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

GodSand's "proof" of God is not logically valid

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 6/12/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,505 times Debate No: 8610
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (86)
Votes (10)

 

Kleptin

Pro

In an effort to eliminate unnecessary and useless squabble over a very trivial fact, I have decided to make this into a debate. I would prefer that GodSands take this debate, but have decided to make it public to some extent as well, since the topic is familiar to many.

Anyone who has had Philosophy knows that Ontological proofs revolving around the usage of the term "exist", also knows that the proof seems to be completely true. In other words, it is tautological.

Tautologies usually occur by way of circular logic. For example:

1. The Bible makes references to God's existence
2. Anything that God inspires is truth
3. The Bible is inspired by God
4. The Bible is truth
5. Therefore, God must exist.

The logical proof ends up true, but where is the point of contention here? Doesn't it seem like a victory too easily won? That is because this argument is TAUTOLOGICAL in that one of the premises is FALSE and is HIDDEN.

This is obviously a proof of God's existence. However, notice that #2 and #3 both rely on the ASSUMPTION that God exists. Thus, the user of this argument is saying that God exists because God exists, and thus, is really saying nothing.

This is a similar situation with GodSands' proof. GodSands thinks he has found this unbreakable proof, because it seems to be true in all circumstances. What a brilliant weapon against atheists!

Like the idiot proof shown above, GodSands' proof is merely rubbish in disguise. It also has a HIDDEN and FALSE premise that makes it TAUTOLOGICAL.

I now invite GodSands to post his famous argument, so that we may analyze it together. If indeed I have judged that argument incorrectly, then I shall not only apologize, but also convert to Christianity and spend the rest of my days evangelizing like St. Paul
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 will offer my counterarguments now.

First, I need to note that my opponent has not read my argument and despite the fact that he claims that he understands the resolution and what he is responsible for doing, he absolutely does not.

As I have made clear in both my first post and in the comments section, this debate is not about arguing the existence of God, but rather, discussing the logical validity of a particular proof. Namely, the one that I mentioned, and not an entirely different one.

The one I am referring to is the following:

"If by definition God can create, make and do anything what stops God from existing? And if God was really God, wouldn't God just exist? Sound shollow but it has an edge of truth to it."

I was hoping that my opponent would bring this argument up so that he could clarify things, as I have said in my first round, but since he has not, I shall simply respond.

1. "Necessary judgments will never yield absolute necessity for things and their existence." The definition only applies if the thing exists.

2. "If we include existence in the definition of something, then asserting that it exists is a tautology." From the statement prior, we know that the attributes come after the primary question of "does it exist?". If existence is an attribute that follows, it becomes tautological and logically flawed.

3. "Being is not a predicate. To say that something is or exists is not to say something about a concept, but rather indicates that there is an object that corresponds to the concept." If you were to have a concept of a unicorn (horse with one horn) and you discover one, the concept of a unicorn does not change to become "horse with one horn that exists". The existence is OUTSIDE the concept of the unicorn.

I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that if he wishes to change his resolution to a debate about a new proof involving DNA, he shall do so in another debate challenge.

Thank you.
GodSands

Con

Ok Kleptin I will get back into the philosophical side of God's existence. However bare in mind my last round and sustain what I am about to write on top of my first round.

I know God exists as my last round suggests. DNA proves God's existence. In all respects if my last was weak proof for God, Kleptin would not have ignored it and debated against it. However it was.

"If by definition God can create, make and do anything what stops God from existing? And if God was really God, wouldn't God just exist? Sound shollow but it has an edge of truth to it."

People who reject this have not thought about this. God is all powerful, yet God has given us free will to go our own way. That is why there is evil in the world, because we choose to ultamitly follow the curious foot steps of Satan. This is why my question may not appear to some of you atheists or even agnostics. It does not appeal to you because it seems far too simple. Too good and easy to understand that if there was a God in your books, the quotation would solve it.

So what could stop God from existing? Any suggestions? Could a physical force enable God to cease to exist? Well no, that would just bring up a new set of questions, for one, where did that force come from? And who created the force. This new force, because it is physical, it would not bring a person to conclude it could enable God not to exist. Since it fits into the create anything category. The very fact that I can speak these words brings truth, if it was the truth it would be as obvious and easy to see as I make it out to be. Otherwise the truth would be yet to be found. For example, if the truth was that I was a world champion athlete, and I said I can do 200 back flips at once, wouldn't you believe me? Because I was world champion. So if you know something that can create, build, make and do anything, wouldn't conclude this being exists? I would, even if I could not see it, in fact I would expect not to see it, otherwise I would be in doubt that it could create, build, make and do anything.

The only thing which could stop God existing is our own thoughts, we abuse our free will, and then say there is no God. If you did not exist, and your thoughts were never said, would God then exist? Prove me wrong. And I have trouble understanding the paragraph about the unicorn.

However I will have a stab at it. The concept of God exists, to erase God from exists is a personal option only. It is not universal, since if I was to remove all your memory and place you in outter space, you would figure that God created all you see, the stars, the galaxcies and beyond. It is the fact that you naturally know above all, that something does not come from nothing. No but seriously please make your unicorn paragraph clearer. I struggle to make any sense of it. The last part is difficult to get, "The existence is OUTSIDE the concept of the unicorn." You still are mentioning a unicorn and what existence, the existence of a horse with a horn or a unicorn? If I tappe or glued a horn on a horses head you would know it would not be a unicorn by scientific research. Unicorns are magic, which is where a unicorn can keep adding or changing its nature, so unless you believe in magic, a unicorn will always remain in your imagenation. I am puzzled to why even you compare God to a unicorn to begin with. Magic consists of nothing but it's self, God consists of spirituality. A unicorn does not exist because if it did, it would be as common to witness as a normal horse. A unicorn is a imagenary creature based off the horse. God is based off of nothing but the creator of the universe.

Science actually came about the Medieval age, when people believed that God made the universe tick in ways we could discover. So science was born because of the belief in God.

Anyhow God is nothing like a unicorn, a unicorn is a physical being and can be seen. It is a belief that children have, that were told by their perants that unicorns exist. God on the otherhand is the only being which could create a universe, so give me reason on what else could create a universe, by saying the Big Bang is not hitting rock bottom, since the Big Bang if true would already be apart of the universe. I am asking what created the universe? You tell me.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for his prompt response and shall now respond to his points. As for this debate, we are talking about the logical validity of *this* argument, not the existence of God. I would like to refer people to this debate if they wish to see the DNA argument discussed:

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

Now, we get to my opponent's argument. In his response, the following arguments are made:

1. The proof that he provided may be too complex for atheists and agnostics to understand.
2. Nothing can prevent God from existing, so God must exist.
3. Analogy: A world champion athlete claims he can do 200 backflips at once and we should believe him.
4. Analogy correlation: God's omnipotence implies that nothing prohibits God from anything, and existence is one of those things, thus God must exist.

After these points, my opponent then asks me to make my argument clearer.

There are several others that branch off into other arguments. If my opponent wishes, I shall issue him more challenges, one for each of these irrelevant branches. I remind him and the audience that we are focusing on this particular argument for God.

**********************************************************

Now that we have made a skeleton of my opponent's arguments, allow me to detail what will occur:

1. I will show that every statement my opponent made is either irrelevant except his thesis statement. In other words, I will show that in this round, he made no support for his case.

2. I will clarify my arguments for my opponent.

First, my opponent's points:

1. Irrelevant. If there is a problem grasping something, we shall teach each other, just as I am trying to clarify things for you and you are trying to clarify things for me.

2. This is your thesis. I have disproven this through my arguments which you do not understand. I shall clarify later.

3. Incorrect. This is called "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. The fact that an expert says something does not make it true. Validity is inherent to the concept/argument/situation, not to the one explaining it.

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

4. Same as #2

Now, allow me to explain my argument so that you may understand.

What you are saying is this:

1. God can do anything
2. Existing is a thing.
3. Therefore, God can do it.

This is not your exact phrasing, but this is what it reduces down to. Essentially, you are arguing that God's omnipotence covers the act of existing. If God cannot be stopped from anything, then God cannot be stopped from existing and God must exist.

This is a classic argument called the Ontological Argument. It has many variations. Generally, they are disproven by some key concepts from the philosopher Immanuel Kant.

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

What he says is that while your argument seems to be perfect, it's perfect because of an illusion of language. Meaning, it is true, but it doesn't MEAN anything. It is similar saying 1 = 1, and 2 = 2.

An analogy: My super kitchen appliance can do lots and lots of things, but in order for it to do ANYTHING, it has to be plugged in.

Similarly, God is defined to have a lot of characteristics. However, his characteristics only start to count when he exists.

Thus, if you are trying to prove that God exists, you cannot say that since God has the power to exist, he exists. God has to exist FIRST, and after you prove that, THEN you can call his abilities into play.

To be even simpler, I am saying that existence is not a characteristic. If you list the characteristics of something, you don't include "existence" in that list. The reasoning is illustrated by the unicorn example.

What happens when you learn that a concept of yours has a new characteristic? If you find out your favorite shirt has a hole, then your concept of your favorite shirt gets an addition: the hole.

Does this same reasoning happen when you talk about existence? No.

The concept of a unicorn is "Horse with a horn in its forehead" and you are unsure of whether or not it exists. If you see a unicorn one day, then you know it exists. Does your concept change? Of course not. The concept does not become "Horse with a horn in its forehead that exists". So SOMETHING must have changed.

The change occurs with different thinking. You linked the concept of the unicorn with the physical fact of the unicorn.

Thus, this shows that existence is not a characteristic or definable trait. You cannot use God's omnipotence to show that God exists, just like how you cannot use a Super Kitchen appliance without plugging it in, or how you cannot add toppings on a pizza if the pizza has not been made.

Your proof is not a proof. It is the result of bad English and poor philosophy, and this argument has been made and debunked for centuries already.

With that, I rest my argument and await my opponent's response. Thank you.
GodSands

Con

You haven't even touched upon my argument of DNA. And I still do not understand the unicorn argument of yours. IT MAKES NO SENSE.

I understand the rest though. I like the super kitchen appliance argument. Surely like God this super kitchen appliance exists without being plugged in, right? Otherwise how do you plug it in? Like the super kitchen appliance, God is personal and to be quite honest here, you really need Jesus to understand God existence to it's full. Like the super kitchen appliance is persoanl, no one knows it exists but the person who knows about it. Give me evidence of that God is not like the super kitchen appliance, being plugged in for some people but for others they haven't heard about it. God works in the same way.

God is free, there is no cost, and because God is the centre of the argument, the kitchen appliance is free too.
Who would say no to this super kitchen appliance if it was free? The problem is, that it seems too good to be true.
So people in both cases will not believe in God or in this super kitchen appliance, where you simply plug it in and wola.
Like God, it seems too good, not of God's existence but that we can connect to God. You can like all atheists agree somewhere out there, there is a God like being. But its the fact that God can connect to us. Just like someone saying, "Yeah I believe the super kitchen appliance exists, but for me to have it for free by simply plugging it in is too far fetched."

The characteristics of God: It is that I can say God exists from a personal veiw, look like I siad in my other debate. That you are your own god because your brain is the core nervous system and with out it you wouldn't be here now. But who told you, you had a brain, so that person becomes your god and so on....in till the day where two scientists discovered the brain by dissecting a dead body, then surely that dead body is God because if you did not know about the brain, we would think that God was controlling our thinking etc... God does not of course control our mind and brains. And like I have said, (and I will not stop mentioning this, I have all the right to) DNA proves the existence of God like I have said it my first round.

You unicorn argument is just annoying, I barely understand it. I don't think you do either.

Just to get to the pizza argument you made. The pizza with out topping still has charateristics, just dull ones. And God needs to exist if people from the Bible talked and wrote about God, and that so many years later people, including my self have exsperience God comming into their lives, just like the Bible discribed. I could say the Christian God is personal, but there is, without any doubt a God exists. The debate is not whether God exists but whether is God a personal God. That is what gets all you atheists, you couldn't actually care if God exists if God didn't have power over us and the control to send us to either heaven or hell.

So Kleptin say it for them, why are atheists, atheists. I want proof FROM you Kleptin against God's existence, so stop avioding this question, because you if you did question your own self, you may come to relise God isn't that far featched. So Kleptin THINK deep around God. No whether I can or can not prove God, but logically think about how the universe began, from God or from the Big Bang which was already apart of the universe, those are the only two options. Just like you have said to me, "You need to prove the existence of God first before you add what God can do." You said along those lines. So you need to find out what caused the universe, before saying what the universe can do.

Thanks, Kleptin the next round will be about you giving me proof against the existence of God, but do still relate back to previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

I have been as patient with my opponent as possible and am glad to finally end this debate.

It is regretful that my opponent cannot grasp such a famous and well taught principle that is featured in almost every introductory Philosophy course in any respectable academic institution. My opponent has accused me of not understanding my own argument, when it is plain to see that this is only the result of his own inadequacies as many people understand my argument and have tried clarifying it to him:

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

Both Tarzan and Toast understand this concept perfectly, and I am certain that many others do too.

I will make one last-ditch effort to explain Kant's rejection of the ontological argument.

My opponent says that because God is omnipotent, then he can do anything. Exist is one of those things. Thus, God must exist.

The logical fallacy is that something must exist before we can say that their characteristics are possible. The characteristic of existence comes before all other characteristics. Microwaves need to be plugged in before they work. Televisions have to be turned on before you can change the channel. God must exist before he can be omnipotent, thus, you cannot say that God exists BECAUSE he is omnipotent.

It is very sad that my opponent cannot grasp this concept because having a Philosophical debate with someone lacking in Philosophical ability is nearly impossible. Luckily, I do not need to teach these things to my opponent, nor do I have to go to extraordinary lengths to explain this concept in as "baby" a way possible. I need only show the audience that a common person of typical competency can grasp this principle, regardless of whether or not my opponent can.

1. Philosophy of religion By Charles Taliaferro, Paul J. Griffiths p. 277
http://tinyurl.com...
discusses how Kant's analysis effectively destroys the Ontological argument, which is essentially the same as that my opponent has provided.

2. http://an-archos.com...
Gives information about predicates and why existence cannot be considered a predicate.

3. http://www.existence-of-god.com...
Shows that objections to the Ontological argument are very easy to understand and that many people understand them, even though my opponent lacks the resources to do so himself. This site includes a rebuttal to Kant's theory, which is easily defeated with the notion that the realization of the existence of something changes individual perception and not the general concept. I include this because my opponent is known for adding extra arguments in the final round even though it is poor conduct to do so.

4. http://www.lycos.com...
Provides more information on Kant's objection to the Ontological argument.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(grammar)
A wikipedia definition of a predicate, in case my opponent does not understand what a predicate is.

My opponent's last response was completely off-topic and dealt nothing with the resolution. It was all preaching and requests for arguments that have nothing to do with this debate.

I find that my opponent's conduct has been terrible, as I have said in the resolution, in my first round, in each successive round, and many times in the comments section, as well as in the debate I started in parallel with this one, that WE ARE NOT DEBATING THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. This debate is about the logical validity of GodSand's argument.

However, this has been turned into a debate where I am trying to teach an alleged Philosophy student one of the most basic concepts of Philosophy and one where my opponent wishes to argue anything and everything except the resolution.

I would like to remind my opponent that it is bad practice to make new arguments in the final round because I do not want to see him lose conduct points for stupid reasons.

I also encourage everyone to vote PRO and to also leave in the comments section the reason why you voted and where each of your points were allocated. I thank my opponent and the audience for their time and I apologize if anyone else besides me feels like a lot of time has been wasted.
GodSands

Con

GodSands forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

I believed that my opponent conceded in the comments section of the debate but it was slightly ambiguous. This forfeit may be an indicator of his concession.

I ask that the audience vote PRO since all my arguments extend and I am unable to respond to whatever it is my opponent decides to post.

Please recall that this debate is not about the existence of God, but the validity of this one proof, which I have shown to be logically invalid as per the resolution.

Thank you.
GodSands

Con

GodSands forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
86 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
I laughed quite hard when I read the "proof". Aghh.... it was good for something. :)
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
GodSands, I'm tired of this. This debate is over, we have another one in the works. Go work on that one.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
I don't get you there, correct me on what? I was just saying that you were being slightly on the boastful side.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
If you don't want me to correct you, stop saying things that are wrong.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Kleptin I didn't want you to leacture me back, you do it on all the debates you are foud of. I would just leave it for others to judge and see what they think.

Despite that you were better than me in this debate. You then boast about your self. Read Romans 1.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
You're accusing me of being biased? OK.

Conduct section: Did you or did you not forfeit two rounds? If you didn't, then I'm biased.

Spelling and grammar: There are at least 4 spelling/grammar errors in your FIRST PARAGRAPH. Did you demonstrate better spelling and grammar than I did? If you didn't, then I'm biased.

Convincing Arguments: You argued every point except for the actual point, and were all over the place. You barely understood any of the extremely simple concepts I proposed and the whole debate was me teaching you basic philosophy instead of an actual debate. Did you give more convincing arguments? If so, then I'm biased.

Sources: Did you use any sources? Perhaps invisible ones? I don't see you citing anywhere near as many sources as I did. If I'm hallucinating, then perhaps you're right, and I'm biased.

CONCLUSION: I'm not biased. This is not a gamer rating his video game 10/10. This is a student checking his answers on an answer key. What you did wrong is clear, what I did wrong is clear, there's little to no wiggle room.

If you think it's unfair, then why don't YOU tell me how YOU would grade yourself, and I'll change my vote accordingly.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
Kleptin why do you always grade you own debates? It is like a gamermaker reviewing his own game and giving it 10/10. Let other people be the judge.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
C: CON forfeited the last two rounds, vote goes to PRO.
S&G: Moderate S&G problems on the part of CON, vote goes to PRO.
A: CON argued three different resolutions in each of the three rounds he did not forfeit, and none of the three were the same as the actual resolution. (DNA proves God's existence, God exists objectively, There is no argument against God, vs the actual resolution of GodSand's "proof" of God is not logically valid) Points obviously go to PRO.
S: CON used no sources whereas PRO used many. Points to PRO.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
GodSands made this one easy to vote on. Not only did he miss two rounds, he never handled the resolution. Kleptin went out of his way to explain it, GodSands avoided it.
Conduct: Pro, missing two rounds is very bad form
S/G: No contest, Pro
Arguments: Pro, GodSands never understood the resolution and offered very little to support the Con position.
Sources: easy win for Pro.
7 points to Pro, not very common for me.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
He may, but you need to prove it to have proof.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 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 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:16 
Vote Placed by rimshot515 7 years ago
rimshot515
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 Madoki 7 years ago
Madoki
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 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 sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
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 MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
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 Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
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:61 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60