The Instigator
Pitbull15
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

God most likely does not exist and is not necessary

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,772 times Debate No: 49116
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (3)

 

Pitbull15

Pro

In this debate, I will be defending the assertion that there is no God and we do not need Him in life or for the beginnings of the universe. I must stress that I am a Christian, but I would like to play devil's advocate here and take the other side. My opponent, being an atheist himself, will also play devil's advocate an argue that God's existence is valid and that He is necessary for the universe to have come into existence...

There is only one definition that needs to be clarified for this before starting, and that's the definition of God:

"1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

There is no particular debate structure and no acceptance round, Wylted may post his argument immediately in the first round. Good luck to Con in what should be an interesting debate if he accepts.
Wylted

Con

I don't want to have an extra round then my opponent to argue. I will give my opponent a very basic outline of what I'll be arguing, so that he has something to argue against.

I'm going to be borrowing heavily from what I call the simulated Earth Hypothesis, by Nick Bostrom.

http://www.simulation-argument.com...

I'm also going to be reading through a lot of the user known as Bornofgod's posts, and weaving his stuff in with the Simulated Earth Hypothesis.

http://www.debate.org...

To form the ultimate trifecta, I will also be borrowing from a lot of the theories presented in " Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman."

I now thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate, and wish him good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Pitbull15

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting. I will start.

Premise 1: God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe.

As Stephen Hawking said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." There is evidence directly contradicting all known religious accounts of creation, since we know there was a Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations are most likely the cause for the Big Bang, which would come from a quantum vacuum that's equivalent to nothing.

A classic argument against this, however, is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or the First Cause Argument. Which outlines that if the universe and time had beginnings, then they were caused by something. However, cause and effect could not apply before the existence of time, so the Kalam is made invalid here automatically.

Another made directly for God's existence would be the Ontological argument, which states that if you accept God as a possibility, then his existence would automatically follow. This, however, is even more broken than the Kalam as it clearly outlines that thinking about God will make him exist.

Another is the Argument from Morality and Logic, which says that morals are commands, so there must have been a commander. This functions much like the Kalam, and is just as invalid in this case. Morals and Logic are not "absolute" in the conventional sense; they are human concepts and did not need a god for their inception.

However, even if these arguments held any water, they are still broken and non-sequiturs for the beginning of the universe, and going from believing in a cause for the universe to a personal deity is a very large leap of faith, indeed.

So to sum up my argument here, God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe due to quantum fluctuations causing the Big Bang.

Premise 2: There is no real evidence for God.

To quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There is no known physical and empirical evidence of God, therefore making such a claim unsupported. But to cite metaphysics as proof is fallacious, because it is philosophy, not science, which deals with what is observable, testable, and repeatable. Many arguments for God's existence are God of the Gaps augments and arguments from ignorance. Just because we don't know everything does not mean we can place a god in the gaps of our ignorance. Many years ago God was thought to be the cause of rain, but we now know that it occurred naturally. God's role has diminished significantly as science has advanced; they thought God caused all sorts of naturally occurring things such as rain, wind, and of course the beginning of the universe. If we could find that these things occurred naturally, then surely we can keep looking and will most likely find a natural cause for the universe.

To sum up my argument here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is absent in this case; and that God can be placed in any gap in science, but that doesn't bring him any closer to being real.

I wasn't anticipating a structured debate, and I was thinking of a simple rhetorical exchange, so I apologize if my opening argument appears shabby, but I look forward to hearing Wylted's.
Wylted

Con

Introduction

God is necessary to explain the evidence we have. The universe literally had to be created it can't just be an accident. We are most likely a thought in the mind of God. There is only one thing an omniscient being wouldn't know. That thought is what would a world without him be like. God committed suicide, to get the answer to this question.

Necessary Creator

Any evidence for a simulated universe is evidence for a creator.

Premise 1- The universe is literally a hologram. It's a projection of information from a flat surface. Nothing you see around you is real. Everything is just a holographic image projected from a flat surface. Science is just now starting to understand this.

http://www.nature.com...

Premise 2- Observer bias, helps prove we are in a simulated universe as well. Matter acts different when we don't pay attention to it. When we look away from matter it acts like a wave of possibility. However, when we observe matter it acts solid. We see it what It does and how it behaves. This short video may explain it better.

http://m.youtube.com...

Premise 3- The universe is pixelated. Just like a video game our universe is pixelated. We are clearly living in a simulated universe.

http://www.naturalnews.com...

Premise 4- Human DNA is really just computer code. It's a way to store information. It's not a natural process, but unnatural and the obvious creation of a higher being.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Modal Ontological argument

Contrary to what my opponent thinks, I plan on using the Modal Ontological argument (here after referred to a MOA) to show that if a greatest possible being exists, that he is both omniscient and omnipotent and therefore perfect. In this case That MOA isn't derived from a definition but rests on the premise that a greatest possible being exists. So to restate

Original MOA- First premises rests on A greatest possible being is possible.

New MOA- First premise states that a greatest possible being definitely exists.

As you can see the new MOA is valid and hard evidence that the creator is omnipotent and omniscient.

Crash Course in Modal Logic

Since my argument relies on modal logic, it is important that voters have at the least a very basic understanding of what modal logic is.

Modal logic consists of 4 propositions.

Possible


Possibility deals with what is logically possible, not physically possible.

If something isn't logically impossible, than it is logically possible.

For example the Flying Spaghetti Monster is logically possible (as far as I can tell). So, it is possibly true.

Impossible

Something is impossible, if it can't logically exist. A triangle with 4 sides would be logically impossible and therefore couldn't exist.

Necessary

Necessary propositions are ones that must be true and can't be false. For example 2 2=4 and can't be false.

Contingent

Contingent possibilities are ones that could be true but could also be false. For example Obama is president of the United State is true, but it could have been false. So it is contingently true. Al Gore was not president of the United States is false, but it could have been true so it is contingently false.

Possible Worlds

Possible worlds is just another way of representing what is possible. If I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in some possible worlds and not in others, than all I'm saying is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is possible.

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God. (Borrowed from Alvin Plantiga and various other people)

Premise 1

It is possible a greatest possible being exists. There are no logical absurdities here or contradictions. If my opponent can prove this premise wrong then the whole argument falls apart. So far in the history of mankind this has yet to be done so good luck.

Premise 2

Necessarily, if a greatest possible being exists he must be omnipotent and omniscient. If it wasn't omnipotent and omniscient then a greater possible being could exist in some possible worlds.

Premise 3

If the concept of the greatest possible being is coherent it exists in some possible worlds.

Premise 4

If a greatest possible being exists in some possible worlds it exists in all possible worlds. It exists in all possible worlds because it is a necessary truth and not a contingent truth.

Premise 5

If the greatest possible being exists in all possible worlds, he exists in the actual world.

Premise 6

The greatest possible being exists and by definition is God. It is omniscient and omnipotent.

Logically Valid and Sound

The argument is logically valid and has never been proven unsound. Here is the mathematical proof here: http://jwwartick.com...

"Ax=df x is maximally great
Bx=df x is maximally excellent
W (Y) =df Y is a universal property
Ox = df x is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect

1) `74; (W07;x)Ax pr
2) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) pr
3) `33;(x)(BxX35;Ox) pr
4) (Y)[W(Y) iff (`33;(W07;x)Yx W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Yx)] pr
5) (Y)[(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Yx iff `33;Zx)X35; W(Y)] pr
6) (W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx) 2, Existential Generalization
7) [(W07;Z)`33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Zx)X35;W(A)] 5, Universal Instantiation
8 ) W(A) iff (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 4, Universal Instantiation
9) W (A) 6, 7 Modus Ponens
10) W(A)X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 8, Equivalence, Simplification
11) `33;(W07;x)Ax (`33;~(W07;x)Ax) 9, 10 Modus Ponens
12) ~`74;~~(W07;x)Ax W44; (`33;(W07;x)Ax) 11, Communication, Modal Equivalence
13) `74;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)Ax Double Negation, Impl
14) `33;(W07;x)Ax 1, 13 Modus Ponens
15) `33;(x)(Ax iff `33;Bx) X35; (`33;(W07;x)Ax X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx) theorem
16) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 14, 15 Modus Ponens (twice)
17) `33;(x)(Bx X35; Ox) X35; (`33;(W07;x)`33;Bx X35; `33;(W07;x)`33;Ox theorem
18) `33;(W07;x)`33;Bx 16, 17 Modus Ponens (twice)
19) (W07;x)`33;Bx 18, Necessity Elimination"

Conclusion

God exists and that provides the strongest premise for the MOA ever. I turn the floor over to my opponent and wish him good luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Pitbull15

Pro

I thanks my opponent for his interesting argument.

My opponent appears to argue that since the universe appears "simulated" by our human understanding, that would be evidence for a creator; but is it? It's up to me to argue that it is not.

"Premise 1- The universe is literally a hologram. It's a projection of information from a flat surface. Nothing you see around you is real. Everything is just a holographic image projected from a flat surface. Science is just now starting to understand this.

http://www.nature.com......

Premise 2- Observer bias, helps prove we are in a simulated universe as well. Matter acts different when we don't pay attention to it. When we look away from matter it acts like a wave of possibility. However, when we observe matter it acts solid. We see it what It does and how it behaves. This short video may explain it better.

http://m.youtube.com......

Premise 3- The universe is pixelated. Just like a video game our universe is pixelated. We are clearly living in a simulated universe.

http://www.naturalnews.com......

Premise 4- Human DNA is really just computer code. It's a way to store information. It's not a natural process, but unnatural and the obvious creation of a higher being.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...;

It appears my opponent has decided to argue from the assumption that DNA and anything else is, in reality, code. However, I see a problem with such an assertion. This argument is derived from the assertion that since DNA is supposedly a language, a language can only come from a mind. It is a sensible argument, but the problem is that DNA is classified as language only by human understanding and logic. DNA and information, at the universe's beginnings, cannot be codes as we define them, because there was no intelligent mind to classify them as such, and language as we know it had not existed back then, so I don't believe it is logical to assume that DNA and information is a language and then assert an intelligence was responsible for it without knowing what "language" would've been like back then before humans. It simply does not follow. The same premise and logic would also apply to the argument of a pixelated and supposedly simulated universe.

Conclusion: DNA and information cannot be codes or a language as they are only classified as such by our human knowledge and understanding, and language as we know it had not existed at the time of the inception of information as there was no intelligence to classify it as such. So this would not show evidence of a creator.
A pixelated universe in no way serves as evidence for a creator using that same premise and logic. Even so, these appear to be non-sequiturs for evidence of a creator

My opponent has used here a more logical and valid version of an ontological argument. He states that if I can disprove his first premise of the MOA, it would fall apart. So I shall focus on that.

My rebuttal to the first premise is that the possibility that a greatest possible being would exist would immediately and only follow evidence shown directly for a being such as this, or evidence that it would be needed for any process relating to the origins of the universe. So taking this logic into consideration, the first premise appears to have been weakened or destroyed. I gave it my best, now we will see what my opponent has to say to my rebuttal.

Summing up my rebuttals here: If there is no real evidence for a creator and there is evidence that a creator would not be needed for the universe, (Which would count as evidence against God.) then the only logical conclusion one can come to is that a creator does not exist; and even if one does, there would be no need to worship such a being if scriptural accounts of creation have been unequivocally disproven. Skepticism of anything else in the texts would soon follow.

I now give the floor to Wylted and wish him good luck as I see if my rebuttals hold up.
Wylted

Con

Rebuttals

Premise 1: God was not necessary for the beginning of the universe.

"As Stephen Hawking said, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." There is evidence directly contradicting all known religious accounts of creation, since we know there was a Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations are most likely the cause for the Big Bang, which would come from a quantum vacuum that's equivalent to nothing."


This theory of Stephen Hawking wasn't well explained by my opponent. The whole theory, rests on a few assumptions. The first is that the universe has a zero total energy. That claim was in part derived from the Big Bang Theory. Thus, creating a a positive feed back loop each part confirming tho other. AKA, circular logic. There is no way to know the total energy level of the universe and with the lack of data it is irresponsible for scientists to speculate on it.

Another theory that is depended on for this is quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is in it's baby stages and scientists really don't even have a working model for it.

What it mostly boils down to is what scientist call HUP(Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). In the quantum world you have things on the quantum level seemingly popping into and out if existence for a really short period of time. What some misguided people have done is apply this to how the universe may have popped into existence. Things happen different on the quantum level then they do above it. You don't just randomly seeing cats pop into and out of existence.

It's the same with universes. Universes are above the quantum level, just like cats. Universes don't just randomly pop into and out of existence. If you want an explanation for how the universe came to be, than you'll have to look at something different than quantum mechanics.

Premise 2: There is no real evidence for God.

This is not a good argument against God being necessary for the universe to exist. It's fallacious and can be considered an argument from ignorance.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

Conclusion

My opponents arguments hold no water. One argument is a complete logical fallacy argument from ignorance. The other argument doesn't really give much information and is easily refuted.
Debate Round No. 3
Pitbull15

Pro

My opponent asserts that since my argument rests on a few assumptions, it is somehow more invalid than committing a "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

My opponent, sharing the lack of knowledge of the universe that all of humanity has, places a god or a deity in what's left of our ignorance in science. There is simply no reason to believe in a creator, and even if his arguments an/or rebuttals held water, they would be largely non-sequiturs for a deity or an intelligent supernatural force of any sort. If we were to know there is a deity, we would need to know much more about the universe than we do now. Science will readily admit its ignorance on this subject. However, it will not place a deity in the universe without at the very least evidence one would be needed. A god can be placed in any gap in science and has. The beginning of the universe and the universe itself should be no exception to this fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

He also asserts that I argue from ignorance. Here is a quote taken from that same website he provided a link to.

"There are a few types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it:
1.Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is not guilty.
Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that someone claims that the president was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that the president visited another planet, therefore he probably didn't do so.

2.We sometimes have meta-knowledge""that is, knowledge about knowledge""which can justify inferring a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. For instance, schedules""such as those for buses, trains, and airplanes""list times and locations of arrivals and departures. Such schedules usually do not attempt to list the times and locations when vehicles do not arrive or depart, since this would be highly inefficient. Instead, there is an implicit, understood assumption that such a schedule is complete, that all available vehicle departures and arrivals have been listed. Thus, we can reason using the following sort of enthymeme:
There is no departure/arrival listed in the schedule for location L at time T.
Suppressed Premiss: All departures and arrivals are listed in the schedule.
Therefore, there is no departure/arrival for location L at time T.

This kind of completeness of information assumption is often called the "closed world assumption". When it is reasonable to accept this assumption""as with plane or bus schedules""it is not a fallacy of appeal to ignorance to reason this way.

3.Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premisses about what one actually knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is:
If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.

For instance, one might reason:

If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now.
I don't know that I'm adopted.
Therefore, I wasn't adopted.

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance."

My "argument from ignorance" rests heavily on the first premise mentioned in that quote. To follow up, the "Carl Sagan Standard" states that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So unless my opponent produces evidence of deity or indirect evidence one would be needed, and they held water, my arguments stand.

I give the floor to Wylted and wish him good luck.
Wylted

Con

"It appears my opponent has decided to argue from the assumption that DNA and anything else is, in reality, code."

I'm not assuming anything. I explained that DNA is actually computer code. It's a little bit more advanced the the 0s and 1s you see now. It's four symbols instead of just 2, but any computer programmer who takes a look into DNA is in awe over the similarities.

http://ds9a.nl...

http://x-evolutionist.com...

Seriously click on those sources. When I say it resembles computer code, I'm putting it mildly. DNA is computer code. My opponent literally does nothing to counter my argument.

"However, I see a problem with such an assertion. This argument is derived from the assertion that since DNA is supposedly a language, a language can only come from a mind. It is a sensible argument, but the problem is that DNA is classified as language only by human understanding and logic."

The only tools we have to gain knowledge is human understanding and logic. How would pro suggest we come to knowledge if not for logic and human understanding? My opponent with this statement is atleast conceding that my argument that DNA is a computer language is logical.

"DNA and information, at the universe's beginnings, cannot be codes as we define them, because there was no intelligent mind to classify them as such, and language as we know it had not existed back then, so I don't believe it is logical to assume that DNA and information is a language and then assert an intelligence was responsible for it without knowing what "language" would've been like back then before humans."

Computer code is a recognizable language. We don't have to be around when the language was created to recognize it as one. We understand that Dolphins have their own language. We certainly weren't around to see how that naturally evolved.

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

"It simply does not follow. The same premise and logic would also apply to the argument of a pixelated and supposedly simulated universe."

My opponent is refusing to attack my other arguments, and they therefore stand.

"Even so, these appear to be non-sequiturs for evidence of a creator"

This is extremely rude. My opponent is refusing to attack my arguments. If showing that the universe is exactly as one would expect if it were a creation isn't evidence for it being a creation, than nothing would satisfy my opponent, as proof.

I have proven that this universe behaves exactly as one would expect from a computer simulation (aka intelligent design). If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck, well then by golly it's a duck.

"My opponent has used here a more logical and valid version of an ontological argument. He states that if I can disprove his first premise of the MOA, it would fall apart. So I shall focus on that.

My rebuttal to the first premise is that the possibility that a greatest possible being would exist would immediately and only follow evidence shown directly for a being such as this, or evidence that it would be needed for any process relating to the origins of the universe. So taking this logic into consideration, the first premise appears to have been weakened or destroyed. I gave it my best, now we will see what my opponent has to say to my rebuttal.


My simulation argument, proves a grand architect (aka computer programmer). You have failed to defeat premise number 1 or number 2.

" a creator does not exist; and even if one does, there would be no need to worship such a being if scriptural accounts of creation have been unequivocally disproven. Skepticism of anything else in the texts would soon follow."

My opponent is attempting to move the goal posts here. If my opponent wanted me to argue for the biblical God he should have been more clear from the outset.
Debate Round No. 4
Pitbull15

Pro

Pitbull15 forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

I'll keep this short to spare voters too much unnecessary reading. My opponent's arguments in the previous round are baffling. I never engaged in a god of the gaps type argument. My arguments have been backed by evidence not by lack of evidence.

I point out that my opponent is making some arguments from ignorance and he does nothing to provide a rebuttal for that. He states that sometimes a lack of evidence is evidence. However I never said it wasn't. I merely showed he was arguing from ignorance. My opponent actually sent me a pm conceding this debate. I'm not exactly sure why he let the round expire instead of just typing that in.

I hope to be able to engage in this debate again sometime in the future, and thank my opponent for originally challenging me to it.
Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
I think if it wasn't for the forfeit, this would have been a much closer call.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I'm sure it would be fun.
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
Sorry for FF. This is only my first time playing devil's advocate. If we're going to debate again in the future, maybe we could take our true positions.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Go ahead and post your opening argument. I just put that stuff down to help you preempt anything I might say.
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
@Wylted: So I post my opening argument, or do I respond to what you just posted?
Posted by Pitbull15 3 years ago
Pitbull15
@Genesis: What kind of society the writers of the Bible lived in is irrelevant from a literary and historical point of view. Asking to prove who wrote the Bible doesn't make any sense at all, either; you might as well be asking to prove that Abraham Lincoln or some other famous person existed. You ever wonder why the Bible always ends up at the top on lists of the most influential books in history? Studying a book that has had so much influence on our world is beneficial no matter what your beliefs (or lack thereof) are.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
I'm discussing the religious people in out time period. The bible influences our culture. It is an important piece of literature, like Homer's Iliad or Mein Kampf.
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
You can't even prove who wrote the Bible so why would you care about getting into their heads?
The society the writers of the Bible lived in is not the same society we live in now.
Unless you plan on dealing with Bronze-Ages goat herders, I see no value in it at all!
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Religion yes, reading the bible no.

The reason reading the Bible isn't pointless, is because it helps you get inside of the head of others.

Since we live in a society where we deal with "others", than knowledge of the bible will likely come in handy.
Posted by GenesisProject 3 years ago
GenesisProject
"It's actually pointless to try to fully understand the motives of an omniscient being."
So, by that definition, religion is pointless...and so is reading the Bible.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Haroush 3 years ago
Haroush
Pitbull15WyltedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession (Good call Romanii)
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Pitbull15WyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
Pitbull15WyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Will Vote on this later, this is just a placeholder