The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Macro evolution 4

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,496 times Debate No: 2123
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (12)

 

firemonkey6775

Con

Simple as this Evolution is impossible because the earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years and there for no evidence that evolutionest have are valid and there for evolution is impossible.
Tatarize

Pro

While I concede that if the universe were only 6 to 10 thousand years old it would not be possible to have all organisms we have today with the highly evolved adaptations they possess. Although it is quickly becoming apparent evolution goes at a pace far beyond what we previously believed to be possible and most of human evolution over the last ten thousand years has happened in the last thousand years. It would not be possible to evolve all the adaptations we have today without a world far older than 6,000 years. I shall thusly focus on the claim of the age of the Earth.

----

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old (+- 100 million years). Therefore there is ample time for life to evolve.

How do we know the age of the Earth?

We have many independent lines of evidence within geology to calculate the age of the earth. Uranium for example slowly decays into lighter elements and comparing the ratio of what was previous a pure bit of uranium shows that it has undergone radiometric decay for over a billion years. The oldest such decaying substance we have found on the planet is a small crystals of zircon in Australia which show themselves to be 4.4 billion years old. A comparison between our sun's mass and luminosity allows us to calculate how long our sun has been working finds that the sun is about 4.5-4.6 billion years old. There are also a meteorites which one presumes are fairly unchanged since the start of our universe and the Ca-Al inclusions thereof allow us to track the age of the them to be about 4.56 billion years old (which is probably a bit older than our planet). The oldest rocks we find appear to be about 3.8 billion years old, which due to the early Earth's molten surface stands to reason.

Let's look at a specific example, Uranium Lead decay. The ratio of Uranium-235 to Uranium-238 (.72%) is well known and when you hear about uranium enrichment they are talking about getting a higher ratio of U-235 than U-238 as the 235 has the added property of allowing a chain reaction of nuclear fission. Now, why is this ratio important? Because Uranium decays into lead. U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207 so we can look at the ratio of Pb-207 and Pb-206 calculating from the half-life that this was a standard bit of uranium and calculate how much of it decayed. Calculating from the half-life we can tell how long this bit of Uranium has been decaying for.

Picture this... several clocks running on different timing patters.
1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9
1.....2.....3.....4.....5.....6..
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H
1..........2..........3..........
1.............................2..
1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..A..B..

Now, even any one of these clocks if you know the rate they are clicking along can be used to calculate where they started. With radiometric dating this is exactly what we have. Now, looking at one clock you might be able to say we could have made a mistake, but here's the strength of radiometric dating... we look at all the clocks and they agree. So we track clock A to about the same time clock B tracks to and clock C to the same place and clock D... E... F, etc. Then we calculate it other ways like comparing the change in the brightness of the sun compared to the mass to determine how long it took to develop.

If we use Sm-Nd dating on a Chondrite meteorite we get a 4.21 (+- .76) billion year age, or Rb-Sr we get about 4.50 (+-.02) billion years, Eucrites with Lu-Hf gives 4.57 (+- .19) billion, Diogenites with a Rb-Sr dating 4.45 (+-.18) billion years. -- We can run the different clocks back and we get pretty much the same date. The Earth is 4.54 (+- .1) billion years old.

That's plenty of time for evolution to occur.

------

Further, your 6000 date comes from Usher who calculated the age of the planet by adding up the ages of the Biblical figures of the Bible. Frankly that's a bit silly.

Seriously, you're going to tell me the universe was created 2000 years after the Egyptians first brewed beer? Thousands of years after the domestication of the dog? 4000 years after the oldest known living plant started to grow (King Clone Creosote bush 11,700 years old)? Our tree ring record goes back 5,000 years before the earth formed? We drive around in cars being powered by black goop millions of years older then the universe? We look into the sky and see stars hundreds of thousands of light years away with the light thereof traveling for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the universe being created? This is what you want us to believe? This is your argument?
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Con

i would like to thank all of you that have taken an interest in my debates and or taken one of them up for those of you who did not get one and wish you would have i will have another set of them coming when i finish this set in about a week. Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times

First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that." here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old

1.The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out .
2.ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it.
3.ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen
4.ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth.
5.next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was � of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period.

Ok well there you go
Tatarize

Pro

You're just cutting and pasting your argument? Lame!

Carbon dating has a short half-life it only works about 50,000 years back. Which is enough time to prove you're wrong, but not enough to evolve all life on the planet (ergo I didn't mention it). Carbon-12 in the upper atmosphere is hit by incoming radiation and converted into Carbon-14. There is a known ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere and by plant photosynthesis within the biosphere. So when something dies, it cuts itself off from this constant ratio of carbon-14. Carbon-14 has a half life of around 5700 years. So if you have half as much Carbon-14 as you would expect to have today: 5700 years old. If you have a quarter as much carbon-14: 11,400 years old. One quarter means it's 17,100 or so (3 half-lives). However, the amount of carbon-14 drops to undetectable after about ten half-lives. So you can use it to track how old a mammoth corpse is, but not the Earth. Further, when things fossilize, they turn to rock and lose the original carbon. You can track anything that use to be alive within the last 50,000 years or so.

However, other radiometric dating have other criteria of use. They can be used on rocks or on volcanic rocks or on the fossils or on a number of different things. You don't only use carbon-14, you use many different types of radiometric dating working on different clocks to determine the age of the planet or some rocks on the planet. You use a few different types, Ar-Ar, He-He, I-Xe, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, K-Ar, C-C, Re-Os, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, U-Pb, U-Pb-He, U-Th, U-U... to name a few.

It doesn't matter if you want to hear it or not, radiometric dating is as scientifically secured as dropped objects fall. It is the reason we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. You don't dig down and call a certain depth a certain time, sediment is added in different places at different rates and tectonic forces toss it all around. So you need something a lot more concrete than that. If you think that's all there is to it, I'm sorry, but you have been mislead.

Are you making this up yourself or reading the Jack Chick tract Big Daddy? We base our results on radiometric dating of certain rocks, and although there is something called biostratigraphy where we have certain well established index fossils and can date things with them. So if we find trilobites we know we aren't going to find any mammals or if we find a pig tooth and know that that species of pig lived 2.2 to 2.5 million years ago along with other fossils that the fossils are 2.2 to 2.5 million years old. We know this because we use radiometric dating to determine the age of that fossil by checking the clocks it possesses.

Radiometric dating is a fantastic tool for this, though we have other ways of checking like finding out the age of the Sun or various other planets in our solar system (all about 4.5 billion).

The cosmic dust? You mean the same dust that all the asteroids and comets spit out all the time? Really?

If you gained 10 pounds in a month creationists would claim you can't be any older than 2 years. Because tracking backwards you would weigh nothing as of two years ago.

Really, we get more dust, flies off comets and such all the time.

God created starlight... to do what? Did he also redshift it such that it makes the universe appear to be expanding. Light isn't slowing down. Further God? What the hell does God have to do with this? Any evidence for this God fellow?

The hottest stars are massive stars which hypernova into pulsars in less than a million years (they are all gone). Due to basic physics, the temperature of a star drops off at the square of the distance between us. So if you travel away from the star you'll end up getting colder and colder. We get more heat from light bouncing off the moon than we get heat from light from Alpha Centauri only 4.37 light years away. Also, 100,000 years ago fairly modern humans were running around Africa. 100,000 years isn't that long. Primates formed about 78 million years ago, humans split from the chimp lines about 4 million years ago (as fossil evidence and genomics indicate).

Moon dust? Really, even creationists suggest you shouldn't use that argument. Seriously. http://www.answersingenesis.org...

-- "For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can't be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one, either). See Moon-dust argument no longer useful and Moon dust and the age of the solar system (Technical)."

What next? Why are there still monkeys?

----------

Okay, I didn't really expect much from this debate but rather than point out how wrong my opponent is, let me point out some positive evidence in favor of evolution. So people don't accuse me of not meeting my burden of evidence.

I highly recommend:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

As a pretty good overview of a number of pointed bits of evidence.

Why are there pouched mammals in Australia rather than the standard live-birth mammals we have today? Why are there some in South America too?

Well, the super-continent of Pangaea broke up up into Laurasia and Gondwanaland during the Triassic about 200 million years ago. With Laurasia consisting of North America, Europe and Asia. Gondwanaland consisting of South America, Africa, Australia, Antarctica, and oddly India. Well due to this geographic isolation the mammals continue to along separate courses, Gondwanaland broke freeing up Africa and India to crash back into Europe. Antarctica, Australia and South America went their separate ways during the Triassic about 135 million years ago.

This split the mammals into two groups one became the modern marsupials (pouched mammals) and another became the placental mammals (like us). So we find that Australia and South America have marsupials along with some later invaders after South America ran into North America. Though, Australia's native wildlife like Kangaroos, Wombats, etc are marsupials.

Now what about Antarctica? Should it have marsupials? Well, it does... or rather did. Most everything is extinct now, but when you look at the fossils in Antarctica has they are definitively marsupial mammals. And, often similar to those found in South America and Australia for the time.

And yes, if you look at fossils from prior to the breakup of South America and Africa you find the same organism lived across those two continents (for example Mesosarus).

Why are their specific types of mammals in different areas with regard to exactly how the planet progressed. If we found these things out of place it would be strong evidence against macroevolution, but we don't. No rabbit fossils with trilobites, apes in South America, it all fits in exactly as it should.

Mutations during reproduction do occur and sometimes lead to subtle changes. Most of the time these changes are harmless and do nothing, other times they are detrimental, sometimes they are beneficial. When the changes are harmful the organisms with these changes are less likely to breed than other members of their species and less likely to pass on these detrimental genes. When the changes are helpful they are more likely to breed. And pass on this beneficial little tweak. Not every organism which could possibly exist can possibly exist, and in this fight for life, any edge helps. Compounding this process leads to organisms of amazing complexity. Some argue little changes work, but big ones can't. 'You can go 10 feet one foot in front of the other, but never 10 miles!'
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Con

first were did the orginal orginism come from?
how do you figure in the great flood?
how do you figure that this earth of ours just came about by chance with all the thins that had to be so perfect for us to live?
why are we the most advanced species?
why dosnt all mothers have 14 arms? (because they would notice the need for another arm and that magic process would go into effect.)

the rest of them take a genral assumption that you believe in the big bang (i do to so there something we can agree on)

if that tiny ball of matter was so hot wouldn't it purge it of all living organisms?
if not why do we get sun burns?

basically thats all
Tatarize

Pro

I would have preferred you consider my arguments rather than ask some red herring questions. Let it be known, none of these questions touch the subject of macroevolution.

--"first were did the orginal orginism come from?"

I don't know. We have some generally good ideas as to some of the steps involved. There are easily generated organic molecules, fantastic catalysts, tiny easily produced replicative molecules, strong evidence that DNA even at very short lengths is fairly crystalline (crystals have a simple replication). Outside of these good suggestions we just don't know; I don't know.

--"how do you figure in the great flood?"

I don't. The great flood is a myth. There's no evidence geologically, biologically, historically, plausibly that it occurred. There was a time when geologists actually believed it, but a preponderance of the evidence made even the most ardent of finally admit that there should be some evidence and clearly was not. For example, we have societies which show continuous existence during the time of this supposed flood. The oldest living thing on the planet is a Creosote bush in the Mojave desert 11,700 (5,700 years older than the universe) years old. Further, we have uninterrupted tree ring records from all over the world going back about 11,000 years. Further, floods leave a very distinctive mark in the rocks. Just as we can tell that some globally bad thing happened by looking at rocks 64 million years ago from anywhere on the Earth, a local flood would leave a similar mark on our geology.

-- "how do you figure that this earth of ours just came about by chance with all the thins that had to be so perfect for us to live?"

If the Earth didn't exist in such a fashion to allow life to arise it would be impossible to be here and ask that question. There are 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000 stars in the universe. Probably a good number of planets around those stars. The fact that life arose on a planet which life could arise on is of very little mystery. Also, to say that the planet is perfect for us is a bit like saying my hand is perfect for a glove. We evolved on this planet and so we are well adapted to the changing conditions. Further, our species is unique in that we adapt not only to our environment but have adapted our environment to us. You'll find humans in the eastern part of the US living happily even though that part of the country is pretty frozen.

--"why are we the most advanced species?"

We aren't. Evolution doesn't work that way. It isn't a race to some advantageous goal it's a bootstrapping little edges to drive a population. There are far fewer organisms existing than could exist, if you look at the breeding patterns of any organisms from bacteria, to rabbits, to insects, to humans you find that within a short number of years it should be possible to coat the planet. However, there's a struggle for resources and different members of different species fight for their own advantages. Sometimes small genetic tweaks will cause an organism to be slightly better or worse in this struggle. The worse organisms are quickly driven extinct whereas the slightly better organisms will use this edge in their struggle to survive passing on this improved genetic characteristic to more offspring and becoming a major factor in the species. This doesn't say anything about a species being the most advanced or the best. Every species is as well adapted within their struggle to survive as humans are adapted within our struggle to survive. There's nothing inherently superior about humans over rabbits, over grass, or birds. We are just as adapted towards our survival as they are towards theirs. There isn't a goal in evolution so the suggestion that we are closer to that goal than lions is a rather misguided idea. Lions are adapted to their struggle and we are adapted to ours. Generally organisms occupy different niches so it's a lot like apples and oranges... apples are adapted to their niche and oranges to theirs.

-- "why dosnt all mothers have 14 arms? (because they would notice the need for another arm and that magic process would go into effect.)

Evolution is not a magical process. It's a gradual process. If you could gradually require the addition of an arm from a fairly pointless arm stub to a fully functional arm you could evolve one. However, our general body plan is the same as all vertebrates fish had two front fins and two hind fins so now all species originally evolved from fish have this same general plan and gradual modifications (a major change is nearly impossible to occur and be helpful to an organism). Slow gradual change, tweaks which give slight edges to organism in their struggle within their species.

The scientific evidence does lead one to accept that the universe began 14 billion years ago from an original point. I highly recommend Richard Carrier's piece on why he was a Big Bang Skeptic and the scientific evidence behind it explaining why he accepts the theory now.
http://www.infidels.org...

Further, I would like to remind readers that none of this has anything to do with macroevolution.

-- "if that tiny ball of matter was so hot wouldn't it purge it of all living organisms?"

It's worse that that, it wouldn't have been able to become matter for a while. It would have been impossible to have any complex structures at all. However, the Big Bang does not contain living organisms. Those come far later. The universe is 14 billion years old. Our planet is 4.55 billion years old, our sun is a little older than that (few hundred million years or so). However life didn't come on to the scene until about 2 billion years ago. So as far as we can tell the entire universe was lifeless for 12 billion years. Complex life has only been around for about .6 billion, and we've been around for about .001 billion years (high estimate 100,000).

--"if not why do we get sun burns?"

Sun burns are actually burns. The UV rays of the sun actually damage the our skin. Life in the struggle for survival has developed slow gradual tweaks which allow for protection from the sun to reduce the damage to our skins from over-exposure to sun light. However, where light is less abundant (such as northern Europe), lighter skin evolved as a little tweak to increase the production of Vitamin D. Vitamin D is an extremely useful molecule for our development and is produced when UV light hits our skin. So the previous adaptations of increased melanin to protect the skin from the light were not as advantageous in northern environments. So when the gene used for melanin transport in the skin would break (as tends to happen here and there) it became one of those edges in struggle for survival in the northern environment allowing people to produce more Vitamin D. Because of the reduced sun effects the necessity of protection from sun burn was lessened. However, when you move people adapted for dimmer climates (adapted towards Vitamin D production rather than UV protection) into more sun rich climates they aren't as well as adapted as their darker skins cousins resulting in sun burns.

It's similar to Kettlewell's peppered moths experiments where the lighter colored moths were better adapted to one environment (lighter color trees) and darker colored moths were better adapted to another (darker color trees). Slight adaptations to slightly different environments. If you put the lighter color moth on a darker color tree it has a noticeable disadvantage. In the moth's case it's increased predation by great tits in the case of humans it's sunburns.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by foxmulder 9 years ago
foxmulder
firemonkey6775, have you ever thought about debating something else? I'm not supporting Tatarize or anything but come on. Expand your horizons. There is even a debate about how annoying your series of debates is.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
You're right. Yours was way better than mine put together, Tat. You smug ba$tard! HA!
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Lol. Presently tied. And after I clearly did the best.

*smirk*
Posted by firemonkey6775 9 years ago
firemonkey6775
i would love to continue this if you dont mind please challenge me
Posted by firemonkey6775 9 years ago
firemonkey6775
ok welll thanks for that debate i genuinely think your actually smart and i enjoyed this debate
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Insulting? I was being genuine and honest.
Posted by firemonkey6775 9 years ago
firemonkey6775
thanks for insulting me but its ok and really. but i am just going to ask question next round for you to answer.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Are you honestly trying to refute my argument? I have facts and really good evidence on my side, because the theories and beliefs I have are driven by the evidence and are created specifically to fit explain the evidence as the best explanation for the data.

I'm getting the impression you're coming at this debate honestly and I'm stunned. I entirely expected some cut and paste non-answer from some creationist site by now.

If you are actually researching this, thank you, it is extraordinarily refreshing. Such positions seem so strange I tend to forget they are honestly believed by apparently honest people.

Though, I might be completely misreading the situation.
Posted by firemonkey6775 9 years ago
firemonkey6775
well ok gosh your going to drive me crazy im hopping to get this done tomorrow
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
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 Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Defenestrator 9 years ago
Defenestrator
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rojogato19 9 years ago
rojogato19
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30