The Instigator
JeremyPearl
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
65 Points

It is more likely that god exists than that he doesn't exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,389 times Debate No: 10617
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (12)

 

JeremyPearl

Pro

Because I am Pro, I will have to win this debate by a ratio of 51% to 49%. I'll start with my first 50 arguments. Good luck.

(1) If reason exists then God exists.
(a) Reason exists.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(2) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(a) I say the universe must have a cause.
(b) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(3) I define God to be X.
(a) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(4) I can conceive of a perfect God.
(a) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(5) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
(a) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(6) My aunt had cancer.
(a) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(b) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(7) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(a) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(8) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(a) I'm afraid of that.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(9) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(a) I believe in God.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(10) See your computer?
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(11) Billions of people believe in God.
(a) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(11) Maranathra!
(s) Therefore, God exists.

(12) Eric Clapton is God.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(13) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(a) Here is the URL. http://www.peterkreeft.com...
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(14) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(a) No one has ever refuted (1).
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(15) God is love.
(a) Love is blind.
(b) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(c) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(d) Therefore, God exists.

(16) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(17) My toaster is God.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(18) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(a) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(19) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(a) That would be bad.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(20) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(21) Person X died an atheist.
(a) He now realizes his mistake.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(22) God loves you.
(a) How could you be so heartless to not believe in him?
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(23) Jesus died for your sins.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(OPRAH'S ARGUMENT)
(24) The human spirit exists.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(25) Barbie dolls were created.
(a) If Barbie dolls were created, then so were humans.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(26) God is everywhere.
(a) We haven't been everywhere to prove he's not there.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(27) You use lots of big words.
(a) Therefore, I cannot possibly be expected to understand your refutation of my position.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(28) We cannot prove that we don't live in a Matrix-like world.
(a) Therefore we cannot know reality.
(b) If reality is contingent, then everything is possible.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(29) Everything is subjective.
(a) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(b) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(c) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.

(30) One day, demons were tap-dancing on my roof. I prayed and they went away.
(a) Therefore, demons are really good dancers.
(b) Also, God exists.

(31) If David Blaine does real magic, then God exists.
(a) It looked real on his TV special.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(32) Many prominent thinkers in pre-modern Europe believed in God.
(a) Let's just forget about the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(33) If God didn't exist, it would be mean of him to make me believe he did.
(a) God isn't mean.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(34) We all believe in something.
(a) Therefore we all have faith.
(b) My faith in God is no different from your faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(35) Out of 3,300 pictures of snow-crystals catalogued no two are exactly alike. Each has 6 points crossing at a 60 degree angle. If one is like a fern it has 6 out-pointing leaves; if like a windmill, it has 6 sails; if like a starfish, 6 ribs; or if like a fir tree, 6 stems with plumes set in perfect symmetry. This makes 3 distinct triangles to each flake. The Hebrew word for snow equals 333 (Hebrew letters stand for numbers).
(a) Could it not be that God has set His symbol of the Triune God in each flake? The average snow storm produces about 1000 billion crystals.
(b) Only an intelligent being could design so many forms.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(36) When I pray, either it comes true or God has a better plan.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(37) God would never allow a non-Christian to become president.
(a) There has never been a non-Christian president.
(b) Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? They said some things that kind of sounded like Christian statements.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(38) Bunnies are cute.
(a) Cuteness is not an evolutionary advantage.
(b) Therefore, cuteness must have been designed.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(39) I tried to delete a copy of the TEN COMMANDMENTS from my computer. It would not have mattered as I had another copy on file.
(a) Still the computer malfunctioned.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(40) God is invisible.
(a) I can't see God.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(41) I wanted it to be a sunny day.
(a) I prayed it wouldn't rain.
(b) We had two thunderstorms.
(c) Obviously, God didn't want to answer my prayer.
(d) Of course not! What a selfish thing to pray for! How dare I try to compel God to my selfish desires!
(e) The rain was God's punishment for my selfish desires.
(f) Therefore, God exists.

(42) "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." — Ben Franklin
(a) Beer exists.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(43) I couldn't imagine not believing in God.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(44) When I look into the sky and see all the pretty stars, all those galaxies...
(a) Wow.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(45) You believe in wind.
(a) But you can't see it.
(b) God

(46) If you twist the details enough, you can make a case for Venus or a comet causing the biblical catastrophes.
(a) Therefore the Bible is true.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(47) Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in God.
(a) I don't think you want to say Dr. King was a fool, do you?
(b) That's what I thought.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(48) Because.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(49) Lots of people go to church.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(50) That purple llama on the ceiling is juggling chainsaws.
(a) Purple llamas can't juggle chainsaws.
(b) It must be a miracle!
(c) Therefore, God exists.

Lol.
wjmelements

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I accepted this debate on the belief that my opponent was being serious. Unfortunately, it seems my opponent intends this to be a jest. I hope my opponent truly hopes to debate this seriously.

First, a negative case.
A. God either can or cannot create a stone he cannot lift.
B. If God cannot create such a stone, then God is not omnipotent.
C. If a stone can be created which God cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent.
D. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.
E. If God exists, then God is omnipotent.
F. God does not exist.

A. If God exists, then God is omnibenevolent.
B. If God exists, then God is omnipotent.
C. An omnipotent omnibenevolent force would eliminate evil.
D. Evil exists.
E. No such force exists.
F. God does not exist.

A. If God exists, then He is all-knowing.
B. If God is all-knowing, then he knows where in my bedroom I might see an invisible pink unicorn.
C. ?????
D. Non-existence of God

Now, for brief refutations.
(1). The first premise contradicts my opening case. Either reason exists or God exists. Reason, therefore, not God.
(2). The first premise is an argument from authority. http://fallacyfiles.org...
(3). Conception is not reality. Counter-examples include dreams and fantasies.
(4). See (3).
(5). This relies on equivocation (http://fallacyfiles.org...) of the word necessary and the statement that God is necessary.
(6). This relies on correlation fallacy. (http://ddofans.com...)
(7) This is a false dichotomy (http://fallacyfiles.org...) and an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (http://fallacyfiles.org...).
(8) Argumentum ad Metum (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
(9) Non-sequitor
(10) Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
(11) Argumentum ad Populum http://fallacyfiles.org...
(11b) Non-sequitor
(12) Equivocation (http://fallacyfiles.org...)
(13) See 2.
(14) Non-sequitor
(15) See 12.
(16) Non-sequitor
(17) Begging the Question, Equivocation
(18) Non Causa Pro Causa http://fallacyfiles.org...
(19) Argumentum ad Consequentiam http://fallacyfiles.org...
(20) Argumentum ad Nauseam http://en.wikipedia.org...
(21) Contradiction between premises.
(22) Ad Hominem (http://fallacyfiles.org...) and Red Herring (http://fallacyfiles.org...)
(23) Non-sequitor
(24) Non-sequitor
(25) Non Causa Pro Causa
(26) Begging the Question (http://fallacyfiles.org...) and Appeal to Ignorance (http://fallacyfiles.org...)
(27) Non-sequitor
(28) The law of parsimony (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) begs to differ. If God can neither be proven, nor disproven, then God probably does not exist.
(29) Conclusion contradicts the premise.
(30) Non Causa Pro Causa and Non-sequitor.
(31) Non-sequitor
(32) Argumentum ad Verecundiam http://fallacyfiles.org...
(33) Non-sequitor
(34) Equivocation
(35) Non Causa Pro Causa and Non-sequitor
(36) Wishful thinking and unwarranted optimism; Begging the Question
(37) Non Causa Pro Causa
(38) Non Causa Pro Causa
(39) Non Causa Pro Causa
(40) Non-sequitor
(41) Begging the Question; Non Causa Pro Causa
(42) Argument from Authority
(43) Appeal to Ignorance
(44) Non Causa Pro Causa
(45) Unwarranted Analogy
(46) Non-sequitor
(47) Argument from Authority; Appeal to Unrelated Consequence
(48) Non-sequitor
(49) Argumentum ad Populum
(50) Non Causa Pro Causa

I now yield to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
JeremyPearl

Pro

Con has not responded to any of my arguments in any way other than disregarding them. Elaborate. Also I'd like to point out that Con was not forced to join this debate in any way and there was no reason for him to insult my very politically correct arguments.

(1) Con in his first argument argues that not being omnipotent means god does not exist. In no way did I make ultimate power a necessity for the existence of God. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines God as: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.

There is no reason for God to be omnipotent, only to have the power to create the universe.

This applies to my first out of 50 contentions--God controls reality, but exists separately and is not bound by the laws of our known universe.

(2) Con also makes the argument that God is omnibenevolant. Again, nowhere in the definition of God does it say he is good. It is a attribute placed upon him by religion, but it is (as shown in the Old Testament) not necessary for God to be good. Simply because he has the power to be good doesn't mean he is.

(3) God is all-knowing. He knows where you might see an invisible pink unicorn IF YOU LOOKED. However, your inability to see the invisible unicorn limits you, not God. In fact he might have placed it on your ceiling, but you still can't see it.

Besides dismissing them, my opponent has failed to rebut any of my arguments. Pro 100% Con 0%. Yes. Win.

(51) God
(a) Therefore God exists

(52) If God exists, he will stand in line like everybody else.
(a) That's it! No soup for you!
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(53) If you are still on that damned computer, God help you!
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(54) Humans are right at the top of the food chain.
(a) God made it this way.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(55) You're not meant to understand.
(a) Therefore, God exists.

(56) Everyone knows that aliens don't exist.
(a) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
(b) Oh, but God's different!
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(57) The U.S. has the firepower to slaughter as many third world people as it wants.
(a) The U.S. uses that firepower regularly.
(b) Of course, America's firepower and willingness to use it are God's will.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(58) If Osama bin Laden is still alive, then Dubya's war on terrorism has thus far failed.
(a) I can't wrap my mind around the idea that the war has been a failure, even in part.
(b) Therefore, we must interpret the fact that we haven't seen any new bin Laden tapes for a while as conclusive proof that bin Laden is dead.
(c) Therefore, God exists.

(59) Jesus loves me because the Bible says so.
(a) If radiometric dating is valid, then Jesus might not love me after all, because the Bible might not be literal truth.
(b) That's unacceptable.
(c) Therefore, radiometric dating is bogus, the Bible is literally true, Jesus loves me, and God exists.

(60) Thousands of people in New York were murdered by terrorists on 9/11/01
(a) The winning New York lottery numbers on 9/11/02 were 911.
(b) Therefore, God exists.

(61) Mountain Dew is the nectar of the Gods.
(a) But God does not condone polytheism. And God knows best.
(b) Therefore, God exists.
ARG
wjmelements

Con

I reserve the right to challenge my opponent's definition of god, should he abuse it in a way so that it is applicable to phenomenal athletes.

==The Negative Case==
My opponent has conceded that God can not be omnipotent or omnibenevolent.

===Omniscience===
A god could not know where in my room I might see an invisible pink unicorn. This is because (A) I cannot see anything invisible, and (B) an invisible pink unicorn cannot exist, being both invisible and pink. If God does not know this, then God is not all-knowing, and can not exist. Take note that my opponent's definition for God includes "God is all-knowing".

My opponent's objections to this argument are weak. He asserts that I am limited, yet, even if I was limited, God should still know where I might see it. He also asserts that the IPU might be on my ceiling, but if it was, it wouldn't be in my room.

==PRO's ARGUMENTS==
===1 through 50===
I have shown all of my opponent's arguments to be fallacious. He has now dropped them.
===51 through 61===
(51) This argument is invalid because it relies on circular reasoning. There is no reason to assume Premise (51), God.
(52) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, premise (a) is non-applicable to the syllogism.
(53) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, premise (53) is non-applicable to the syllogism.
(54) This argument is begging the question. There is no reason to assume Premise (a).
(55) Argument from Ignorance. Again, the law of parsimony holds that it is more likely that God doesn't exist if there is no evidence either way.
(56) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, there is no reason to assume premise (b), that God is different.
(57) This argument is non-sequitur. In addition, it is circular. Further, there is no reason to assume premise (b).
(58) This argument is non-sequitur. The term 'God' appears in none of the premises or terms. The syllogism is invalid.
(59) This relies on an Appeal to Consequences. The acceptability of the non-existence of God is unrelated to its truth.
(60) This argument is non-sequitur. The term 'God' appears in none of the premises or terms. The syllogism is invalid.
(61) This argument is begging the question. In addition, there is no reason to believe premise (a).

I now yield to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
JeremyPearl

Pro

I wasn't aware that professional athletes could challenge the laws of reality.

It is not necessary for God to be omnipotent or omnibevolent. Con is making the argument that because God isn't good, he doesn't exist. This is rediculous, and in no way should be considered a part of this debate.

Invisible: Unable to be seen; not visible to the eye
This would mean that a tiny tiny IPU that is unable to be seen with even the most powerful microscope attached to your ceiling would be under the definition of invisible. Con is making the uneducated age old argument that because of his many inabilities, whether to understand or to see something, whatever he doesn't know doesn't exist.
God is omniscient and has the ability to know where, if there is an IPU, you would see it.

Con has decided that his room doesn't have a ceiling when he says "He also asserts that the IPU might be on my ceiling, but if it was, it wouldn't be in my room." I'm sorry for assuming that you would have a roof.

CONTENTION: For the sake of this debate, cocaine could be considered a god.
I retain my original definition of God. However, within that falls cocaine. Does it have more than natural attributes and powers required for human worship?

The Urban Church and the Drug Culture--by Andrew Jones

["Romans 1 outlines more specifically the results of the Fall within mankind - a constant repression of God's revelation within and without themselves which results in substituting idols for the true God. Consequently, the Lord gives humanity over to their own wicked desire. Therefore, each human being is created for fellowship with God and deep-down knows it (cf. Pascal's "God-shaped vacuum") yet persistently puts something or someone else in God's place. This someone or something will take different shapes depending on an individual's or community's situation."]

Cocaine, as in many tribal S American cultures, could be that something. And does it control reality? Yes-cocaine overdoses often end in sever hallucinations. This falls within the definition of God.

I do not yield the floor to my opponent, I lend it to him for 3 days unless he should return it sooner.

(READ MY OPPONENTS LAST SENTENCE)
Yield: Give way to arguments, demands, or pressure
wjmelements

Con

==The Negative Case==
The emphasis here is on the "I" in "God doesn't know where I might see an invisible pink unicorn". If I can't see an invisible pink unicorn, then God doesn't know where I might see it, and thus God doesn't know everything. My limits have nothing to do with this.

==Drugs are God==
There are many problems with this purely semantical argument. I will list the two most pressing.
-Cocaine doesn't control reality. It controls perception.
-The reference to the Vaccuum refers to false gods, or things meant to take God's place. My opponent is taking Pascal out of context.

==The Affirmative Case==
My opponent has dropped all 61 of his arguments.

I know yield the floor to my opponent.
(yield- to give over http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
JeremyPearl

Pro

JeremyPearl forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
JeremyPearl

Pro

JeremyPearl forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

All of my opponent's arguments were dropped. Even his desperate semantic argument was refuted. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
pro sucks
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
Too bad for you, then. It's interesting to see a debate where one of the instigator's challenge is for the contender to have to deal with a character limit.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Leaf, you didn't have the character limit.
Posted by LeafRod 7 years ago
LeafRod
PRO is awesome. I also don't think citing a logical fallacy should constitute a refutation of an argument. All you need is an extra sentence or two clarifying why.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
@sac8: Unclench.
Posted by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
"I understand. I just don't like what you are currently doing. If one consistenly thinks about arguments that disprove God, then those arguments can rub off on him/her and become "real." I'd be upset if you lost your Christianity."

(-_-) oh Lord.
Posted by JeremyPearl 7 years ago
JeremyPearl
I hope no one is taking me seriously from my first arguments.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
PRO, in my opinion, is insane.

CON's arguments are actually equally lame.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
I thought Pro's arguments were not sound whatsoever.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 Railsguardian 6 years ago
Railsguardian
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by PervRat 7 years ago
PervRat
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 infam0us 7 years ago
infam0us
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 VanShiZZle 7 years ago
VanShiZZle
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
JeremyPearlwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05