The Instigator
Solarman1969
Con (against)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
robzilla180
Pro (for)
Winning
73 Points

Is there a Creator God?

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/9/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,389 times Debate No: 186
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (37)

 

Solarman1969

Con

I think the Tibetan Buddhists have proven through logic that there is no Creator God, who is responsible for creating Man and the Earth and all the Universe.

this is not to diss anyone who does believe in the Bible, God, Christ or any faith that holds a Creator God at the center of the Universe and Worship

Clearly there is INCREDIBLE WISDOM contained in the bible.

I think this is perhaps the most important topic to debate of all time.

I do think its important to logically take the side of the Tibetans and others who are ultimately kind, patient, tolerant and loving in saying that the Creator God thing is a MYTH, and perhaps dangerous, and that we will be better off when we can leave that behind and consider compassion for eachother as the most important thing of all.

takers?
robzilla180

Pro

"I think the Tibetan Buddhists have proven through logic that there is no Creator God, who is responsible for creating Man and the Earth and all the Universe.

this is not to diss anyone who does believe in the Bible, God, Christ or any faith that holds a Creator God at the center of the Universe and Worship

Clearly there is INCREDIBLE WISDOM contained in the bible.

I think this is perhaps the most important topic to debate of all time.

I do think its important to logically take the side of the Tibetans and others who are ultimately kind, patient, tolerant and loving in saying that the Creator God thing is a MYTH, and perhaps dangerous, and that we will be better off when we can leave that behind and consider compassion for eachother as the most important thing of all.

takers?"

I disagree. I think that a creator God is the only logical explanation for the creation of the world. In order for there to be something created, there must be something there to create it. Scientists have already shown that spontaneous combustion is not feasible therefore, something can not come from nothing. This means that if there is no creator God, than there must of been something else that always was and is.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Con

thanks for responding , Robzilla 180

Well, I guess I would like to know what you consider this "creator" to be

Humanesqe?

male ? Female ? both ? neither ?

Creator of the entire universe, or just earth?

Is the creator still around?

Is he / she /it still creating?

How does human will fit into the creator's desires?

Is your creator the creator of the Bible?

Just a few questions for now -

I have studied 1000s of pages of detailed arguments from the Tibetans, who have really pondered this subject hard and long, and have the best interest of mankind at heart.

I agree with them that the notion of some single all-powerful forece that we should submit to, ie God, Yahweh, Allah, etc. tends to lead to an "US vs THEM" mentality.

rather , a belief in Karma, or actions, reactions, intent and consequences, makes for a much more responsible human being.

In part the "god" concept for man dates from way back where they could not possibly comprehend the universe or their world

Many culture have had multiple gods (and goddesses) to explain lightning, weather, the sun, disease, misfortune, good fortune. etc etc

We being now modern human beings with all the knowledge we have should take a critical look at legend, and faith , and what we believe.

For many Christians, the more they look deep inside, the more they truly beleive that Jesus is the son of God and the way, truth and light.

Thats fine by me, since Jesus was a good guy, and taught love and forgiveness.

We do know , however, that in the past, many hqave been killed over Jesus, which is truly sad. Not so much anymore, if at all.

On the other hand, there is no such sacredness ot holiness in Islam- I beleive Islam, a death cult based on a terrorist, Muhammed, and the moon-God Allah, is a threat to the survivial of mankind.

I beleive the Indian (native American) concept of the Great Spirit is a very good and sacred "god"

I beleive the Hindus are also very peaceful, and there have certainly been innumerable Hindu saints.

But in short, when we consider a CREATOR, or a "puppet master" or the like, I think we tread dangerous ground, and that each human being should be treated with respect and equality.

As soon as there is a CREATOR to beleive or not believe in, there is trouble

I furthermore think that the ATHEISTS are really THEOPHOBES.

Their ADAMANT insistence on throwing the baby out with the bathwater, with respect to Christianity, its symbols, the 10 commandments, and such is a clear sign of FEAR on their part.

Ok , your turn
robzilla180

Pro

I believe this Creator God is Humanesque, Male, still around still creating but not in the sense that there is more matter being created but more in the sense of he knows you before you were born. More in that sense, but most importantly I believe that He is the God of the Bible.

Also, you've referred to the Tibetan Buddhists and that they have proven through logic and math that there is no creator God, but I can't comment on that because I don't know what they have said. I'd like to know what they have said tho so if you have room in your next argument if you could paraphrase what they have said, it would be nice.

I have no doubt that the Tibetans have man's greatest interest in heart, but that's not a logical way to look at an argument. Hitler would have argued that his plan to exterminate the Jews was in the best interest of man kind. He said so in his, Mein Kampf (I don't know the exact spelling...oh well). In this case, "a belief in...actions, reactions, intent and consequences" did not, "make for a much more responsible human being".

I don't see how the belief in a Creator God would lead to an "US vs THEM" mentality. If you are referring to Christianity, then I'm afraid you have the religion wrong. The Bible says that anyone who gives his life to Christ will be saved no matter what race, color, or nationality.

"For many Christians, the more they look deep inside, the more they truly beleive that Jesus is the son of God and the way, truth and light.

Thats fine by me, since Jesus was a good guy, and taught love and forgiveness."

At this point you need to weigh all of the possibilities. You say Jesus was a good guy and I agree, however, I sense that you don't believe in His deity. Jesus claimed numerous times to be the Son of God. At this point there are three possibilities. 1. He was a liar 2. He was a lunatic or 3. He was God.
If #1 is true, than he can not be a nice guy because nice guys do not lie. I also think it is rather absurd to think that Jesus would die on a Roman Cross, the worst of all deaths at that time, for a lie. He would have ended the lie when Pontius Pilate gave him the Chance.
The only other options are that 2. He was crazy or 3. He was God.
But consider this...
If Jesus was a lunatic, then he most likely would not have gained the following he received. Most likely, he would have been outcast or killed.
If however you decide that Jesus Is God, you must also see that God the Father is the Creator.

So my question to you is...Who was Jesus?

A lunatic?
A liar?
Or God?

"We do know , however, that in the past, many have been killed over Jesus, which is truly sad. Not so much anymore, if at all."
If you are referring to the Crusades, this is a historical fallacy. The crusades were defensive conflicts. Muslims were killing innocent Jews and Christians because they would not convert to Islam.
And BTW, I could not have agreed more with you on the issue of Islam. Well said.

"...and that each human being should be treated with respect and equality.

As soon as there is a CREATOR to beleive or not believe in, there is trouble"

I still do not see how there is trouble. The Christian faith teaches that God loves all humans and we are to do the same. I guess the trouble would come dependent on the religion.

But I still do not see how there is trouble. Please elaborate.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Con

Hello

I can see you are a devout Christian,which is fine. Many of my friends and my wifes folks are devout Chrsitians

to answer your first point

" I'd like to know what they have said tho so if you have room in your next argument if you could paraphrase what they have said, it would be nice."

The "proofs" that intelligently dissuade one from the notion of a Creator God, are too long and complicated to summarize in this format.

Now, you do degenerate into comparing the noble Buddhists with Hitler, which is quite sad

"I have no doubt that the Tibetans have man's greatest interest in heart, but that's not a logical way to look at an argument. Hitler would have argued that his plan to exterminate the Jews was in the best interest of man kind"

Surely , you must retract such a comparison, and I will remind you that the Catholic Church was fully behind Hitler, Mussolini, and Pradic in Czech

Here is a good summary by a buddhist monk recently which is understandable

People are suffering but they really do not want any country, any nation, any race, color, culture, or anything to suffer. The fact that people do not want any suffering is a good idea. We can focus on that together to create world peace. By that I mean we can focus together on one religion, one culture, and one race. The one religion is called world peace. Our culture can be as one because all of us want peace. Enough! We don't need to have conflict with each other. The human race can be viewed as one with no white, no black, no direction, no East or West because we are all humanity with the same suffering.We need to recognize that humanity means the human race. Included in that are all black, white, yellow, red, Easterners, Westerners, all human beings. When we see people as separate, it becomes too complicated, too much difference, and we become divided. Then people think "I'm better" or "he's better" and we begin challenging one another. The Buddhadharma is about making and keeping peace. The mind's basic nature is peace. World peace is the Buddhadharma and Buddha's teachings can show us how to achieve that. So Buddha's teaching is that we achieve individual and ultimately world peace. Life will be better for every being, both spiritually and materially, if we share one earth as one race of human beings. When we focus too much on differences we create problems

now to your point on being saved

" I don't see how the belief in a Creator God would lead to an "US vs THEM" mentality. If you are referring to Christianity, then I'm afraid you have the religion wrong. The Bible says that anyone who gives his life to Christ will be saved no matter what race, color, or nationality. "

Yes, sure, but if you DONT beleive in just such a certain way in Christ, then you are GOING TO HELL, are you not?

Now to your common Christian Challenge

"Jesus claimed numerous times to be the Son of God. At this point there are three possibilities. 1. He was a liar 2. He was a lunatic or 3. He was God."

In terms of what I think, let me ask you a question

Where was Christ from age 16 to 33, when there is NO recordings of his travels?

I believe the Essenes have it right- he traveled to the Indian Subcontinent, where Buddha had appeared 500 years previous, and learned much there- bringing that knowledge back to the middle east.

In short, I think that he was a bit of #2, and truly beleived he was the son of God , and the savior of Man.

His crucifixion secured his place in history

Now to your next point, where we are in agreement

ME: "We do know , however, that in the past, many have been killed over Jesus, which is truly sad. Not so much anymore, if at all."

YOU : If you are referring to the Crusades, this is a historical fallacy. The crusades were defensive conflicts. Muslims were killing innocent Jews and Christians because they would not convert to Islam.
And BTW, I could not have agreed more with you on the issue of Islam. Well said.

I am NOT referring to the Crusades, which were a counterpoint to Islam, a doctrine of death murder and horror for 13 centuries.

I am referring to things like the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, the wars between Catholics and Protestants, and so on and so forth.

But as I said, there is NONE of this going on today, and Christians are key to saving the planet from Islam and godless commies, and other evils.

Final point

I still do not see how there is trouble. The Christian faith teaches that God loves all humans and we are to do the same. I guess the trouble would come dependent on the religion.

But I still do not see how there is trouble. Please elaborate.

Well, certainly we can see the trouble with Islam, which claims the same creator God of Abraham (yes this is crap)

then we have the Christian CULTS like Mormonism, Catholicism, and lesser ones

then we have the "if you dont beleive you are going to hell" thing- which is prevalent

then we have the "Oh its all fate or in Gods hands" fatalism

But again, I spend much of my time defending Christians, Christmas, biblical teachings, morality, the ten commandments and such as important to humans for moral structure.

Im sorry I cant really post the logical arguments in full detail, but you seem and intelligent person and I think it would be fascinating for you

In the end, LOVE is the most important thing in the world and whatever brings you to that in your life is what counts

peace

It seems
robzilla180

Pro

I just want to clear up the confusion really quick. In comparing Hitler to Buddhist monks, I was merely trying to illustrate that actions and ideas should not be judged on intent. This is all I was trying to say and If I have offended you I am truly sorry.

In response to the Catholic Church being behind Hitler, the Catholic Church has been a poor representative of Bible based Christianity throughout history whether during the Inquisition (which I will get too), or the Reformation, or whatever.

People are suffering but they really do not want any country, any nation, any race, color, culture, or anything to suffer. The fact that people do not want any suffering is a good idea. We can focus on that together to create world peace. By that I mean we can focus together on one religion, one culture, and one race. The one religion is called world peace. Our culture can be as one because all of us want peace. Enough! We don't need to have conflict with each other. The human race can be viewed as one with no white, no black, no direction, no East or West because we are all humanity with the same suffering.We need to recognize that humanity means the human race. Included in that are all black, white, yellow, red, Easterners, Westerners, all human beings. When we see people as separate, it becomes too complicated, too much difference, and we become divided. Then people think "I'm better" or "he's better" and we begin challenging one another. The Buddhadharma is about making and keeping peace. The mind's basic nature is peace. World peace is the Buddhadharma and Buddha's teachings can show us how to achieve that. So Buddha's teaching is that we achieve individual and ultimately world peace. Life will be better for every being, both spiritually and materially, if we share one earth as one race of human beings. When we focus too much on differences we create problems.

It seems that throughout this summary, the underlying idea is a sort of one world philosophy or a call to, "Coexist". I agree that we don't need to have conflict with one another but the fact is as long as there are people in the world that will enslave and kill others for their own personal gain, world peace is un-attainable. I believe that mankind is not basically good, and that we all have a sin nature and that because of this, we can not have world peace...but that is another debate for another time.

"Yes, sure, but if you DONT beleive in just such a certain way in Christ, then you are GOING TO HELL, are you not?"
Now I see what you mean by and US vs THEM mentality.
Yes I believe that if you don't subscribe to the Bible's view of Christ then you are going to Hell. That is a basic tenant of Christianity along with the fact that, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" but also that, "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever would believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life".

Now I do not know much about Buddhism or other religions but I'll do my best here. You say that Christianity says "believe on way or go to hell" but if I don't believe one way does this mean I do not receive enlightenment or go to heaven or whatnot? Again I don't know much about Buddhism but I am doing my best. If this is true and you must believe a certain way or not receive some sort of spiritual reward, then Buddhism is no different from Christianity in that you must, "Believe this way or go to hell (or don't receive enlightenment or whatever)".

If, however, it doesn't matter what you believe, you will still go to heaven or be rewarded, how can you say that anything is wrong? This belief presents the problem that if, "no matter what you do, you are still rewarded" how can you say that one action is wrong and another isn't? If you are rewarded no matter what you do, then someone who goes out and kills 50,000 people is on the same level as Mother Teresa or Gandhi or Jesus.

So there are two options:

1. If you don't believe a certain way then you go to hell or are not rewarded.
2. It doesn't matter what you believe, you will still be as well off as the devout priest next to you.

the problem is...

#1 creates an US vs THEM mentality and...

#2 gives people the impression that, "If my actions don't matter and there is no right or wrong way, then I can do as I please and still be better off."

So both beliefs present problems. The question is now, "Which belief is right?" and both beliefs should be weighed by their pros and cons. However think of this...

If there is no right or wrong way to live and act, then Hitler's holocaust is no different morally then Martin Luther's Reformation.

"Where was Christ from age 16 to 33, when there is NO recordings of his travels?

I believe the Essenes have it right- he traveled to the Indian Subcontinent, where Buddha had appeared 500 years previous, and learned much there- bringing that knowledge back to the middle east.

In short, I think that he was a bit of #2, and truly beleived he was the son of God , and the savior of Man."

I believe that the Bible doesn't deal with this because it isn't important. I do have one question. Is there any proof that he was in the Indian subcontinent? If not then it isn't any more probable that Jesus staying around the Sea of Galilee.

I'm not going to address whether or not Jesus was crazy or God because any more speculation on this topic will not be prevalent to this debate.

"I am referring to things like the Inquisition, the Witch Trials, the wars between Catholics and Protestants, and so on and so forth."

All three went against what God and Jesus taught. It's not Their fault than mankind twisted Their word and teachings.

"Well, certainly we can see the trouble with Islam, which claims the same creator God of Abraham (yes this is crap)

then we have the Christian CULTS like Mormonism, Catholicism, and lesser ones

then we have the "if you dont beleive you are going to hell" thing- which is prevalent

then we have the "Oh its all fate or in Gods hands" fatalism

But again, I spend much of my time defending Christians, Christmas, biblical teachings, morality, the ten commandments and such as important to humans for moral structure.

Im sorry I cant really post the logical arguments in full detail, but you seem and intelligent person and I think it would be fascinating for you

In the end, LOVE is the most important thing in the world and whatever brings you to that in your life is what counts

peace

It seems"

your statement that love is the greatest thing coincides with the Bible very nicely, "for the greatest of these is love".

In closing, thank you for a good, hearty and friendly debate. I truly enjoyed it and really learned a lot. :)
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Sounds like your lazer beam aproach is akin to horse blinders. Unless you look at the whole picture, you are narrow-minded.

Lets put Mary in simple terms. If I were to ask you to do something for me and you didn't, I might approach your mother to ask you. The simple prayer "Hail, Mary, full of Grace" is saying "Hi!, Mary, you are a good person. "The Lord is with thee" (you are close to the Lord). Blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus."

Holy Mary, Mother of God (Jesus), pray for us sinners now and at the hour of my death, Amen." Just to whom are we asking Mary to pray (talk) to?
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
The mind isn't a parachute. The mind is a laser beam and it works best when its concentrated and focused on one location.

Catholic's pray to The Virgin Maria , you would only pray to someone whom you believe has divine powers to interviene in or alter our world.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
You are entitled to your opinion. However, the mind is like a parachute. If you don't keep it open, it doesn't work. Catholics do not "preach through Maria" as you state.
You have failed to offer any credible facts to back up your statement.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
I reject that all relegiions have a piece of the bigger pie. religions as I am saying in my other debate, are mutually exclusive. The middle road philosophy is worse then evolution. you can not accept that you can get through heaven a variety of ways, becuase the concept of heaven is even different everywhere you go. Not to mention that the catholics preach through Maria, and that the Islams preach your not even sure if Allah choose your or not unless your a martyr.And that some religions life is a one shot deal , while others its like a slot machine you play until you win.
And if one piece of the religion is wrong how does the rest of it have any credibility at all? In essence by accepting small pieces of it and reject the rest to make a 'pie' really discredits all religions. It is better to whole heartedly accept your complete doctrine than only some of it. (In my Opinion).
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Preacher Fred, good insights

the reason why I ascribe to Tibetan philosphy, is because, far from being "my way or the highway"

they say , as the Buddha did,

"Criticize what I have said, try and find fault with it"

and "you determine your own path" - here are some helpful guidelines

Noone is perfectly right

Noone is perfectly wrong

A Discerning Mind is the most powerful thing
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Actually, my use of the term "ungodly" was not a slur about anyone. It is a common term used by many and actually my application has anyone in mind who, through extremism, reverts to what others might call nasty or degrading words or actions. Moreover, I am mostly ashamed by those people who claim to be Christian but act and talk in very unChristian-like ways.

My use of Gnostic is not to be confused with the early Christian Gnostic sect. Spirituality has many meanings for many people. Actually, you should run as far away as possible from anyone who claims to know it all about spirituality.

Merriam-Webster defines religion as :" a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." As such, I do believe it hard to dispute that Buddhism is NOT a religion. Not all atheists belong to an organized "religion" but some surely do.

Every religious system of beliefs claims to be the right one. Who is to say who is right or wrong. Perhaps, each has a small piece of the bigger pie. In simplistic terms, all of the major religions agree with the same core values.

Religions, being derived from man must be flawed since man is not infallible.

I truly believe that man will find a way to complicate the simplest of things.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
I specifically said biblical god, leonitus. Thanks.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I am specifically talking about the Creator God of the Bible , to be specific

I think it is beyond our imagination to comprehend what we cannot possibly know , how the universe began, where, when, and how.

and how things go along now

and how evolution happened - guided or not

and so on

I am NOT qualfied to really speak intelligently on the proofs that The Tibetan Buddhists have to disprove the notion of an all-powerful being that controls and creates all

I do know for a fact that I judge people by their actions, and the Buddhists are the nicest people I know and have the best philosophy on life

Buddhism is NOT a religion.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
The only relevant thing that scientist have "proved" about eternity is that they are just as lost and increasingly becoming illogical.
Logic is all about analyzing the most probably outcome from a list of possible choices. Then taken that choice and analyzing the most probable outcome from the new choices that arose as a result of taking that previous choice. When there is evidence available the most probable outcome becomes the one that is cemented in the numbers and therefore is the most logical outcome.
The simple truth that to be an artiest you must believe that the whole world boils down to a series of infinitely highly improbable events that occur in a chain reaction and that from this entropy from this recklessness comes order and...life?
No, that is completely illogical, the most logical outcome of our existence is that there was something that always has existed outside of matter, and that set matter and the natural laws in motion. That laws are by definition an unwavering supply of order that can be referenced, and that must be enforced. by an entity who has the delegated or inherited authority to enforce them.
No matter how much they strive to stray away from it science boils down to the fact that the big bang was set into motion by one proton coming in contact with one electron which caused a chain reaction, and the rest is known. And many say that our brain is not powerful enough to comprehend how these atomic and by extension sub atomic particles were put there in the first place. That statement is indistinguishable from persons who believe in a higher order preaching that our brains are to small to comprehend all of god and his existence before existence.
The only debate remains that if there is a god, who is he, and who's religion has it right. That is a subject for another debate. But the basic grounds of this debate that the Buddhist are right becuase they twist logic for a good cause is ridiculous, and I'm glad that Rodzilla picked that up
Posted by buletman 9 years ago
buletman
Just to make an intriguing statement:

It is said in the debate that there needs to be something of a predecessor for something else in order for existence.

Well, I used this very theory against God. What created God?

Anyway - obviously our human logic system is flawed, and we can't possibly wrap our heads around it, because we _do_ exist, so something had to have "come first."
37 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Guardian 6 years ago
Guardian
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 or8560 9 years ago
or8560
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 Browncoat 9 years ago
Browncoat
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 msoshima54 9 years ago
msoshima54
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 A-ThiestSocialist 9 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 abeladi 9 years ago
abeladi
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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 deadwombat 9 years ago
deadwombat
Solarman1969robzilla180Tied
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