The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
157 Points

"Intelligent Falling"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 1/6/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,545 times Debate No: 6425
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (86)
Votes (28)

 

GodSands

Pro

(This debate is reserved for JCMT, evermore read it and post comments.)

"Maths is usless with out science, like science is uncomplete with out maths."

Understanding this theory is a big step, also I understandably get why. This theory (Intelligent falling) consists of a number of things, which are mathmatics, science and intelligence. Unlike its arrive gravity, which consists of randomness, chance and none intelligence. The opisite to "intelligent falling".

When a child is at a science lesson in school, he/she will learn about gravity as being a fact, being random, chance bound and unintelligent. This is simply not true. Infact this argument of mine (intelligent falling) is so easy to comproheand that I believe I could write all the answers in this argument alone.

If you do not use maths or science on anything it appears random. Say I twisted a tap, you would say that the strenth and the amount that the tap rotated was random, if you did not use maths or science by measuring me twisting the tap. It will seem random as you do not know the strenth or angle of the rotation. All things are random with no maths or sciences involved. For example: Throw a stone across a feild will look random, put a huge graph behind the stone which is being thrown and you will be able to plot the stone into the graph. Just because we do not know the mathmatics or science behind it does not mean its random or done by chance.

Now link this to the moon: The moon orbits the earth, you can calaulate the orbit of the moon with maths and science. Meaning that it makes sense not randomness, just like the stone thrown behind the huge graph. Infact it is so obivous that the moon was intelligently placed there that you dont need a graph. Because the earth and the moon acts just like a drawn out graph.

If you say "well would it be intelligence if I accidently kick a load of stones?"
I would answer: Not by the standard that it was a accident, overmore you could measure accidently kicking small stones by taping the event and by placing a graph underneath the small stones. Accident or not, it makes no difference.

You can easliy tell by this that intelligence was implied to this universe by God if you like it or not! Just say that the planets, stars and that the nights sky has graph paper printed on it. (Not such thing like stones and humans.)

Instead of us graphing the moon like we can to stones being thrown, God has graphed the moons, planets and the suns, solar systems and the galaxies. By intelligently placing them

This is the fact of "intellignet falling"

Thank you.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

This started out as an MSN conversation that quickly dropped my jaw as I realized my opponent actually believes this theory. One issue I'd like to address right at the beginning of the debate is that the title of this "theory" is somewhat of a misnomer...

My opponent refers to "intelligent falling" in lieu of other worthy theories, for example, gravity.

"Intelligent falling" refers to the notion that large celestial bodies are intelligently placed - the theory would have been much more aptly named "Celestial Intelligent Design." However, the fact remains that this is supposed to be a replacement for gravity. However, it is quite obvious that gravity in and of itself cannot be intelligent, as gravity has no mind.

When considering the two theories (gravity and IF), my opponent only has this to say: "GodStands: I am amazed that I fell for gravity."

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

First, a few responses:

>> "Maths is usless with out science, like science is uncomplete with out maths."

Not exactly - science is impossible AND "uncomplete" without math. Math, however, is in and of itself not a science, but rather a tool that science (and other disciplines) frequently employ because it is very useful.

>> "When a child is at a science lesson in school, he/she will learn about gravity as being a fact, being random, chance bound and unintelligent."

False - gravity is a theory (a good enough one to be "fact"). It is not random - it is very well explained by Newton's equations (http://en.wikipedia.org... ; http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...). Furthermore - it is not bound in any way by chance. Gravity never has any "chance" that it will work - it's "always on." Of course - it's also not unintelligent OR intelligent - gravity has no mind or consciousness and can be no more intelligent or unintelligent than a rock.

>> "This [the above statement about gravity] is simply not true."

Of course it's not - that's because my opponent does not understand gravity and has completely mischaracterized it.

>> "If you do not use maths or science on anything it appears random. Say I twisted a tap, you would say that the strenth and the amount that the tap rotated was random, if you did not use maths or science by measuring me twisting the tap. It will seem random as you do not know the strenth or angle of the rotation."

This doesn't indicate that the action is random - it indicates that it was arbitrary. It is easy to get an approximate idea about how the tap was activated from a cursory glance at the handle and amount of water flowing from the tap.

>> "All things are random with no maths or sciences involved. "

False. The involvement of math or science does not change the nature of something.

>> "Just because we do not know the mathmatics or science behind it does not mean its random or done by chance."

My opponent contradicts himself...

>> "The moon orbits the earth, you can calaulate the orbit of the moon with maths and science. Meaning that it makes sense not randomness, just like the stone thrown behind the huge graph. Infact it is so obivous that the moon was intelligently placed there that you dont need a graph. Because the earth and the moon acts just like a drawn out graph."

This simply makes no sense. My opponent simply asserts that it is obvious the moon was intelligently placed without any sort of reasoning or evidence. And as for how the Earth and Moon act like a drawn out graph... obviously his argument is composed of conjecture and not reasoning.

>> "You can easliy tell by this that intelligence was implied to this universe by God if you like it or not! Just say that the planets, stars and that the nights sky has graph paper printed on it."

I've looked at the moon and various planets myself through a telescope... I've never seen any graph paper. Again - my opponent asserts without reason or evidence that intelligence was "implied" (applied?) to the universe by God. Where is the evidence for this? That the moon has a stable orbit? Unfortunately, Newton's (and following) equations describe the orbits quite well.

>> "God has graphed the moons, planets and the suns, solar systems and the galaxies. By intelligently placing them"

Considering things like decaying orbits and orbital resonance, as well as the need for leap years because our rotation speed isn't a good match to our orbital period.... God sure didn't do a very good job, did he?

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

"Intelligent Falling" is nothing more than an attempt to interject intelligent design into another aspect of science. Obviously, this notion is completely flawed and has no rational basis at all. Aside from the fact that the theory hardly makes sense as presented, it actually explains nothing, and fails as a scientific theory - there are no testable hypotheses that can be formed with this theory.

As such, I submit that "Intelligent Falling" is simply not a theory at all, and is just another attempt by religion to interject itself where it does not belong.

The theory of gravity is a far superior to the "theory" of "Intelligent Falling."

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

(This debate is reserved for JCMT, evermore read it and post comments.)

"Maths is usless with out science, like science is uncomplete with out maths."

Understanding this theory is a big step, also I understandably get why. This theory (Intelligent falling) consists of a number of things, which are mathmatics, science and intelligence. Unlike its arrive gravity, which consists of randomness, chance and none intelligence. The opisite to "intelligent falling".

When a child is at a science lesson in school, he/she will learn about gravity as being a fact, being random, chance bound and unintelligent. This is simply not true. Infact this argument of mine (intelligent falling) is so easy to comproheand that I believe I could write all the answers in this argument alone.

If you do not use maths or science on anything it appears random. Say I twisted a tap, you would say that the strenth and the amount that the tap rotated was random, if you did not use maths or science by measuring me twisting the tap. It will seem random as you do not know the strenth or angle of the rotation. All things are random with no maths or sciences involved. For example: Throw a stone across a feild will look random, put a huge graph behind the stone which is being thrown and you will be able to plot the stone into the graph. Just because we do not know the mathmatics or science behind it does not mean its random or done by chance.

Now link this to the moon: The moon orbits the earth, you can calaulate the orbit of the moon with maths and science. Meaning that it makes sense not randomness, just like the stone thrown behind the huge graph. Infact it is so obivous that the moon was intelligently placed there that you dont need a graph. Because the earth and the moon acts just like a drawn out graph.

If you say "well would it be intelligence if I accidently kick a load of stones?"
I would answer: Not by the standard that it was a accident, overmore you could measure accidently kicking small stones by taping the event and by placing a graph underneath the small stones. Accident or not, it makes no difference.

You can easliy tell by this that intelligence was implied to this universe by God if you like it or not! Just say that the planets, stars and that the nights sky has graph paper printed on it. (Not such thing like stones and humans.)

Instead of us graphing the moon like we can to stones being thrown, God has graphed the moons, planets and the suns, solar systems and the galaxies. By intelligently placing them

This is the fact of "intellignet falling"

Thank you.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

I suppose posting the same nonsense again is about as good as forfeiting...

My arguments stand.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

Very important that you remember this: That a stone when falling APPEARS random. Since the theory of gravity is random. Gravity does not exist. As once studied falling stones it shows that it is not random. Scince maths is not random and niether is science. As you study a stone falling with maths and science.

How about refering to my comments. "I've looked at the moon and various planets myself through a telescope... I've never seen any graph paper." I didn't mean that, but use you mind and imagen there being graph paper.

"BHAHAHAAAAA - the earth was in more danger of flooding when the moon was closer. Clearly the moon cannot be here to stop the earth from flooding if moving it farther away reduces the risk of floods..." The earth is only 6000 years old. More danger of huge waves are starting to occour (26/12/04) Boxing day. 2006. For example.

""as gravity has no mind." Further down the page "It is not random"" By you saying this means that having no mind means that your actions would be random. As you have no mind to tell what is good or bad, meaningfull or pointless etc.... Then you say gravity is not random. Swallowing your words I think there.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Responses:

>> "That a stone when falling APPEARS random. "

No - it does not.

>> "Since the theory of gravity is random."

No - it is not.

>> "As once studied falling stones it shows that it is not random."

Considering it's not random in the first place... studying it shows the specifics of its falling motion.

>> "How about refering to my comments. "I've looked at the moon and various planets myself through a telescope... I've never seen any graph paper." I didn't mean that, but use you mind and imagen there being graph paper."

Your comments are immaterial - the nonsense you post in the the debate fields are. This hypothetical graph paper stuff about there being some sort of evidence for "Intelligent Falling" when looking at the stars is ludicrous.

>> "The earth is only 6000 years old. More danger of huge waves are starting to occour (26/12/04) Boxing day. 2006. For example."

The earth has been scientifically shown to be FAR older than 6000 years. Or do you have an "Intelligent Fossil" theory on that too? The notion that the moon getting farther away exerts more force on the earth's ocean's is quite contrary to Newton's equations concerning gravity - equations that somehow work for everything except the ludicrous notion of "intelligent falling."

>> """as gravity has no mind." Further down the page "It is not random"" By you saying this means that having no mind means that your actions would be random. As you have no mind to tell what is good or bad, meaningfull or pointless etc.... Then you say gravity is not random. Swallowing your words I think there."

If you had taken the time to read my debate, you would be able to glean the information that gravity has no mind, yet is not random because there's no chance involved in the concept. Gravity always works. There's no "chance" or "randomness" involved!

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

This debate has been nothing but my opponent spewing incoherent nonsense with no facts or reasoning to back it up. He simply asserts theories that make no sense and contradict some of the oldest established laws of science.

The worst part is that his defense against this system being impossible is that "God did it" - a weak defense at best, and in this case - simply more nonsense.

"Intelligent Falling" is nothing but a nonsensical attempt to interject intelligent design into the very foundation of modern science.
Debate Round No. 3
GodSands

Pro

If you had taken the time to read my debate, you would be able to glean the information that gravity has no mind, yet is not random because there's no chance involved in the concept. Gravity always works. There's no "chance" or "randomness" involved!"

If I kicked a football would it not appear random in till I did a hypothesis on the motion of the ball being kicked? Therefore by me know the hypothesis, according to my knowledge the whole ball kicking randomness would become none random. As science and maths is used in the hypothesis.

Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

"This hypothetical graph paper stuff about there being some sort of evidence for "Intelligent Falling" when looking at the stars is ludicrous." Have you heard of 3D before? Have you seen a 3D graph before? If a 3D graph was through out the universe, Intelligent falling would make outstanding sense. Gravity I suppose is just a watered down version of Intelligent falling. Just with out the maths and the science.

"If you had taken the time to read my debate"- Which I have done.

Considering things like decaying orbits and orbital resonance, as well as the need for leap years because our rotation speed isn't a good match to our orbital period.... God sure didn't do a very good job, did he?

The 2nd LAW (gravity is not one) of themordynamics enables things to grow old and decay, become less appealing. 2nd law of thermodynamics was introduced when sin was introduced. (Including the moon to fall away. As now God is focused on saving us instead of the universe, which is corrupted by sin.)

"you would be able to glean the information that gravity has no mind, yet is not random because there's no chance involved in the concept. Gravity always works. There's no "chance" or "randomness" involved!"

What is the chance I could hit balls eye with a dart. Mathematically and scientifically that can be solved. Gravity has no mind, what about this "gravity does not exist! If gravity always worked. Then why doesn't earth just plummet? It would take intelligence to remain earth rotating around the sun.

"There's no "chance" or "randomness" involved!" "What is the chance I could hit balls eye with a dart."

Maths is chance and science replaces randomness for well......Science.

"This debate has been nothing but my opponent spewing incoherent nonsense with no facts or reasoning to back it up. He simply asserts theories that make no sense and contradict some of the oldest established laws of science."

Intelligent falling is a step ahead of gravity. With no facts or no reasoning for gravity, step ahead and the reasoning will come clear and therefore the facts will become clear.

"with no facts or reasoning to back it up." You are not accepting reasoning therefore no facts in your eyes.
"will no facts or reasoning to back it up."

"Intelligent Falling" is nothing but a nonsensical attempt to interject intelligent design into the very foundation of modern science." If intelligent falling is nonsense then gravity most certainly needs a break.

In the next round if you still don't understand I will explain how it would be impossible to move if gravity existed. In such your muscles are through to be stronger than the gravity pull of the earth, surly this would move the earth not you. If gravity was true.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

>> "Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.""

Copy-pasted from this article - (http://www.theonion.com...) Or this one (https://www.msu.edu...)

Really?? That's all you've got? A thirdhand assertion that Newton was alluding to a higher power? Could it have not been that he was alluding to something like string theory? Newton himself was a BIBLICAL LITERALIST!!! If he had been referencing God he would have SAID SO!!!! - (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

>> "Have you heard of 3D before? Have you seen a 3D graph before? If a 3D graph was through out the universe, Intelligent falling would make outstanding sense. Gravity I suppose is just a watered down version of Intelligent falling. Just with out the maths and the science."

Gravity makes perfect sense in three dimensions as well as two. Considering the universe IS 3D and intelligent falling still makes no sense, your statement is blatantly false. And you suppose that gravity is a watered down version of IF?? Without math and science?

Again - are you kidding me? Fact - Intelligent Falling has no math or science. Fact - gravity has math and science. Your statement is again shown to be completely false.

>> ""If you had taken the time to read my debate"- Which I have done."

This indicates that while you may have read, you have understood nothing.

>> "The 2nd LAW (gravity is not one) of themordynamics enables things to grow old and decay, become less appealing. 2nd law of thermodynamics was introduced when sin was introduced.

Thermodynamics has nothing to do with decaying orbits. Orbits are concern conservation of momentum. The second law of thermodynamics has to do with a tendency towards an increase in entropy. In fact, momentum has to do with Newton's laws of motion... Planet's orbits decay because of gravity - NOT ORIGINAL SIN!!!!

>> "(Including the moon to fall away. As now God is focused on saving us instead of the universe, which is corrupted by sin.)""

If you had any familiarity at all with three-dimensional gravitational fields, you would know that bodies "fall" TOWARDS other bodies. The moon is moving away because it is being pulled away by the gravity of other large bodies in the solar system like the Sun and Jupiter.

>> "What is the chance I could hit balls eye with a dart. Mathematically and scientifically that can be solved. Gravity has no mind, what about this "gravity does not exist! If gravity always worked. Then why doesn't earth just plummet? It would take intelligence to remain earth rotating around the sun."

Plummet to where exactly? The earth doesn't fall into the sun because of a little scientific law called "conservation of angular momentum." Earth stays in orbit at a balance point between the sun's pull and its own escape velocity from the solar system. I fail to see how intelligence is required for this...

>> "Intelligent falling is a step ahead of gravity. With no facts or no reasoning for gravity, step ahead and the reasoning will come clear and therefore the facts will become clear."

This goes beyond simple inconsistency to the point of a lie. There are indeed facts for gravity. No logical reasoning can possibly deliver the conclusion of "intelligent falling." There are no facts to support "intelligent falling."

>> "You are not accepting reasoning therefore no facts in your eyes."

My opponent has presented no facts - ergo - no facts I CAN consider. Perhaps this is because there ARE no facts and no reasoning for IF.

>> "In the next round if you still don't understand..."

There is no next round.

>>" I will explain how it would be impossible to move if gravity existed. In such your muscles are through to be stronger than the gravity pull of the earth, surly this would move the earth not you. If gravity was true."

Again - you clearly do not understand F = (GMm)/r^2 at all. You can move because the earth's pull on you is insignificant... do the calculation - Force equals [(6.647 * 10^-11) * (your weight * the weight of the earth)] divided by half the distance from here to the center of the earth squared. It's a very small number.

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

This "theory" is full on nonsense and empty of facts. Even a cursory examination of the world will reveal this. Gravity works and is described by Newton's theories with verifiable math. Intelligent Falling is described by the ancient work of barely literate primitives.

Honestly readers, let's think about this one.

Gravity is a FAR more solid theory than Intelligent Falling. Intelligent Falling is complete and utter nonsense with no support.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
86 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeadLeaves93 8 years ago
DeadLeaves93
You lost my vote at "Gravity does not exist."
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
No read my lastest debate TheSkeptic. You will see and all will become clear that I am right.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
All point to JCMT for VERY OBVIOUS REASONS (GodSands is horrendous at debating). What is even more hilarious is the Intelligent Falling is a parody of Intelligent Design. This just shows what blunt and biased research skills GodSands has. He automatically agrees with anything that says "God is real" without even reading the actual material (which probably will tell you that it's a PARODY).
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
I didn't notice that the voting system changed :), but that explains a lot now! I was REALLY worried that GodSands may have actually received 16 distinct votes, that would have been crazy! :)
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mecap, I assume he gave himself 7 points, leaving, as of now, 9 points from the other 13 voters. Each voter awards up to seven points. While even 9 points is hard to explain, its not like there were actually 16 fans of incoherence on the site.
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
Look at this... GodSands got 16 votes!!! AMAZING!
And he's NEVER won a debate (0 for 8)! Probably the worst debater I've EVER seen!

1. The kid is arguing in favor of a FAKE theory- a theory which is a certified parody of creationism.
2. He can't put a sentence together.
3. He can't make a single coherent statement.
4. The only time he gets proper grammar is when he does a copy and paste.
5. But when he does a copy and paste he NEVER provides his sources.

He's a TOTAL WRECK and he STILL managed to get 16 votes... he's borderline retarded, but just think about the people that actually voted for him, they must be even worse- they must be bonafide lunatics!
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Its not the best assumption, Tarzan, its the ONLY assumption.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
DCB, KRF - when talking to GodSands, I've discovered it's best to pretend as though he has never studied physics, math, history, or astrophysics in his life.....
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"God is the force of the gravity that is the force of falling. Stick with that then."

You're better off sticking with the belief that God caused the Big Bang using his Will and gravitation begins to separate from the fundamental gauge interactions: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces between 10^–43 seconds and 10^–36 seconds after the Big Bang.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
"The swift and hidden davil [sic] hides Him self [sic] to prefend [sic] you know of God."

I was not mocking you, though citing The Onion is poor scholarship and if uncorrected does a disservice to both you and the Church.

Proverbs 13:18 : "If you ignore criticism, you will end in poverty and disgrace; if you accept correction, you will be honored."
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 MewxVenus 8 years ago
MewxVenus
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 DeadLeaves93 8 years ago
DeadLeaves93
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Blessed-Cheese-Maker 8 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
GodSandsJustCallMeTarzanTied
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