decide. It is improbable to get everyone on the same page but thats why we have to have a base for what is rite and what is wrong for the past for today and for the future otherwise the world would be toatal chaos. it is human nature because there is sin in the world the reason why people are Atheists is because of sin thats how i think of it. And the reason why I blame Atheists for this is because it is those kind of people that are taking away are freedom that we one had in congress public schools and because of them teachers cant pray for the class be fore the test and congressmen cant pray or read the Bible to influence the way we change and add our laws even though 15 years ago we could do that so openly looks like because of atheists my freedoms have been takin away and thats why i pick on specifcally Atheists. But that is not what we are here to debate about we are here to debate about the exsistence of God.

PART 2
"Humans have flaws, but most people don't need to be told that systematic torture and murder is wrong. Although people like Hitler or Stalin do terrible things, I don't think there has ever been a society that has actually condoned murder. Even these tyrants didn't say "murder is okay", they said "murder of these people is okay" and tried to justify their atrocities. Christian Churches have done the same things in the past; the Spanish Inquisition killed many people and justified saying that they were ungodly and deserved it. People have an aversion to killing and must be convinced into it; that is the only way psychopaths like Hitler were able to do what they did. It should also be noted that even so, he didn't convince a lot of people in the scheme of things."

So if i am understanding you correctly you say that humans can be wrong. Good we agree so far. But you say that there has never benn a nation tha has condoned murder what a lie what about the Aztecs and how they would ENCOURAGE sacrifices of there babys and how men and women and children would have there hearts ripped out everyday for sacrifices. What about the Barbarian Nations of Mongolia and how they would kill there own people all the time and then laugh. Or those tribes in Africa that were cannibals they deffanetly didnt think it was wrong to kill people i mean thats how they survived. So OBVIOUSLY there has been nations that have condoned murder. Even if they didnt say murder of all people was ok even if they said that just murdering those people was ok it is still wrong to kill them. That dosent give them a Free pass. You say "Christian Churches have done the same things in the past; the Spanish Inquisition killed many people and justified saying that they were ungodly and deserved it." Well im not here to defend the church rite now i know what they did was wrong QUIT POINTING OUT PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT GOD AND MABY POINT OUT SOMETHING WRONG THAT THE CHRIDTIAN GOD DID IF YOU CAN EVEN FIND ANY FAULT WITH HIM.

PART 3
I don't think the Bible ever mentions genocide directly. The ten commandments say "do not murder", but again, the Church has murdered based on prejudice and racism. We know this is wrong because it is unfair and illogical: there has never been any evidence that particular group of people is inferior based on race, ethnicity, ect. Again, I don't recall the Bible ever addressing this directly; humans know this on their own.

Here we go again blaiming people who represent God and not GOD HIMSELF CLASSIC ATHEIST WAY TO DEBATE (AVOIDING THE POINT). Ok first of all if you new any thing about the church back then you would know that it was run by a bunch of poloticians that didnt care about God all they care about is power. and i am ashamed of the church for that. But what you are saying is crazy just because the bible dosent mention jenacide dosent mean its ok to go murder a different race then you just because your racist. The Bible says dont murder so i dont murder that includes all whether its because im racist. Our constitution dosent mention jenocide eather does that mean you can go out and kill people because you racist. No. The constitution also says we cant murder and that meane under no sercom stances unless self defense or capital punishment.The Bible and the Constitution assume that people are smart enough to figure this out.

And who makes it illogical who said it was wrong to kill or it was unfair to kill it couldnt be us how could it be us.if there is no God then nothing makes sence we cant just say it is unfair or illogical because there is no reite and wrong without God. YOU use the word WE know this is unfair... but if it was us that said what was rite and what was wrong then I could kill your family. What if all of america went and killed every Atheist out there would you KNOW that wouldnt be fare or logical. But it has happened before a whole nation turned against Jews. You no what you are doin here you are admitting that there is a rite and a wrong which is CLEARLY admitting that there is a God if you read anything that I wrote. So this is what you are doing you are crawling on Gods lap, accepting his belifs being a "GOOD" person sharing, being generouse such as giving to charities, helping the starving in Africa. When really there is no point to do any of this anyways if you are atheist Because there is no such thing as GOOD, because there is no rite and wrong. So you basically accept the part of Christianity that you like (crawling on Gods lap) and then some one asks you if you are a beliver in Jesus and you say no. You take advantage of his mercy that he has for you and once you are all setteld in on his lap (being nice to people, donatting to charities, ect..) as soon as some one as asks you do you belive in God and you say no you SPIT IN HIS FACE

PART 4

You no what you are doin here you are admitting that there is a rite and a wrong which is CLEARLY admitting that there is a God if you read anything that I wrote. So this is what you are doing you are crawling on Gods lap, accepting his belifs being a "GOOD" person sharing, being generouse such as giving to charities, helping the starving in Africa. When really there is no point to do any of this anyways if you are atheist Because there is no such thing as GOOD, because there is no rite and wrong. So you basically accept the part of Christianity that you like (crawling on Gods lap) and then some one asks you if you are a beliver in Jesus and you say no. You take advantage of his mercy that he has for you and once you are all setteld in on his lap (being nice to people, donatting to charities, ect..) as soon as some one as asks you do you belive in God and you say no you SPIT IN HIS FACE

PLEASE DO THIS: tell me why you belive what you belive dont just correct me in your next argument are debate is about the exsistence of God not about correcting what im saying please tell me Why you belive there is no God. And you cant say i cant prove there is no God because you wouldnt belive something that rediculouse without any proof tell me facts not opinions. I should be able to get facts from you because beliving that ther is no God is all about facts and not about faith.
Miserlou

Con

"You did exactly what Christopher hitchens did avoid the point and so has everyone else who dosent belive in God that i have debated."

How did I avoid the point? I answered your question; just because I didn't do it in two sentences doesn't make ilegimitate or wrong. It sounds like all you're doing is trying to discredit me.

"It is improbable to get everyone on the same page but thats why we have to have a base for what is rite and what is wrong for the past for today and for the future otherwise the world would be toatal chaos."

But your assertion was that without God we wouldn't even have a base, but I say we would. And don't cite Hitler because there will always be people who are going to break even the soundest moral code the society has. Religion did not decide morals; people did and put them to religion because its an easy way to get people to obey.

In different societies and relgions, most of which developed independently of one another, the "big" morals you could say like murder and theft being wrong are the same. The fact that people developed about the same ethics on their own points to these being innate; humans did not need to be told by a diety what their values were. Atheists and agnostics haven't abandoned these either; niehter of those condone violence, stealing ect. as a group. As for individual people, like I said before, there are always those who break morals and I could find you relgious people who do the same.

"So OBVIOUSLY there has been nations that have condoned murder."

I rebutted this in the first round but obviously didn't explain it right. Let me try again:

The nations you mentioned did kill people; in fact there hasn't been a society that didn't. BUT random murder by anyone, anyplace, anytime has never been condoned. For example, Aztecs committed human sacrifice, but a person of the street couldn't go up to their neighbor and rip their heart out. All these people made mistakes but at the same time kept some moral grounding. This related back to my point above about morality being innate and independent from a diety. The Spanish Inquistion was just another example of this.

"QUIT POINTING OUT PEOPLE THAT REPRESENT GOD AND MABY POINT OUT SOMETHING WRONG THAT THE CHRIDTIAN GOD DID IF YOU CAN EVEN FIND ANY FAULT WITH HIM."

I thought we were debating his existence? You claim he must because otherwise we wouldn't have morals, but I'm claiming that people had the morals before they had God, and that those are independent from religion. But to answer that directly, yes, I can find fault with some of things the Bible has God doing. He killed the first born sons of the Egyptians, stranded the Jews in a desert for years, turned Lot's wife into salt and other things. And before you say that all these people had turned against him and deserved it, isn't he supposed to be all merciful?

"Here we go again blaiming people who represent God and not GOD HIMSELF CLASSIC ATHEIST WAY TO DEBATE (AVOIDING THE POINT). Ok first of all if you new any thing about the church back then you would know that it was run by a bunch of poloticians that didnt care about God all they care about is power. and i am ashamed of the church for that. But what you are saying is crazy just because the bible dosent mention jenacide dosent mean its ok to go murder a different race then you just because your racist. The Bible says dont murder so i dont murder that includes all whether its because im racist. Our constitution dosent mention jenocide eather does that mean you can go out and kill people because you racist. No. The constitution also says we cant murder and that meane under no sercom stances unless self defense or capital punishment.The Bible and the Constitution assume that people are smart enough to figure this out. "

No, no, no! Once again, you're misunderstnading what I said completely! The point, once again, is that humans have developed morals on their own and don't need to be told. You said it yourself: we're smart enough to figure it out! At this point I'm not sure if you're actually reading what I'm writing here.

"as soon as some one as asks you do you belive in God and you say no you SPIT IN HIS FACE"

Saying I don't believe and saying that I hate are two different things. Don't put word in my mouth.

"You no what you are doin here you are admitting that there is a rite and a wrong which is CLEARLY admitting that there is a God if you read anything that I wrote."

For my rebuttal, re-read everything I've written thus far, as this is the main argument of the debate

"So you basically accept the part of Christianity that you like (crawling on Gods lap) and then some one asks you if you are a beliver in Jesus and you say no."

NO! How many times do I have to type that word? Some parts of Christianity coincide with my beliefs, and some don't. You think that not believing in God means doing the opposite of what the Bible says but it doesn't; it just means not beliving that there is a supreme being who dictated all of this stuff.

"PLEASE DO THIS: tell me why you belive what you belive"

I'm actually not an atheist, I'm an agnositc. I don't follow any relgion but I believe that there's not sufficent evidence to disprove God's existence. Likewise I believe that it can't be proved, and that your argument in particular doesn't work at all

"And you cant say i cant prove there is no God because you wouldnt belive something that rediculouse without any proof tell me facts not opinions. I should be able to get facts from you because beliving that ther is no God is all about facts and not about faith."

The facts are that you can't prove it. I relaize that this isn't a reason to disbelieve, but this has been my opinion all along, I'm sorry for not clairifying sooner. My real problem is with your particular argument. As I explain below, my belief is that you can't prove God's existence at all

"dont just correct me in your next argument are debate is about the exsistence of God not about correcting what im saying please tell me"

Okay. You cite evidence that you believe proves God exists. I believe those to be untrue, so I correct them in order to prove you wrong. My point in this debate isn't that God doesn't exist, but that your argument is wrong and proves nothing.

You say that God created morality and therefore must exist, but I say that God didn't create morality and therefore doesn't have to exist.
Debate Round No. 2
patriots16-0

Pro

ATHEIST: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Wow what do you know that sounds exactly like you a person who denies that there is a higher being. So you may be Agnostic but you are also an Atheist. So sence coomonsence tells us that you are both Agnostic and Atheist then you need to answere the fallowing QUESTION:

"Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

"Pretty simple. If you feel you can present reliable, true, and convincing evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear from you. I do not want to debate with someone who blindly denies everything in the Bible simply because it is in the Bible. I want an intelligent debate with someone who understands the subject, and who can use facts and data, not just bias and dogma."

So please tell me why you do not belive in God?
Miserlou

Con

You can't ask me why I believe in something and then when I answer say that that's not what I believe. You can contend my opinion but you can't say that my opinion is not my opinion.

Agnostic is different from atheist; atheists deny God's existence completely while agnostics say that it's possible that he exists but not definite. I am an agnostic, although I lean atheist sometimes.

The reason I am agnostic is because I have never seen any proof of this statement: "Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." To me, it is the same as saying "I saw a pig fly the other day". You can't outwardly disprove it, but you can't prove it either, and there's no reason for me to believe in it. I don't think having religion is wrong, but I don't follow it because I don't want or need to.

That is the answer to your question.

However, I do believe firmly that your argument about morality is totally illogical, unlike other arguments for God which just can't be proved.
Debate Round No. 3
patriots16-0

Pro

All I ask is why you believe that there is no God and you cant even give a good answer all you give me is I cant prove that he is or isnt real. You wouldn't believe anything that rediculous without any proof. And did you actually come here to prove hoe God does not exsist or did you just come to disprove the things that I said now I would HONESTLY like to here from you why you belive there is no God and Im sure everyone els would. As well.
Miserlou

Con

I am getting really tired of repeating myself.

You can't ask me why I believe in something and then when I answer say that that's not what I believe. You can contend my opinion but you can't say that my opinion is not my opinion.

Yes, that is exactly what I wrote in the previous round because you asked me the same question.

You keep asking me to say why I don't believe in God, and I'm telling you that my beliefs aren't as straight forward as that and then explaining why. I didn't come here to prove God doesn't exist, I came here to prove that you can't prove it.

You say that I "wouldn't believe anything that ridiculous without any proof". I believe the thing your referring to is agnosticism because if its atheism then I've already explained that I'm not an atheist. Yes, I can believe it because the proof is that there is no proof. I have never seen truly concrete evidence as to whether God exists or not, and therefore I can't logically take a side.

"did you just come to disprove the things that I said"

Yes. That's what I've been saying and doing this whole time.

"I would HONESTLY like to here from you why you belive there is no God and Im sure everyone els would. As well."

As I have explained above, and in the previous round, and in the one before that, I do not believe necessarily that there is no God, just that you can't prove it and that your argument is flawed. I'm sure everyone else is actually getting the point I'm making, since I've made it so many times by now.

Please do not ask me to tell you "why God doesn't exist" because I've already given you my answer and instead of debating the topic you seem intent on debating what my beliefs are for me.
Debate Round No. 4
patriots16-0

Pro

Well I have already explained to you why I believe that God exists it is because that is where are morals come from and God is the only one who makes any sence there is no way Agnostic people or Atheist people could rule the world and actually teach what they believe because if that were true we might as well go back to the stone Age. All you people do is avoid the the question hoping to hold on by the range of your vocabulary and not your real skill to debate. Your debates are full of contradictions and stupidity yet I honestly think you dont even know it.

Well it was nice debating with you even though we deffanatly have are differences thanks for accepting my challenge and God Bless.
Miserlou

Con

Well my answers haven't changed since the beginning since you haven't actually contested my evidence and instead just restate your original idea and accuse me of avoiding the question. There's not much more to say.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Julius_Caesar 8 years ago
Julius_Caesar
hitler wasnt all bad, his nazis were against smoking, himmler was an animal rights activist and hitler was a strict vegan. if u hate fascist rulers check out a book called liberal fascism. i dont necessarily support it, but u only hear bad things, not good things usually
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Sure GBretz, sounds interesting
Posted by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
Hey smart, don't be a jerk, if you read his other stuff without automatically bagging on him, you'd know he's dyslexic. Just read the stuff best you can and try to understand the points he's going for.
Posted by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
Miser, I like to have this same debate with you some time, I have some interesting thoughts on the morals part of it. Just let me get my thoughts together and one of these days I'd like to challenge you.
Posted by friar_zero 9 years ago
friar_zero
By the way folks, atheist is defined as lacking a belief in a god. Most atheists recognize this definition. So if you cannot say that you believe a god exists, whether you are unsure or convinced otherwise you are an atheist. It's called a logical negative, as in A or Not-A instead of A or B. Agnosticism usually means the Huxley Agnostic who does not accept evidence for the existence or non existence of a deity. In can also mean a compatible description of your state of knowledge. For example if you believe in god, but don't know he exists then you are an agnostic theist. If you don't believe in god and know he doesn't exist you are a gnostic atheist. Sorry, just had to quibble over etymologies for a moment.
Posted by MMnumber99 9 years ago
MMnumber99
Pats, you seem like one angry little dude. You wanna know why so many people dislike/distrust Rightwingers and Hard line Christains? It's because you don't accept differences. The unkown scares you so you lash out.
If you want to debate something along theese lines, i'm more than willing.
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
theres to many......screech
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
Hey i found another one....sense
Posted by Smarticles 9 years ago
Smarticles
ok "patriots16-0" you need to learn how to spell...first...except not ecept and conscience not concious and right not rite and another oh my gosh wrong not rong and follow isnt spelled with an a and omg you dont know how to spell! doesnt not dosent and circumstances!politians...umm lets see here...christian? look more! im sorry but you need to go back to second grade
Posted by MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
It appears that Pro is using the concept of morality as "proof" of god's existence. He states, "If there is no God then who decides who is rite and who is wrong?"
The answer is that people have have developed a system of morals throughout history as a means of ensuring our ability to reproduce and survive. This is also evident in the animal kingdom where a family of primates will punish one of its own if the the social code developed by the family is broken. Dr. Frans De Waal of Emory University has studied social behavior among primates since the 60's and his observations are widely accepted among scientists. The conclusion is that human morality is a byproduct of evolution. http://www.nytimes.com...
Furthermore, it is only humans who decide what god is, what god does, and what god says.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 Undermining-Chaos 9 years ago
Undermining-Chaos
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 erkifish26 9 years ago
erkifish26
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 Logos 9 years ago
Logos
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 persuasive 9 years ago
persuasive
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 AntiPatriot 9 years ago
AntiPatriot
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 patriots16-0 9 years ago
patriots16-0
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 Bunkka84 9 years ago
Bunkka84
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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 CharmingAnecdote 9 years ago
CharmingAnecdote
patriots16-0MiserlouTied
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