The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
105 Points

I will not contradict myself.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 17 votes the winner is...
feverish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,962 times Debate No: 8735
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (17)

 

mongeese

Pro

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

Rules:
1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.
2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes or No, or with an explanation as to why neither Yes nor No would be completely correct or appropriate.
3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers.
4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.
5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses.
6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses.
7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins.
8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses.
9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate.

Good luck.
feverish

Con

Much thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to take part in this fun semi-debate.
As my opponent and I have a history of a couple of debates, a dramatically opposed political ideology and a (hopefully reciprocated) mutual respect I think this could be a particularly interesting game.

I apologise in advance if my interrogation seems harsh or critical but I think that is pretty much the nature of any interrogation and hope this will not count against me in the conduct category, I reassure my opponent and the readers that I bear him no ill will whatsoever and do not intend to mock or insult in any way if I question his political or spiritual beliefs.

1. Do you think minimum wage laws are always wrong?

2. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality?

3. Are you pro-life?

4. Do you think torture is morally permissible?

5. Do you think that workers have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?

6. Do you think it is morally permissible to allow a child to starve to death?

7. Do you think affirmative action is always wrong?

8. Do you think prejudice is justified a lot of the time?

9. Is Infrared Ed your brother?

10. Does global warming exist?

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

As my opponent and I have a history of a couple of debates, a dramatically opposed political ideology and a (hopefully reciprocated) mutual respect I think this could be a particularly interesting game."
Same here.

"I apologise in advance if my interrogation seems harsh or critical but I think that is pretty much the nature of any interrogation and hope this will not count against me in the conduct category, I reassure my opponent and the readers that I bear him no ill will whatsoever and do not intend to mock or insult in any way if I question his political or spiritual beliefs."
The questions are difficult, but not harsh, no.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Under certain conditions, such as the person having done something that would deserve torture, and the torture bringing about some worthwhile positive effects.
5. Yes.
6. Only if you can't reasonably save the child from starvation.
7. If by affirmative action, you mean favoring one person over another based solely on irrelevant race or gender, then yes.
8. No.
9. No.
10. As a natural event, yes. As a man-made epidemic, no.
feverish

Con

Much thanks to my opponent for his well thought out responses.

1. Do you sin?

2. Are you a true Christian?

3. Was Jesus human?

4. Do you support the death penalty?

5. Is the Bible the ONLY good basis for morality?

6. Have you ever vote bombed?

7. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified?

8. Do all people have an equal right to life?

9. Has humanity polluted the Earth?

10. Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything?

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. No.
6. No.
7. Yes.
8. No.
9. Bits and pieces.
10. No.
feverish

Con

I believe that my opponent has contradicted himself more than once already.

His answer: "No" to the final question in the last round: "Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything?" is self-contradictory as he has already answered several questions in agreement with the opinions of this great man and I am sure I will have no difficulty compelling him to agree further with Marx in this and subsequent rounds (assuming of course that he does not concede his contradiction and forfeit the rest of the debate.)

I would like to point out than in answering no to this question without the kind of further clarification he has given for several other answers my opponent has little room to manoeuvre. He has categorically stated that he doesn't agree with Marx on anything at all.

In round 1 my opponent answered "yes" (with no additional provisions) to the question: "Do you think that workers have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?"

To be fair this question should in fact have read "Do you think that workers *should* have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?" I assume that this is how my opponent interpreted the question as he lists himself 'Pro' to labour unions on his profile, but even if he decides to take the semantic argument of the rights existing, whether or not they are desirable this opinion is still very much in line with Karl Marx's own opinions on the subject.

Marx supported and encouraged labour unions (called trade unions in the UK) in many countries, where they existed he approved of them.

"The immediate object of Trades Unions was therefore confined to everyday necessities, to expediences for the obstruction of the incessant encroachments of capital, in one word, to questions of wages and time of labour. This activity of the Trades Unions is not only legitimate, it is necessary. It cannot be dispensed with so long as the present system of production lasts. On the contrary, it must be generalised by the formation and the combination of Trades Unions throughout all countries." (Karl Marx - The Poverty Of Philosophy) http://www.workersliberty.org...

"Every activity of this class was therefore, important for Marx-activity in which the class got consciousness to move forward. The formation of trade unions and the trade union movement were important steps in the formation of a class, a common class-consciousness. The superior organisation- the political party of the working class could not be formed and expanded in isolation from this practical struggle involving the large mass of workers. That is why the statutes of the International Working Men's Association provided for affiliation of trade unions and other organisations of the working class, along with individual membership." http://cpim.org...

There are other contradictions inherent in my opponent's conviction that he does not agree with Marx.

Q. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified?
A. Yes

Karl Marx was well known for his support of women's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, especially in cases where their health would be at risk, I am sure he would agree with my opponent on this one.

Q. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality?
A. Yes

There is also strong evidence that at various stages Marx exhibited a lot of respect for the morality of the Bible and that even in his early life: "Marx's writings during this period exhibited a spirit of Christian devotion and a longing for self-sacrifice on behalf of humanity."
http://www.britannica.com...

Some of his most well-known quotes about religion have been taken out of context and he strongly criticized those who focused on attacking religion.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk...

I think plenty of Marx quotes about the negative impact of machinery and over-industrialisation could easily be interpreted as a belief in pollution of at least the "bits and pieces" level too, but will not press anymore on the Marx issue as I think the following has been proved:

Pro claims not to agree with Karl Marx on anything but clearly agrees with him on plenty.

This is a contradiction.

I have chosen to focus on this one contradiction although I believe my opponent has also made others which I will discuss briefly but not elaborate on for now:

Supporting the Death Penalty goes against a basic morality set out in the Bible, the commandment: "Thou shall not kill" Ex 20:13.
Jesus taught forgiveness as his central principle, if you confessed and repented you should be forgiven. Claiming that the Bible is a good source for morality and supporting the death penalty is a contradiction.

Supporting the death penalty is also in direct contradiction of the notion of being Pro-life. You can't be pro life and pro death at the same time.

The Bible states that Jesus was a man, born of woman.
"The word became flesh" John 1:14
Here is a selection of Christian sites claiming that Jesus was fully human:

http://www.desiringgod.org...
http://www.ucc.org...
http://staticyouth.wordpress.com...

Unless none of these are true Christians my opponent has contradicted himself.

More questions:

1. Are you sure you don't agree with Karl Marx on anything at all?

2. "Do you think that workers *should* have the right to organise and argue for fair pay and conditions?"

3. Are the listed opinions on the BIG issues on your profile (at the time of me typing this) a true representation of your beliefs and opinions?

4. Is the world round?

5. Was Karl Marx a Marxist?

6. Are you a Marxist?

7.Do Communists seek to abolish personal and private possessions?

8. Do the living have more right to live than the unborn?

9. Does gravity exist?

10. Was the torture and crucifixion of Jesus morally justified?

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 3
mongeese

Pro

http://en.wikipedia.org...(composer)
We're talking about two different people named Karl Marx here. You never specified.

The commandment that my opponent cites is also read in some translations as "Thou shalt not murder."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Because murder is any homicide that is against the law, the death penalty would not be murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
I can be Pro-Life for innocent lives, but Pro-Death for guilty ones.

Your contention about Jesus being human is false, because one definition of human is "susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature," which He was not. He never sinned.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. I don't know. His Wiki article doesn't say.
6. No.
7. I don't know. I'm not a Communist.
8. Yes.
9. Yes.
10. No.
feverish

Con

Hello again and much thanks to my opponent for his nimble footed rebuttal and his answers to the final set of questions.

I think it is obvious that Pro is not being entirely honest with us in his claim of mistaken identity regarding communist writer Karl Marx. He has admitted as much in the comments section and I think the idea that a young American (with a lot of interest in politics but whose idea of good music is Jimmy Buffett) would be more familiar with the 20th century composer than the revolutionary thinker is clearly ludicrous.

Further circumstantial evidence can be found from the fact that it is the Marx of Marxism that my opponent's Wiki link actually leads to rather than the Marx known for his choral compositions. The fact that a link posted to the composer actually redirects to the philosopher clearly demonstrates who is more well known.

I've tried reposting the link to the composer's page myself, it doesn't work.
I suggest readers navigate through the top entry on this link: http://www.google.co.uk...

Moreover I think I could reasonably argue that Pro's answer to the "Do you agree with anything..." question rules out his agreement with ANYONE bearing the name Karl Marx as I have already demonstrated at length.

In the interests of humouring my opponent I shall however now prove that, according to several of his answers, my opponent does in fact agree with Karl Marx the composer (hereafter referred to as KM-C) on many things.

KM-C was a devoted student of natural science before deciding on a career in music. As such he would definitely agree with my opponent on the following points:
Q. Is the world round?
A. Yes.
Q. Does gravity exist?
A. Yes.

As a devout Christian who wrote many choral pieces in worship, I am also sure KM-C would agree with the following too:

Q. Do you think the Bible is a good basis for morality?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you sin?
A. Yes.

I can find no information on whether KM-C was pro-choice or pro-life but it is fair to say whichever position he holds he must agree with one of the following:

Q. Are you pro-life?
A. Yes.
Or,
Q. If birth is certain to kill the mother but the baby would survive then is abortion justified?
A. Yes.

As a sometime supporter of National Socialism KM-C would also surely have been Pro-labour unions and Pro-death penalty as well as believing that all people do not have an equal right to life.

My opponent has clearly contradicted himself because there is no doubt that he agrees with all people called Karl Marx on at least one thing.

No matter what our beliefs are, we can all find common ground somewhere, to say you disagree completely with ANY individual on all issues is a certain contradiction.

----

In addition I believe Pro has broken the rules in his last post. By answering "I don't know" to questions he could easily have researched on, Pro has failed to answer these simple questions or provide an explanation why Yes or No is not sufficient. According to the rules this means he should automatically lose, although he already has of course due to his contradictions.

---

A true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality would of course be interested in the most accurate translation possible of the original Hebrew text inspired by God, not the imperfect and flawed NKJV.

"Footnotes:
1. Exodus 20:13 The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence"
http://www.biblegateway.com...

The Hebrew word 'XRC' or 'Ratsach' (spellings of transliterated Hebrew may vary) that is used in Ex 20:13 does include the concept of murder but is clearly a much wider term for almost any kind of killing including as an act of vengeance and clearly including execution.

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

If a Hebrew writer wanted to specify murder or unlawful killing they would have used the word 'GRH' or 'Harag'.

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

My opponent also ignores the issue of the death penalty going against Jesus' message of forgiveness.

---

"I can be Pro-Life for innocent lives, but Pro-Death for guilty ones."

I maintain that this is a clear contradiction and Pro did not qualify his pro-life stance as only applying to the innocent, he merely answered yes.

Further more he has compounded this contradiction as he already claimed that the living (all guilty to a true Christian) have more right to life than the unborn (innocent).

Q. Do the living have more right to live than the unborn?
A. Yes.

---

I urge voters to click on my opponent's Merriam Webster definition of human: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

They will see that the definition he picks out is the last and most obscure definition (the only one that needs an example to explain the context). It is actually a sub definition 'b)' tagged onto the following: "having human form or attributes". Clearly in any conventional sense of this definition as well as the other two more standard ones, true Christians believe Jesus was human.

Also, he may never have sinned but the whole point was that by becoming human he made himself "susceptible" to sin, pain, death and all the other attributes of the human condition. His ability to resist temptation was significant for the very reason that he was "susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature".

----

I don't believe there can be any doubt that my opponent has lost this debate/game, although that will of course be up to the voters to decide.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 4
mongeese

Pro

First, I ask for a source about KM-C and his opinions. Can you source that he was a Christian? Can you source that he thought that the world is round?

KM-C may have had no opinion on abortion at all.

As for the "I don't know," I did not know, and any answer I could give would simply be a reflection of whatever research I found. For the KM-C, it is extremely difficult to find info about him, and I can't get into the mind of a Communist.

I've always used the translation "Thou shalt not murder," and even if we were to use such a translation, the death penalty is neither careless nor negligent. Furthermore, it seems as if the work can be used with only the intention of meaning "murder," based on your source.

As for forgiveness, there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. He can shed his own blood.

As for being Pro-Life, the term is generally applied to abortion, and in one sense I am Pro-Life, so I can say that I am Pro-Life without contradiction. It is further explained in another answer.

As for being guilty versus being innocent, the term "guilty" can refer to having been prosecuted of a crime, and not everybody on Earth is guilty in that respect.

When I answered the "human" question, I checked the definitions, and decided that there was a very good definition that would show Jesus not to be human, so I used it.
The faults of human nature would be sins. Death and pain are not moral faults. Jesus never sinned. That makes him without these faults, which makes him above human.

"I don't believe there can be any doubt that my opponent has lost this debate/game, although that will of course be up to the voters to decide."
I think I've got a chance. ;-)

"Thankyou[sic]."
Thank you, as well.
feverish

Con

Thanks again to my opponent for an enjoyable and fun game/debate.

------------------

I contend that my opponent has contradicted himself numerous times in this debate. Some of my allegations of contradiction he has rebutted on a semantic level, others he chooses to ignore completely.

I would like to point out that in several cases Pro felt the need to clarify what the question meant before answering.

Eg: Round 1, Q. 4: "Under certain conditions...." R. 1, Q. 6: "Only if you can't...." R. 1, Q. 7: "If by affirmative action you mean..."
I contend that in other cases where Pro just answered "yes" or "no" this was because there was no room for misinterpretation, or for unintentional misinterpretation anyway and when, in subsequent rounds, my opponent realised he had contradicted himself he then went back and found alternative interpretations of these questions.

In most cases these semantic arguments hold little water or still represent a contradiction and I will examine each instance in this final round.

-----------------------------

Firstly however, I will address the allegations of contradiction which my opponent has simply ignored.

As this is the final round and my opponent posted much less than the character limit in much less than the available time, I can only assume that he concedes on every one of these points.

1. I stated in the last round that answering "yes" to the questions: "Do you agree with Karl Marx on anything" and particularly the question: "Are you sure you don't agree with Karl Marx on anything at all?" should cover anyone with the name of Karl Marx, be they philosopher, composer or anyone else. My opponent chose not to dispute this.

2. When I suggested that his claim that he originally thought I was talking about the composer was untrue, he did not dispute this either.

3. I said: "to say you disagree completely with ANY individual on all issues is a certain contradiction." My opponent gave no response.

4. I made inferences that because of KM-C's political affiliations he would have agreed with my opponent on several specific issues, presumably because this is one of the few facts about KM-C that could easily be sourced, my opponent did not include it in his request for sources (which according to my opponent's rules are irrelevant in this debate anyway), as he doesn't dispute this, I can only assume he admits the contradiction.

5. I said that: "A true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality would of course be interested in the most accurate translation possible of the original Hebrew text inspired by God."
My opponent responded: "I've always used the translation "Thou shalt not murder,"
As he does not dispute what I said this seems to be accepting that he is not a "true Christian who believes the Bible is a good basis for morality", therefore an additional contradiction.

It is a shame that my opponent did not take the opportunity to rebut any of these points made in previous rounds as I would have enjoyed providing a counter-rebuttal. I can only assume that the reason he ignored these was because he figured he had lost already and therefore conceded them, this does seem somewhat out of character though.

---------------------

Okay, so on to the points that my opponent did decide to respond to:

1. Karl Marx the composer.

Bear in mind that I have proved this particular issue is actually irrelevant to whether my opponent's answers to the Karl Marx questions represented a contradiction. I am pursuing this point to humour my opponent and because it is challenging and fun.

As Pro states: "KM-C, it is extremely difficult to find info about him". This is true and no, I can't find direct evidence of his religious or scientific opinions, however they are strongly inferred by his body of compositions that set music to sacred texts and the fact that he studied natural science in Munich in the early twentieth century. Besides, sources are irrelevant according to the rules put in place by my opponent.

Furthermore, my opponent is after all Pro and the instigator so should have at least an equal burden of proof to Con and has failed to prove whatsoever that he disagrees with K-SM on anything, let alone everything.

Similarly, while it is indeed possible that KM-C did not have a strong opinion on abortion, my opponent has made no effort to prove this. I think it is highly unlikely that he would not agree with ONE of the positions my opponent has affirmed. (Pro-life and/or abort if the mother will die).

2. Kill/Murder.

My opponent writes: "it seems as if the work can be used with only the intention of meaning "murder," based on your source."

Assuming he meant to type 'word' rather than 'work' (although K is a long way from D on my keyboard) this still makes little sense and I can only assume that Pro did not read the source properly.

This is the word that appears in the ten commandments:

Transliterated Word
Ratsach
Phonetic Spelling
raw-tsakh' Verb
Definition

1. to murder, slay, kill [ as in execution ]
1. (Qal) to murder, slay
1. premeditated [ as in execution ]
2. accidental
3. as avenger [ as in execution ]
4. slayer (intentional) (participle) [ as in executioner ]
2. (Niphal) to be slain [ as in executed ]
3. (Piel)
1. to murder, assassinate
2. murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
4. (Pual) to be killed

http://www.biblestudytools.com...
------
Below is the word that actually means just murder and does NOT appear in the ten commandments:

Transliterated Word
Harag
Phonetic Spelling
haw-rag' Verb
Definition

1. to kill, slay, murder, destroy, murderer, slayer, out of hand
1. (Qal)
1. to kill, slay
2. to destroy, ruin

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

3. "there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood"

?

This makes no sense to me, there is forgiveness without bloodshed.

4. If my opponent wished to apply his position of Pro-life to abortion alone then he really should have specified it in his answers as he did with various limitations and conditions in so many other cases.

Surely the living are less innocent and more guilty than the unborn.

5. Humanity.

My opponent's rebuttal merely reaffirms his previous argument, he ignores the fact that Jesus was susceptible to sin so still human even under his uncommon definition and does not contend the many 'true Christians' who believe Jesus took full human form.

----------------------------

So, a veritable web of contradictions has been spun by my opponent.
According to what my opponent has written in this debate:

He agrees with all people called Karl Marx on many things although he claims not to agree with any of them on anything.
He promotes life and death.
He believes the guilty have more right to life than the innocent but that we should execute them anyway.
He believes the Bible is a good source of morality but disagrees with one of it's principle codes.

Etc, etc further contradictions listed at length above.

Thanks very much to readers, voters and my opponent.

------------
English
Noun:

thankyou (plural thankyous)

1. Alternative spelling of thank you.
http://en.wiktionary.org...
------------

(Mozilla spellcheck has no problem with it either.)

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Quite. I'm pretty sure I could have one if I didn't make the slip-up of misreading the question, and I came up with counter-arguments for every contradiction, although, as usual, it's too late.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Close debate.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
Conduct: CON. Pro unjustifiably argued semantics.
S&G: TIE.
Args: CON.
Sources: CON.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I think I'll just be happy to have one point.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Wow, 56 points. This is the most I've ever had in a debate on here by a long, long way.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Clever footwork by both parties, well played =D
Posted by ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
B/A: TIED->CON (see arguments)
C: TIED. Both debaters were cordial enough.
S/G: TIED. No noticeable errors on either side.
CA: CON. When Pro says he doesn't agree with Karl Marx on anything, and Con points out that's literally impossible, Con wins.
S: CON. He's the victor on my ballot. Regardless, Con did post a nice assortment of sources to back up his arguments.

Good game gentlemen.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Lol, and I never thought much about the way I was spelling it.

Don't know who just gave me all 7 points, obviously not me as I can't vote. I very much respect the way you have acknowledged that fact and not voted for yourself in our other debates.

Peace.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Thankyou is a word. I never knew that.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Anyone who lived over the age of 5.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 7 years ago
Julius_Caesar
mongeesefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
mongeesefeverishTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
mongeesefeverishTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by abney317 7 years ago
abney317
mongeesefeverishTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
mongeesefeverishTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
mongeesefeverishTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
mongeesefeverishTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
mongeesefeverishTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
mongeesefeverishTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
mongeesefeverishTied
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:07