The Instigator
RedEye
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

God's existence can be proven through indirect means.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 6/11/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,854 times Debate No: 4391
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (17)

 

RedEye

Pro

God's existence can be proven through indirect means.

I stand in firm affirmation.

Contentions:

I. Argument of Causation. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause.

Supporting syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

1. What we observe in this universe is contingent
2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
3. The sequence of causally dependent contingent things must be finite

II. Argument of Cosmology. Since we have settled on causation,let's move to cosmology. I have already proved that there needs to be a first cause. Now the universe; it needed a cause as well. This cause is the Big-Bang. But this needs a cause, something non-contingent, i.e. non-dependent, or conditional. When the Big-Bang occurred all the natural elements possible for its surivial where created. So, now you can infer that it can't spontaneously create itself, on the fact all that's necessary for its creation and survival were created in that instant. Therefore, something metaphysical is necessary for that one moment of creation.

Supporting Syllogism:

1. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe is an existing thing.
4. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God.

III. Argument of Motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

IV. Argument of necessity. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

V. Argument of design. he teleological argument is also known as the "argument from design." Quite simply, it states that a designer must exist since the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their order, consistency, unity, and pattern. A typical analogy of this is the Watchmaker Argument, which was given by William Paley (1743-1805). The argument goes as follows. If you found a watch in an empty field, you would logically conclude that it was designed and not the product of random formation. Likewise, when we look at life and the universe, it is natural to conclude there is a designer see we see how perfectly the universe and life forms operate. The eye is typically used as an example of design. It is a marvelous development. In order for it to work, there must be many different convergent parts that individually have no function but have value only in a designed whole. It is only in the combined total that they exhibit their total function. This function is by design.

Paley's argument is as follows:

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design.
4. But the universe is complex and gigantic, in comparison to human artifacts.
5. Therefore, there probably is a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.
beem0r

Con

Let us first examine the wording of the resolution: "God's existence can be proven through indirect means."

I would point out that this is very distinct from the statement "_A_ god's existence can be proven through indirect means."

"God" can either be a name or a title. A name would be like "Bryan," my own name. A title would be like "student." Now let us determine which meaning of "God" is implied in the resolution.

"Bryan's existence can be proven through indirect means." - This makes sense.
"Student's existence can be proven through indirect means." - This does not.

Thus, we can assume that God here refers to the supposed being who is called by the name "God," which is either the Christian god or some other specific god.

To stress the point, consider an agnostic Deist, one who believes that a god exists, but does not claim to know anything about him. This person could accurately state that he believes in the existence of a god, but he would be lying to say he believes in the existence of God.

My opponent has not offered any arguments to indirectly prove the existence of God. He has merely provided arguments that attempt to indirectly prove the existence of _A_ god.

And I therefore negate on the basis that we have no evidence, indirect or direct, to suggest the nature of anything supernatural, including a god, so we cannot say a specific god, such as 'God,' can be indirectly proven to exist.

In any event, I will now point out the flaws in my opponents arguments, even though it be unnecessary.

1st Syllogism:
"The universe began to exist" may not be true. It could have always existed in one form or another.
Even if "the universe has a cause," this cause can stil be something natural, such as a black hole from a parent universe.

2nd Syllogism:
Perhaps the beginning of the universe was not contingent. Keep in mind that time only began with the beginning of the universe, as time is but a dimension thereof. And without time, contingency and causation are meaningless.

Argument from Cosmology:
My opponent is wildly inferring unknown details. "When the Big-Bang occurred all the natural elements possible for its surivial where created." What? Since when do we know anything like that?

3rd syllogism:
"If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God."
That's an unbased assumption. Our universe could have come from a black hole in another universe. That universe, or some other universe down the chain, may not require a cause, as each universe might have different laws. I have given an explanation that isn't God AND assumes that our universe requires a cause, so the above statement is false. Even so, I already showed that the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause.

Argument of motion:
The same argument, different wording. All this argues is that there has to be some actuality that never was just a potentiality. This could very well be our own universe, or some universe from which ours was spawned.

Argument from necessity:
Once again, this is the same argument reworded. It basically states that everything we see at one time didn't exist. However, it does not eliminate the possiblity of something natural always having existed, whether it be the fabric of our own universe or another that spawned it.

Argument from design:
This argument is very lame, and has been addressed >9000 times. Things like the eye have been shown to evolve naturally from something more simple. This chain continues, all things complex usually tracing their roots to something less complex. This could also be true of the universe, which oddly enough, started out as the least complex thing possible - a singularity.
My opponent assumes that our universe needs a creator, even though it started out as the most simple thing imaginable. And yet he insists that this "God" does not require to be created, even though he would show signs of boundless complexity.

Last Syllogism:
"1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles human artifacts.
3. Therefore the universe is a product of intelligent design."

Alright, here we go.

1. Light bulbs are a product of intelligent design.
2. Pears resemble light bulbs.
3. Therefore pears are a product of intelligent design.

... Or, it's just a coincidence that there is resemblance between them. Things are not always what they seem, we cannot assume that since "The universe resembles human artifacts" it is therefore caused by some intelligence.

Also, what's the basis of saying that "The universe resembles human artifacts?" That's an unsupported premise, and it's not something universally agreed upon.

Alright, so I've shown at least one problem with each of the arguments my opponent brings to the table. His arguments are proof of nothing, since his premises are not themselves proven.

Also, consider my opening argument: None of my opponent's arguments show that "God" exists, and I've even shown now that they don't prove that "a god" exists.
Debate Round No. 1
RedEye

Pro

Ah, since I joined I wanted to debate you beem0r, so thx for accepting.

So, let's begin.

He begins his first negation speech by attacking the premise of the resolution.

"~ Let us first examine the wording of the resolution: "God's existence can be proven through indirect means."

I would point out that this is very distinct from the statement "_A_ god's existence can be proven through indirect means."

"God" can either be a name or a title. A name would be like "Bryan," my own name. A title would be like "student." Now let us determine which meaning of "God" is implied in the resolution.

Response: God is a name, title and being. God, as everyone knows is the name Christians give their deity. Jews refer to their god as Yahweh, but they refer to him as God also in the old testament. Islam refers to their god as Allah, but in the Koran they use the word God and Allah interchangeably. As you can see God is the broad title for the creator of the universe. And as you have said I give evidence for "a" God, which still means God, since God can be used in many situations.

His attacks:

"The universe began to exist" may not be true. It could have always existed in one form or another.
Even if "the universe has a cause," this cause can still be something natural, such as a black hole from a parent universe.

My Response: My opponent fails to see the point if this is his attack. The universe cannot come form the universe because then you are saying that the universe existed for an infinite amount of time. This is scientifically impossible for two reasons 1) Even in conceptual math, infinity leads to mathematically problems, and what is the universe dictated on: math and laws. 2) By saying it has been an infinity means temporal events cannot exist on the fact that for an event to have occurred then there needed to be a before effect, therefore never leading o the ultimate effect, which is after the present effect, which is now, me writing. My opponent then says the cause could have been natural. But something cannot come from nothing, meaning that natural cause had a cause, i.e.e leading back to my premise.

"Perhaps the beginning of the universe was not contingent. Keep in mind that time only began with the beginning of the universe, as time is but a dimension thereof. And without time, contingency and causation are meaningless."

My Response: He is finally getting it, the universe needed a non-contingent cause, i.e. a metaphysical beginning. This statement is only affirming my position because as he puts it himself: "keep in mind that time only began with the beginning of the universe, as time is but a dimension thereof. And without time, contingency and causation are meaningless." He is contradicting his first attack that the universe could have come from a preexisting universe. So now he says that without time, contingency and causation are meaningless. Good, then he is affirming the resolution that (a) God created the universe.

Argument from Cosmology:
My opponent is wildly inferring unknown details. "When the Big-Bang occurred all the natural elements possible for its surivial where created." What? Since when do we know anything like that?

My Response: It's proven scientific fact, when the big-bang occurred all the elements were created in that moment. I think my opponent needs a science lesson. (Don't take offense, u seem like a nice guy)

Big Bang: Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang.

Quantum theory suggests that moments after the explosion at 10 -43 second, the four forces of nature; strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravity were combined as a single "super force"(Wald). Elementary particles known as quarks begin to bond in trios, forming photons, positrons and neutrinos and were created along with their antiparticles. There are minuscule amounts of protons and neutrons at this stage; approximately 1 for every one billion photons, neutrinos or electrons. The density of the Universe in its first moment of life is thought to have been 1094g/cm3 with the majority of this being radiation. For each billion pairs of these heavy particles (hadrons) that were created, one was spared annihilation due to particle-antiparticle collisions. The remaining particles constitute the majority of our universe today .

The universe at this point was an ionized plasma where matter and radiation were inseparable. Additionally there were equal amounts of particles and antiparticles. The ratio of neutrons and protons albeit small is equal. When the universe aged to one hundredth of a second old neutrons begin to decay on a massive scale. This allows for free electrons and protons to combine with other particles. Eventually the remaining neutrons combine with protons to form heavy hydrogen (deuterium). These deuterium nuclei combine in pairs and form helium nuclei. The formation of matter from energy is made possible by photons materializing into baryons and antibaryons with their subsequent annihilations transforming them into pure energy (Maffei). Because of these collisions and annihilations matter was unable to remain viable for more than a few nanoseconds before a bombardment of electrons would scatter these photons. Like water trapped inside a sponge, radiation is so dense (1014g/cm3) that no light is visible. Known as the "Epoch of Last Scattering" the temperature has now dropped to a mere 1013K with the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear and Electromagnetic interactions now able to exert their force. (Chown)

As the gas cloud expands one full second after the initial explosion and the temperature of our Universe has dropped to ten billion degrees, photons no longer have the energy to disrupt the creation of matter as well as transform energy into matter. After three minutes and a temperature of one billion degrees, protons and neutrons were slowing down enough in order to allow nucleosynthesis to take place. Atomic nuclei of helium was produced as two protons and neutrons each bonded. For every helium nuclei formed there were about ten protons left over allowing for twenty-five percent of the Universe to be comprised of helium. The next important phase of the expansion occurred around thirty minutes later when the creation of photons increased through the annihilation of electron-positron pairs. The fact that the universe began with slightly more electrons than positrons has insured that our Universe was able to form the way it has.

3rd syllogism:
"If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God."
That's an unbased assumption. Our universe could have come from a black hole in another universe. That universe, or some other universe down the chain, may not require a cause, as each universe might have different laws. I have given an explanation that isn't God AND assumes that our universe requires a cause, so the above statement is false. Even so, I already showed that the universe doesn't necessarily require a cause.

My Response: He contradicted himself again. Th universe had a beginning, the big-bang. Its proven that preexistence is mathematically and scientifically impossible.

Link back to resolve: Ladies and Gentleman, you can now affirm the resolution that God's (or if u want to be like my oppoent) 'a' God's exsistence can be proven indirectly.
beem0r

Con

First, let us address the issue of "God" vs. "A God".

I realize that "God" can indeed refer to different gods, but it cannot refer to them all. Take, for instance, Zeus.

If Zeus existed, it would be foolishness to say "God exists", because Zeus is not called "God". He is indeed _A_ god, but he is not called God, nor are any Gods except those of a few religions. And in any case but these, it would be incorrect to say that "God exists."

Let's look at some sentences, you tell me which one is wrong.

A gardener exists.
The gardener exists.
My gardener exists.
Gardener exists.
Some gardener exists.

Hopefully it was very simple to see which of those was incorrect, and exactly how it translates to this debate.

[Hint: "Gardener exists" is wrong, because "Gardener" as simply a title requires a modifier attached to it in that sentence. The same is true of "God", unless we acknowledge that it is more than a title in this case, which means my opponent has to prove a SPECIFIC god, something he has failed to do.]

Now, let's talk about an argument my opponent COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD.

My opponent claims that the Big Bang was the definitive beginning of time. I must ask, how are we supposed to have causation if we don't have time? Causation ONLY exists within time [the dimension of our universe], and we've decided that time did not exist before the Big Bang. Thus, why should we expect it to have a 'cause'? It lies outside time, therefore it lies outside causation.

Therefore, it is fully possible that the universe did not require any outside intervention, since the Big Bang, which needed no cause, caused a chain of events that led to the present day. Just to make sure you're with me, the Big Bang didn't need a cause because time wasn't around to make it need one.

Thus, no god is required here, especially one who goes by the "God" as a name.

I concede to my opponent the point that the universe did not exist forever before the Big Bang.

That was, literally, responding to my opponent's entire case.

Here is my argument, put plain and simple:

The universe may not have required a cause. [see above for argument]
The universe may have come from another universe which did not itself require a cause. [See my R1, this point was not rebutted]

Since either of these leaves plenty of possibility for a god to not exist through the indirect means my opponent shows, we must negate "God's existence can be proven through indirect means."

"Proven" means there should be almost no doubt as to the truth of the matter, yet I have provided substantial doubt.

Not to mention, my opponent is supposed to be arguing for only those gods who can be called "God" as a name, since any other gods make "God exists" a syntax error. And my opponent has certainly not proven that if there is a god, he is called "God" as a name, rather than just as a title.
Debate Round No. 2
RedEye

Pro

"The universe may not have required a cause. [see above for argument]
The universe may have come from another universe which did not itself require a cause. [See my R1, this point was not rebutted]"

My opponents case in a nutshell.

First, he contradicts himself in 2 premises.

He says the universe may not have required a cause, yet his 2nd premise is that it came from another universe. The other universe is a cause. He says it didn't require a cause. But he contradicts himself again, he has already agreed if there wasn't a cause then there is infinite. He says an infinite amount of universes are here. Thats impossible. All mathematicians know its impossible to have an actual infinite. Keep that in mind.

Ok, I'll attack each premise.

1)The universe may not have required a cause.

My Response: My opponent has gone out of the realm of science, he would say the same for me but i'll explain. The universe needed a cause on the fact it could not start without one. He says in his above argument that causation only exists within time, therefore something outside of time started it. Exactly, the only force outside that of the natural, is the atemporal/metaphysical. W.\/e name you give it, its "God". He affirms right there. Extend my causation, potentiality vs. actuality and my motion argument.

2) The universe may have come from another universe which did not itself require a cause.

My Response: Impossible, leads to infinity. My opponent is using circular argumentation, which in this case is totally flawed. I ask, how was that universe created, he would say another universe, leading to infinite amount of universes. Link this to my point of causation, top round.

My opponent has failed to prove the resolution false. He never claimed an affirmative burden, therefore we both have equal weight. His logic is flawed, and circular. I have given enough evidence, scientific and mathematic to prove a God's existence.

He will now try to prove a resolution/topical tactic, saying the whole God vs A God. Don't look to this argument; it doesn't attack the real meaning of our debate. lo, I've seen lots of your debates beemore, and they all start of with a resolutional defect.

Its up to you, ladies and gentleman.

Thank You
beem0r

Con

Alright folks.

First my opponent claims I have contradicted myself with my 2 premises, but this is nonsense, and I will show you why.

My opponent is claiming that it can be proven that god exists. For this to be true, no other possibilities could exist.

My opponent's sole point he has held on to for why there must be a god is that one must have caused a universe. However, I have provided 2 other possibilities that could potentially explain the existence of a universe without invoking a god. Thus, if these points are valid, I have shown that a god cannot be proven, since other possibilities exist.

Now, to respond to the claim that my premises "contradict". This is true insofar as they say different things and they cannot both be true. However, I am simply saying that they are both POSSIBILITIES.

Consider:

Person 1: I can prove that it's Tuesday.
Person 2: No you can't, since it could be Monday or Wednesday.

Yes, Monday and Wednesday are both different cases altogether. However, person 2 has not contradicted himself, since he never claimed that both were true, only that one or the other MIGHT be true.

Now, on to defending my 2 possible explanations for the 'cause' of the universe that do not require a god.

1. The universe might not require a cause.

Consider when the universe began. At this point, time did not exist. Time, as the other dimensions, was created at this moment. Until this point, time did not exist, and so causation may not have existed, either. Since the big bang happened before time existed [since it created time], it therefore might not require a cause.

2. The universe may have been the by-product of a universe that did not require a cause.

It is possible, and perhaps probable, that if there are multiple universes, they do not necessarily have the same rules [fundamental forces and other fundamental properties included]. Thus, even if our universe did have a cause, there may be a universe somewhere down the chain that did not have a cause, due to not having that fundamental property. Our universe in this case would have come from a black hole in another universe. This universe would either have come from another black hole, or would be the one to not require a cause. Thus, the chain ends somewhere.

And now, just because I can, I will bring forth another possibility.
3. There has been an infinite chain of causes. [this could be an infinite number of universes coming from black holes in other universes, etc.]

In this case, there is no 'first' cause.
My opponent says that "He says an infinite amount of universes are here. Thats impossible. All mathematicians know its impossible to have an actual infinite. Keep that in mind."

Now keep in mind that I never before now claimed there was an infinite chain of universes, as I cleared up for you in possibility #2. However, just because I can, I will tell you why my opponewnt is wrong here. "Actual" infinities can indeed exist. How many different numbers are there between 0 and 1? Infinite. How many moments were there between yesterday and right now? Infinite [this is arguable].

Infinite cannot be discounted as impossible. The only grounds for saying an actual physical thing [like number of universes] can't be infinite is that 'we've never seen that many.' That would be because A> we've never seen other universes, and B> we cannot perceive an infinite number of things. You can't say infinite amounts of things is impossible just because we've never seen it. We've never seen supernatural beings either, yet those are still possible. Isn't god, by most definitions, infinite? Kind of hurts my opponent's case to say infinites are definitively impossible.

So let us recap.

There are 4 possibilities for the cause of the universe.

1. It is a god.
2. It is nothing [no cause].
3. It is another universe that did not require a cause due to different fundamental properties.
4. It is an infinite chain of universes.

Now you might not accept some of these as possibilities [probably #4, if any]. That's OK. As long #1 is not the only possibility, my opponent has failed to show how it can be PROVEN that a god exists. In me giving other possibilities, I have directly negated the resolution, since one cannot prove a thing unless there are no other possibilities.

I have shown that the existence of god cannot be proven. I am not saying it's not true, and I'm not saying it can be disproven, but it cannot be proven, since there are other possibilities that cannot be discounted.

Also, keep in mind that my opponent is arguing that he can prove the existence of something infinite [god] yet he has claimed that infinite is impossible.

And keep in mind that I could have pursued the God vs. A god argument [which is not invalid], but I decided not to.

The fate of this debate now rests in your sometimes-capable hands.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Or arguably, by miracles. Too bad we don't have any documented ones. Guess God doesn't want us to know he exists.
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
Direct, would be like. God talks to us directly. Thats the mistake a lot of people that debate this topic make. They try through direct means not indirect.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
Flying spaghetti monster? I heard that it was blue space penguins...

Seriously though, the "proof" of God you seek RedEye, can't it be found through DIRECT means?
Posted by vibrodigits 8 years ago
vibrodigits
Bizarre.

Doesn't everyone know the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists?
Posted by tholos 8 years ago
tholos
Although the Big Bang is just a theory. M-theory and Antimatter are being used to prove that the Big Bang really happened.
Beemor has it, M-theory is beginning to explain how our universe started, from a parent universe / black hole.
Consider that point debunked.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
It's 4AM, and I'm tried as a mo. Therefore, I'm going to sleep, even though I have less than 10 hours left. Sorry if this causes me to forfeit, but I probably can't write a response in my current state.
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
Nope, it was kcirrone, forget my last post =)
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
!!!!!!!!uhh...*breaths*, was their a reason you called me Red?
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
What was your old one, Red?
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
Lol, it was a mistake =) O well, I like my new account better anyway.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 Monster 8 years ago
Monster
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 Eloise 8 years ago
Eloise
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 Georgia 8 years ago
Georgia
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 Battlecry 8 years ago
Battlecry
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 Kitty 8 years ago
Kitty
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 lightgate 8 years ago
lightgate
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 tholos 8 years ago
tholos
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 alvinthegreat 8 years ago
alvinthegreat
RedEyebeem0rTied
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 lukepare 8 years ago
lukepare
RedEyebeem0rTied
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