The Instigator
jason_hendirx
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Intelligent design should not be respected as much as the theory of evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 7 votes the winner is...
jason_hendirx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,045 times Debate No: 5582
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (7)

 

jason_hendirx

Pro

There is an intellectually, but sadly not politically, one-sided debate going on between those who believe that natural selection is the only theory of speciation that should be taught in schools and those who believe that intelligent design should be regarded as at least an alternative in the classroom.

First, I will define natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which, over the course of generations, species change to adapt to the environment in which they reside. Creatures that possess favorable characteristics will reproduce, while creatures that do not will die before they can do so. If a horrific disease sweeps through a human population, only those immune to it will survive. These survivors will be the only ones to have children, who will, in all likelihood, possess the same immunity. After a few generations, this disease will be a memory. A terrible memory, but a memory nonetheless.

Intelligent design contends, on the other hand, that the process of change between generations is hardly so simple as this. It holds that there is a supernatural force guiding the process, designing every important adaptation instead of selecting for it.

I do not believe in intelligent design. This should have been made obvious by the disparity in length between my explanation of natural selection and intelligent design, but it must be said outright.

One of the arguments for intelligent design is that life is simply too complicated to have been made through natural selection, an argument that I hold to be false. Life is, fundamentally, not complicated. It is very modular. Every visible living thing is a multicellular organism. It is made up of many, many incredibly small organisms that behave very predictably and simply. A human cell is no more complex than any amoeba. It possesses a cell membrane, DNA, a nucleus, and the means to transcribe the DNA into proteins. In fact, human macrophages move and even eat in much the same way as amoebas. They will manipulate and selectively destroy their intracellular matrices to extend parts of themselves to move around, and they will engulf smaller organisms in exactly the same way. And creatures in transitional periods between unicellular and multicellular states can be found all over the place. Slime molds, for example, are simply colonies of amoeba-like organisms that move as one mass to find food. This is what develops on dog vomit and spilt milk that is not mopped up. This transition from a unicellular to a multicellular state is very demonstrably possible.

And, of course, there is the problem of evil adapted for this debate. If there is a "force" or a designer with the power to mold life to its whims, why is life imperfect? Why are there genetic flaws? Why do our air and our food both go in the same hole? Why are the human vagina and anus so close together that before the advent of health care, many women would get infected by their own bodily fluids when giving birth? An intelligent designer capable of shaping the direction of speciation would have to be intelligent indeed, and yet there are glaring "design" flaws.

And why would such a powerful, (almost?) supernatural being stop at life? Why would it create imperfect living machines while leaving the basic laws of physics intact? Why does the force that presumably creates and shapes life not levitate rocks or create golden staircases to the moon? This universe is far too simple and mathematically consistent to tolerate something as grandiose as a euphemistic god.

Intelligent design is not a credible theory. It is not falsifiable, and it is therefore intellectually dishonest, even cowardly, to promote it. Its premises are unsound, and the reasons it holds for abandoning evolution are not compelling.
CiRrO

Con

[Case]

Contention I: Design (Cell)

"The genetic code" writes Richard Dawkins, "is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes." As Dawkins shows, each DNA molecule is an algorithm in biochemical code with a built in capacity for transcription and replication. Dawkins explains further: "A cell constitutes a unitary whole, a unit of life, in another deeper sense: like legs and leaves of higher organisms, its molecular constituents have functions...molecules are parts of an integrated system, and in that capacity can be said to serve the activities of the cell as a whole." The cell in another words shows the marked signature of design. It is crucially important to recognize this basic template of life, with all its intricate machinery of RNA and DNA, came fully formed with the first appearance of life. Evolution presupposes cells that have these built in capabilities. And scientists have found that the first traces of life go back between 3.5 and 4 billion years. Is it even reasonable to speculate that random combinations of chemicals could have produced a complex combination of atoms. E.g. Thats like saying that chance combinations of atoms could have assembles together and formed a fully functioning computer, with full software. Essentially, the cell is like a pre-designed computer, with all included attributes and software, not just the hardware.

Contention II: Design (Rationality)

Evolution cannot explain human rationality or morality. This was first pointed out by Alfred Russel Wallace, who proposed simultaneously with Darwin a theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution can account for how brain size got larger and conferred survival benefits of creatures with larger brains. By rationality is more than this. Rationality is the power to perceive something as true. We can include in rationality the unique human capacity for language, which is the ability to formulate and articulate ideas that comprehend the world around us. As Steven Pinker puts it "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth." So where did the we humans get this other capacity to figure out not only what helps our genes make it into the next generation, but also to understand what is going on in the world? Philosopher Michael Ruse, a noted Darwinist, confesses that "no one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have an answer for this."

[Rebuttal]

"Intelligent design contends, on the other hand, that the process of change between generations is hardly so simple as this. It holds that there is a supernatural force guiding the process, designing every important adaptation instead of selecting for it."

--> Intelligent Design does not state "guiding", intelligent design states that a supernatural being put the universe in motion, and designed that universe and its components, and let nature take over from there. Essentially, ID is the start, natural selection is the guiding process.

"Every visible living thing is a multicellular organism. It is made up of many, many incredibly small organisms that behave very predictably and simply. A human cell is no more complex than any amoeba. It possesses a cell membrane, DNA, a nucleus, and the means to transcribe the DNA into proteins. In fact, human macrophages move and even eat in much the same way as amoebas. They will manipulate and selectively destroy their intracellular matrices to extend parts of themselves to move around, and they will engulf smaller organisms in exactly the same way. And creatures in transitional periods between unicellular and multicellular states can be found all over the place. Slime molds, for example, are simply colonies of amoeba-like organisms that move as one mass to find food. This is what develops on dog vomit and spilt milk that is not mopped up. This transition from a unicellular to a multicellular state is very demonstrably possible."

--> By my opponent's explanation, he is conceding the complexity of cells and organisms. He quickly goes through the processes, but lets look at the transcription part. Turn this argument against him.

"Polymerase accessibility to chromatin is a limiting step in both RNA and DNA synthesis. Unwinding DNA and nucleosomes during polymerase complex binding and processing likely requires priming by chromatin restructuring. The initiating step in these processes remains an area of speculation. This review focuses on the physical handling of chromatin during transcription and replication, the fate of nucleosomes assembled on DNA during unwinding and processing the chromatin substrate, and how these alterations in chromatin structure may affect gene expression. Transcription or replication may alter chromatin structure during synthesis, enabling regulatory factor binding and, potentially, future rounds of transcription. As chromatin remodeling and transcription factor binding augment transcription and replication, and are themselves increased by these processes, a temporal model of structural alterations and gene activation is built that may be more circular than linear." Oncogene (2001) 20, 3094-3099.

--> Furthermore, cross apply my contention I to his point.

"And, of course, there is the problem of evil adapted for this debate. If there is a "force" or a designer with the power to mold life to its whims, why is life imperfect? Why are there genetic flaws? Why do our air and our food both go in the same hole? Why are the human vagina and anus so close together that before the advent of health care, many women would get infected by their own bodily fluids when giving birth? An intelligent designer capable of shaping the direction of speciation would have to be intelligent indeed, and yet there are glaring "design" flaws."

--> I never stated that the designer is perfect or benevolent. E.g. Computer programmers make mistakes in games all the time. These are called "glitches". Almost all creations and designs have imperfections to them, ID never says that it doesn't.

"And why would such a powerful, (almost?) supernatural being stop at life? Why would it create imperfect living machines while leaving the basic laws of physics intact? Why does the force that presumably creates and shapes life not levitate rocks or create golden staircases to the moon? This universe is far too simple and mathematically consistent to tolerate something as grandiose as a euphemistic god."

--> The universe is far too simple and mathmatically consistent....really?

"This is a short note on the spatiotemporal complexity of the dynamical state(s) of the universe at subhorizon scales (up to 300 Mpc). There are reasons, based mainly on infrared radiative divergences, to believe that one can encounter a flicker noise in the time domain, while in the space domain, the scaling laws are reflected in the (multi)fractal distribution of galaxies and their clusters. There exist recent suggestions on a unifying treatment of these two aspects within the concept of spatiotemporal complexity of dynamical systems driven out of equilibrium." H.C. Ruso

--> Furthermore, turn the mathematical consistency part against him because how can a universe that was someone created sporadically in-tune with perfect math. Math shows a line of order to the universe. A type of order that cannot be created by randomness and probability. E.g. To balance an algebraic expression, and mathematician must be present. In this case, there needed to be a "mathematician" to set up the mathematical laws of the universe.

"It is not falsifiable, and it is therefore intellectually dishonest, even cowardly, to promote it."

--> Anything can be falsified. If a designer can be disproven, i.e. by way of proving that the universe was either infinite or created from nothing, then ID can be thrown away.

"the reasons it holds for abandoning evolution are not compelling."

--> The resolution doesn't say that evolution would be thrown away. It only stated that it is
Debate Round No. 1
jason_hendirx

Pro

>"The genetic code" writes Richard Dawkins, "is truly digital, in exactly the same sense as computer codes." As Dawkins shows, each DNA molecule is an algorithm in biochemical code with a built in capacity for transcription and replication... The cell in another words shows the marked signature of design. It is crucially important to recognize this basic template of life, with all its intricate machinery of RNA and DNA, came fully formed with the first appearance of life.

It is true that different parts of a cell do have different functions. So do tributaries for large rivers like the Mississippi. Those tributaries serve the purpose of moving water to the Gulf of Mexico, while the parts of a cell serve the function of replicating it and allowing it to survive to the point that it can do so. Function != design. Almost everything can be said to "serve" a "function." It depends only on how you define function. Rain serves the "function" of recycling water from the sea back to the land, and yet very few people seriously contend that it is anything other than a combination of evaporation and condensation on a large scale.

And the combination of RNA and the proteins capable of transcribing and building RNA is not nearly as improbable as ID advocates believe. Stanley Miller is one of the scientists that conducted the Miller-Urey experiment that showed that environmental conditions that resembled primordial earth were capable of synthesizing complex organic molecules from inorganic precursors. He Miller conducted another experiment in which he froze some of the same precursors, ammonia and cyanide, for 25 years. When he thawed his frozen samples and tested them, he found that they had formed amino acids and nucleobases. The article can be found http://discovermagazine.com...=

>Evolution cannot explain human rationality or morality. This was first pointed out by Alfred Russel Wallace, who proposed simultaneously with Darwin a theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution can account for how brain size got larger and conferred survival benefits of creatures with larger brains.

This is patently false. Morality is fundamentally group oriented. If there were only one person in the world, there would be no "other" to abuse or worship. Most mammalian species display group behavior. "Human" morality is also ape and lion morality. Any serious study of human history would make this quite obvious. There's a reason the categorical imperative wasn't conceived until Immanuel Kant came around.

>By rationality is more than this. Rationality is the power to perceive something as true. We can include in rationality the unique human capacity for language, which is the ability to formulate and articulate ideas that comprehend the world around us. As Steven Pinker puts it "Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth." So where did the we humans get this other capacity to figure out not only what helps our genes make it into the next generation, but also to understand what is going on in the world?

All animals have a concept of truth. Birds will chase an insect when they have reason to believe that the proposition that an insect exists to be caught is true, or, more simply, when they see an insect. If animals had no concept of truth, then their behavior would be utterly incomprehensible. Deer would attempt to mate with logs and fish would beach themselves in hopes of finding fish larger than themselves to eat.

As for their lack of Cartesian symbolic logic, you are certainly correct. No brain, human or otherwise, is founded on the use of Cartesian symbolic logic. In fact, many artificial intelligence researchers believe that it is impossible for any living thing to be built out of Cartesian symbolic logic. The brain is a pattern recognition engine, and it does not care whether or not the patterns conform to symbolic logic. All the same, all creatures have a form of what we shall haphazardly call "rationality".

>Intelligent Design does not state "guiding", intelligent design states that a supernatural being put the universe in motion, and designed that universe and its components, and let nature take over from there. Essentially, ID is the start, natural selection is the guiding process.

Intelligent design is an ill-defined concept. It does not specify where, or even how, the designer enters into the picture. What you speak of is deism, a concept which I will attack later on.

>By my opponent's explanation, he is conceding the complexity of cells and organisms. He quickly goes through the processes, but lets look at the transcription part. Turn this argument against him.

You typed this in response to my slime mold example. My example did NOTHING to support the complexity of organisms. It assumed the existence of cells and held up slime molds as an example of an ad-hoc multicellular organism whose growth and development was utterly unregulated by anything but the desire to find food on the parts of the individual cells.

>"Polymerase accessibility to chromatin is a limiting step in both RNA and DNA synthesis.....

I don't know what you're trying to prove with this. This is just a description of a process. A circular process. It declares nothing but the details of the phenomenon the paper was written to describe.

>I never stated that the designer is perfect or benevolent. E.g. Computer programmers make mistakes in games all the time. These are called "glitches". Almost all creations and designs have imperfections to them, ID never says that it doesn't.

Most computer design glitches are misplaced for loops and characters out of place. The automotive equivalent of the food-and-air-go-in-the-same-hole mistake would be for the fuel and radiator fluid to go in the same hole. No vehicle has ever been created with this design flaw, and yet every human has been "cursed" with the equivalent of it.

>The universe is far too simple and mathmatically consistent....really?

Yes. Things fall down. An object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by another force. Sections of an orbit containing equal amounts of area will be traversed in equal amounts of time. Even time dilation can be mathematically quantified. Simple, consistent, mathematical.

>There exist recent suggestions on a unifying treatment of these two aspects within the concept of spatiotemporal complexity of dynamical systems driven out of equilibrium.

This last sentence suggests there could be a mathematical model for these disparities.

>Furthermore, turn the mathematical consistency part against him because how can a universe that was someone created sporadically in-tune with perfect math.

What kind of universe would have to not have been designed? In my mind, a logically consistent universe would require MUCH less celestial fiat than an arbitrary one. If both logical and arbitrary universes are proof of a creator, then your stance is unfalsifiable.

>Anything can be falsified. If a designer can be disproven, i.e. by way of proving that the universe was either infinite or created.

A designer hypothesis would need an empirical rather than rationalistic disproof because it is a hypothesis about physical, empirical reality, not a theorem that can be drawn out in mathematical symbols. This is why deism, your concept of intelligent design, is untenable. Since it makes statements about something that presumably exists before/beyond the perceptible, it is unfalsifiable and beneath consideration.
CiRrO

Con

Contention I

--> My opponent misses my point. I wasn't just talking about function. I was talking about biochemical codes and algorithm, that is, that matches a computer. Computers are designed and someone would look stupid if they asked, hmm, did this computer pop into existence? No, the computer had a designer, e.g. Dell, Alienware, etc. The codes in one single cell are so complex, that it resembles a designed machine.

--> He then goes on to bring up the Miller-Urey experiment. This proves nothing. It simply proves that while frozen, "It was a color that both men knew well—the color of complex polymers made up of organic molecules." That is, new molecules appeared. Basically, this doesn't prove anything because it doesn't show that complexity still exists.

Contention II

--> He says that morality is group oriented. I contend this to be false. MOST aspects of morality are group oriented, but certain standards of morality still exist. I.e. killing, raping, cheating and stealing are immoral. Essentially, standards of right and wrong exist, and evolution cannot answer why people have morality when it hurts the self. Hurting the self goes against the Evolution tenet of self-preservation.

--> He then says that everything has a concept of truth. He gives the bird example. This is flawed because his example is talking about instinctual truths. I.e. I need to eat to live. However, our rationality goes beyond that. E.g. We know we exist, and we question it. Having this debate of how we came to be is proving human rationality, which we only have.

--> He then says that I am talking about Deism. That is correct, Deism is a form of ID, and thats the form that I am debating.

[Rebuttal]

--> My opponent never responds to my assumption attack.

--> also, I wasn't just talking about your slime mold example. I was talking about your transcription and replication sentence. That's what conceded that complexity idea.

--> My card I provided was evidence proving that transcription and replication is complex, even in its simplest form.

--> He then brings up the air and food hole example. I have 2 responses:

1. Where would you like it to go, in your anus? I personally would not like that (Sorry for crude example)
2. Do you know the mind of god/gods/supernatural being?

--> Me and my opponent agree that the universe is mathematical. You can now affirm right here. Math is a complex way of formulation. Math could not exist in its present form from nothing. Thus, a designer/mathematician is necessary.

--> My opponent believes that empirical evidence is the only way to prove or disprove. This is false. E.g. I can disprove the fact that under my desk is a huge purple elephant, without looking. Why? Well, elephants don't live indigenously in NY. My desk to small for an elephant, thus without using my senses such as sight. I can deduce the fact there is no purple elephant under my desk.

--> Furthermore, the realm of proving or disproving god msut be a rationalistic argument, and/or an a priori argument.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
jason_hendirx

Pro

---->I was talking about biochemical codes and algorithm, that is, that matches a computer. Computers are designed and someone would look stupid if they asked, hmm, did this computer pop into existence? No, the computer had a designer, e.g. Dell, Alienware, etc. The codes in one single cell are so complex, that it resembles a designed machine.

This would make sense if this were a large computer composed of parts that are mostly nonfunctioning. The problem is that RNA and protein are just about the smallest things in existence, molecules. Transistors and magnetic switches may not form naturally, but RNA and proteins do. They are formed from simple molecules like cyanide and ammonia under conditions that occur in nature, such as freezing. If you had read all four pages presented in the link I gave you, you would have read that follow-up research has shown similar, if not even more conclusive results. For the sake of your convenience, I will repost the link here: http://discovermagazine.com...

>He says that morality is group oriented. I contend this to be false. MOST aspects of morality are group oriented, but certain standards of morality still exist. I.e. killing, raping, cheating and stealing are immoral.

Actually, for most of human history, these were not considered immoral. Amongst the Greeks, their GODS regularly raped, murdered, and transformed people into animals. I think the development of universalized morality can be more easily attributed to the fact that it is impossible to form large groups in which the conflict brought about by such acts was a regular occurrence. Imagine a British empire whose soldiers regularly stole from its own citizens. They tried it once when they forced citizens of one of their colonies to house them, and those colonists broke away. The country they formed is now called the United States of America. Group survival requires group morality. One can credibly contend that survival, or at least dominance, requires group survival. After all, the most successful species in the world are group-oriented. Wolves, lions, ants, humans, etc.

>Hurting the self goes against the Evolution tenet of self-preservation.

YOU are not the one that is preserved between generations. Your DNA is preserved in the form of relatives and descendants. DNA conformations that encourage organisms to watch after their kin will propagate; those that do not, will not.

>He then says that everything has a concept of truth.

Not everything has a rational concept of truth. Not even every person has a rational concept of truth. Yes, if you tell a dog that there's a bone behind your hand, it won't be able to judge whether or not you're lying, but that's because dog's can't talk. If, on the other hand, you ring a bell every time you feed him, he'll get excited. That's because he found a correlation between hearing the bell and getting fed. This is a basic form of reason shared by practically every living thing, and its accuracy and sophistication improves with brain size.

>He then says that I am talking about Deism. That is correct, Deism is a form of ID, and thats the form that I am debating.

If you wish to pretend that you weren't being imprecise and even deceptive, that is your choice.

--> My opponent never responds to my assumption attack.

What does this even mean?

--> also, I wasn't just talking about your slime mold example. I was talking about your transcription and replication sentence. That's what conceded that complexity idea.

Like I said before, transcription and replication can be set in motion by unintelligent phenomena like freezing. Read the article.

> He then brings up the air and food hole example. I have 2 responses:

>1. Where would you like it to go, in your anus? I personally would not like that (Sorry for crude example)

A truly intelligent designer would have created a third hole in one's throat, or abandoned the digestive tract entirely and had us absorb nutrients through our skin, or any number of solutions that a supernaturally gifted intelligent designer could implement with ease.

>2. Do you know the mind of god/gods/supernatural being?

If it can create life, it is much more intelligent than us. If it created bodies with such glaring flaws, then it probably isn't very intelligent. This is a rather glaring contradiction. If God exists, then God is an idiot savant.

> Me and my opponent agree that the universe is mathematical. You can now affirm right here. Math is a complex way of formulation. Math could not exist in its present form from nothing. Thus, a designer/mathematician is necessary

I wrote this in response to your contention that the universe was designed because it is mathematical: What kind of universe would have to not have been designed? In my mind, a logically consistent universe would require MUCH less celestial fiat than an arbitrary one. If both logical and arbitrary universes are proof of a creator, then your stance is unfalsifiable.

Did you even read what I wrote?

> My opponent believes that empirical evidence is the only way to prove or disprove. This is false. E.g. I can disprove the fact that under my desk is a huge purple elephant, without looking. Why? Well, elephants don't live indigenously in NY. My desk to small for an elephant, thus without using my senses such as sight. I can deduce the fact there is no purple elephant under my desk.

I didn't say that empirical evidence is the only way to prove or disprove. I'm saying that the idea that God created the universe is an assumption about empirical and physical reality and therefore must be subject to empirical evaluation.

As for your (irrelevant) purple elephant example, it is rife with assumptions that have been established empirically. For example, elephants don't live indigenously in NY. If no one had ever gone to NY, not even the Indians, and no one had ever seen or studied elephants in the wild, then this would not have been established. Plus, you know from experience that nothing solid or liquid can fit in a container smaller than itself, and yet it is easy to imagine something doing just that.

>Furthermore, the realm of proving or disproving god msut be a rationalistic argument, and/or an a priori argument.

You say nothing to back this up. Absolutely nothing. Well, you DO say "Thank you ladies and gentlemen." I should give you all respect due for at least appending, if not supporting, your bald assertion.
CiRrO

Con

CiRrO forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
CiRrO is discredited as completely as one can be on this site. Even if he wins, he loses.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
Really? What were the other accounts? And did any of them vote on this debate?

...yeah, that last one's a pretty stupid question.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
No, he was banned for having multiple accounts.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
HOLY SHITE CIRRO'S ACCOUNTS CLOSED

I think he was banned for being CWO. I wonder if it's happened to other members.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
And he defends the intellectual low ground with skill and aplomb, if not with a great deal of (deliberate?) confusion. I suppose I should confer honors for this.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
He wields his inferior tools effectively.
Posted by KingRichard 8 years ago
KingRichard
Uh Jason, that doesn't mean anything. It is only logical that at some point your opponenet will get points after you. The only way that would not be the case is if a round was a 100% a victory for one person. I voted for you, but I think you are way to mean to CiRrO. He is a good debater, if you don't see that then your naive.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
And all the new votes are conservative. I am SO surprised.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
When I get points, CiRrO gets points. I wonder why that is.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
woo7!!!1!!!1!!!!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jdwooch 8 years ago
jdwooch
jason_hendirxCiRrOTied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
jason_hendirxCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
jason_hendirxCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
jason_hendirxCiRrOTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
jason_hendirxCiRrOTied
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 Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
jason_hendirxCiRrOTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
jason_hendirxCiRrOTied
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