The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Losing
35 Points
The Contender
mrmatt505
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

God is dead

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 2/12/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,111 times Debate No: 2584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (20)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

God is dead.

Mankind has emerged from its infancy, and no longer needs to use superstition to explain natural phenomena. If an earthquake hits your town, your not going to run around to try and find a human sacrifice to sate your deity. Science has continually proven any and all religions wrong time and time again, and the only hope religion has is to reformulate its doctrine to agree with science. Do you know that the church now embraces the big bang theory? What a far cry from the days of ptolemy when the church used to lay down the law on science whenever it wanted to and would put people to death for heresy! This trend, where religion continues to lose power and become more and more meaningless, will and should continue until it doesn't exist at all.

There are a lot of Christians on this site and I have to say that you guys remind me a lot of the Islamists that people are always complaining about. Why, exactly, is your god more authentic than allah? Doesn't it make sense that *maybe* religious terrorism, which is the biggest problem our country is dealing with at the moment (you remember that war we are in that is the longest war in history and fast becoming the second most expensive, right?), might not be such a big issue if we could rise above the ignorance and arrogance of believing that WE (the american christian god-loving people) are more pious and true than THEM (the Islamic brown skinned lunatics)?
mrmatt505

Con

God lives on and no, Nitsche did not kill God. Man has grown from infancy and yes man has slipped away from God. But by saying that God is dead, you argue also that there never was a God. I ask you, where did the world come from? If you respond by saying a massive bang, then where did the atoms come from needed to create the bang? Did it spontaneously happen? How? Science has not been able to go to the foundations of history and prove that this world happened by mere accident. Things are proportionally set up too well for that to happen.

Next, I would like to ask. What church supports the big bang theory? Mine sure doesn't!

And, I would like to point out the logical fallacies that exist from the standpoint of an evolutionist. I believe that the 'species' that we have been able to find in history that are supposedly our ancestors are species that did not even have affiliation with us, but rather a species of their own. Second, we have no links in the chain of evolution from one of our first prehistoric ancestors to now. Third, why don't we see monkeys or apes giving birth to human baby children? Fourth, I believe in natural selection and I believe in some forms of adaptation. If you are going to bring up Darwin's Finches, I would like to point out that all creatures change to some extent to accommodate their environment, that is how creation was designed.

And, DNA is too complex for it to just happen at random. There was purpose in the way that we were designed.

Just to briefly touch on the argument about the religious war. Foreign Policy, the magazine put out an article that provides in depth analysis about religious war. It indicates that without Islam, wars would still happen.

I refuse to debate on the second part of your argumentation because I am simply advocating that God exists. I am not here to tell people which God is better or that one God doesn't exist. But I will make it clear now that from my personal belief, Christianity is the one and only passage way to heaven and eternal life. That is my own bias and that is the point of view that I shall debate from.

It is better to live believing that God exists and die to find out you are wrong than to live your life not believing God exists, dying, and being disappointed. I believe that faith in that which we cannot see is just as reasonable as believing that we all evolved from monkeys because we felt like it. One of the main parts to the monkey theory is that species evolve to survive. Newsflash, monkeys are still alive as the species they are so they would never have needed to evolve into humans to stay alive!

God exists, has existed, and always will exist. I pray that someday you will also see the reasoning behind faith. It is the only thing left that keeps our world together.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

Thank you for debating me matt, this ought to be a good exchange.

The big bang: Scientists, using mathematics, have determined down to within a few millionths of a second how the universe started. Are they correct? Well, they very will could be wrong, but they certainly have done more work on the subject than anyone else. Christians think they have it all figured out. Scientists might as well just lay down and quit, because the Christians already know exactly who created the universe and how it happened. I guess we'll just forget the fact that science has triumphed EVERY time it has clashed with Christianity. If Christians are indeed correct, then what is the point of learning about astronomy and cosmology? I personally find these fields absolutely fascinating, not to mention convincing. The fact that astronomers are making such dramatic progress in their field is pretty convincing evidence that it just might be worth actually studying space and using scientific rigor to find out the secrets of the universe, instead of just stubbornly sticking to some old fable created in a time when there was no such thing as the scientific method.

Evolution: I don't have the space to argue the complete theory of evolution, but I'll certainly cite some evidence. Fruit flies, in the laboratory, absolutely demonstrate, time and time again, how evolution works. There is no question that species evolve due to random mutations; there are only 2 unresolved questions that are relevent here:
1) how did life start initially?
2) how did humans come about from apes?
As to the first concern, I am at a loss. We can't reproduce life in the laboratory from mixing enzymes and amino acids together, and I don't see that we are going to be able to do so any time soon. Science continues to progress nonetheless, and perhaps someday we will be able to find that spark that started it all out. We will keep looking until we do find it, and I have faith that someday we will. As to the second concern, I believe the missing link still evades evolutionary scientists. Nonetheless, we do have detailed fossil records of many species that would lead apes on up to humans, like homo erectus for example. As to why they aren't around today, one need only look at how humans treat other people to see that. We can't even get along without killing people who don't share the same religion as us, never mind try to set aside land for a society of homo erectus to thrive in. Our ancestors, as they got more intelligent, no doubt killed off the less intelligent people quite quickly as they viewed them as inferior. Apes were probably just far enough back on the evolutionary scale to have survived the persecution from our ancestors, as they were "animal" enough not to interfere too much with our evolving cousins.

Pope John Paul II embraced the big bang theory, because it left plenty of hypothetical room for God to have given his spark *just* before it; in other words, God set off the big bang and then the rules of science took over and that allows both Christians and scientists alike to coexist peacefully. Of course, if and when science progresses, your next pope will have to change his story...

As to pascal's wager, I absolutely do not accept this as reasonable. You could use this on the Greek Gods, Allah, or any other deity or any other superstitious belief with the same utility. Does this mean I should believe in any and every idea of deity just to make sure that I'm not wrong and won't end up in hell? Oh, wait a minute, Only the Christian God is worth considering. There are lots of different sects of Christians who believe all other Christians are going to hell, and I for one cannot make any sense of it.

You say that things are too well set up for these chance occurences that science talks about. Earth was a chance occurence, life was a chance occurence, and human life as well. Here is how I justify these chance occurences. There are an estimated two hundred billion known galaxies in the universe. Our mid-sized galaxy contains a hundred billion stars in it, and we are slowly discovering planets around many of the stars we see. So yes, it is unlikely that any one planet would harbor life, but when you consider the absolutely unimaginable size of the universe, you quickly realize that chance occurence is exactly what the doctor ordered. If I gave you a million billion billion tries to come up with some DNA, that would probably be enough for you to come up with something! Evolution is the same way. The earth is 4.6 Billion years old. That is a million years, multiplied 4600 times. As you can see, considering life has been around for most of earth's history, and given the exponential way in which we lifeforms reproduce, these chance mutations that we see every day in the laboratory have had a tremendous amount of time to work out.

Now science can possibly be wrong, but if it is, that still doesn't mean that the church has everything worked out. I am troubled greatly by this pre-packaged set of beliefs the church offers, in which you don't get a chance to actually explore for yourself how things actually came about. What's the point of philosophy, science, and public policy if the Christians already have it all figured out already? Huckabee will be in my state tomorrow telling us that we need to amend the constitution to be in accordance with the bible (his interpretation of it anyway). He has a chance of winning this november, be it a small one, but the fact is that our government is full of Christians making policies that they think are the way God would like it. Non-Christian politicians have to hide their beliefs or else they won't get any votes from the Christian populace. So if I seem mean or hateful with my words, please don't assume that I am just trying to criticize you people for no reason. I am exercising my first amendment right (while I still have it) to speak out about what I see as public ignorance that indirectly affects me personally.

Did that magazine article discuss the possibility that wars would occur if Christianity were not around? Or religion in general for that matter?

When it comes down to it, you cannot prove God exists. Conversely, you cannot prove otherwise as well. For this reason, I am agnostic. There is no evidence one way or another for many things, including ghosts, aliens, free will, alternate universes, and lots of other things that the ignorant will claim to have an inside edge in. I think the humble argument, the wise argument, is to leave these questions unanswered and let the foolish quarrel amongst themselves over their stances on these issues.
mrmatt505

Con

Thanks again. I truly hoe that good clash can occur.

I am going to start off in a sort of backwards order. You state that you are agnostic because you think that there might be or have been a God. If there was a God, then he could not die, because that just isn't the thing that God does.

Next, more research has been done to prove that God exists than work to prove that evolution exists. Religion came first. The earliest recorded civilization had a belief in a God and found God everywhere, before they had mathematics or even a written language. Sense then, wars have been fought over religion, people have dies for their cause, and research yields more proof everyday that God exists. If we go back to the holy land, and if we compare the Bible to parallel, accepted history, we see that they coincide together without problem. History proves that there probably was a man named Jesus. It would be more likely to take Him as being the Son of Man rather than to accept him as being a perfect human being. Math is based on theories about the universe. Math books use words like "hypothesis" and "postulates" whereas history is set in stone and supports the idea of there being a God.

Now I will answer your contentions about science proving that earth has a high probability of happening at random. You state that "There are an estimated two hundred billion known galaxies in the universe." No one has ever traveled or seen that far. There is no way of proving that or even inferring that. And, the earth is not 4.6 billion years old. That is only a guesstimate done by a scientist. It is impossible to judge that amount of time because too many variable are present. Asteroids (we haven't been wiped out by one yet), ice, heat, any type of weather, and erosion. These could all effect the results that are produced in a laboratory.

Next, I am not Catholic so I cannot speak for the Pope. Most Christians don't believe in a spark that could cause evolution to happen and I am no different.

In a more philosophical perspective, God can exist in the thoughts of people. If you believe in evolution, then you believe that man is the most superior being and therefor establishes the beliefs of this world. Because of this, if people believe that a god exists somewhere, then that god does exist. In an evolutionist perspective, we keep God alive. From my perspective, God has always existed, exists today, and will always exist.

Finally, I would like to make a notion that God is with us everyday. He sits with us, talks to us, and enables us to decipher right and wrong. I believe that God IS our conscience.

There is more proof swaying towards there being a God than any other way. I am also using my right to speak out against ignorance and I will gladly use my rights to do such.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

God is dead.

I stated this sentence figuratively, in the sense that humanity has grown out of its infancy and the need for an idea of God to explain natural occurrences is no longer necessary. A disease, earthquake, lightning bolt etc. was not explainable at all a thousand years ago. Science has slowly replaced this need for humanity. You see, the notion of God was a tool for us, to try and make some sense out of this world. Without science, a tornado would have only one possible explanation: wrath of God. Religion is obsolete, as there are better ways to explain natural occurrences with science, and there are better principles to guide your life with than the ten commandments. The seven virtues are infallible and highly useful, and the ten commandments are flawed and close to useless (telling me not to kill someone or covet someone's wife isn't the most useful information). There are some very, very insightful and useful ideas in the bible, don't get me wrong. Although the utility of the lessons it provides are undeniable, the actual literal interpretation is not. I know that Christians are quick to point this fact out when it disagrees with what their interpretation of the bible is, but you can't just point out pieces of the bible and say "that's literal, that's not". None of it is literal, and the lessons can be inferred out but you can't get any more than that. Jesus didn't flick his wrist like a magician and turn water into wine. The bible may be the most important book ever written, about the most important individual who ever lived, but that is where it ends.

As an agnostic, I don't make judgements on whether or not God exists. I only question the people who do say that he does or does not exist.

You say that there is "more research" done than science and that "research yields more proof everyday that God exists". As to the first part, more research doesn't mean anything. The results of the research are more important than the amount of research done. As to the second part, you are quite obviously wrong, but if you want to show some data for the existence of God in the last round go ahead, it will be highly conjectural at the very best, and that is if you are REALLY good at talking. There is obviously no evidence one way or another for the existence of God, or else a scientist would take that evidence and do something with it. There are plenty of Christians that are scientists and they would die to get their hands on some evidence like that. If there was even a shred they would be all over it like starving dogs on a steak.

Math uses words like hypothesis and postulates because it is not perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect to allow you to type on your computer right now, does it? Religion uses words like God and heaven and perfect, which is why it will forever remain a superstition and never produce tangible results. My girlfriend takes me to church, and I see that it is a good thing and that it is useful, but there is a difference there. It is useful because the priest is good at preaching virtuous lessons to the people, and it makes the people feel good. But to say that there is anything supernatural going on and that they are going to heaven instead of hell just by attending is nonsense. Any Christian who says that a good man or woman is going to hell is pathetically ignorant, and if anything, the judgement alone would send themselves to hell if it did truly exist.

About galaxies: I don't mean to say this as an insult, but you really should consider reading a good astronomy book. I would suggest Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Besides the Bible, it is the number one selling book of all time (at least that's what he says in he book). To a non-scientist who hasn't wrestled with the reasoning, it is pretty easy just to discount the telescope discoveries we have made in the last few hundred years. To put it succinctly, the data is EXTREMELY convincing. There are something like a dozen completely different ways to judge distances on heavenly bodies, from measuring red-shift to measuring how much they move against the background stars, and the data fits together like a glove every time. There are also indirect methods of demonstrating the distances to these objects, like viewing the diffraction of distant galaxies by watching them as they pass behind another object like the sun. Again, all of these varied, independent tests show way beyond a reasonable doubt that the astronomical data is air-tight, and it would be a tragedy beyond any other to just dismiss this incredibly enlightening, inspiring and useful data just because Christians can't accept it.

You say you read Neitzche, and I see a little Descartesian train of though as well. I never could understand why Descartes couldn't explain his own consciousness without the need for God, maybe you can clear that one up for me. Nice debating you...
mrmatt505

Con

I understand that you said that god is dead in a figurative manner. But I must also make the observation that human kind can never out grow God, no matter how advanced we become. I will also agree that people couldn't explain lighting and earthquakes a thousand years ago, but they were and are today constructed by God and his plan for this world. Natural occurences can only happen because God allows them to, without God, nothing would exist, no atoms, molecules, or anything else in the realm of man. But, you go on to bash the ten commandments. In case you hadn't noticed, most of the actions that are spurred out of the thoughts that these laws talk about, are the same actions that make us immoral. Laws are predicated upon these notions. Law requires religion. But to specifically talk on the Bible, it carries meanings that are conotative and denotative at the same time. It is the mold that allows humans to replicate their lives after.

Furthermore, you state " ... more research doesn't mean anything. The results of the research are more important than the amount of research done." Historians have proven that the Bible and fact (which are one in the same) are parallel in what they show. History proves that there was a man named Jesus. History proves that he would have been born in Bethleham, and history proves that certain stories in the Bible are fact. So why should I infer anything else, but that Jesus was God, Savior of man?

And, you advocate that these people think that they can only make it to heaven by going to church. This is wrong also. The only way into heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. To denounce the evil that is this world. And to confess and be forgiven of ones sins. It is not by entering an edifice, it is by building the spiritual church of God.

I believe that noone can truly acknowledge the limits, or lack there of, of space because we have never seen it. We have never traveled further than Mars (not humans, but machines.) Therefore I will always state that it is the unknown, and sometimes it is better not to know. Somethings were never meant for us to find out.

To explain, in my words, what Descartes was battling with, was that without God or an after life, there would be no need for morals. Without ramifications of the after life, why not share your bed with more than one woman? Why not steal what you please? Civilizations have lived without morals and Gods, and they ended up in ruins.

Thank you for the debate. It was fun!
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Why hello Jemual. Pleased to be of your aquaintance.

Consider this. There are 2 hundred (or so) billion stars in our galaxy, each with a distinct possibility of harboring a solar system. Multiply this number by the hundred (or so) billion noticable galaxies in the observable universe, and you will see that it would take intelligent design only to NOT have one of these stars (solar systems) happen to create a stable solar system where the planets aren't colliding into a massive super-jupiter planet (as we have seen in most other solar systems) that eats up all the other planets as it spirals into the star and essentially destroys any chance for life. We were bound to happen simply based on mathematical happenstance.

Stonehenge, the pyramids... Amazing stuff. Do they prove the existence of God? I think not. Science could be renamed "the systematic realization that God is not necessary to explain every natural occurence in nature". Every time people have classicly observed something unexplainable, they run to their bible because they didn't own a science book on the subject. But with patience, the answer is always found. A couple of nagging unexplained occurences, among countless millions of explained ones isn't too persuading.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Regardless when you were in high school, I can guarantee you there is more evidence for the Big Bang now than whenever that was. We are finding new lines to lead back to the Big Bang all the time, recently NASA's probe to better map the CMBR (a left over radiation effect of the Big Bang) shows the universe to be 13.73 billion years old. There's half a dozen heady proofs promptly laid out. I highly recommend Richard Carrier's essay on the topic.

http://www.infidels.org...

Planets are where they are because of the simple process of solar formation. There's a lot more debris early on, and largely most of it got sucked into the sun. The our solar system contains the sun at 99.8% of the solar system, Jupiter at .1% and various debris. You ask how it is possible that we don't crash into each other, well we did. The early earth was struck by a Mars-sized plantoid named Thera which ripped across the planet and later much of it and earth debris formed into the moon (which is quite large, compared to other moons).

Stonehenge was done with people-power, as were the pyramids, sphinx, and other landmarks. We commonly give very little credit to people and their abilities, but even a bunch of primitives easy moved heavy rocks. There is nearly no debate about Stonehenge because it's the rocks are a few hundred miles off easily transported and not too hard to do.

I was created when my mother and father had sex, I would presume. Humans evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys, which itself evolved from a common ancestor of primates, all euarchontoglires, all placental mammals, all mammals, all mammal-like reptiles, all amphibians, all fish, all vertebrates, all animals...

Sure errors in the Bible,
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

If you need anymore pearls cast before you, just ask.
Posted by jemual 9 years ago
jemual
Good day Mr. Rob1Billion

I have known bing bang since I was high school but it was "now" at present disregarded (bing bang theorem) because no heavy proof was laid. God is god. Who created Him? define the word god. If you think there is no god. Who made the solar system that possible that it has its own placement and it did not clash with the other planets. Who made it? us?

How was the Stonehenge done that possible. Can you prove it? If there is no god. Then, how were you created? from monkeys?
So, how were monkeys created then? If you don't think God is alive, read the Bible and in list those errors that didnt happened on the specific time laid. If there is...tell me

And by the way, its jemual..
Posted by candice 9 years ago
candice
Ewww... dark and ... SHOCKING!
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
Well candice, shock value is something that is deeply ingrained into my personality.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
God is the worst character in all of fiction.

See, that's acceptable because I actually *DO* mean it.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
NIETZSHE (25 characters)bkmla
Posted by candice 9 years ago
candice
This is a good debate... though I think it slightly inapropriate rob1billion to say, God is Dead, not really mean it and just say it for shock value.
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
jemuel you obviously have not even bothered to try and apprehend the principles of the theories of evolution and the big bang. Who created God then? I would imagine that trying to describe our universal system WITH a God is more complex/unreasonable than trying to describe it without him.
Posted by jemual 9 years ago
jemual
Get to think of this:

Where will you believe. A junk shop exploded and at their surprise there came out a cellphone or a person with great intelligence made a cellphone.

You will surely believe that a man made a cellphone.

So, where do you believe.

We, created by a large explosion (A amoeba swimming on a sea, then a monkey hanging on a tree and now, a doctor with a PhD) or There is an intelligent being which is God who created us.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 mrmatt505 8 years ago
mrmatt505
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 sippinsizzurp 9 years ago
sippinsizzurp
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 candice 9 years ago
candice
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 jemual 9 years ago
jemual
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 MitsyPoodle 9 years ago
MitsyPoodle
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 dixielover 9 years ago
dixielover
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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 Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Rob1Billionmrmatt505Tied
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