The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Knowledge of a God's Existence or Non-Existence is Not Possible

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 39574
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing in favor of the premise laid out in the topic description which is that knowledge of a God existing or not existing is not possible. Please know that this excludes nonsense arguments like a God writing in the stars, "I am here." :) This is referring to 1) philosophical arguments, 2) scientific arguments, 3) arguments from personal experience.

1st round: Acceptance
2nd round: Opening Arguments
3rd and 4th round: Rebuttals

I hope that this will be a constructive conversation, and please know that I am not an atheist and my goal is not to undermine faith but rather accurately assess that religious claims are not knowledge but faith claims.

Thank you for your time and looking forward to a good debate (whoever you are).

Kind Regards,


This looks like a fun debate. I will gladly accept this challenge TrueScotsman. I may have a tall mountain to climb, but I feel up to the challenge. Shall we begin?
Debate Round No. 1


Hello there!

Thank your for accepting my challenge, and may we seek respect and a willingness to listen over victory.

Let me first start by defining what I mean by the word "God."

I will define God in this debate as: The supreme ruler and creator of the universe, who exists outside of time and space.

Here are some possible arguments I will contend with in my opening statements:

1. The Argument From Design.
2. The ontological argument.
3. The moral argument.
4. Appeals to personal experience.

Before I address my first point I would also like to say a few things about Epistemology[1] as it is pressing on this debate. I am contending from an Epistemological standpoint that propositional knowledge[2] ("knowledge that") in regards to the existence or non-existence of a deity is not possible. This assertion is built on the following points.

A) Arguments for a God's existence or non-existence lack sufficient justification for being claimed as knowledge.
B) Many arguments for the point I am attempting to refute are inherently fallacious.
C) A priori arguments are often built on a faulty or misleading premise.

This Epistemological argument for agnosticism will be manifested in my specific arguments.

1. The Argument from Design

"The Argument from Design purports to demonstrate the existence of God by citing as evidence the appearance of design or purpose in the natural world."[3]

This argument is built on the inference of the best possible explanation, and asserts that the existence of a loving creative being relational being is the best explanation for what we perceive in nature. An example of this argument would perhaps appeal to the complexity of life as we see it, or perhaps the objects that naturally occur in our environments fit a specific function (i.e. eyes or ears).

The Problem

The most obvious issue to take note with this argument is that it is not the only contender for explaning the apparent design we see in the world. Darwin's Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is I believe has 1) more plausibility and 2) greater explanatory power than the argument from design. Below are the reasons behind my two contentions.

1. The argument from design is a non-scientific argument about scientific matters, and is ultimately a non-answer. It does not offer a reason behind the design except to allude to some divine purpose, and ultimately then kills the scientific inquiry.

If we look at the complexity of our eyes and then marvel and conclude that, "God did it." We learn nothing more about our eyes, nor do we continue to seek how this conclusion might be wrong.

2. Biological evolution gives actual scientifically verifiable and predictive arguments and has a greater plausibility based upon what we observe.

Two examples:

A) Cavefish and other cave creatures that are blind but still have eyes.[4] Various fish of the Amblyopsidae family either have small hardly functioning eyes or do not have eyes at all (but still the anatomical position for them). These fish are better explained as examples of convergent evolution[5] rather than intelligent design because of the presence of non-functioning eyes and pigmentation in dark enivronments for some species of Cavefish.

B) The exceeding number in the variety of species. Take for example Beetles, there exists by what we know if in nature about 400,000 different species of Beetles.[6] If we were to argue that all species that exist on Earth today were intelligently designed by a rational being, then we could also deduce that there is a rational explanation for why he would create hundreds of thousands of different species of Beetle.

I challenge my opponent to offer a reasonable explanation for why a creator/designer would specifically create 400,000 different species of Beetle.

Evolution would contend that these different species of Beetle share a common ancestory and evolved as populations by random mutations being preferenced by a specific geographical environment and circumstance over the process of millions of years.

2. The Ontological Argument

"Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."[7]

Anselm was perhaps the first to formulate such an argument, and it goes as follows.

  1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
  2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
  3. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
  4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
  5. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
  6. Therefore, God exists. [8]
The common objection to this kind of argumentation was presented by Gaunilo known as the "Lost Island" refutation:

  1. The Lost Island is that than which no greater can be conceived.
  2. It is greater to exist in reality than merely as an idea.
  3. If the Lost Island does not exist, one can conceive of an even greater island, that is one that does exist.
  4. Therefore, the Lost Island exists in reality.[9]
The defense of Anselm and modern Theist Philosophers is that this particular argument is only applicable to a "Necessary Being."

However, with the advancement of modern physics it has become increasingly more complex to understand cosmogenesis and many leading theoretical physicists assert that it is possible the universe really did come from nothing.[10] My contention is that too little is known about the beginning of our universe, and any definitive assertion about the nature of the cosmogenesis would be premature and lacking in justification as information and observations are still being made.

Therefore, to claim God is a necessary being ignores other plausible explanations therefore rendering the "necessary" explanation unnecessary and merely a possible outcome.

3. The Moral Argument.

William Lane Craig's argument on the matter is perhaps the most popular I have seen lately and is as follows.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.[10]

This argument assumes in it's first premise that God would be the only sufficient basis for objective moral values. However, there are others who hold to Moral Absolutism based upon either an a priori basis such as Kant's Categorical Imperative [11] or a broader scope of Moral Rationalsim and it's various forms.[12]

4. Appeals to Personal Experience

These arguments are not often found in philosophical debates, but rather in the general one on one exchanges with those of a given faith. For example, I was raised a Mormon and now often encounter them and experience their eagerness to share their testimony of a spiritual witness. This testimony might sound like this.

"I know that the Church is true, I know that Joesph Smith was a true prophet, I know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, etc.."

Let's say that you respond with a simple question, "how do you know these things?" The Mormon will readily respond with a statement like this, "I prayed upon completing the Book of Mormon to know if the things I read were true, and I received a spiritual witness as a burning in my bosom."

Some contend that they heard a voice even, confessing it's truthfulness.

The problem with this form of justification is that it can be applied to contradicting arguments. Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, Hindus, etc. all boast similar experiences, yet if this justification is applied to their experience it becomes contradictory to the Mormon's. This causes the person to either assert that the person is experiencing a demonic presence, or are mistaken.

My contention is that these assertions are all built on one's belief about their experience, therefore cannot be considered knowledge.

Kind Regards,



Thank you for having me to the debate, and I, of course, agree the objective is to find truth not to win. You've provided good arguments, and to follow you're format I'll propose my own and we can move to rebuttals.

I would also like to affirm that faith is required for a religion, but more specifically in choosing which God(s) to follow.

I will appeal to the following epistemological arguments:

1) The Argument from rationalism
2) The Argument from design

The argument from rationalism:

Some in this universe is eternal. It's either material or immaterial.

We know this because of an analysis of the two by a definition and a rational argument.

God by definition is eternal (in our understanding of him). I concede your definition of God.

Matter is eternal if God isn't.

1) Matter and energy will exist eternally due to the first law of thermodynamics.
2) Eternity has no beginning.
3) A material universe without God has no beginning point.

We also know from the second law of thermodynamics (sometimes known as the theory of entropy) that all matter or energy in a closed system is running down toward ultimate entropy (disorder).

The only true closed system is the theorized state of the universe before it was created by the Big Bang or String a Theory (whichever is preferred). Essentially what we can derive from this is that a when you apply the theory of entropy to this universe, it could not have feasibly created a universe. Matter and energy cannot be headed toward ultimate disorder for eternity. Eventually there comes a point, before the universe was created by definition, that ultimate disorder would have happened, which by definition cannot create an ordered universe especially by using an explosion.

Therefore, since it's impossible for matter to be eternal, and it can't have just appeared out of nothing (for something cannot be it's own cause of existence), God must exist (not any specific God, but the one you defined).

The argument from design:

I will argue that the theories concerning evolution are not mathematically probable enough to justify them.

For example, there is a popular theory that our beginnings were in clouds above a volcano. The lightning in the clouds supposedly mixed with the contents of the atmosphere in the clouds (which were theoretically different than today) and our amino acids and sugars were blown away to eventually form cells. The problem with this is that it's mathematically improbable.

Assuming you create something that can build cells over a volcano, the mathematical probability that they won't be scorched, will be blown into the same exact spot, and will retain enough stability to eventually from a cellular membrane is mathematically improbable, even enough to consider it mathematically impossible, especially when the theory of entropy is applied to this (even if it is an open system, entropy still tends to increase).

I make no arguments aside from scientifically debatable arguments. Morality and experience have prerequisites that are to be determined by this debate.

May the God under debate bless you ;),
Debate Round No. 2


Hello again,

Hope your morning is going as well as mine is, and without further adieu may the rebuttals being!

The Argument from Rationalism:

You make the argument based upon reason to establish two possible alternatives, that either matter is eternal or there exists some immaterial eternal being from which the material derives it's source. Please correct me if I read too much into the latter portion, but I believe that is where you are going since this is a God debate.

I believe the problem is a bit more complex than this and involves difficult quantum mechanics such as a quantum vacuum that is anything but intuitive. With quantum vacuums it is actually possible for electrons and positrons to materliaze out of nothing in a flash and then immediately disappear. The complexity of the entity formalized determines the probability of it's materializing within the vacuum. However, over a period of billions of years or more apporpriately within a vacuum where time and space do not exist such probabilities could pretty much be counted on as an inevitability.[1]

We also know that the initial stages of the Big Bang as the conversion of energy into mass to create matter and anti-matter pairs and further into subatomic particles which we know exist, leads us to also conclude that the infancy of the universe was made up of the smallest kinds of material imaginable, and that the gigantic universe filled with stars and planets is perfectly expalinable over the evolution and development of the universe by natural means.[2]

Therefore, I believe there is a fundamental and key argument in opposition that is missing your assessment and thus creates a false dichotomy. I do not believe assurance can be had on the Quantum Vacuum hypothesis, but a tentative position of agnosticism is warranted on the matter and philosophical inquiry should be tempered with an understanding of quantum mechanics and theoretical physics. Making the issue even more muddled.

The Argument from Design:

This appears not to be an argument in favor of God, nor is it against the Theory of Evolution. Instead, this appears to be aimed at abiogenesis, and at that a particular outdated version of it based upon the Miller-Urey experiment of 1953.[3] There are actually several competing theories for abiogenesis that exist today, and one of the leading candidates is the Iron-sulfur world theory by Günter Wächtershäuser.[4] Here below is a brief summation of the hypothesis on the origin of life.

"The fundamental idea of the origin of life according to the iron–sulfur world theory can be simplified in the following brief characterization: Pressurize and heat a water flow with dissolved volcanic gases (e.g. carbon monoxide, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) to 100 °C. Pass the flow over catalytic transition metal solids (e.g. iron sulfide and nickel sulfide). Wait and locate the formation of catalytic metallo-peptides."[5]

This argument on your part also fails to provide evidence for design in the natural world, but simply attempts to debunk a competing hypothesis for the origin of life. Biological evolution is also independent of abiogenesis and still stands indepdently as evidence against the general argument for design outlined in my opening argument.

I will also note that the mathmatic improbability of the primordial soup hypothesis was not demonstrated, therefore I must say that these are unsupported claims or at their worst conjecture.

Conclusion of Rebuttal:

At any rate, these arguments are built upon scientific understanding of the universe and supersede the ancient philosophical debates of the ontological variety. Since our scientific understanding of the universe is extremely limited and always improving, it is still too early to presume to know that know something as big of a deal as the existence of God. It is not unreasonable to believe in a God, and some of the reasons given by my opponent are plausible and possible. However, they fail to yield sufficient justification to warrant a claim to knowledge, and instead should be understood to be a matter of faith and opinion.

Kindest Regards,




Brilliant, this is as good of a debate so far as I thought it would be.

I believe the proper form of rebuttal is to attack your case and move to rebuild my own, so that is the format I will be following in this post.

The argument from design.

I have a problem with the relevance of your points under your section entitled "Problem" which doesn't relate to a debate about knowledge of God but rather a criticism of a possible manner of observation when the belief in God is added.

I will however accept your challenge to answer your question. It seems reasonable to me that a God who created a universe as beautiful as ours would take the time to design a rather large variety of any species of animal for different parts of the world. I would also argue that cross-species mating lead to a growth in the variety of beetles, however it is still reasonable to believe a creative God would be that creative.

The ontological argument:

I'll include my attack concerning your point here in a conclusion of my rebuttal.

The Moral Argument:

The problem with assuming morality outside of the premise of God is actually touched in by Immanuel Kant. He states that if there is no afterlife and no God to judge then immoral acts will be left unpunished. So morals can't be enforced without a.p God.

Kant believed in a God, but moral relativism (belief that morality is decided based on individual perception) is the side that does not believe in God. Under moral relativism, the only true immoral act is doing something that you feel is wrong just because you feel you have to. In this system there is no universal moral good or bad. There is only the individual perceptions of what good and bad are. Essentially, morality becomes irrelevant without a God because without a superior judge of moral actions there is no way to determine whether an action itself is moral or not.

Accepting universal morality must include the acceptance of God.

Appeals to Personal Experience

Concerning your argument here, I will concede that even though I could personally tell a story, it's not a good epistemological argument. So I will move on to the conclusion of this section of the rebuttal, which I believe points out a flaw in your system of argumentation.


You criticized me for doing something that you are actually doing. What I did was attack arguments concerning evolution to attempt to take away that possibility. What you have done is attempt to discredit defenses for God. We're a little bit far into the debate to start over on our approach, but I would ask that I not be criticized for my argumentation, when yours is the same style.

My case:

I would like to briefly rebuild some of my own points.

The argument from rationality.

I have actually had prior reading on quantum mechanics in the area you're talking about, and ironically I've read the Cornell article you posted. Unfortunately, not much is known about it, but it's theorized that the atoms that actually appear to fade in and out of existence are either changing dimensions or (something not mentioned in your source) splitting into things we can't scan with modern instruments. The problem with this is that it still implies that there's matter to begin with, and somewhere along the way there has to be a state of ultimate entropy.

The argument from design

You're right I did pick a theory that's still widely accepted. While there amy be other theories, all of them end up with the same problem. There needs to be something in the systems mentioned that can decrease entropy long enough for the cells to evolve or the will dissolve into their basic components rendering them useless. So far the only explanation is natural selection, but for the beginnings of life, there is no way to justify that claim seeing as the new life wouldn't have adequate time to adapt to their extreme conditions.

My ultimate point with this is that it's easily justifiable to say that God created these things, while it is nearly impossible to justify the claims of the scientific community concerning evolution.

Thank you for the debate so far, and I expect your final post will be just as good as the others.
Debate Round No. 3


Hello again,

I hope not for the last time as I would be delighted to engage with you in the future, thoughtful respectful debates such as this are my kind of entertainment. :)

Argument From Design:

My statements made in the "Problem" section were meant to 1) demonstrate the insufficiency of arguments supporting ID and Creationism, and 2) provide examples of how biological evolution has greater explanatory power for why there is apparent design in the world.

Remember this was an attempt to refute the basic premise as presented by the Princeton University article that I cited. Which was a general example of the argument from design, thus making my comments in the section relevant to the discussion.

Response to your answer:

Appealing to beauty, and a God's desire for variety in creation is a rather interesting hypothesis. This however seems somewhat abitrary though as to the distrubution of variety in regards to different species. For example, Beetles have never been regarded by men as a rather beautiful creature, but has an extreme amount of diversity. While dolphins, an animal far more appealing and graceful than the aforementioned insects only contains about 33 species.[1]

You also mentioned that you believe it could be due to the process of interbreeding. This may be true for many Beetles as Humans have been using artificial selection to breed hundreds of different dog breeds from what were formerly wild wolves. This however, I believe is insufficient to describe why 22% of all described species are different species of Beetles.[2]

The Moral Argument:

In your first argument drawing from Kant (I wonder what he said specifically, source?) is that objective moral values are not possible without a judgement in the afterlife. Or more simply, that if wrongdoing is not punished or enforced, then they are not absolute.

To this I would ask, why is that so? Can it only be demonstrated that an action was wrong, if at some point someone comes along with sufficient authority to say it is?

Perhaps this is a good opportunity to discuss another important contribution to the debate in recent years, and that is Sam Harris' "Moral Landscape."[3] In his book, he argues that it is possible to derive objective moral values from science and reason, with the founding principles being the "well being of conscious creatures."

As a neuroscientist, he asserts that consciousness and overall physical and psychological well being of sentient beings are of primary consideration with regard to moral decisions. His two primary premises are included in his book on pg.15, "(1) some people have better lives than others, and (2) these differences are related, in some lawful and not entirely arbitrary way, to states of the human brain and to states of the world."[3]

This is a much broader and indeed pertinent debate that perhaps you and I can agree to engage on in the future, but at the present moment I comfortable to admit I am not fully decided on the matter. Though, bringing up this particular moral argument from Sam Harris does introduce another grounds for contention on whether or not moral absolutism is dependent on the existence of a deity. Of course, one must establish first that there is objective moral values in order to turn the moral argument in favor of God. :)

Ontological Argument and Rebuttal to Your Case:

Your first criticism attempts to apply the same critic I used for when you addressed evolution. This criticism I believe is misapplied to my arguments for the following reasons.

1. The nature of this debate is whether or not knowledge of God's existence or non-existence is possible, therefore it is pertanent for me to not prove that God doesn't exist (which is something I have no desire to do, nor capacity to do so), but rather to discredit positive arguments for God's existence in order to demonstrate my initial assertion that knowledge claims about God lack sufficient justification.
2. Your argument failed to provide positive support for your contention, which was that knowledge of God's existence is possible. Poking holes in abiogenesis or evolution still do not provide a positive basis for a person to claim, "I know that God exists."

Argument from Rationality

You are right to say that not much is known on the matter of quantum mechanics, but I would like to see where you get the idea that Physicists theorize they are coming from different dimensions. Your entire objection is built on this unsubstationatied and unsupported point.

Argument from Design Part 2

Actually the "widely accepted" theory may still be taught in certain classes, but for years now scientists have been providing research that causes most scientists to disagree with the "primordial soup thoery."[4] You also have failed to demonstrate how the problem with the theory you objected to applies to all other theories of abiogenesis, which you contended concludes abiogenesis is mathmatically impossible. Nor have you supplied the math, or sources to the math that conclusively demonstrate such a claim in the first place.

Natural selection is not primary in regards to abiogenesis, but it is to evolution, perhaps key to abiogenesis is to discover how the first self replicated molecules could have formed and also how RNA first arrived. Jumping straight to a fully formed cell to point out the issues is getting WAY ahead of abiogenesis.

You also fail to take into account, 1) the tremendous amount of time in Earth's history that was dominated by bacteria and mutlicellular life,[5] and 2) the very short amount of time that it takes for a bacteria to reproduce thus speeding up the rate of random mutations in a given population,[6] 3) the observed resilience of life, especially of bacteria,[7] and 4) that most theorize abiogenesis happened underwater thus protecting life from the harsh environment in the world at the time.[4]

My counter argument to yoru ultimate point is that it is not UNREASONABLE to hypothesize that a God is responsible for creating the universe and life. However, as I believe I have demonstrated in my posts it still remains an unjustifiable claim to knowledge of a God's existence or non-existence.

Closing Remarks:

I again would like to thank Pro for a wonderful debate, and salute his truly compelling efforts to argue his position. Perhaps a less stubborn man will be convinced. :) It is important again to reiterate that my intention is not to cause disbelief in a God or Gods, but rather to rightly associate religious discource in public discource and ultimately to come to know the truth behind the nature of the assertions we make.

Kindest Regards,



TrueScotsman you've done an excellent job. I do always enjoy an intelligent debate, and it is my source of entertainment as well.

I would like to start off by responding to the most important points in the debate and giving some concluding statements.

My first response I feel ought to be to acknowledge that I suppose I could've used a shorter route than discrediting everything besides God (process of elimination), but I won't bring up new arguments in this post.


To address citing the place where I get my arguments concerning to math, I've read section 2 in this article several times to get an understanding of entropy:

To address your attack concerning beauty, I have a very simple response. I feel there's a difference in the way humans observe creation and the way a creator observes creation. It does makes sense, and this argument is merely to enhance the probability of there being a God, but I acknowledge it also does not prove he exists.

The moral argument:

This is not the most relevant topic, but I suppose there may be an engagement between us in the future as its own topic.

The argument from rationality:

I think to support my claim I merely need to bring up a point. There is not enough knowledge on quantum mechanics to make it a sustainable theory. It's a theory, but can't be justified.

Therefore we are left back with a theory giving matter eternity, which as I stated above is impossible. Therefore, it was created by an immaterial, conscious being with more power or knowledge than anything in the created universe has.

Arguments concerning design (2)

I concede this point (it's hard to type those words, but I will type them nonetheless).

Concluding statements:

Well I always wear my hat, and I will tip it to you, TrueScotsman. That was excellent, and I always enjoy a respectful debate no matter what the turnout is. At any rate, thank you for the debate :)

God bless,
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TrueScotsman 2 years ago
Fair enough, thanks for the feedback and I will do my best to rectify that in the future.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
@Pro: Sorry for the confusion, and I have now realized that the ban on it is not spelled out perfectly in the rules; but it falls a little under the "bad sportsmanlike behavior" and "Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include: Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round." The comment section not being a part of the debate, but side conversations.
I actually don't view the mistake as horrible, merely something to avoid in future debates.
Posted by TrueScotsman 2 years ago
Three rounds is sufficient, as there is no need of an acceptance round.
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 2 years ago
I believe a good word for your belief would be Fideism. It doesn't surprise me, and it hope this doesn't affect any voting, but I do agree that a very large amount of belief in Christianity is based on faith, although I do believe it's epistemologically justified (not necessarily proven). Personally I'm a Christian for much more than the arguments I present as justification, but I enjoy a good secular debate. If I were not a Christian I would argue for the point of moral relativism, which is why I use it in secular debates. I will set up the debate, and I believe three rounds of actual debate is all that's necessary, but if you disagree let me know.
Posted by TrueScotsman 2 years ago
Absolutely, I would very much so enjoy that. You may be surprised to know that I am an Agnostic Christian. In regards to Epistemology, I lean towards empiricism and therefore do not think I should go around telling people, "I know God exists." In regards to practice and beliefs, I follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (to the best of my ability) but do not obviously have views common with many in the evangelical community today. For instance, I do not believe a deontological approach to ethics is the only valid approach, and it does not threaten my faith to entertain ideas like Sam Harris' so long as it strives to make this world a better place to live in.

If you would like to start the debate this time, I would be very much so inclined to join and defend the viewpoint of Sam Harris' ethical system. In my personal life I function primarily out of virtue ethics, but I love to appreciate the great aspects of other positions which I believe helps me be a better communicator, listener and person.

Kindest Regards,
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 2 years ago
This comment will be to TrueScotsman: would you like to debate morality outside of the premise of God (whether morality can be determined without a God)? I feel that debate could be interesting. Let me know if you're up for it and either one of us can create the topic.
Posted by thett3 3 years ago
Con has a pretty big mountain to climb here, I'll be interested to see how this plays out
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempted to cheat the character limit, via listing his sources outside the debate... In future I highly advise against this, since seeing source numbers without links, looks like plagiarism at first glance (the missing links bring it dangerously close to being such, but IMO not crossing that line).
Vote Placed by mikicat10 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, a long debate. I'm only young so actually couldn't understand some of the complicated words you were throwing in your debate.. Pro had listed sources on the basis of what I could understand had a tad better argument.