The Instigator
hauki20
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
zach12
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

God and evolution can't both be true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 10 votes the winner is...
hauki20
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,413 times Debate No: 7068
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (10)

 

hauki20

Pro

Can God (Christian God) and evolution both be real? No.

First of all, in Genesis chapter 3, the Bible clearly says that sin entered the world after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. The Bible also clearly establishes that Adam and Eve were both humans.

Those who believe in evolution say that after thousands of years of sin, Homo Sapiens were first born. The Bible says the exact opposite. Sin entered the world after humans ate the forbidden fruit. Both cannot be correct. Either the Bible is a bunch of bullcrap or evolution didn't happen. Not both.
zach12

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this debate and thank any and all readers who ultimately vote on this debate

First of all I would like to know the relevance of the fact that sin entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. This seems off-topic to me.

When I went to a Catholic school in Omaha for 8 years I was taught many things. Once I asked the question of "If God made the world in seven days where did dinosaurs come from?" It was an ill-worded question but for some reason my teacher seemed stumped. Then she had an epiphany. The bible carries ultimately true messages but was open to human error by the gospel writers! That means that little details, like the world being created in seven days may or may not be true depending on whether or not you are a bible literalist or not.

Secondly, since God is eternal who's to say that a day is equivalent in length as it is to us? Let's say an average person lives 70 years. That's approximately 25,550 days. So one day is one twenty five thousandths of a person's lifetime. So since God is eternal and ever living who's to know what 25,000ths of his lifespan is? We could go by how long we think the universe has existed (almost 14 billion years). This would mean that a day to God could be equal to 548,000 of ours, or 1500 years. Still not enough time you say? If god has existed forever there is no possible way of knowing how long a day is to him.

Secondly, I don't know what mysterious group of people you are talking about. I believe in evolution and don't believe that after years of sin Homo Sapiens were first born. there is no one generation that miraculously changes from an ape to a person. It was extremely gradual.

Since you have failed to define evolution I could say I am referencing Lamarck's theory but I won't be that mean.

This is my case, God started the world and in so creating it made evolution possible.

thank you for reading please vote con
Debate Round No. 1
hauki20

Pro

Thank you for acepting the debate and good luck for the both of us ;)

Answer to your argument:

Q: People sat that God created the world in seven days. They aren't literally days, just random amounts of time, for example a million years.
A: First of all, the Bible says that God worked for six days and rested on the seventh day as an example to the mankind. If he would've worked, say, six million years and rested for a million years, we would have a serious problem. Second of all, God created Adam in the sixth day. He died when he was a little over 900 years old. If a day would be even a thousand years, we would once again have problems. Think about it. 1000+1000=2000. So, when the seventh day ended, he would already have died a long time ago. That is not what happened. The Bible tells us that AFTER Adam and Eve were driven out of the paradise, death entered the world. In the Garden of Eden there was no death, so how could Adam have died in a place where there is no death?

My argument:

Before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, there was no death. However, those who believe in evolution say that death has always been around since the very first living thing. Every living thing has an end. You're going to die and so am I.

Romans 5:12 says, that "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."

However, if we take the evolutionist's viewpoint and say that it took millions, maybe trillions of years for a simple bacteria to evolve into a human, we must accept that before humans, there was death.
Bible: Humans brought death into the world.
Evolution: Death had been around for millions of years before mankind.
The two contradict each other. One can be true, the other cannot.

Sources: The Holy Bible (NIV, New International Version)

Argument number two:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were *completed* in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had *finished* the work he head been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Genesis 2:1-2

So, according to the Bible the creation is over. However, those who believe in evolution say that evolution is still happening. If someone believes in evolution and the Bible, s/he must also believe that the creation is still going on. According to the Bible, it is not.
Bible: The creation is over. Period.
Evolution: The species continue to evolve.

Both can't be true.
zach12

Con

Once again I would like to thank my opponent.

You have a very literalist sense of the bible. Also you seem to think that disproving the bible disproves God. This is not true. God would still exist whether or not there was any sort of bible.

God faced a dilemma when creating the bible. How could he explain evolution to people who had limited knowledge on almost everything, including time? The bible would have been almost immediately rejected if it talked about evolution and billions of years of gradual bacteria growth. Rather, God had to explain it in a way that the Israelites could understand. Saying Earth was created in seven days easily summed up God's plan. And think about it, it makes sense. I believe we are currently in the "seventh day" of god's creation. God is taking a break, not doing much.

Humans were a very recent development, coming about in the last few million years (the sixth day). God made us then took a rest. God made all the creatures in the beginning but then let them evolve to their current forms.

I would also like to point out to my opponent that nearly every Christian denomination believes or at least accepts theistic evolution. The Pope, who is supposed to have direct conversation with God, says that God was the guiding force behind evolution. Therefore, we have God and we have evolution, with no conflict.

We can observe evolution at work. Antibiotics sometimes become outdated because the bacteria are no longer affected and killed by the drug. Here's the process.

1.) Bacteria are treated with antibiotic.
2.) 99% of the bacteria are killed.
3.) The remaining percent are immune and pass this trait onto their offspring.
4.) Eventually all bacteria are immune to the antibiotic

Thus we know evolution is real.

There are billions of Catholics who believe in God and evolution.
Debate Round No. 2
hauki20

Pro

I would like to say that we are NOT debating about evolution. We are debating about whether or not God AND evolution can both be true.

"You have a very literalist sense of the bible."

Imagine yourself driving a car. You come across a sign that says "STOP!" Do you think "What could that mean?" or do you just stop your car? The Bible is the same. "God created the world in six days." "What could that possibly mean?"

~~Also you seem to think that disproving the bible disproves God. This is not true. God would still exist whether or not there was any sort of bible.~~

As far as I know I have never said anything opposite.

~~God faced a dilemma when creating the bible. How could he explain evolution to people who had limited knowledge on almost everything, including time? The bible would have been almost immediately rejected if it talked about evolution and billions of years of gradual bacteria growth. Rather, God had to explain it in a way that the Israelites could understand. Saying Earth was created in seven days easily summed up God's plan.~~

Well, then the Bible wouldn't say that death and sin came into the world AFTER men. Also, I would like the following questions answered.

1. Was there death before men?
2. Since Adam was created in the sixth day, how could he have died at the age of about 900? If one day were, let's say, a million years, he wouldn't have lived even halfway through the sixth day. The Bible says that Adam died after he was sent out of the Garden of Eden, so that would mean that he lived AT LEAST the sixth day. It it were anything more than 900 years, we would have serious problems.
3. Since the evolution is going on, how can the Bible say that God finished the creation?
4. Since evolution teaches us that when humans first came into existance they couldn't read or write, nor speak a language (other than grunts and nods) how could Adam, the first human do so? Genesis 2:20 "So the man gave names to all livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts in the field." Therefore he spoke a complicated language. Genesis 3:20 "Adam named his wife Eve..." Genesis 5:1 "This is the WRITTEN account of Adam's life." From the last quote we can suggest that Adam could write, and wrote down his bloodline and life.

~There are billions of Catholics who believe in God and evolution.~

I deeply doubt this because there are only 60 million catholics. "If ten thousand believe that cows can fly, they must be right." The whole world can believe something but that doesn't mean that it's true.

~I would also like to point out to my opponent that nearly every Christian denomination believes or at least accepts theistic evolution. The Pope, who is supposed to have direct conversation with God, says that God was the guiding force behind evolution. Therefore, we have God and we have evolution, with no conflict.~

The Pope is just a human. Nothing else. If the Pope says that humans are really green bananas, does that mean he's right? No.

~I would also like to point out to my opponent that nearly every Christian denomination believes or at least accepts theistic evolution.~

I doubt it. And still... "If ten thousand people belive that cows can fly, they must be right."

Also, these arguments remain unanswered.

Argument number one:

Before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, there was no death. However, those who believe in evolution say that death has always been around since the very first living thing. Every living thing has an end. You're going to die and so am I.

Romans 5:12 says, that "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."

However, if we take the evolutionist's viewpoint and say that it took millions, maybe trillions of years for a simple bacteria to evolve into a human, we must accept that before humans, there was death.
Bible: Humans brought death into the world.
Evolution: Death had been around for millions of years before mankind.
The two contradict each other. One can be true, the other cannot.

Sources: The Holy Bible (NIV, New International Version)

Argument number two:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were *completed* in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had *finished* the work he head been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." Genesis 2:1-2

So, according to the Bible the creation is over. However, those who believe in evolution say that evolution is still happening. If someone believes in evolution and the Bible, s/he must also believe that the creation is still going on. According to the Bible, it is not.
Bible: The creation is over. Period.
Evolution: The species continue to evolve.

Both can't be true.
zach12

Con

Once again I would like to thank my opponent and for all of you readers.

In response to my opponent's first negation I would like to point out that:

1.) The bible is not a reputable source
2.) Saying that the bible and evolution have conflicts does not disprove god or evolution.

3.) My opponent is not arguing the correct resolution. What he is basically arguing is "The interpretation of God through the bible and evolution can't both be true," Instead of "God and Evolution can't both be true"

Now:

>>> if we take the evolutionist's viewpoint and say that it took millions, maybe trillions of years for a simple bacteria to evolve into a human, we must accept that before humans, there was death. <<<

Yes, but death for bacteria and primitive apes, not humans. Once humans finally evolved, the first one died which goes along with what the bible says. It says that the first humans died.

Then >>> I never said disproving the bible disproves God <<<

So then why do you use the bible as an accurate representation of God? And say that if the ideals of evolution contradict the ideals of the bible, only one of them can exist?

Answers to your questions

1.) Q: Was there death before men?
A: yes

2.) Q: Since Adam was created in the sixth day, how could he have died at the age of about 900? If one day were, let's say, a million years, he wouldn't have lived even halfway through the sixth day. The Bible says that Adam died after he was sent out of the Garden of Eden, so that would mean that he lived AT LEAST the sixth day. If it were anything more than 900 years, we would have serious problems.
A: Do you seriously believe he lived 900 years? And the whole story of Adam and Eve is just a representation of god modeling man through evolution.

3.) Q: Since the evolution is going on, how can the Bible say that God finished the creation?
A: God finished the original creation, and then left the rest to evolution. Before you argue this, Adam and Eve had children who had different traits than their parents This is part of evolution in itself, as is every generation. You can't deny the evidence right in front of you.

4.) Q: Since evolution teaches us that when humans first came into existance they couldn't read or write, nor speak a language (other than grunts and nods) how could Adam, the first human do so? Genesis 2:20 "So the man gave names to all livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts in the field." Therefore he spoke a complicated language. Genesis 3:20 "Adam named his wife Eve..." Genesis 5:1 "This is the WRITTEN account of Adam's life." From the last quote we can suggest that Adam could write, and wrote down his bloodline and life.
A: The bible was written down by mortal men who had no proof as to the accuracy of any of their writings.

Then my opponent says that he doubts there are billions of Catholics who believe in evolution. I meant to say Christians but my opponent got his facts wrong. There are in fact, about 1.1 Billion Catholics and 1.5 to 2.1 Billion Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

>>> The Pope is just a human. Nothing else. If the Pope says that humans are really green bananas, does that mean he's right? No. <<<

The whole bible was written by humans and nothing else. If they say that the earth was created in seven days does that mean they are right? No.

(this is what I said) ~I would also like to point out to my opponent that nearly every Christian denomination believes or at least accepts theistic evolution. ~

>>> I doubt it. And still... "If ten thousand people believe that cows can fly, they must be right." <<<

You should read this then hauki20
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Then my opponent says I have failed to negate his points. Seeing as how they all came fro the bible, I have negated them. As I have said the bible is just scribblings by human beings.

BOTH CAN BE TRUE
Debate Round No. 3
hauki20

Pro

Thank you.

As far as I'm concerned, we're not talking about whether or not the Bible is correct. However,

1. God cannot make mistakes.
2. The Bible is the word of God.
3. Therefore, the Bible cannot have mistakes.

If you believe that the Word of God is a bunch of bull crap, we can discuss that on a different debate. Now, let's stick to the subject.

~Q:Was there death before man? A: Yes.~

Checkmate. Now, let me quote a passage from Romans.

"Therefore, just as sin *entered* the world through one man, and *death* through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."

It doesn't say "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death of humans through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."

The Bible NEVER says that in the time of Adam and Eve only animals died. The Bible talks about universal death, it doesn't say that "Then humans started to die." It says that death **ENTERED** the world **AFTER** humans were created. So not a single animal or human died in the Garden of Eden.

So you believe in God but don't believe in his word. Truly interesting.

~Do you seriously believe he lived 900 years?~

I do. If you haven't read Genesis, let me quote a passage.

"Altogether, Adam lived *930 years*, and then he died." Genesis 5:8

~God finished the original creation, and then left the rest to evolution. Before you argue this, Adam and Eve had children who had different traits than their parents This is part of evolution in itself, as is every generation. You can't deny the evidence right in front of you.~

So God finished the creation but didn't finish the creation? Very logical.

I don't like to debate people who dodge questions. If God finishes the creation, how can he at the same time continue it?

So he didn't finish the creation in your opinion. There aren't two different creations of the world! How can you create something twice? And how do you know what traits Adam's and Eve's children had? Evidence to back your claim?

~The whole bible was written by humans and nothing else. If they say that the earth was created in seven days does that mean they are right? No.~

I must say that I didn't know that the Pope and the writers of the Bible have something to do with each other.

Maybe God gave a vision to humans who wrote what they saw? And still...

"If you see a sign that says "Stop!" do you think "What does that really mean?" or do you just stop?"

~Many Christians believe in evolution.~

If ten million people believe that cows can fly, they must be right. Or?

~The bible was written down by mortal men who had no proof as to the accuracy of any of their writings.~

We-are-not-talking-about-the-accuracy-of-the-Bible. Period. Back to the topic.

And after all, you have no proof that the Bible would not be accurate. I have evidence that it is. However, it is off-topic.

~The bible was written down by mortal men who had no proof as to the accuracy of any of their writings.~

Perhaps God gave a vision of the past to mortal men who wrote what they saw?

Once, again, a dodged question. I didn't ask about how accurate the Bible is, I asked you:

Since evolution teaches us that when humans first came into existence they couldn't read or write, nor speak a language (other than grunts and nods) how could Adam, the first human do so? Genesis 2:20 "So the man gave names to all livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts in the field." Therefore he spoke a complicated language. Genesis 3:20 "Adam named his wife Eve..." Genesis 5:1 "This is the WRITTEN account of Adam's life." From the last quote we can suggest that Adam could write, and wrote down his bloodline and life.

Please stop dodging the questions. I've had enough of Matrix.

Zach, let's stay on the topic. Whether or not the Bible is accurate is off-topic.

~1.) The bible is not a reputable source~

Off-topic. By the way, am I the only one who noticed the lack of evidence?

~Do you seriously believe he lived 900 years? And the whole story of Adam and Eve is just a representation of god modeling man through evolution.~

This interpretation is very far from what the bible says. If I see a sign that shows a pedestrian crossing a road, I could think that it means I'm supposed to get out of my car and walk to the other side of the road. Or I could just use common sense.

Okay. So, your only argument is that the Bible isn't accurate? If that's what we believe, why should we believe in God at all? If the Bible says that Christianity is the truth, it can't be true. If we're going to think that the Bible isn't accurate, we can't even believe in God. So, we have no proof that Jesus died in the cross or that there is a God at all. If you believe in God, why don't you believe his word?

Since we are NOT debating about how accurate the Bible is, let's stick to the topic. And now...

Since Adam was created in the sixth day, how could he have died at the age of about 900? If one day were, let's say, a million years, he wouldn't have lived even halfway through the sixth day. The Bible says that Adam died after he was sent out of the Garden of Eden, so that would mean that he lived AT LEAST the sixth day. If it were anything more than 900 years, we would have serious problems.

Since the evolution is going on, how can the Bible say that God finished the creation?
zach12

Con

I would like to thank my opponent regardless of his many insults throughout his post.

How is the validity of the bible off topic? You say it doesn't matter then quote all of your evidence from the bible.

Then my opponent says:

1. God cannot make mistakes.
2. The Bible is the word of God.
3. Therefore, the Bible cannot have mistakes

There is absolutely no proof that the bible is the word of god.

>>> If you believe that the Word of God is a bunch of bull crap, we can discuss that on a different debate. Now, let's stick to the subject. <<<

I am sticking to the subject. I believe the bible is a bunch of bull crap but that doesn't mean God is pure fiction. God could easily exist and some random people could write their ideas of who he is claiming that this deity is "inspiring" them to do it and food billions of people in the process.

>>> ~Q:Was there death before man? A: Yes.~

Checkmate. Now, let me quote a passage from Romans.

"Therefore, just as sin *entered* the world through one man, and *death* through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."

It doesn't say "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death of humans through sin, and in this way death came to all men..."

The Bible NEVER says that in the time of Adam and Eve only animals died. The Bible talks about universal death, it doesn't say that "Then humans started to die." It says that death **ENTERED** the world **AFTER** humans were created. So not a single animal or human died in the Garden of Eden. <<<

So then my opponent goes right back to quoting the bible to prove his points. In my opinion this is much more off-topic than anything I have said. My opponent still thinks that the bible is what matters in this debate.

Genesis cannot be used as a scientific explanation of the creation of the universe because it was written in a time when there was little to no science. Genesis is a literary framework which is used to symbolize the significance of God's creation and the Sabbath.

I believe Creation is ongoing, starting in the time of Genesis and ever continuing. We are living in biblical times. The world is forever going to be in a state of changing Creation.

>>> How can you create something twice? <<<

He didn't. He made a rough draft and is constantly improving and editing his masterwork.

>>> And how do you know what traits Adam's and Eve's children had? <<<

Were Cain and Abel identical to each other and to Adam? No.

>>> I must say that I didn't know that the Pope and the writers of the Bible have something to do with each other. <<<

And I must say that this is a completely ignorant statement. You say the bible must be the true word of God because the gospel writers had a vision from God. Then you say the Pope is just like any human and has no revelations from God regardless of the opinion of 1 billion Catholics.

>>> Once, again, a dodged question. I didn't ask about how accurate the Bible is, I asked you: (yet another quote from the bible follows)

How am I supposed to tell you how Adam did something when he never existed?

>>> okay. So, your only argument is that the Bible isn't accurate? <<<

Your only argument seems to be that the bible IS accurate.

Now you're dodging questions. You dismiss this "~1.) The bible is not a reputable source~" by saying OFF TOPIC I'M ALWAYS RIGHT!

I'm done arguing this. Thank you readers, vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
i think i should not have lost that debate...
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Third Major Point:
Pro asserted that the resolution could not both be true but failed because it rested upon his interpretation.

Evolution does not destroy Christian theology it does significantly reduce the Bible from being the potential revealed word of God.

This was Cons major point. He believes in evolution and does not believe in the Bible being from God. He overwhelmingly proved Pro's point by his very adamant argument against the veracity of the Bible which is the revealed word for the Christian God.

Pro however did not make evolution undermining the bible being a part of the resolution. It made the debate go nowhere, but did prove the resolution in a roundabout way.

Having the debate proved Pro's point because ultimately the God of the Christian Bible is the only true God. It was his first statement. Pro was never discussing another god. They from the outset were discussing the Christian God. The bible is the revealed Will of the Christian God. All of Con's arguments showed that his personal belief in evolution detracted from the accuracy of the veracity of the Bible.

""Can God (Christian God) and evolution both be real? No.""

It proved that the veracity of the Christian God is in doubt when considering the veracity of the Christian Bible.
So win for Pro.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
First thing it was apparent in the debate that the assumption of the Bible being true was Pro's standpoint.

The clarity of the resolution though not entirely clear should have been accepted by the CON with the clarity from Pro's first post.

Couple key things on both sides.

First Major Point:
Pro did resolve the non literal interpretation with the 930 year old Adam question.

Con also just argued from a non literal interpretation but did not resolve the conflict the non literal interpretation caused from the 930 year old man. If it was representative what does it in his opinion represent and then had to back it up. Either way the million years and 930 years is a conflict from that viewpoint.

Second Major Point:
Pro made a great argument for the resolution by death entering the world at the fall of Adam.

Con did not resolve this question or refute with a non literal interpretation.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
"Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an "absurdity," saying that evolution can coexist with faith."

Pro incorrectly assumed that all Christians assume the literal truth of the Bible, clearly not so. Con made the right arguments.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
This debate just went nowhere. Unfortunate for Pro, the resolution was not clear. As Con pointed out, it should have read "The Bible and Evolution can't both be true." or "Orthodox Christianity and Evolution can't both be true." Because it was vague, Con was able to argue that God and Evolution can both be true if you reject the Bible as truth. However, I consider this a semantics argument since Pro tried to re-iterate that the Bible was assumed in this debate.

I gave Pro the conduct and reliable sources points. I gave Con the more convincing arguments (on a technicality). 3 and 3.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
"I would also like to point out to my opponent that nearly every Christian denomination believes or at least accepts theistic evolution."

What the... ???
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
CON

RFD:

Conduct: Con, pro did tend to have a couple of ad-hom attacks in his arguments...

Spelling and grammar: Tie, both seemed to have taken English class and known how to use spellcheck.

Sources: Tie, both sort of used the bible, no other source was brought up.

Arguments:

Main voting issue: Bible isn't necessarily true. This point was simply refuted by: "bible is word of god, therefore automatically completely factual". this was refuted as well.

This causes most of the pro arguments to fall.

Also, I like the argument that the bible was simply trying to tell the Israelites that god made the world in a way they would understand.

this was not refuted.

Another good con argument was that the whole thing was basically a metaphor. this was ALSO not refuted.

CON
Posted by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
That's what I thought ;) Thank you once again for debating with me ;)

By the way, I am waiting for your next argument.
Posted by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
meant to say there's billions of christians sorry man
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheSexicanMexican 8 years ago
TheSexicanMexican
hauki20zach12Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
hauki20zach12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
hauki20zach12Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
hauki20zach12Tied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
hauki20zach12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
hauki20zach12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
hauki20zach12Tied
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 106627 8 years ago
106627
hauki20zach12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
hauki20zach12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
hauki20zach12Tied
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