The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
GodSands
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

GodSand's *other* proof of the existence God is logically invalid

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: 6/15/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,741 times Debate No: 8656
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (49)
Votes (8)

 

Kleptin

Pro

This debate is being created because my opponent has yet another argument for the existence of God that I find to be logically invalid. To avoid complications that arose in the original debate, I am sending this challenge specifically to deal with GodSands' argument regarding DNA as a code.

The main gist of the argument is that since DNA is a code, and codes are developed via Intelligence, then an Intelligence must have been responsible for the designing of DNA.

In this debate, I will show that this argument is logically invalid for a variety of reasons. These reasons include:

1. This argument relies heavily on semantics and deliberate interpretation of terms to forge a specific conclusion

2. There are hidden premises that are false or faulty, leading to an invalid conclusion.

3. My opponents argument commits an Equivalence Fallacy in its logical presentation and thus, it is logically invalid.

On top of the logical fallacies, I shall also address the issue from a scientific point of view.

I now invite my opponent to repost his argument in a different form, but I will include the following as a source in case anyone wants to see the original. Please see my opponent's first response of this debate:

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

Thank you and good luck to my opponent.
GodSands

Con

Ok this task you have given me is quite understandable. I simply need to show how silly atheism is, and proof God, logically.

Atheists consist of much faith more so than those who believe in God. Just like those who believe in God, Atheists believe that nature created the universe and not God. In other words nature created it's self for no reason. There is no reason in why nature created the universe. More so than that, nature, just like the bees make honey from pollon and cows make milk from nutrients, nothing in nature has given us any proof of nature creating it's own self. There is always proof of something else which created apart of nature.

It says in Psalm 14:1 "Fools say to them self 'There is no God.'" Here is something for the atheists who believe there is no God, "Show me a message that does not come from a mind."

Now DNA is a code, DNA is a language like the English language is a code. It is a code because we all agree with each other that, say the word 'joy' means glad within or for you people out there like JCMT, the word 'with' means, I am near you in spirit mind or physically. So you have patterns and information.

A pattern is something that consists of random actions, like a snow flake is a pattern. To have snow you need water, cold air, gavity, wind, time = snow flake. All those things, like water, cold air, gravity, wind and time have no design but they also have no mind. We could get into another argument about God actually doing all this, because God is God. However we won't go there. Music for an example was written and had a design, you can make copies of music on paper or as sound, but it can always be repeated. You could print music from your computer, you could write it or speak it over the phone For example, "low G low C high C" I am no music master but you get the idea. Anyway the information given is still the same. Can you now see a difference from a pattern to information? I hope so.

DNA always has 4 letters just like a calculator has 10 number, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. To produce any number you need those 10 numbers there which I listed. Like DNA has the letters Gg,Cc,Aa and Tt. To produce and creature of any kind you need this code. Just like all the numbers which I have listed, they were thought up. 1 chair, 2 chairs, 3 chairs the point is that I can not add a number or just invent a new numder because it's already got a code just like the English language.

DNA is information, a language, well from who? There are 5 possible solutions to find out where DNA came from.

1, Designed by aliens? Well no because aliens would already have DNA and that get us nowhere.
2, Designed by human? No again, because we consisted of DNA before anyone thought of DNA. Time travel? No because that human who is traveling in time has DNA already.
3, A product of chance? No again, this would then, if DNA was a product of chance destroy all science and block all investigation. For example, if a leaf fell from a tree, you wouldn't say that was by chance, but say gravity caused the leaf to fall. So this solution gets us nowhere.
4, A new unknown law of physics? If DNA is a unknown law of physics then why does DNA have 4 letters and not 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 or any other number? It has 4 letters. Since no one has discovered a law of physics that created information or no one has found some information which has not been from some intelligence. This solution get us nowhere once again.
5, God created and designed DNA. Because if you assume DNA was desgined then you can understand that if there is something you do not understand, there must be a good reason for it in the first place.

So Kleptin give me a message or some information that did not ultamitly come from an intelligence, otherwise God exists and DNA proves God exists.

I have flipped this debate over, now it is up to Kleptin to find some information that did not ultamitly come from something that can think.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and shall now offer my counterargument.

My opponent's argument is as follows:

1. DNA is a code
2. All codes come from an intelligence
3. Therefore, DNA must have come from an intelligence.

I will try to be as clear and concise as possible in offering my refutations. I must note however that I need not abide by my opponent's rule on HOW to debunk him. I just shall. In actuality, the most powerful disproof for this is a rather complicated one, one that I am sure he shall not understand. However, I will use these more elementary disproofs for this debate and may post my complicated one either in the forum after this debate, or in my last rounds.

Refutation 1:

DNA is a genetic code, not a regular code.

Regular codes work by way of symbols, something arbitrary and without meaning is GIVEN meaning by an intelligence.

DNA genetic code works without symbols. Each nucleic acid is a thing in and of itself and combines to create larger chains. These chains interact with proteins that bind to them and form smaller amino acids that chain into new proteins. There is no meaning and no intelligence involved in the interpretation of DNA.

Refutation 2:

DNA is not a code, because it does not have arbitrary rules.

All codes and languages are governed by arbitrary rules. Grammar and spelling evolve alongside a language. The rules for pig-latin were developed artificially. DNA is governed by the laws of physics, which neither evolve alongside it, or were developed artificially.

SEE VIDEO IN CONJUNCTION WITH REFUTATION 3 & 4

Refutation 3:

DNA may possibly resemble a code now, but it did not resemble one when it first developed.

All codes and languages symbolize something even at the first utterance. DNA originated as amino acids inside a primitive membrane that merely bound to each other and replicated via physical force.

Refutation 4:

DNA is not a code because all codes could only have been made via intelligence.

No known code could have possibly developed naturally. It is possible that DNA arose by way of the video above. Thus, DNA is not a code.

Refutation 5:

The "code" in Pt. 1 is not the "code" in Pt. 2- Equivalence fallacy.

There are different definitions for the word "code". We classify DNA as a code because it shares some similarities to what we view to be codes. The information in DNA is not really information. DNA is not really a code. The notion that codes need to come from an intelligence stems from inductive proof of the actual term "code", not things that are similar to it.

Refutation 6:

All codes can be used by humans in order to express their own meanings.

We can use English words, French words, Spanish words, morse code, and even binary in order to express ourselves. However, we cannot use the mechanisms of interpretation of DNA to send messages. Thus, DNA is not a code.

Refutation 7:

This argument is invalid because it is not scientific.

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

The argument that my opponent plagiarized is not a proof, but a theory, since it is inductive in nature. Inductive proofs can only be useful as theories and theories need to be falsifiable if they are to be valid. The original author of this argument provided only 1 way to falsify the theory: Find a naturally occurring code.

Codes, by definition, have meaning and there is no objective meaning in nature. Thus, the only way to falsify this "theory" is to find a meaningless code, and that is an oxymoron. Since there is no way to falsify this theory, it is not a valid theory.

I shall offer these right now, I look forward to my opponents response. Thank You.
GodSands

Con

GodSands forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

It appears that my opponent has decided not to respond. In that case, all of my arguments extend to the next round.

Thank you.
GodSands

Con

DNA is a code, even my Oxford Biology Dictionary says DNA is a code, do you believe the experts or Kleptin?
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

My opponent has declared that DNA is a code because the experts catergorize it as a code. However, this is not just an appeal to authority fallacy, but also the crux of the debate. The fact that we arbitrarily designate something as a code does not mean that the very nature of the thing we are describing takes on all aspects of it.

DNA shares similarities to what we call codes. This does not make it a code by all definitions. If my opponent wants to debate this point, I suggest that he address all of the refutations that I have put forth. If he cannot, then he must admit that his source is flawed.

This type of argument is a semantic argument. Codes are an arbitrary designation that mankind created to describe their own viewpoints. For example, we can look at a pack of dogs and call it a society, since it matches the definitions of a society when in reality, it is not a society because it is our description of a natural occurrence. We can look at the bacterial flagellum and say that it is a machine, and it fits the definition of a machine, but it is not a machine because it is our description of a natural occurrence.

Similarly, we can look at DNA and say that it is a code, and it fits the definition of a code, but it is not a code, since it is merely our description of a natural occurrence.

To say that DNA is a code is to make an analogy. DNA is not a code, it is similar to a code. All codes require human categorization and understanding, DNA works perfectly without any sort of human comprehension or interpretation because it is as physical as atoms reacting in nature and other physical/chemical forces.

I have offered many explanations and refutations while my opponent has not addressed any issues, I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
GodSands

Con

Kleptin says DNA is a rondom good for nothing pattern from the soil of this world. Even Richard Dawkins claims DNA is not from this world, he at least says it was made from aliens, however that wouldn't answer where DNA came from. Who made the aliens DNA? I may ask. Here are some intereting fact about DNA.

If you were to get a minut piece of DNA and place the information, which it is, into books and stack them on top of each other, they would reach the moon and back 240 times over.

All the human DNA in the world would fit into a pin head. That how good this storage device is. Really Kleptin, this is no random accidental pattern. Go get a pin head and see for your selves.

DNA contains information and therefore DNA is a code. Therefore God exists.

Kleptin what are you talking about here? "DNA shares similarities to what we call codes. This does not make it a code by all definitions." -- By what definitions? And how do patterns share similarities. You can not say a snow flake is information, you can not say the wind is information either. But you are. What you are saying is, if DNA seems to be a code then the wind, snow flakes, twisters, waves, the rotation of the planets seem to be codes too. That is what you are telling me.

I don't see any relevance in your third paragraph. Well maybe a little, we have come to understand as humans that it was not us who came and made up our understanding of the universe but it was us who fitted into this universe. In that I mean we became to understand life as we grow older, not in a evolutionary sence but it comes naturally to us. You believe the universe was not fitted for us, I believe it was by an super intelligent being called God. Look we can breathe. Tell me why, in the most detailed information how life came to breathe and live if you think I am wrong. In a forum, not here.

"Similarly, we can look at DNA and say that it is a code, and it fits the definition of a code, but it is not a code, since it is merely our description of a natural occurrence." Could a wave created a obvious, well drawn face of the beach?Show me and I'll give in to this debate for that reason alone. We can look at DNA and say it is a code, because it is one. Plants have DNA all living life has DNA, tell me, can a rock, or any other piece of the earth like water create a storage device that can hold every humans DNA on the planet into a pin head? I think you are living in some fantasy world.

"DNA is not a code, it is similar to a code." How similar? Could a untrained eye tell? If not then DNA is a code. It does not take an expert in anything to seperate a code from a none coded pattern.

"physical/chemical forces." Those make patterns such as waves, earthquakes, thunder storms, lightning, land scapes etc. They all lead to distruction and nothing new comes from them. DNA is a code and life comes from DNA. All the creatures on the planet are formed from DNA in the womb.

Conclusion: The only logical answer to this, is that God created DNA. And I know many of you hate the mention of God. Most of you hate it because it gives you responsibility over your actions. I will expect to lose, because you dislike the notion of God. And you ask for proof which will only satifly you and maybe no one else. So God has said, "Come find me and seek me, and you will be found."

Kleptin I can only say, when you see a code, you will know it is one, no further examination is needed. And people like you love to make up excuses against God's existence. Like it says, "People will believe in fables" In Revelations. You have surely fulfill that. For it can not be speaking of believers. That is illogical, but it speak of people like you.

Answer this: If DNA is not a code, yet it looks like one, why is there only one look alike code? I already know what you will say, you will mention things like, it was an improbable chance of nature. Ok then, if that is right, why has it only occured once before and since it's been passed down through reproduction? You wouldn't find DNA lying about in the soil. Yet if you are correct you would. But you don't, so your wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

I regretfully point out that my opponent's last post was nothing but accusations and poor sportsmanship. First, my opponent makes a brazen statement where he accuses me of saying something that I absolutely did not say. This is an obvious strawman fallacy since he then goes on to make an irrelevant argument against my alleged statement. Please do not listen to his lies, I never made any statement saying that DNA is a "random, good-for-nothing pattern", this is a figment of his imagination.

My opponent claims that since DNA contains information, then DNA is a code. This is untrue as *everything* contains information. This is the essential flaw in his argument. My opponent assumes that the information we see in DNA is the same type of information from a computer chip or a website. What he does not understand is that although we can interpret DNA as a type of information, it actually is not, because it does not involve mental interpretation, but pure physical reaction. This is what makes it differ from all other types of information and why we cannot consider DNA to be a true code and a code developed by intelligence, but rather, a genetic code. My opponent cannot resolve this issue and has not resolved this issue.

My opponent then goes on to make an argument that assumes that I conceded that patterns are the same as codes. I have made no such concession and will not. Codes involve mental interpretation, patterns are observed order, DNA is just a physical substance that humans can use as a code, but it is not naturally a code.

My opponent then argues by design, using many design arguments that are highly illogical and fallacious. He has already proposed that we discuss it outside this debate, so I shall ignore all his arguments by design and simply tell him and the audience that I have answers to every single one of his arguments regarding Intelligent Design and hope to debate him on it afterwards.

My opponent claims that since life comes from DNA, then it must be a code. Life comes from amino acids, from atoms, from molecules, these things are not codes either, they are physical occurrences just like DNA. The way that DNA builds life is not coding, but pure and undirected physical reaction.

My opponent makes another claim that since we see DNA as a code, then it is a code. I have addressed this. Through the eyes of a layman, a simple-minded and non-scientific person, or one who is only superficial in knowledge, DNA will be a code. However, close examination and understanding shows how our own flaws in knowledge and understanding form this incorrect notion.

Finally, my opponent argues that if DNA is not a code, then it should not be unique. First of all, this is a non sequitor. Something that is a code need not be unique and things that are not codes are not always commonplace. Second of all, DNA is not unique, RNA exists via a slightly different mechanism but almost the same. Third, my opponent does not understand evolution if he does not know why DNA seems to be the most prominent. It is because DNA out-competed others, as was shown in the video that my opponent obviously did not read. This is why there is 1 species of human as opposed to 500 similar species of human and why there is 1 dominant form of genetic code as opposed to 500.

In conclusion:

My opponent can offer absolutely no arguments. I have set forth a variety of rebuttals for the logical fallacy of his argument and he has not directly addressed even one of them, only go in a roundabout fashion to make different arguments. Whereas mine were direct disproofs, my opponent simply made arguments for his case that of themselves were logically fallacious or rebutted above.

Please do not be fooled by my opponent's inclusion of design argument because design argument is inherently filled with logical flaws. Since he has not proven Intelligent Design, it cannot be admitted as evidence.

WHY MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FAILS:

A more complicated summary is simply that this argument is based on semantics. We see DNA superficially as a code because with DNA, we as humans can do several things with it, such as draw information from it. Since we can do X,Y,Z with DNA and X,Y,Z with other codes, we designate DNA as a code in that particular way.

I can drink from a bowl and I can drink from a cup, but that does not make a bowl a cup. There are intrinsic differences between a bowl and a cup and there are intrinsic differences between DNA and normal codes. These differences were clearly illustrated and unrefuted. All codes involve human interpretation of information to be of use. DNA requires only physics. Bacterial flagella are not machines, packs of dogs are not societies, DNA is not a code.

Since CON has offered no substantial counterpoint while I have offered many refutations that still stand, and since CON should not make new arguments in the last round, I urge a PRO vote.

Thank you.
GodSands

Con

Kleptin is getting muddled up with lies and opinions. If DNA was formed from nothing without an intelligent being, then DNA is a product of random and un-intelligent design, (I am not even sure if the word 'design' is appropriate). If DNA came not from some intelligence then DNA will not seem code like at all, but it would have all the features of a pattern. Using up time and chance to create such a incredible storage device, which our most modern of computers come no where close to being as efficient would be nothing short of a miracle.

Since DNA contains information, it is a code. Sand, mud, rocks etc do not contain information unless an intelligence has interfered, for instance, one chizilling away at a large rock to create a beautiful sculpture. DNA is natures way to create living sculptures, DNA which is located inside the nucleus of a cell, informs the cell of what it's job is. For example: you have just finished a work out, and you need to eat protein to increase your muscle density, the protein is turned into amino acids as it enters the stomach, only when it finally used up, the cell will copy the DNA into RNA which then will be formed inside a new muscle cell turning back into DNA. (RNA is the same as DNA, it just called that because it is not inside a cell).

Therefore creating extra information. To create information, man made or not, you need a mind behind it all, in this case the mind was the person who had just finished his work out. Information that is needed to create muscle, fat, bone, ivory, hair, skin, and all the rest which makes up a living organism.

It says in Psalm 139:13 that God knitted you inside your mothers womb. The Bible concludes DNA is information, a code, Since the term knitting is a intelligent activity it is also coded to make certain clothing. Where as my opponent would agree that if you were to throw a knitting kit up in the air, it would land back down as a perfectly made jumper. As an analogy this is what he would agree with from what I understand.

DNA contains the same instructions to a word processor on a computer. As is shown.

DNA: Language
Nucleotide: Character
Codon: Letter
Gene: Word
Operon: Sentence
Regulon: Paragraph
Chromosome: Chapter

By Pro arguing that DNA is not a code, see for your self. This shows that DNA has set rules to follow just like word processor does. Word processor was man made, DNA was made by God. If you disagree you might as well consider buying into the notion that word processor is also a product of chance. That it could be very well possible that if you were to randomly click on your computer screen all day, maybe you might make something intelligent like a Microsoft document?

DNA just as I have explained uses the same method as word processor, all that is different is that DNA is a much more elegant storage device. As word processor is stored on a hard drive DNA is stored inside a cell. The only real difference is that DNA is organic, and word processor is not.

However imagine technology which is so advance it can copy it's self, in that you only need one piece of DNA and then you could create a human body, by just reorganizing the letter T, G, C and A. In Genesis 2 verse 21, God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep, God removes one of Adams ribs. In Hebrew rib means double helix (Curve) DNA. So God actually took DNA from Adam, reorganized the four letters and then multiplied it to create Eve. From this there is conclusive evidence that shows God created DNA.

Pro goes on to claim that because I am not a scientist I do not understand a code from a pattern, this is absurd, to reconcile a code you neither need to be a scientist or you do not need to examine closely. Take for instance a padlock, it usually has four numbers, what Con is saying is that when someone un-locks a padlock, it seems like the person knows the code, when really he does not. Instead this person merely guessing, getting it correct every time while being up against the hundreds of thousands if not over a million random conbanations. Yet there is the certain four which this person manages to get every time. This is how likely it is for DNA to arise from a source with no intelligence.

You can drink from both a bowl and a cup, however one is better than the other, both store liquid well but one is more efficient. DNA is that better one of the two. DNA is far better that anything man made. Pro used a bad analogy.

Conclusion:
Pro's arguments has been blown sky high. Kleptin never got explained why DNA has only four letters out of the millions of conbanations is could of easily had. He has also failed to give me an example of a code which has not come from a mind. All codes come from minds and DNA is a code, formed by God, thus God exists. Pro also does not explain why I have supposedly failed to prove intelligent design.

I've also given ulternitive evidence that DNA was made by God, through the Hebrew language.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Since you believe in evolution, how can you trust your five sensors that, what you typed beneith is 100% legit? This is really going to annoy people, however it is true. You could have typed a thank you letter to a friend. Have you seen fight club?
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
GodSands:
1. Since when does not being an Atheist default me to being Deist? You're intellectually bankrupt. What is schooling like across the pond? Do they just give you coloring books, crayons, and Bibles every day? Maybe that's why everyone comes to the U.S. for their education, because we actually teach our students SOMETHING.

2. So just because people don't agree with you, they don't deserve to love life? That has to be the most disgusting thing you have ever said on this forum. What a person believes has nothing to do with loving life, you're just an intolerant prick and I'm going to dedicate the rest of my stay on DDO to making sure that you are driven off or revealed as the stubborn and intolerant ignoramus that you are. Even if it means getting banned myself. That statement, for me, was the straw that broke the camel's back.

3. Sure, you can say whatever you want. You have that right. I also have the right to say that everything you say is pure horsesh!t and I justify it by the fact that you're refuse to defend your statements in debate. They may not be wrong, but you can't respect a person who spews out a pile of verbal garbage and then refuses to explain it when it is challenged. Excuse me if I'm not from the same backwater village that you're from, but where I come from, you should either back up any stupid statements you have, or keep your mouth shut.

4. The debate doesn't show who's right. The debate shows how well you can defend your argument. If you can't defend what you say, you don't deserve the right to say it. It's my way of telling you that you should shut your mouth; showing you that you have no idea what you're talking about and/or showing everyone else that you're deluded and severely lacking in information.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> ""And by the way, I'm not an atheist." -- But you believe God made the universe then left it for us to do as we want. So God did make DNA, Kleptin you confuse me."

See my post here (http://www.debate.org...) for what else he could be.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
"And by the way, I'm not an atheist." -- But you believe God made the universe then left it for us to do as we want. So God did make DNA, Kleptin you confuse me.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
You delusional if you love your life.

And Kleptin I can say what the heck I like. Where the heck I like. Stop being so controlling, you are NOT the father of debate.org. Also just because you win debates, it does not mean you are right.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
"If you really were a true atheist you would be depressed, because that is the truth."

I'm a true atheist and I love my life. I don't feel as insecure in it as to tell Christians that their belief in a God must mean they are genocidal maniacs, than say "because that is the truth" in some pathetic attempt to assert myself.

As well, I agreed with Kleptin's definition of DNA even before this debate. You'll be surprised what you learn when you have a subscription to NatGeo.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Okay GodSands, we can add another debate to the queue:

"GodSand's argument in the comments section is illogical, ignorant, and/or invalid"
-I hope you come to relise that DNA is a code. With the nothing that something needed to create the universe such as a God, you can link the building block of life to the creator of the universe. If there is no God therefore DNA not a code made by something super intelligent. And the universe is a product of random events, then consider what you have ever said, nonsense.

Please tell me when you are willing to accept these debate and which one you would like to debate first.

Until we settle these debates, you have no right to say anything. Once you beat me in a debate, I will allow you to say that your statement is true.

And by the way, I'm not an atheist.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
If you really were a true atheist you would be depressed, because that is the truth.

Consider this, if there is no truth then nothing exists. The truth is not that there is a universe but the truth is what created the universe.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
I hope you come to relise that DNA is a code. With the nothing that something needed to create the universe such as a God, you can link the building block of life to the creator of the universe. If there is no God therefore DNA not a code made by something super intelligent. And the universe is a product of random events, then consider what you have ever said, nonsense.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
This was an absolute beasting.

I can now vote on this site (took long enough), and I gave Kleptin all 7 for very, very obvious reasons. I don't even really think that GodSands knows what he's talking about; he just inanely rambles.

Hopefully GodSands grows up, and grows out of this stupid phase.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rawrxqueen 7 years ago
rawrxqueen
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Madoki 7 years ago
Madoki
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote 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 JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote 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 Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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