The Instigator
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
122 Points
The Contender
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Literal Christian Creationism MUST be the truth.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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: 4/8/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,696 times Debate No: 7751
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (20)

 

Kleptin

Con

I thank both the audience and my opponent for participation in this debate.

My opponent intends to prove that literal interpretation of the Bible sums up the pure truth of how the universe and man came to be, and that it can be no other way.

I shall be rebutting my opponent's points and responding with scientifically backed views on possibilities other than the one my opponent proposes.

I will allow my opponent to begin his argument, extending forward the entirety of Evolutionary theory for him to debunk.
GodSands

Pro

Thank you for another opportunity to bash evolutions' and the big bangs' skulls together. (Note: Many may diagree)

I will probably lose this though because I do not believe in a convienent, sin excusable theory, whatever you can find, I bet you would change your belief from evolution to another theory if there was a more appropriate theory for sinning. Any how I will begin. Now I got that out the way.

The creation of the universe was very simple. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth, by speaking. It says man confessed to be wise and become fools. By trying to manipulate a clever and intelligent way to figure out how the universe began just that it will get you no where, as to ponder on and on, wondering where your final answer is. Maybe it is what caused the big bang, no the big bang was caused by this and this was caused by that. Getting absolutly no where, you may have well not have discovered anything new.

Enough philosophy now.

One piece of evidence for creation is that evolutionists claim that we evolved into humans from apes around 5 million years ago and became moden humans 100 thousand years ago. Yet main stream fossil researchers claim that human population only really took off around 5,000 years ago. By that this means it took around 95,000 years for man to figure out that planting a seed in the ground produces food to feed your starving family.

In stead of the silly theory evolution of us evolving into many different types of humans with many languages (Which evolution still has not worked out, where language originatied from) The Tower of Bable in Exodus claims that God made those who were working and buliding on the tower to speak many different languages, can you see how the Bible get straight to the point where as man's way does not and it never will either.

To say how God actually created the universe is beyond me, it would be like trying to explain how the universe works to a dustmite. But when it was main I do know. If the universe was billions of years old, the outer planets of our solar system should haved cooled off long ago, such as Jupiter and Saten. That are both gas planets and to say that over at least 5 billion years they have not changed from being gas generated is quite obsurde. Only in the last 200 years has the famous hurricane mark on Jupiter appared which was 3 time the size of earth, I would expect Jupiter to have many more bruses than that. If it has been around for billions of years.

It is like this, say there was a cigar and which was alight, you wouldn't say the cigar has been there for billions of years but have only recently lite up in smoke, but rather a man lite the cigar and it has been there as long as the men has left it. Not long either since it takes a number of minutes for a cigar to burn away. Oh and spontaneous combustion doesn't create life. Just kidding.

I will reply more serverely once I have an idea, I find it easiler to reply back to a response.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and look forward to a good debate.

***I shall begin my response by rebutting my opponent's points***

First and foremost, my opponent is either inconsistent, confused, or is having difficulty expressing his point. Please see these two quotes below:

1. "The creation of the universe was very simple. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth, by speaking."
2. "To say how God actually created the universe is beyond me, it would be like trying to explain how the universe works to a dustmite."

Which is it? I believe my opponent is simply confused himself and does not quite understand his own views.

***On with the other philosophical points***

"The creation of the universe was very simple. In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth, by speaking."

If God did that by speaking, does this mean he had vocal chords? And if so, how did God produce sound in space before he created air?

"Maybe it is what caused the big bang, no the big bang was caused by this and this was caused by that."

Where did God come from? If God was always there, why can't this logic apply to the universe? And if it MUST have been caused, why is it the Christian God and not any of the thousands of other gods people believe in?

***And now, I shall rebutt my opponent's pieces of evidence for creationism***

"It took around 95,000 years for man to figure out that planting a seed in the ground produces food to feed your starving family."

95,000 years ago, man behaved more like animals that relied mainly on nomadic hunting and gathering. This is scientific fact.

"The Tower of Bable in Exodus…can you see how the Bible get straight to the point where as man's way does not and it never will either."

Most of the time, the simpler explanation is not the correct one, even though it is easier to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The scientific theory of languages changing geographically is visible even today.

If we cannot explain something, we say we cannot explain it. We don't assume Christianity. If my opponent *must* have some sort of fairy tale to explain this, might I suggest any of the following half dozen other language myths?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"If the universe was billions of years old, the outer planets of our solar system should haved cooled off long ago, such as Jupiter and Saten."

This argument is so old and has been disproven so many times, it actually has an archived entry and an ID number.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"Oh and spontaneous combustion doesn't create life. Just kidding."

What about spontaneous creation? Just kidding.

As I have extended forth the possibility of evolution, and my opponent has not debunked it, it remains a valid possibility, and thus, my opponent has not yet won.
GodSands

Pro

"If God did that by speaking, does this mean he had vocal chords? And if so, how did God produce sound in space before he created air?" -- God is a supernatural being, the only way one could relate to another human would be by saying God spoke the words because it relates to us human, it would be the most convient and powerful way to created domething, just by speaking.

"Where did God come from?" -- This is very simple, and you skeptic have very poor memory if you forget this. God has always existed because, for one God is spiritural not physical, that is parishy the difference between a physical and spiritual being. Secondly, God can have access to all dimensions. Such as the 10th dimension wihich allows one to see an infinity anoumt of ways which one may take, however to us humans we only witness the path we take, God can witness an infinity different way we could have taken. From a single point, that being God, others use the big bang as the centre spot but it doesn't make any sense as what was before the big bang? Silly really.

"95,000 years ago, man behaved more like animals that relied mainly on nomadic hunting and gathering. This is scientific fact." -- Arn't we animals today? Kind of going back on your self there. You know we are not animals, or at least not anymore, because you are parted between acting decent to doing what you wish in life thus act animal like. You have given me no proof of your claim that it is scientific at all. None!

I don't do links, I do not read them, I do not send them.

Ok my case, that creation happened 6000 years ago. Firstly it is a belief, but scientific evidence points in it dircetion. The thing about evolution is that you take the whole thing as fact, and that no scientific evidence points to evolution. Funny huh?

One piece of scientific evidence is that the eye could not have evolved and yet we have eyes today.

An eyeball with out an retina would be a toumour not a possitive mutation passed on.
An eyeball with out the lense would be only to see light as in you could see samples of light, not able to make out what you see at all.
An eyeball with out a functioning optic nerve to pass messages to the brain would be worthless.
An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode.
An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless. (With help from drdino.com)

It would be very unlikey that the eye could over come any of these tasts through mutation. In that if the first creature with some sort of an eye died and had no offspring, the chances of the eye to carry on would be near impossible. It does take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

Fossils: If evolution is correct, there should be billions and billions of fossils, which are partly two types of creatures. This was what Darwin expected, but paleontologists have no found one over a 100 years of intensive searching.

I have ran out of room. Next time though.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Con

I thank my opponent for his response and will now rebutt.

My opponent has responded to my literal critique of God by saying that the term "speaking" is a figurative comparison for humans by humans. In such case, my opponent then opens up the Bible to some form of figurative interpretation. Thus, the Bible, and most importantly, Genesis, should not be interpreted literally.

As for my opponent's explanation of the supernatural property of God, why is it that it has to be the Christian God? Why can't it be any of the thousands of other gods?

My opponent then decides to disagree with me about hunting and gathering. The hunting-gathering method of subsistence is known by everyone beyond 6th grade History.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Primitive tribes still do it today, and there is archaeological evidence that they did it thousands upon thousands of years ago before agriculture. All included above.

"I don't do links, I do not read them, I do not send them."

This is unfortunate for my opponent, because debate.org accepts links as a source. My opponent has decided to forfeit his point about Jupiter and Saturn. However, I will state that Jupitor's size and Saturn's atmosphere and gaseous composition render my opponent's point completely wrong.

My opponent then states that there is no evidence for Evolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

The fossil record demonstrates changes in world species from era to era, evolution is visible on the microscopic scale with microbes, speciation is visible among populations, homology shows physical similarities between creatures, DNA tracing allows us to map a species' family tree, if I were to cite all evidence for evolution, I would run out of characters.

The eyeball argument is the first argument I have debunked by myself back when I argued against Creationism five years ago. This is known as "argument by irreducible complexity". The problem is that my opponent does not go in a scientifically supported scheme of evolutionary change. The brain evolved first, the optic nerve and the retina are parts of the brain used for sensing. The eyeball developed slowly because the curved nature improves light detection. The lens developed to shield the hole from debris.

http://video.google.com...

Forget rocket scientists. Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of an eye so simply, a child can understand it.

As for fossils, my opponent is misinformed. He does not understand how fossils form. Not all dead things leave fossils, the chances of leaving a fossil are smaller than winning the lottery several times over.

My opponent has merely offered faulty and inefficient arguments against evolution. He cannot prove that Christian creationism is the only truth. He has not even proven that Creationism must be the truth. Thus, so far, he has accomplished nothing and the burden of proof rests on him.

Thank you.
GodSands

Pro

Right on I go...

You have told me that because I said speaking, you assume that I meant in words, that well could have happened indeed so. God is a supernatural being and there would be little to suggest what would not allow God to speak out words. When in Geneisis it speaks about the Holy Spirit moving across the waters before the earth had form I take that literally. I take all of Geneisis as it is said. Noah's flood helps one understand Geneisis clearer, in that if you take the globle flood literally then evolution did not occur so creation must be true. There are a number of strong proofs of a young earth.

1. Under layers of rock there are very few meteor crator, to match the aussmed age of the earth by evolutionists, there should be millions of crators. Actually the amount matches a earth being much nearer 6000 years old.

2. If earth was 4.6 billion yeas old, all known comets which orbit the sun should have had burned up thier material with each time they pass around. Their maxium life span is no more than 100,000 years. Why they are still about just proves earth to be less that time.

3. Spiral galaxies should have long lost their spiral formation. Also the off balanced dispersion of matter in the universe should be no longer.

Many astronemors and cosmologists working on the idea that the universe is 10's of billions of year old have only squandered at these problems. Their precon assumptions have resulted in complicated and abnormal turn outs. Their only solution is transient phenomena based. Quick to exist and quick to stop existing. These explanations are far more faith bound than scientific.

It is almost you suggest the universe being everlasting in the midsts of creations. It is almost how you presive the creation of a 6000 year old universe to be. In that you do not believe it, yet you do exactly that when these problems show up in your little closed minded world. For example of that closed mindness you inherit: We believe that after death we will either go two places, you think there is none.

Say you lived in one of those circumstances where something appears in and out of existence with a flash. You would not understand the universe around you nore would you believe in anything else but what has just appered in to existence. Neither would you understand how you came into existence. But you would only conclude that a God or some extra intelligent being formed this sudden existence. It says in the Bible that this universe will end in a bang. Just like something disappearing from existence. As a belief in there being no God, it makes this whole debate to to be inlogical to you. For one you have the problem on where the universe came from, and if you can not figure it out, there is no reason to believe you, in evolution or there being no God. You are being subborn as you could imagen if you made something that can appear in and out of existence it would believe you never made anything.

I am out of ammo.
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Con

My point on God speaking has not been countered. It is not whether he could or could not, the question is, why speak it in existence when you can think it into existence? Human anthropomorphism of God is not trustworthy. Either the Bible is 100% literally interpreted, or it is not. You are saying the latter.

I will now address your arguments. Please see this "handbook".

http://www.talkorigins.org...

1. This argument is defeated in explanation #4. Meteor fossils and craters become indistinguishable after millions of years. My opponent is completely wrong and his argument is a blind shot in the dark.

2. This argument is defeated in explanation #3. There have been observed clouds of mass that comets pass through, picking up material from space. Comets gain matter as well as lose matter.

3. This argument is defeated here: http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...

My opponent then states that scientists choose incomprehensible explanations over the simple ones of "God did it". It is not their choice. It is experimental data. I must remind my opponent that higher knowledge becomes devoid of analogy, and that the simple answer may not be correct. Unless he believes flies come from fruits.

My opponent then suggests the incredulity of the universe as a first cause and accuses me of bias. I now point to his bias, and suggest he not use ad hominem arguments where logic would be more accessible.

To reframe, I will now list all the arguments/counterpoints that my opponent has purposely chosen not to respond to:

1. You said that the origin of the universe is simple, yet, it is also difficult to understand. This is a contradiction you have not addressed.
2. Why must the first cause be supernatural? And as a matter of fact, why must it be the Christian God and not any other God or deity, or even an indescribable force?
3. I countered your argument on Agriculture and early human nomads. You ignored it.
4. I countered your argument on the development of language. You ignored it.
5. I countered your argument on the cooling of Jupiter and Saturn. You ignored it.
6. I countered your argument on the evidence of fossils. You ignored it.
7. I countered your argument on the evolution of the eye. You ignored it.

In addition, I have offered counterarguments for the three NEW arguments you have made just prior. I will suggest that my opponent read all of the following before making new arguments I will debunk and that he will subsequently not respond to. This index not only provides more evidence for the points I listed above, but also address possible counterpoints.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
GodSands

Pro

God spoke and there was everything, you look at God's work in disgrace or at my belief's and see them as impossible. How can you when you do not take a glimpse at your own jokable and outrageous belief system? For a start you do not know any orgins of your theory, in that you base you whole argument upon nothing, then you marvel at how silly sounding God is. Your whole theory is floating on nothingness. It has no base, no orgins, no evidence and when you don't believe in creation and God, it is suddenly not a belief anymore. Because of these thing I tell anyone there is no reason to believe in evolution big bang etc.

You question is simply, did God speak? Yes, God can speak to people now, there is no reason why God couldn't then either. Since you do not believe in God, this will appear quite unappealing. It is like jumping on thin air to you. You will continuly disagree in till you believe there is really a God.

1. No evidience on his reply.

2. How do comments gain matter when the gavity pull is weaker than the suns?

3. Galaxies are millions of light years away. It is quite possible that they look much different than they do now. In that they look new as they were made by God 6000 years ago. The fact that they inherit the Golden Ratio of God's unique handly work and alike many other clear works of God such as waves and the bottoms of pineapples, twisters and sea shells. It is quite strange how these all have the exact patten of the Golden Ratio. There are many other examples too.

You then now go on to reason in that God can not have just done it. Well this is quite unfair, in your logic you can call what ever caused the universe anything what sounds scientific but anything but God. God created the universe as God is God. That is the very bottom line and it is mentally impossible to suggest and go any futher than what I just have. Rather than 'I don't know' This question leads to things which are large in detail and are hard to miss, not in the same case as God. In the same way I would ask you how much a rock weight without enabling t lift it in any manner.

That list you presented I said my part and moved on. If you want a debate of Jupiter and Saturn you are always welcome. This is about creation. It is also down to the reader to deside who should be give a vote. Not each other.

Talkorigins.org is a anti creationist website. To convince me that any evolution or anti creation website is trustworthy no one who is a atheist or who believes in evolution needs to not have sinned in my eyes. According to the Bible. Then I will allow Kleptin to win this.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Con

My opponent asserts that my beliefs are ludicrous and based on that, my arguments are false. This is an ad hominem fallacy. In addition, my opponent has provided no argument for Creationism, nor has he provided an argument against Evolution that I have not completely debunked. Thus, his entire opening statement is void, and nothing but angry and empty accusations.

As for my opponent's rebuttals:

1. Included in that link is a huge list of meteor craters and discoveries, as well as geological explanations for their rarity. It is plain that my opponent has not viewed my sources.

2. My opponent's ignorance of physics is responsible for this fallacy. Comets have orbits around the sun, and collide with material along their orbit, gaining mass. Not gravitation, collision.

3. My opponent shot himself in the foot with desperate arguments he doesn't understand. My opponent says that since galaxies are millions of light years away, our interpretation of their image may be false. In that case, I ask my opponent how he knows they are still spiral. If he can see a galaxy millions of light years away, it means we are receiving light from a source millions of years ago, and not 6000 years ago like my opponent believes. In addition, this counterargument has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.

My opponent then awkwardly mentions the golden ratio when I myself have not. He assumes that the golden ratio implies design when in reality, it is just a physically stable ratio. All it shows is that the rules of physics work in constant ways, not God.

My opponent continues, making more unjustified claims that it is inmpossible for God not to exist. Since there is no corresponding argument, I take this as a restatement of his thesis. He does not support this claim, merely repeats it. My opponent then says that his unaddressed point about Jupiter and Saturn, which he included as evidence and which I debunked, is conceded.

Then, my opponent concludes by saying that because I am a sinner, what I say cannot be true. This is another ad hominem fallacy.

This is the final round, and my opponent, being the contender, should not introduce new arguments in the final round. In addition, he still has not responded to my list of unresolved issues, from the round before this. I also add the following unresolved issue:

8. You argue that speaking is the simplest action. Thinking is simpler, thus, you are wrong.

Until my opponent resolves these eight issues, then his argument is not even PLAUSIBLE. He then has to debunk all of evolutionary evidence, and then make his argument in one response. It is clear that this is impossible because my opponent is supporting a desperate point based on faith and not on Science. It is a sad attempt to use bad science, poor logic, and ignorance of Evolution to appeal to easy answers. All his points have been debunked.

Thank you to the audience, and please vote CON.
GodSands

Pro

Look creation is a belief and the reason is because the world works towards the notion of evolution being scientific. Any proof I offer to you, you will always 'debunk' it. I will post you a non biast message on why evolution and creation is equally logical depending on your veiw of life.

Why can you not send quotaions?

Your 2nd point looks to me as a guess, sure coments around the sun but if they collided together that would mean they loose mass and become smaller. You evolutionists have this problem where you think that time makes thing improve, it is quite the opposite.

Not quite. The 3rd point here, in that you speak of light traveling for millions and millions of light years. Scientists now know from Estines c=mc2 that light is not a constent, that is the speed of light. Scientists now think that light travelled hundreds of thousands of times faster than today's speed. The speed of light today is roughly 670,616,629.4 mph and it takes 8.3 minutes to reach the sun. Imagen 670,616,629.4 x 2,000,000 its actually would equal around 134,123,325,880. I was being generous, the law of 2nd law of pharmadynamics affects everything. It would be silly to think light speed was the only thing that was not affected. There is another solution to this, in that light travel is not as simple as what you think. Say if I was to travel to NY from London, I leave at 5am and I arrive at 5am. This is called universal time, it also effects space travel. I will have to look into this some more.

It is easy to say that the Golden ratio works in a constent way, and then you leave it at that, that is easy to suggest. Your probably right, but it is also silly to think that these laws made from pure nothingness, pure nothingness didn't make these laws, God did. As simple as you say these things exist is as how simple as it is for God to creation these laws.

Please, if you can, do not sin and say the things you say. I will then believe every word you speak.

Your 8th point I do not understand?

I will just leave this behind as a finishing line. "Atheists believe life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligence, morality from non-morality...and they criticize our faith!?" - Creation Science Evangelism. That sums them up.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 7 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
if soemthing has a creator there had to be a creator to create that one so its creators all the way down
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
No, you can expect to learn a little something instead of constantly shooting your mouth off, pretending you know half as much as anyone here.

I think you've demonstrated well enough that you know next to nothing about evolution. The arguments you use are so dated, I blow gently on them and they disintegrate.

That's what happens when your sole evolutionary education is made up of the fraudulent preachings of a tax evader and Paster John's sunday sermon.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
More evolutionists on this site so what can I expect, Death?
Posted by NItEMArE129 7 years ago
NItEMArE129
"Under layers of rock there are very few meteor crator, to match the aussmed age of the earth by evolutionists, there should be millions of crators. Actually the amount matches a earth being much nearer 6000 years old.
"

>.<
See, when there's layers of rock to fill up the crater, that usually stops it from existing.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Better than just voting myself up without any reason at all :P
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
Kleptin rating his own debate. =P Although you are trying to be objective about it.
Posted by Me100 7 years ago
Me100
Ah... I wouldn't have argued using religion :P
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
C: CON conducted himself fairly well, but PRO had the habit of making many personal attacks, the most common of which is to denounce CON's position as sinful, or CON himself (and his supporters) as sinners. In addition, PRO refused to use the sources that CON sent, despite the fact that the sources were legitimate. I find this to be disrespectful and thus, award this section to CON.

S&G: There were numerous mistakes on the part of PRO, at least one or two per post. CON had a few as well, but far fewer by comparison. Section awarded to CON

A: Aside from PRO being unable to fulfill his burden, he also missed out on over seven counterpoints by the end of the debate. In the latter half, PRO essentially revolved his arguments to appeals to "common sense", where he accuses CON of having illogical beliefs without showing in structured detail where the logical flaws are. It is clear that CON was the better debater as his arguments and responses were more structured. Section goes to CON.

S: PRO provided absolutely no sources, whereas CON provided plenty. Section goes to CON.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
GodSands, you can save your arguments for the next debate. I'd like to challenge you yet again :)
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
I simply do not know enough. One thing though I never said being kind is evil or it is hurtful to someone. To be kind, you need it in your heart, even Satan can appear as an angel of light.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 mizzouvetmed 6 years ago
mizzouvetmed
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RedEights 7 years ago
RedEights
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 Conor 7 years ago
Conor
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 artC 7 years ago
artC
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 hoerr 7 years ago
hoerr
KleptinGodSandsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07