The Instigator
schoolglutton
Pro (for)
Winning
84 Points
The Contender
midgetjoe
Con (against)
Losing
54 Points

If a Single God Exists and Is Responsible For Creating Our World, This God Is a Jerk

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: 12/14/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,370 times Debate No: 433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (42)

 

schoolglutton

Pro

~~~ My Main Argument ~~~
Claim: If a Single God Exists and Is Responsible For Creating Our World, This God Is a Jerk

God is defined here as an infallible, all knowing, and all powerful being responsible for the creation of all that is. Somehow this God has managed to always exist and predate all that has ever been.

Jerk is defined here as a being whose behavior is hurtful, self-centered, or particularly abrasive.

My evidence is that God deposited some pretty nasty genetic diseases and natural disasters in our world, among other things. What a jerk, I know.

Consider the disorder "familiar rectal pain syndrome" (Boy do you not want to get this) (1):
"The disorder starts in the neonatal period (possibly in utero) and is lifelong. Its most characteristic clinical features are attacks of excruciating pain that affect various parts of the body, including the rectum, genitalia, face and limbs. In addition, other features reflecting autonomic dysfunction occur, including harlequin colour changes and pupillary abnormalities. Some patients with the disorder experience non-epileptic tonic seizures during severe episodes of pain. These may be associated with cardiac asystole."

Now consider natural disasters such as floods. You've got the fatalities from drowning, physical damage to all your stuff, disease being spread, and damage to crops. All that sucks. That's that jerk God up to no good again.

God knowingly created this flawed system upon which these terrible events occur. The fact that God has created both good and bad things is no excuse for the bad things that God does create.

~~~ References ~~~
1. http://jnnp.bmj.com...
midgetjoe

Con

God created a perfect world, he warned man not to sin, they did, and he did what he promised he would. It's not God's fault it's mans. the wages of sin ar death.....not really a hard concept.

Dieseases came after the fall of man, by man's choice. God didn't want to put them there but he said he would if man disobeyed, God sticks to his words. Except for on most floods are caused by the environment that God put in....and i challenge you to come up with a better one. If you don't want to get killed in a flood.....don't live near water, i don't see how you can blaim that on God....

You seem to just want ot strike out at God (judging from your other debates) could it be you have another reason to dislike him?
Debate Round No. 1
schoolglutton

Pro

~~~ Your Responses ~~~
Joe's Response:
"God created a perfect world, he warned man not to sin, they did, and he did what he promised he would. It's not God's fault it's mans. the wages of sin ar death.....not really a hard concept. Dieseases came after the fall of man, by man's choice. God didn't want to put them there but he said he would if man disobeyed, God sticks to his words."

My Response:
You're passing the buck to "man" in regard to these bad things that are occurring by saying "man" chose for this to happen. In your view "man" acknowledged God's promise of harmful consequences and yet still told God to bring it on.

However, you're forgetting that God created "man" and chose for "man" to have this power. Also, God had the foresight to know the harm that would come about as a consequence. So, God must have planned for this harm to come about and used "man" as an intermediary. What's this God doing purposefully putting itself in a bind and being forced to bring about harm? I defined God as infallible, all knowing, and all powerful so if the event you're talking about took place, then God must have gone into it with the plan of having "man" create harm. Now God is not only a jerk, but a sneaky jerk at that.

Joe's Response:
"Except for on most floods are caused by the environment that God put in....and i challenge you to come up with a better one."

My Response:
This God is infallible, all knowing, and all powerful so it could have created a safer water system had it chose to. Also, world/Earth water system creating is not my trade. This God is qualified in designing the Earth's water system and I'm sure if it weren't for the fact that this God was a jerk, the Earth's water system would be much safer. Also, this goes against your earlier statement that "God created a perfect world" because evidently God purposefully put in these flaws as a way to cause harm. Are these water system problems a result of the sin from "man" as well? Did the sin from "man" restructure the Earth's water system in a dangerous way different than God initially created? If so, God is still responsible for being a jerk for the same reasoning I have laid out in my paragraph above.

Joe's Response:
"If you don't want to get killed in a flood.....don't live near water, i don't see how you can blaim that on God...."

My Response:
First off, and once again, God could have designed a much safer water system instead of being a jerk and making it so dangerous. Further, water has so many benefits that it affords us. That's like putting a treat next to a landmine and blaming the victim for not being more careful. The earth is riddled with such landmines. This jerk God plays some sick games.

Joe's Response:
"You seem to just want ot strike out at God (judging from your other debates) could it be you have another reason to dislike him?"

My Response:
Ad Hominid Alert!!! What does this have to do with the validity of my claim?

~~~ Proof by Contraposition ~~~
Premise: If this God were not a jerk, we'd expect to see an absence of nasty things in this world.

Contrapositive: If there are nasty things in this world, then this God is a jerk.

Conclusion: There are nasty things in this world; therefore, this God is a jerk.

I notice you are insisting that the premise in this section is not valid, but I am consistently showing to you that it is by the argument in the former section. Come up with more cases when you think you're invalidating this premise and I will falsify every one of them.
midgetjoe

Con

your Response:
You're passing the buck to "man" in regard to these bad things that are occurring by saying "man" chose for this to happen. In your view "man" acknowledged God's promise of harmful consequences and yet still told God to bring it on.

My Response:
true

Your Response:
However, you're forgetting that God created "man" and chose for "man" to have this power. Also, God had the foresight to know the harm that would come about as a consequence. So, God must have planned for this harm to come about and used "man" as an intermediary. What's this God doing purposefully putting itself in a bind and being forced to bring about harm? I defined God as infallible, all knowing, and all powerful so if the event you're talking about took place, then God must have gone into it with the plan of having "man" create harm. Now God is not only a jerk, but a sneaky jerk at that.

My Response:
He did not force man to sin.....he knew that they would but he gave them the option. He gave man the ability to choose between right and wrong. We still have that today.. It's not just the Garden of Eden. God had two options, 1. create man so they would be FORCED to worship him (which would make him a jerk), or 2. Give man freedom to make his own dicisions and face the consequences. What would you have him do? Adam and Eve made a pact with the devil....shouldn't God punish them for that? After he gave them paradise...

Your Response:
This God is infallible, all knowing, and all powerful so it could have created a safer water system had it chose to. Also, world/Earth water system creating is not my trade. This God is qualified in designing the Earth's water system and I'm sure if it weren't for the fact that this God was a jerk, the Earth's water system would be much safer. Also, this goes against your earlier statement that "God created a perfect world" because evidently God purposefully put in these flaws as a way to cause harm. Are these water system problems a result of the sin from "man" as well? Did the sin from "man" restructure the Earth's water system in a dangerous way different than God initially created? If so, God is still responsible for being a jerk for the same reasoning I have laid out in my paragraph above.

My Response:
Your just calling God names now.... the flood changed every water system on the planet, due to sin.... And again God gave us choices, he lets us run our lives. do you want him to protect us from everything while we sin??

Your Response:
First off, and once again, God could have designed a much safer water system instead of being a jerk and making it so dangerous. Further, water has so many benefits that it affords us. That's like putting a treat next to a landmine and blaming the victim for not being more careful. The earth is riddled with such landmines. This jerk God plays some sick games.

My Response:
you can kill yourself walking down the street....floods don't always kill, you just need to be in a safe place. And don't forget the devil is playing games on earth as well.

Your Response:
Ad Hominid Alert!!! What does this have to do with the validity of my claim?

My Response:
It has to do with the absurdity of your claim. You're whole argument is just you insulting God over and over again, That obviously stems from something.

Your Response:
~~~ Proof by Contraposition ~~~
Premise: If this God were not a jerk, we'd expect to see an absence of nasty things in this world.

My Response:
Wrong, the devil does nasty things

Your Response:
Contrapositive: If there are nasty things in this world, then this God is a jerk.

My Response:
Wrong again, see devil

Your Response
Conclusion: There are nasty things in this world; therefore, this God is a jerk.

My Response:
Because of the existance of satan you cannot make this claim.

Your response:
I notice you are insisting that the premise in this section is not valid, but I am consistently showing to you that it is by the argument in the former section. Come up with more cases when you think you're invalidating this premise and I will falsify every one of them.

My Response:
Satan....go for it.
Debate Round No. 2
schoolglutton

Pro

~~~ Answering Joe's Round 2 Responses ~~~
Joe's Response:
"He did not force man to sin.....he knew that they would but he gave them the option. He gave man the ability to choose between right and wrong. We still have that today.. It's not just the Garden of Eden. God had two options, 1. create man so they would be FORCED to worship him (which would make him a jerk), or 2. Give man freedom to make his own dicisions and face the consequences. What would you have him do? Adam and Eve made a pact with the devil....shouldn't God punish them for that? After he gave them paradise..."

My Response:
There are numerous problems here:

1. Remember that God is being defined as predating everything and creating all while being infallible, all knowing, and all powerful. God cannot both create "man" with full knowledge of the decisions "man" will make and still consider that "man" was given options. Imagine if an author were writing a book with lots of characters. These characters then performed certain actions. How can the author in earnest be mad at these characters? The author explicitly created these characters knowing ahead of time what they would do. Now imagine that these characters the author has created can feel real pain and suffering the way you and I do. The author then brings nasty things into the world of these characters causing them pain and suffering. Sound like a jerk? Absolutely.

2. If you don't want to acknowledge point 1 here, then you have to concede you're making an obvious either-or fallacy. There are other possibilities besides the two you gave. This God could allow "man" to make its own decisions (this assumes there's free will in the first place) and not give nasty consequences. By unnecessarily introducing these nasty consequences (such as landmine type catastrophes over the globe and familiar rectal pain syndrome) God meets the definition of a jerk yet again. These consequences are not necessary and if they came about in the way you are claiming, then this God is a jerk for having introduced them. If God wanted to teach some sort of lesson through the events you are claiming, this God could have taught this lesson by other non jerk-like means. However, God chose to be a jerk instead by teaching some sort of lesson through introducing some serious nasty things in the world. To accuse God of not being able to teach lessons by less nasty means would be accusing God of being uncreative. This does not fit with God being all powerful, all knowing, and infallible.

3. You seem to insinuate something like original sin in your response. That a God would do that at all is pretty jerk-like. Imagine if the President of a country had the lawful power to punish anyone and spotted someone stealing. Now, instead of only punishing the perpetrator, the President also punishes the rest of the citizens in the country (who had nothing to do with the initial crime) AND the children (also who had nothing to do with the initial crime) they've yet to have. Does this President sound like a jerk? Of course, and so does God if what you're claiming is true.

4. Even if the options you gave were the only two (which they aren't), God is still using coercion to get what it wants in your option two. The fact that this God wants to be worshiped so bad that it will coerce "man" in order to receive worship shows that God is self-centered. Being self-centered meets the qualification of being a jerk. God is essentially saying worship me and don't sin (whatever sin is) or else I'll give you and your offspring nasty things such as landmine-like natural disasters and lifetime rectal pain disorders (very jerk-like). If God doesn't directly state the possible consequence then it's another example of God being a sneaky jerk.

Joe's Response:
"Your just calling God names now.... the flood changed every water system on the planet, due to sin.... And again God gave us choices, he lets us run our lives. do you want him to protect us from everything while we sin??" . . . "It [Joe's ad hominid attack] has to do with the absurdity of your claim. You're whole argument is just you insulting God over and over again, That obviously stems from something."

My Response:
I've addressed the original sin and choices part. As far as me establishing that God is a jerk, that's the main claim I'm defending. You're going to need to remember that part if you plan to get points in this debate. Also, if my claim is so absurd, then it should make your job that much easier. Finally, my personal stance on God has no influence as to the reality of a God being or not being a jerk, assuming God exists in the first place. This irrelevance is the very reason your ad hominid attack is a fallacy.

Joe's Response to Proof by Contraposition:
"Wrong, the devil does nasty things"
"Because of the existance of satan you cannot make this claim."
"Satan....go for it."

My Response:
As far as this devil thing goes, you need to keep in mind that the definition God receives in this argument requires God predate the devil and create all that is. Because God predates all and creates all that is, it must conclude that God created the devil, if the devil indeed exists. God is infallible and all knowing so creating the devil was purposeful and for the explicit reason of generating harm. This purposeful choice of having the devil give harm would still be true even if my definition of God didn't require that God created the devil. This is because God is also all powerful and infallible.

I'll use the author analogy from earlier now. If the author was not a jerk, the author would not have introduced a character such as this devil knowing the harm the other characters would endure just as you and I can experience harm. We can thus conclude that if a character such as the devil was introduced, the author must have been a jerk. Because this author example is analogous it follows that God introduced the devil, so God must be a jerk.

~~~My Conclusion ~~~
I've given a definition of God for this argument: infallible, all knowing, all powerful, being responsible for the creation of all that is, and predating all. Because of these attributes of God, anything that exists which is harmful, even if it comes about from another being, is the purposeful result of God's will. The arguments I've given in addition to the given author analogy illustrates how this is so. God goes beyond even the author in that God is also infallible. This is even more evidence that any nasty things in the world can be attributable to God, because by this definition of God, nothing can occur by accident.

I have shown throughout this debate that the harmful things that exist in this world such as familiar rectal pain syndrome and natural disasters are brought about by the will of God, given God exists. Finally, for one to willingly carry out these terrible events would be for one to be a jerk as I have defined. God is proven to be responsible for these terrible events. Therefore, as I state in my main claim, God is a jerk.
midgetjoe

Con

Ok your whole basic argument seems to be:God is all seeing and all knowing, so sense there is evil in this world God is a jerk right?

Let's look at that claim.

First of all anybody can see that we're both assuming there IS a God right?

Now let's look at definitions. Since we've already established there IS a God, let's look at the word jerk... When you say jerk you seem to be using it as meaning "someone who does horrible things because he can for no reason".

But using logic, like you enjoy doing lets now look at that.... what is horrible? WHY is it horrible?

YOU might think it's bad, but since we've already established there IS a God than wouldn't he also define right and wrong? good and evil? horrible and not horrible?

In your opinion he might be a jerk, but since He defines all things, than we can assume: A. Your knowledge of what a jerk IS, is wrong, and B. God can NOT be a jerk because he IS (as you granted already) "infallible, all knowing, and all powerful". If God is infallible than he is never wrong, if he is never wrong than everything he does is right, if everything he does is the right thing, than he does everythign for a reason, if he does everything for a reason than he can NOT be a jerk.

You want logic, there's your logic.
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
lol "Ad Hominid Alert!!!"

It's a portmanteau of ad hominem and hominid.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 9 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I found schoolglutton's arguements to be much better backed up. The only instance where I agree with midgetjoe is the constant personal attacks on God by way of constanly calling him a jerk. There are more professional ways to put it. I was however, deeply ammused by it.

My own add ons: I have an issue with people saying man chose to embark on this miserable life. Assuming that there was an Adam then yes, at the time one being did constitute a whole species (man), but the point being, it was one man. His decendants, given they had a chance, would probably choose otherwise. But at the moment, we're suffering for a man's blunder, not the species as a whole.

Another point I find interesting is the issue of Satan. Its important to remember, that according to the Bible, Satan, who was at the time the angel Lucifer, turned his back on God, tired of his ways. Interesting that even though had he kept his mouth quiet, he would be one of the "blessed", he chose not to. Perhaps this says something about God, given that one of his favorite divine creations left him.

There are other points I wished to bring up, however, I find they already have. Hopefully, people voted on the better debate, rather than their favorite side.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
Thank you, PreacherFred: the same to you. Maybe we'll debate each other sometime?
I also apologize if I have broken with site etiquette in any comments, but give me a break goldenfoot, I just joined the other day. As I already said, there is no internal messaging system here, thus as PreacherFred said, this is all we have.
Posted by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
My only issue with this topic is that midgetjoe put forth a new argument in his closing, thus not allowing schoolglutton a response to it.

The concept that the acceptance of a God (big G) means that we must accept his actions as perfect is a hairy conclusion to reach at the very end of the debate.

We, by being human and having free will as midgetjoe has been arguing up till this point, have a unique ability to judge and act as we will. This means that our ability to utilize our reason in this case is very important.

midgetjoe you can't 180 on your past arguments in this debate by suddenly saying that God is infallible and thus the things we think of as "bad", which you had previously accepted as bad but being the fault of mankind's sinful past, as suddenly not being "bad" but because we don't understand God and that He alone gets to decide what is right and wrong. I think this last argument is a strong one midgetjoe, however you didn't get to it till the last argument which is meant to be a closer and not an introduction of new arguments which schoolglutton can't respond to as well contradicting your past arguments supplied in the debate, thus I need to go with schoolglutton on this one.
Posted by cherrychocolate 9 years ago
cherrychocolate
I have a real issue with any being, and yes I include God, as all-powerful: schoolglutton, can your theoretical God create a rock so heavy that your theoretical God can't lift it? I know it's a metaphor that's been overused but I still believe that there is no such thing as omnipotence.
I also have a problem with the decidedly Christian spin of the whole topic. I am Jewish, so I believe in God; but I don't believe that humans are born inherently evil, or that we "sin" when we choose for ourselves.
I must admit that if there were such a being as schoolglutton describes, yes, that being would be "a jerk"; but that's not how I perceive God so I can't really say I actually agree with either of you.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
brittwaller your comment is interesting and I appreciate your views. We "inherit" the sin of the original parents. That was part of the equation. But, in His mercy, He sent His Son, Jesus, to redeem mankind. So God provided a solution to the problem. Having been forgiven by the sacrifice made by Jesus we still must exercise our free will in accepting that forgiveness.

I refrain, usually, from making comments during a debate but I am guilty of participating in the comments as a forum after the fact. I think the owners intend to add that feature in the near future. Until then, goldenfoot, this is all we have.
Posted by goldenfoot 9 years ago
goldenfoot
I voted schoolglutton, he presented stronger arguements and refutted the arguements presented by migetjoe. At the end of the debate all of the arguments presented by schoolglutton still stood. I think the author analogy won the debate. It presented the arguements in more secular terms, without having to deal with the annoying atheist vs theist arguements.

I'm also disapointed by the message board, this is used for discussing the debate, not starting a new one. There are a billion threads on the atheist vs theist, go there if you want to discuss if god is real or not.
Posted by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
PreacherFred, my point was that god saw, or rather knew about it, long before any of it happened. Also, according to Christianity, Adam and Eve may have had free will, but everyone after their sin, including them, suffered. If you are born with sin, as we all apparently are, you have no choice in the matter, thus free will does not apply - it is strict determinism leading back to the original humans, the devil, and god. I WAS NOT THERE WHEN "SIN" ORIGINATED: what do I have to do with it? NOTHING.
Posted by hattopic 9 years ago
hattopic
I really like what MidgetJoe said in his closing "But using logic, like you enjoy doing" I just like the idea of someone trying to insult someone else by telling them you they like to use logic.

Why don't I give you my opinion using "facts" and "logic" you'd like that wouldn't you.
Posted by evl_yn 9 years ago
evl_yn
midgetjoe says that schoolglutton seems to be defining a jerk as "someone who does horrible things because he can for no reason". But Schoolgultton has defined a jerk "as a being whose behavior is hurtful, self-centered, or particularly abrasive." Schoolglutton's definition of a jerk does not state whether or not a jerk has a reason for being hurtful, self-centered, or particularly abrasive. In other words, a jerk can do horrible things and have a reason for doing those things, and still be a jerk.

midgetjoe says "we can assume: A. Your [schoolglutton's] knowledge of what a jerk IS, is wrong". schoolglutton defined the term jerk for the purpose of this debate, a definition which midgetjoe accepted when he accepted schoolglutton's challenge.

Also, I agree with brittwaller comment below. "Perhaps in god's dictionary, "right" can include the tremendous amount of suffering that has plagued man since, well, man has existed. In that case, god would be a jerk." Whether or not the suffering that exists is right or wrong, and whether or not there is a reason for that suffering, that suffering has in fact been hurtful. Because god is defined in this debate as having created all that is, that suffering and that hurt exists because of him.
42 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by schoolglutton 8 years ago
schoolglutton
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
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 DylanAsdale 9 years ago
DylanAsdale
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
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 Paradox 9 years ago
Paradox
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
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 Josh 9 years ago
Josh
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Thucydides 9 years ago
Thucydides
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Curtispov11 9 years ago
Curtispov11
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Browncoat 9 years ago
Browncoat
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by afeinberg 9 years ago
afeinberg
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by ComfortablyDumb 9 years ago
ComfortablyDumb
schoolgluttonmidgetjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30