The Instigator
Yraelz
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
slammin
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

God most likely does exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,555 times Debate No: 2863
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (21)

 

Yraelz

Con

My opening argument is quite simple. I do not believe god exists. I would like to see why my opponent seems to believe such a thing and I will go from there. Please keep in mind that this debate is debating the likelihood.

I encourage voters to vote on not on their bias but rather on who did the better debating.

Thank you.
slammin

Pro

Thank-you for starting this debate and good luck. :)

"I do not believe god exists."

Why? There is no proof against God. It is your job to prove that God does not exist.

I will now state why I believe God exists. Things are so beautifully designed, a complex to just happen by chance. Just think about it. How could existence happen by chance? Everything has a creator. If you are about to reply saying, "Well then where did God come from if everything has a creator?" God is The Creator. He is the beginning and the end. The human brain cannot imagine or comprehend this. You may state that the idea of God is illogical. In fact, it is not. The idea of a supreme creator is just as logical as the idea of an atom existing forever and exploding for no apparent reason and then creating life. Who/What set the certain combination of proteins that just happened to fit together and life formed? Scratch that. The idea of God is so much more e logical.

This is a piece of physiological proof for God. "First, the non-existence of God cannot be proven. One cannot prove a universal negative. Alternatively, the existence of God is provable."

Source: http://www.allaboutcreation.org...

•"
•Both direct and indirect evidence for God's existence are well known and well documented. Nothing in history is better known or better documented than the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We even use the year of His birth as the basis for our calendar. He perfectly matched the over 100 unique Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament regarding His birth, life, death, and resurrection. The laws of probability cannot give us a reasonable explanation for the Messianic predictions or the resurrection, let alone both by the same person.

Jesus' miracles were witnessed by many and were documented redundantly for additional corroboration. He was seen by at least 500 people after His resurrection. He was seen ascending into heaven. His transfiguration was seen by Peter, James, and John. His wisdom in dealing with many circumstances was astounding. He never promoted Himself or His miracles. C. S. Lewis stated that He couldn't have just been a good teacher. He was either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. He didn't even come close to meeting the profile of a liar or lunatic, so He had to be God. "

Source: http://www.allaboutcreation.org...

Everything in this world is diverse and is just way to beautiful and complex to just have happened by accident.

P.S. Please capitalize God's name. Thanks. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Con

Ooo =) I will begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate and I will be touching on every point which he/she has put forward.

Furthermore I would like to enter the fact that we are speaking of the common idea behind a god if this is alright with my opponent.

Thus I begin my case. My opponent begins by pointing out that there is no proof that a god does not exist and asks why then, do I not believe in him. My response is simple and comes in three points.

a. A lack of proof against something is not evidence for its existence.
b. There is also not sound proof for a god's existence. I will touch on this point later.
c. With factors in mind, I find it highly highly unlikely that a god does exist. Keep in mind that this debate is about the likelihood of a god, I made this debate in full knowledge that there is little to no decisive evidence that either of us could present.

However this leaves me with a question to answer. That being why I feel it is highly highly unlikely that a god does exist. A lot of this will be covered when I attack my opponents point but I will begin with a few of my own.

1. The idea, when taken from a worldly perspective, is completely and utterly ludicrous. Let me offer a scenario. I ask you, as the readers in this debate, a question: Do you believe in Santa Clause? The common answer of course will be: "no".

Thus I must beg the question, "Why do you not believe in Santa Clause?" And answer my own question with, "Because he is a made up fairy tail character. Look for instance at his powers: He knows when everyone has been good or bad. He can fit into any small space. He has an army of other imaginary creatures, elves. He has flying reindeer. His home, while being based somewhere real, is imaginary. etc..."

Which leads me to my conclusion. I ask a new question, "What if I made Santa Clause, more unbelievable than he already was by giving him more powers. For instance: Not only does he know if someone is naughty and nice but he now has the power to condemn those people to an eternity of punishment for their naughtiness or bliss for their niceness. Not only can he fit into small spaces, he can literally be anywhere at anytime as big or small as he wants. No longer does he have an army of elves that can build the best toys, but an army of winged elves that can create miracles. Not only does he have fly reindeer but he can make any creature imaginable. Not only is his home not real, but the place isn't even real now. Do you believe in Santa Clause now?" Maybe it is just me but when I realize a god is simply a more unrealistic form of Santa Clause I can't help but feel they/it/he/she may not exist.

2. Alternative solutions just as likely. As there is no proof for a god alternative causes to the existence of all things are just as likely. For instance the big bang, matrix theory, sneeze of larger universe etc..... As there are millions of equally likely ways, as seen through lack of proof, that this universe could have been created, the chances that a god created it are a million to 1. My opponent even advocates this point when he states, "The idea of a supreme creator is just as logical as the idea of an atom existing forever and exploding for no apparent reason and then creating life."

Having stated my points I will move onto my opponents case.

He begins by pointing out that everything has a creator and that this must have been created because it is so beautiful. Which of course begs the question, "then what created your god?" Or course my opponent preempts this by saying that his god is something that the brain cannot imagine or comprehend. I must negate such a comment by saying that it is empirically disproven. There have been a billion things we have not been able to understand throughout the years but eventually we have begun to understand them all. To say that we cannot understand a god is in turn to say that we follow something we do not understand; thus a blind following of a concept for need of an explanation. Humans have attributed things we do not understand to mystical causes for years, saying that we will never understand it. This is just another one of those examples.

Next my opponent cites a quote from allaboutcreations.org which states that the existence of god is provable. Sadly the quote does not seem to actually take the time to prove the point. Thus I offer my opponent the opportunity to post the proof which the quote speaks of so that readers my vote on it.

Third, my opponent offers me what he says is proof. This proof is in the form of Jesus Christ. Thus I have points....

1. Whether Jesus Christ walked the earth or not does not prove a god, simply a man. I can say that I am the son of a god, this does not make me so.

2. But that aside, is there actually proof that Jesus existed? Well in the bible yes, however the bible was compiled in 300 A.D by Constantine as means to achieve the ends of him becoming emperor. (Which he did.) As far as we know the entire bible was forgery, by Constantine. But lets not debate this point, I have a more interesting one.

Jesus was supposedly a miracle worker. He fed people with 2 fish and bread. Turned water into wine, even walked on water. Furthermore there were over 30 prominent historians that lived during his lifetime. Did Jesus' miracles make it into any of the historical records? No. Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus, all mention briefly Christ, Chrestus, and Christus respectively in their works. However Christ is not a name but rather a title meaning the anointed one. In fact, check this site for how they used the words, http://www.holysmoke.org....

The only other historian ever credited with mentioning Jesus is Josephus, who mentions him in one passage. Not only has the passage been shown to be a forgery but for some reason only shows up in modern versions of his book, The Antiquities of the Jews.

How did a man responsible for such a wealth of miracles not show up in the historical records....?

3. This might be something you, my voters/readers, don't know. I'm going to begin listing gods from different religions and their attributes. Tell me if you see something weird.

God: Horus (Egyptian around 3000 B.c)

-Born December 25th of the virgin Isis Mary.
-His birth was accompanied by a star in the east and on his birth he was adorned by three kings.
-At the age of 12 he was a child teacher.
-At the age of 30 he was baptized.
-Had 12 disciples.
-He was betrayed by typhon which led to his crucification.
-He then died, was buried for 3 days, and was resurrected.

God: Attis (Greece 1200 B.C)

-Born of the virgin Nana on Dec. 25th.
-Was crucified.
-Was placed in a tomb.
-Was reborn after 3 days.

God: Dionysus (Greece 500 B.C)

-Born of the virgin Semele on Dec. 25th.
-Performed miracles like turning water into wine.
-Upon his death he was ressurected.

God: Krishna (India 900 B.C)

-Born of the virgin Devaki to a star in the east.
-Performed miracles with disciples.
-Upon his death was resurrected.

God: Mithra (Persia 1200 B.C)

-Was born to a virgin on dec. 25th, did many miracles, died was buried for 3 days and then resurrected.

In fact, here is a site that support christianity but points out the similarities anyways, http://www.religioustolerance.org... . Though this one seems to primarily deal with Mithra.

And thus I am forced to conclude through character limitations, though if my opponent does not offer much refutation in his next round I will go on to show exactly why all of these religions share the same concepts.
slammin

Pro

I would like to start off by saying you're welcome and I am a female. :)

"Furthermore I would like to enter the fact that we are speaking of the common idea behind a god if this is alright with my opponent."

This is fine.

"Thus I begin my case. My opponent begins by pointing out that there is no proof that a god does not exist and asks why then, do I not believe in him. My response is simple and comes in three points.

a. A lack of proof against something is not evidence for its existence.
b. There is also not sound proof for a god's existence. I will touch on this point later.
c. With factors in mind, I find it highly highly unlikely that a god does exist. Keep in mind that this debate is about the likelihood of a god, I made this debate in full knowledge that there is little to no decisive evidence that either of us could present. "

I do not know why you do not believe in God. For, again I state that there is no evidence or proof against Him. A. The statement I provided is pure psychology. B. Sound proof? C. The likelihood of a God is very strong. I have stated that the complex design of the universe and everything in it is so complex and detailed, that how could it have just happened by chance?

Everything about the Earth is perfect for life. The atmosphere consisting of nitrogen and other gases extends 50 miles above the surface and the gravity is just right to support it. What if Earth were smaller? It would be just like Mercury the atmosphere would contain free hydrogen if it were larger. Earth's atmosphere is just right to support life including plants and animals. It is the only known planet to have such a perfect atmosphere. It is just the right distance form the Sun.

"Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.
And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents."

"Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
"The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing.
But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck."
Source: http://www.everystudent.com...

"How did a man responsible for such a wealth of miracles not show up in the historical records....?"

Oh, but he did. What do you call the Bible? It was written during his time. Our whole calendar/year system is based on him. Also, take a look at this site. http://www.newadvent.org...
From this website, you can see that many people from all religions witnessed Jesus and wrote about him. These are examples of historical documents.

It seems as though you spent a lot of time typing up the information about comparisons between people's ideas of Jesus. Was this really necessary? This is a debate on the likelihood of a God, not Jesus. (But I would love to debate anybody on it.)

Thank you and I await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Con

First off I would like to extend an invitation to debate this again to my opponent because I feel it is interesting and that such a debate could be more in depth than our current debate. With that said I will now proceed to counter each of my opponents points.

Her first one being that this universe could not be created so perfect without an outside source. Thus I present two points:

1. Who says the universe is perfect..... It seems rather random to me, lots of starts and stellar bodies.

2. Even if the universe was perfect why does it need to be created by a god. In my last round I demonstrated that there are millions of alternatives for how the universe was created all lacking just as much evidence as the god alternative. This means that if the Universe was indeed created by some outside force the chances of it being a god are figuratively speaking, 1 in a million.

Next my opponent goes on to argue that the odds of the earths creation, in the way it is, are extremely small. I agree the odds of the earth being created in order to sustain life are rather small. In fact lets take a look at a piece of evidence,

"The Hipparcos catalogue lists a little more than 118,000 stars with 1 to 3 milliarcsec level astrometry, while the Tycho catalogue lists a little more than 1,050,000 stars. It is complete to magnitude 7.3." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

So the Tycho catalogue has thus far documented about 1,050,000 different stars so far. This is of course not nearly as many as there are considering the fact that we can't see anywhere near the edge of the universe. But this is just stars we are talking about, this doesn't account for planets that orbit stars, small stellar bodies like pluto, astroids, and other space rocks. Literally there are billions of stellar bodies out there, and the earth is the only one that we know of that happens to have life on it. Repeat, the earth is 1 in billions of stellar bodies.

I agree that the likelihood of a stellar body being created with the perfect conditions to sustain life is small. But when there are billions of stellar bodies out there, chances are one of them will have managed to get those conditions.

Finally on this topic, within my opponents evidence is a quote stating, "life cannot arise from non-life." To some extent my opponent has a bit of a point here, though I wouldn't go as far to say impossible. I'm sure at some point we will be able to create artificial life. After all life is simply a combination of the right types of atoms bonded in a correct manner. Making a single celled organism by randomly combining multiple atoms will doubtlessly have a rather low probability of success. But once again I restate that our earth is 1 in billions. So while my opponent can state that, "life cannot arise from non-life" we should attempt to remember that my opponent is advocating, "An omnipotent being can arise from nothing".

Next my opponent argues that Jesus did show up in the historical records. She argues this under the premise that Jesus showed up in the bible. Thus I have my points...

1. The bible was created by Constantine around 300 B.C as a political agenda. The bible was a contributing factor to Constantine's rise to power. The bible was created by Constantine to be the founding document of the Christian church. This means that the books in the bible could have been edited in any way in order to fit the context for which the bible was intended. This also means that the entire bible could have been a work of complete and utter fiction. I challenge my opponent to cite a historian that lived at the time and wrote of any of the people in the bible.

2. To use the bible to prove god's existence is a fallacy commonly known as begging the question. The bible was created to be the official document of god. To prove that god exists using the bible one must first prove that the bible is correct and not a fabrication. Most Christians feel the bible was created on congruence with god's will. Thus the logic flows like this:

a. God exists because the bible says so.
b. The bible is a credible source because it was created by god.

Circular logic.

Next I would like to point out that my opponent blatantly dropped the Santa Clause analogy.
Then my opponent dropped my statement saying, "Whether Jesus Christ walked the earth or not does not prove a god, simply a man."

And finally we get to the end of my speech in round 2 which my opponent has completely dropped. She has said,

"It seems as though you spent a lot of time typing up the information about comparisons between people's ideas of Jesus. Was this really necessary? This is a debate on the likelihood of a God, not Jesus. (But I would love to debate anybody on it.)"

However this is not what I was doing at all. This was not a comparison between people's ideas of Jesus but rather a comparison between gods that existed before Jesus.

1. Horus was an Egyptian god dating back before 3000 B.C. Horus was born on Dec. 25th to star in the east. He was born to the virgin Isis Mary, after she was impregnated by the holy ghost. Horus was adorned by three kings who had followed the star to his birth place. When Horus reached the age of twelve he became a prodigal teacher, at the age of 30 he was baptized. Horus has 12 disciples and did miracles. He was eventually betrayed by Typhon at which point he was crucified, died, and was resurrected 3 days later.

Horus was created by the Egyptians before 3000 B.C. In other words, Horus, was created 3000 years before Jesus ever walked the earth. Yet if I substitute the words Horus out and put Jesus in their place no one would ever know I was talking about Horus.

2. Attis was a Greece god of about 1200 B.C. He was born of a virgin mother on Dec. 25th. He was later killed through crucification, he stayed dead for 3 days and then was resurrected.

3. Dionysus, Krishna, Mithra, and many other gods from before Jesus' birth all had similar characteristics.

My point is rather simple, Jesus is a plagerization of other religions god's. Though I suppose this is the least important of my points. Anyways, I now stand open for my opponents final rebuttal.
slammin

Pro

"First off I would like to extend an invitation to debate this again to my opponent because I feel it is interesting and that such a debate could be more in depth than our current debate. With that said I will now proceed to counter each of my opponents points. "

If you would like to challenge me to debate this issue again, you can challenge me. :)

"1. Who says the universe is perfect..... It seems rather random to me, lots of starts and stellar bodies."

I never stated that the universe is prefect. It just seems and is way too complex and intelligently designed to happen by chance. I did state though that the Earth was perfect for life. It is just the right distance from the Sun, contains the right weather and climate, has the right atmosphere containing all the right gases, and water. It seems way too extraordinary to have happened by chance as well.

" Even if the universe was perfect why does it need to be created by a god. In my last round I demonstrated that there are millions of alternatives for how the universe was created all lacking just as much evidence as the god alternative. This means that if the Universe was indeed created by some outside force the chances of it being a god are figuratively speaking, 1 in a million. "

Everything that is designed intelligently needs a designer. This designer would be God, whether the Abrahamic God, or another type of intelligent creator. I believe in the Abrahamic God. But, this is a debate on the likelihood of a god.

The definition of a god is: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Source: dictionary.com

Therefore, the chances of there being a divine creator is very likely.

"I'm sure at some point we will be able to create artificial life."

To disprove this, I will bring up the cell theory.

All living things are composed of cells.
Cells are the basic unit of structure and function in living things.
All cells are produced from other cells.

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

Where did the first cells come from?

"Next my opponent argues that Jesus did show up in the historical records. She argues this under the premise that Jesus showed up in the bible. Thus I have my points..."

I did use the Bible as an example of historical text. I also included many others. Did you just skip over this link?

http://www.newadvent.org...

"My point is rather simple, Jesus is a plagerization of other religions god's. Though I suppose this is the least important of my points. Anyways, I now stand open for my opponents final rebuttal."

This may be what you believe, but this debate was on the likelihood if a god.

I would like to close this debate by stating that if life did arise from nonliving things, why hasn't life evolved on the moon to fit the conditions on the moon? You could argue by stating the moon does not contain the things needed for life. I can argue this by saying, things supposedly evolve to fit the conditions of where they live. Therefore, life should be able to evolve in many places which it hasn't.

I found that my opponent could not prove the non-existence of a God. Not God, but any divine creator in general. He provided no facts to disprove a god.

Thank-you for this debate and I urge voters to vote on who made the better argument and provided more facts rather than on whose side you agree with.

:)
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
I just figured out the coolest way to disprove the bible! I'm excited to debate this again sometimes soon!
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
@Pro

I'm sure it's very frustrating to lose a debate and not have comments that explain why the votes were the way they were.

I'd like to explain to you why I am going to vote Con on this one.

Your initial conception was what nearly ruined you the whole debate, which was misjudging the burden of proof. Your statement that it is Con's job to prove that God exists is incorrect. In debate, it is the job of the one making the positive claim to prove the existence of a thing.

Yes, you provided a lot of data, but Con did comment on everything in totality. He also offered something that you did not counter, which are the different story elements from other cultures prior to the era of Christ.

In addition, you also did not respond to his Santa analogy, which is a very key concept in this debate. He also gave you another chance to review it by pointing it out to you, but you still refused to address it.

You also misinterpreted many of Con's arguments. His argument on the historical text was meant to compare objective sources with the Bible, which he was trying to show was a biased source. You redirect his argument by claiming the Bible as evidence of a historical text. This means you did not understand his argument.

***********

I must say that your posts are very well written, of superb quality, and show genuine understanding and passion. However, the process by which you are expressing that is lacking in order, consistency, and understanding of your opponent's argument.

I would like very much to debate you on this topic. Yraelz focused a lot on historical records and the validity of the Bible as a source. As a Biochemistry student, I will be focusing on answering many of the questions you brought up that Yraelz didn't go in depth on.

Please feel free to send me a debate invitation.
Posted by slammin 9 years ago
slammin
Uhm...I would just like to say that debating is about quality,not quantity. I provided much more facts and information than Yraelx did and although his arguments were really long, he brought up not one reasonable point or fact to disprove any type of god/divine creator. I am sure that many of you voted Con because you agree with Yraelz, but you ovote on who debated better...
Posted by massvideogamer 9 years ago
massvideogamer
Yraelz, this is quite random, but your picture rocks
Posted by Danielle 9 years ago
Danielle
Pwnage, I always get mistakn for a male too :P

Anyway, I voted Con -- he did the better debating in this debate. Even if he did get all of his unsourced information from Zeitgeist.com or the Zeitgeist movie :P
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
*switched the positions around

I meant

"Objectively, Pro's debating style will lose out to that of Yraelz. This is why I saw a clear victory for Con."
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
@polka

1. "Maybe you should keep those thoughts to yourself instead of going around ruining other people's moods because of your opinions"

I see no reason why I should do that. I haven't said anything particularly hurtful nor are there any restrictions on expression of opinion here.

2. "that truthfully, no one really cares about except for you, yraelz, and logicalmaster."

I honestly don't even care if they care. I'll express my opinion as much as I want without any regard for what other people think of it. All I have to do is back it up. Which I know I can.

3. "So you should build a bridge and get over it. Stop hunting down God debates just to ruin them."

First, God debates don't have to be hunted down. You should know, we debated in about 4 of them. They are a dime a dozen and this one happened to be on the front page.

Second, I don't ruin them. This accusation has no foundation. The debate seems to be going as it should go, I defy you to prove that I have ruined or am attempting to ruin this debate.

3. "Oh- and you get annoyed and accuse others of being "biased." Well, maybe you should listen and follow your own "words of wisdom.""

I take this as an accusation that I am making a biased comment. Perhaps you interpreted this from my statement that it was over before it began.

I direct you to Pro's first response:

"Why? There is no proof against God. It is your job to prove that God does not exist."

Not being able to recognize the burden of proof is akin to getting "1 + 1" wrong on a math test. Objectively, Con's debating style will lose out to that of Yraelz. This is why I saw a clear victory for Pro. Not because I side with any particular debater.

Polka, you have a habit of jumping on me without knowing the full story or trying to know the whole story. This is the second time this has happened. Do you think I can still believe that you aren't deliberately picking on me?
Posted by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
This was a good debate! :)
Posted by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
Kleptin:
Maybe you should keep those thoughts to yourself instead of going around ruining other people's moods because of your opinions, that truthfully, no one really cares about except for you, yraelz, and logicalmaster. So you should build a bridge and get over it. Stop hunting down God debates just to ruin them.

Oh- and you get annoyed and accuse others of being "biased." Well, maybe you should listen and follow your own "words of wisdom."
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
Overkill...overkill...overkill...

It was over before it started x.x
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
YraelzslamminTied
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 jacobgreene 9 years ago
jacobgreene
YraelzslamminTied
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 liberalconservative 9 years ago
liberalconservative
YraelzslamminTied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
YraelzslamminTied
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 Kmille11014 9 years ago
Kmille11014
YraelzslamminTied
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 sippinsizzurp 9 years ago
sippinsizzurp
YraelzslamminTied
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 skizzils 9 years ago
skizzils
YraelzslamminTied
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 Liplurodon 9 years ago
Liplurodon
YraelzslamminTied
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 Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
YraelzslamminTied
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 Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
YraelzslamminTied
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