The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

New debate.org website (version 3) will probably not be online till June 2008!

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 3/20/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,035 times Debate No: 3308
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (14)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Oh noez! I am very sad right now, this is so much longer than I ever wanted to wait.

Disclaimer: I am in favor of the above topic in the sense that I believe it to be true not that I actually like the idea.
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for initiating the debate. Second, although I expect people to vote on this as if it were a poll, I'd ask that you vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what you personally believe. With that said, let us proceed carefully onto the highway that is my opponent's case.

First, I will be maintaining the position that the new version of the website is possible rather than probable.

Upon looking at this topic, one thing stands out. The PRO insist that new version of debate.org will PROBABLY not be online till June 2008. My opponent's evidence for this claim is none other than the posted claim found here: http://www.debate.org...

Since my opponent insists that this claim is probable, he is no doubt using probable evidence. According to the 2007 version of Black's Law Dictionary, probable evidence is defined as: "Evidence deemed sufficient to establish another fact unless discredited by other evidence." In other words, all I have to do is discredit the claim provided by debate.org with other evidence in order to win this debate. I will do just that.

#1: As stated by the Webmaster, Debate.org was originally going to be released late February or early March (within a few months of the version two update). As you all can tell, the Webmaster was unable to keep his word due to far more important issues which came up as well as a all of the ideas which the debate.org staff is attempting to introduce. This tells us that just because the Webmaster insist something concerning the website, it doesn't make it likely to happen. Like us, the webmaster is human.

#2. The reason the website update got pushed back was due to two important factors.

A: The webmaster ( Crystal and Philip Ferreira) is expecting to become a parent and is utilizing his/her time to prepare for that. As one may or may not know, parenthood takes plenty of time and running this website will only become more difficult with that time being upheld before it. What the webmaster has stated is merely an estimate of when version 3 will be operational, and given that his/her child will be his/her FIRST son, one could suggest that the webmaster doesn't quite have enough experience to make an accurate deduction concerning the amount of time that will be used in preparing for the new website.

B: The webmaster insinuated that all of the new suggestions was part of the reason the staff had to hold off on the new website. Given that the webmaster encourages us to continue sending these suggestions, who is to say that new demands from the debate.org community don't further prolong the amount of time the new update will require?

#3. The debate.org staff wishes to uphold the wishes of the community. One of their concerns is getting the updates at the users' convenience. As they realize, many will see this setback as an inconvenience. Thus, the debate.org staff could consider hiring extra staff members to help in the updates. This would insure that the new version of the website was released much sooner than anticipated.

#4. My opponent is not a member of the debate.org staff (nor does he have any kind of formal affiliation with them) and therefore does not have the credibility required to make this claim. Like us, all he can do is base his conclusions off of the "word" of individuals whom he knows next to nothing about.

These four factors not only discredit my opponent's only piece of evidence, but lead us to the conclusion that version 3 will POSSIBLY (rather than PROBABLY) be online by June 2008. It is the PRO's burden of proof to prove the admin's claim to be probable.

Of course, there is also the fact that just because users can't access the new version of the debate.org, it doesn't mean that it isn't online (after all, the staff would need to often test its online performance before releasing it to members). At any rate, PRO cannot win this debate. Vote CON!

Your move!
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking this debate, he will here after be referred to as "fallacious beast".

So to start my case I must begin by examining fallacious beast's case. With a brief scan I quickly deduct that fallacious beast uses 4 different arguments to quickly dissemble my "case". And I would very much have liked to agree with fallacious beast if I had not noticed that at the beginning of his argument he had to redefine my case. Fallacious beast redefined my case in two sentences:

"Since my opponent insists that this claim is probable, he is no doubt using probable evidence. According to the 2007 version of Black's Law Dictionary, probable evidence is defined as: "Evidence deemed sufficient to establish another fact unless discredited by other evidence.""

This seems like an excellent instance for me to point out my opponent, fallacious beast, employing a straw-man fallacy. In fact, not only does fallacious beast employ the straw man fallacy, he does so using a slippery slope fallacy. And after fallacious beast employs a slippery slope fallacy to fallaciously straw man my argument he turns around and employs another slippery slope fallacy to come to this conclusion,

"In other words, all I have to do is discredit the claim provided by debate.org with other evidence in order to win this debate."

So let me begin with the first fallacy fallacious beast commits, being the original slippery slope.

My opponent takes a quick look at the word probably in the resolution and assumes that something of probability requires probable evidence, and yeah for about half a moment I would have conceded that point to him. Except he goes on to define probable evidence as "Evidence deemed sufficient to establish another fact...." Which is not what I am doing at all, I am establishing something is probable not factual. This leads us to the definition of probably,

Probably: adv. Most likely; presumably. (dictionary.com)

Dictionary.com also lists about 10 other definitions, but I fail to see where any of them define probably as "a fact". Thus fallacious beast employs the slippery slope fallacy, to jump to the conclusion that to proves something probably true one requires "probable evidence", simply because they sound alike.

This fallacy in turn leads fallacious beast to straw man my entire case, basing it not on whether the event is probably true or not but rather whether the event contains "probable evidence" to establish factuality. In turn fallacious beast offers 4 arguments for why my case does not contain probable evidence, which would be great, except for the fact that we are debating "New debate.org website(version 3) will probably not be online till June 2008!" not "The idea that the new debate.org website will not be online until June 2008 can be proven factual through probable evidence." Had that been the debate topic I would love to concede right now. Sadly fallacious beast is a fallacious monster.

Now I am left with just a few more things to cover, I will offer them in a three pronged conclusion.

1. The evidence I offer for this probably being the case is none other than the claim posted here by the webmaster, http://www.debate.org... .

2. My opponents conclusion is quite simply, "the conclusion that version 3 will POSSIBLY (rather than PROBABLY) be online by June 2008. " This can be debunked by defining possibly,

Possibily: perhaps; maybe.

So while my opponents statement is true, it does not detract from my statement. My statement being slightly more strong as their is actually evidence to lead us to believe that debate.org will not be online until June 2008. My statement however does not rule out the possibility of it occurring before then, it just places it as unlikely.

3. Fallacious beast ends his case by stating, "Of course, there is also the fact that just because users can't access the new version of the debate.org, it doesn't mean that it isn't online (after all, the staff would need to often test its online performance before releasing it to members)." Sadly there is:

a. The fact that staff having to test debate.org does not require it being online in the least and

b. Absolutely no proof for this statement.

Thank you.
Logical-Master

Con

I'm appalled that the PRO is referring to me as the fallacious beast. Indeed, this debate IS crawling with logical fallacies, but I assure you that none of them came until the PRO's second round. I would surmise that his senses have betrayed him so much to the point that he cannot detect the nauseating fallacious stench which is protruding from his mere presence here. Perhaps with some advice, he'll be sure to shower after this debate. If not, I'd advise those with weak constitutions to steer clear of this page.

If you intend to agree with my opponent's definition argument regardless of what I say, skip down to the part labeled "4 POINTS."

Before I start, I insist on getting this dictionary business out of the way. Black's Law Dictionary is a dictionary used for legal trials as well as formal argumentation. I cited it not because I thought people may not have understood what probably meant, but rather to clarify on how I would be addressing my opponent's case. I advise that you not conclude that my opponent's definitions (which are cited by an inferior dictionary) somehow disprove my definitions as those definitions are not specifically made for the purpose of debate.

Onto my opponent's case:

First, the PRO attempts to advocate that I have redefined his case.

He suggest that the first flaw in my line of reason is that I assume that something of probability requires probable evidence. At the very least, this kind of evidence is required (in the context of this debate). Furthermore (and more importantly), given that the form of evidence my opponent's case presented was evidence that insinuated the date of debate.org's update being probable, the PRO did just as I insinuated. Having done this, he has no reason to challenge my claim , thus is simply wasting space.

Next, the PRO attempts to dismiss my definition through use of the non sequitur and false dichotomy fallacies.

Below is the PRO's argument in the form of a syllogism:

1)I was referring to probability rather than fact.
2)The CON's definition uses the word fact.
3)Therefore, the CON's definition doesn't apply to this argument.

The first premise attributes to the false dichotomy side of his argument. Just because probability is mentioned, it does mean that a fact isn't being implied. In this case, my opponent is insisting factuality on the matter of version 3 of debate.org; he is insinuating that it is CERTAINLY probable that the new version of debate.org will be uploaded by June. Thus, he is implying the notion to be a fact.

The Second premise attributes to the non sequitur fallacy. Indeed, the term "fact" is mentioned, but that does not lead one to conclude that it excludes the term probability. As I've explained above, a fact is being implied in the resolution.

With these two problems being noted, my opponent's argument falls apart.

As for my opponent's definition, it does not contradict my definition and isn't the definition I used. I cited the term "probable evidence", not "probably."

As for the slippery slope which I am being accused of, I insure you that I have not committed this fallacy. Merely going by laymen terms, to prove something to be probable, one needs evidence which at least has the essence of probability.

Anyway, to directly address this accusation, let us examine the PRO's claim with his own words:

Yraelz:"Dictionary.com also lists about 10 other definitions, but I fail to see where any of them define probably as "a fact". Thus fallacious beast employs the slippery slope fallacy, to jump to the conclusion that to proves something probably true one requires "probable evidence", simply because they sound alike. "

Syllogism form:

1)CON is defining probability as fact.
2)None of the definitions from my source define probability as fact.
3)Therefore, CON is using the slippery slope fallacy to jump to the conclusion that "to prove something probably true, one requires probable evidence", simply because they sound alike.

Now I've already clarified on the problem with the first premise, so I'll just skip to the other problems with this argument.

First, this argument is non sequitur as premises "one" and "two" don't logically lead to premise "three." Furthermore, the PRO indirectly acknowledges this as he adds "simply because they sound alike" at the end of his conclusion. Why would he need to do this? Because the previous premises have nothing to do with his conclusion. Furthermore, that addition at the end is a straw man of my actual argument as I've never actually used (or implied) the "simply because they sound alike" part as a premise in any argument which I've made in round 1 (or this round for that matter).

"4 POINTS"

Now here's the funny thing about the PRO's case: The PRO has rejected the 4 arguments I provided to attack his side of the resolution. His reason for this is that he believes my definition of probable doesn't apply to his case. Well, the funny thing is that EVEN IF IT DOESN'T, my four arguments still serve to present variables which would discredit the notion that version 3 appearing by June is "most likely; presumably." The mere fact that he has ignored all four of these arguments should be enough reason for you to vote in favor of my case.

Re Three Pronged Conclusion:

1)I've addressed this evidence through attacking it with 4 different arguments. My opponent has blatantly dropped these arguments.

2)Actually, my conclusion is highly detrimental to the PRO's argument. I shall label the five different statuses for a claim.

Level 1) Impossible.
Level 2) Improbable
Level 3) Possible
Level 4) Probable
Level 5) Definite.

Although it's true that both level 2 and 4 imply possibility, they are both MORE than just possibility. Based on the ambiguous and limited amount of evidence which we have, my point was that the claim concerning the new update was merely at the level of possibility; that we can't conclude anything else on the matter at the moment. Furthermore, seeing as how the PRO was unable to rebut my four arguments, I would certainly urge this as being the case.

As for not ruling out the possibility of the update occurring before June, this being how the resolution was defined would damage my opponent's case tremendously. As you can see, the webmaster makes no claims about the update possibly occurring before or after June. To put it quite simply, he just suggest that it will occur in June (not before). In other words, my opponent has basically admitted that he has not presented valid evidence for his case (rather, he has actually presented evidence against his case). Because of this, you have yet another significant reason to vote CON.

3a) Straw man. I was referring to online performance rather than debate.org in its entirety (also, this wasn't the meat of my claim).
3b) Not true in the slightest. Keeping the beta version of the new website online (but not easily accessible to users) allows website construction to be done anywhere (and by any staff member) (both at home and the office) and is a practice which most companies (especially the ones which emphasize on websites) employ.

That said, I realize that many of you don't like semantics arguments (hence why I didn't make this last argument the focus of my case). For those that don't, feel free to ignore this argument as my case (by no means) hinges on it. Instead, make sure to pay special attention to the four arguments my opponent dropped as well as how my opponent has essentially admitted to providing evidence against his case. Both of these errors on my opponent's part should be your main reason for voting CON.

Your move!
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Much offended am I that my opponent would accuse me of protruding forth a nauseating fallacious stench. The fact of the matter is I have done no such thing. My opponent, the fallacious beast / monster and/or king, on the other hand has not only placed this stench in the round but spent the entire second round denying it. Having given the fallacious monster ample opportunity to repent I now realize the cause is futile, as there is no hope to save this beast I must sadly destroy it. ='(

The fallacious beast attempts to pound the point home that I am somehow arguing a fact. A fact is certainty. This is not what I am arguing, I am arguing "probably", probably is not a certainty. Probably is most likely, a.k.a the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario is not the same as certainty; probably is not the same as fact.

My opponent defined probable evidence as, "Evidence deemed sufficient to establish another fact" IMPORTANT: I AM NOT ESTABLISHING A FACT! Therefor I do not need probable evidence.

I however am establishing "probably", probably meaning: "most likely." Which in turn means of all the likely scenarios my scenario is the most likely. Fallacious beast on the other hand seems to think that it is simply possible. I do not deny that it is a possibility, that does not change the idea that it is also the most likely or PROBABLE situation.

A POSSIBLE situation would be anything that has the potential to happen. For instance the webmasters dieing and never completing the site is possible. The internet shutting down is feasibly possible. However the situation mentioned in the resolution is more than just possible, it is in fact the most possible situation.

Why would this be you ask? My resolution says that the new website will not be online until June 2008. This means that any time before then would prove my resolution false. Which means not only does more time occur after then making the resolution the most likely in a chronological sense but also the most knowledgeable source and only reliable one on this website is telling us that this is the case. So while yes, there are other possibilities like my opponent mentions, my case remains the most possible, in other words the probable event.

The only one of fallacious heathens comments that could possibly come close to refuting this being the probable event is his testing phase comment. Sadly even if one was to agree that a version of the new debate.org is currently online, being tested, it is still just that, a version. Not the same as the new debate.org.

With all of this in mind I can see nothing but a vote against the fallacious abhorrence! Thank you. =) (Note: I am not the fallacious abhorrence.)
Logical-Master

Con

It would seem that my opponent insist on clinging to those fallacies as if they are his bread and butter. Ladies and gentleman, it is now clear beyond a reasonable doubt that my opponent is suffering from an addiction to logical fallacies. This is serious business! I've seen this condition before and let me tell you, it's not pretty. We need to help him as soon as possible! How to help him you say? Well, if you have any sense of compassion in your hearts, you should vote CON.

First, I'll again point out that you should vote on who provided the better arguments rather than what you personally believe. Second, I'll like to also remind you that this debate doesn't hinge on our discussion concerning the definitions. As I've pointed out the previous round, regardless of whether or not you agree with me on the definition I presented, my four attacks on my opponent's only piece of evidence still work.

In the previous round, I clarified why I used Black's Law Dictionary. My opponent does not address this clarification in round 3 and therefore concedes to it. Thus, there is absolutely no reason as to why he should still be arguing on the matter of definitions.

Next, I had clearly made it known that my opponent was urging certainty on the matter of the new version of debate.org PROBABLY being online in June 2008. The PRO's response to this does not address this. Rather, it merely suggest that probably is not defined as certainty (something which I didn't argue, hence a straw man argument). His argument would only be correct if the resolution were phrased as "It MIGHT be probable that the new version of debate.org will be online by June 2008." Thus, I advise you to dismiss his response on this issue.

As for me upholding "possibility", again, our positions differ. I say that based on our current evidence, we cannot conclude that the new version of debate.org will be PROBABLY be uploaded by June 2008
Hence, my position does conflict with the instigator's.

My opponent attempts to justify his erroneous arguments by stating the following:

"Which means not only does more time occur after then making the resolution the most likely in a chronological sense but also the most knowledgeable source and only reliable one on this website is telling us that this is the case."

First, there being more time after June does not make the resolution most likely. In fact, my opponent never bothers to explain how it does. Lets apply his logic to a simpler example:

I say that Yraelz will probably be using the restroom at 10:00 am tomorrow morning. Because there is more time after 10:00 am tomorrow morning then there is time before it, the possibility of Yraelz using the restroom at that time is higher than the probability of him not using it at that time. Does this make any sense? Of course not. How does there being an infinite amount of time after 10:00 am make it more likely that Yraelz will use the restroom at exactly 10:00 am? This makes no sense and is clearly a non sequitur. The same is said for my opponent's argument.

The only possible way he could support this argument would be to insist that the resolution isn't just referring to June 2008, but that it allows more time. As I've pointed out in the previous round, if it can somehow be defined as that, then it directly contradicts the words of the webmaster. Thus, my opponent's only piece of evidence would conflict with his own argument.

Second, I've already provided reasons as to why the Webmaster making this prediction does not make the occurrence probable. Because my opponent has dropped all four of these reasons in his second round, he concedes to my point. And if you read the comment section, you'll note that he encourages that you vote based what the debaters do in the round rather than any personal input on your part. In other words, even if you happen to disagree with the reasons and their conclusion which I provided, you should still vote in favor of them..

Finally, my opponent suggest that there being a new version of debate.org being tested online is not the new debate.org, but this is just my opponent straw manning the resolution . The resolution makes it quite clear that version 3 of the debate.org website is the new website, thus my argument would be valid.

Now although my opponent has relied on a plethora of fallacies to maintain his arguments . . . oddly enough, it is not the main reason you should vote. Nor should your reason to vote concern the technicality I exposed that would suggest that the new version of debate.org has already been online. Rather, you should vote based on how my opponent has SAVAGELY ignored my 4 individual attacks on the ONLY piece of evidence which he could present in this debate. If those are to be held true and conceded to, then it's quite clear that we cannot conclude that the new version of debate.org being uploaded in June 2008 is probable. Thus, you should vote CON.

I thank the audience for reading. I would also like to thank my opponent and hope that he recovers from this addiction of his. Would hate to see him end up like Britney. Later! :D
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
Well, looks like we can see who had the the true end now. =)
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
I must lol - "fallicious beast."

hahahahah
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Just making sure. Thanks.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
No, absolutely not. I vote strictly on material that has been presented in round. I don't bring my opinion into the round unless the two debaters directly contradict each other.

For instance if one debater told me santa clause existed and the other that the easter bunny existed and they didn't refute each other then at the end of the round they both exist as far as I am concerned.

On the other hand if one debater told me Santa existed and then the other one said he didn't and that was it, then I would bring my own opinion in. Thus Santa would not exist.

However if one debater says Santa does exists giving me reasons why and the other debater doesn't attack those reasons but instead simply maintains the stains that Santa does not exist, then at the end of the round Santa does exist.

So to answer your question if the debate has a huge glaring logical flaw in it but neither debater mentions it I will pretend that the logical flaw is the most logical thing in the world and has no impact on round. =)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
ABSOLUTE HYPOTHETICAL THAT MAY JUST HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS DEBATE: If you were to see a mistake which a debater didn't expose in the round, would you be inclined to vote on the matter of that mistake having been made in the first place?
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
If you look at the preview of the new version, you can see two of my old debates. I just think it's neat.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Lol!! I love the first paragraph, it makes me happy!
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Probably not. I hold off and see how the first tournament goes before I really make a decision.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Going to join the debate tournament logical?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
I can tell I'm gonna have some fun with this one.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 GenEd 8 years ago
GenEd
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 CP 8 years ago
CP
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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