The Instigator
FalseReality
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
anwermate
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

No one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life.

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: 1/7/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,899 times Debate No: 1510
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (19)

 

FalseReality

Pro

Everything we know is wrong. Everything people in the past have known is wrong. Everything we think we will know will be wrong.

Here's why:

In the time of Mesopotamia. the river's flooded because a god was angry and felt they needed to be punished. Later, it was God who flooded the earth and decided when it would rain. Now, it is because molocules connect to dust particles and get heavy, and when this happen's alot, there is floods.

In the beginning, god's fought visously and earth is the aftermath of that battle. Later, Earth was founded in 7 days by 1 God. Now, everything started because a glob of everything exploded.

When someone was feeling down, it was because demons had a hold of their body and needed to be expelled by drilling a hole in the head for them to be drained from. Later, only God had the ability of cure sickness, so the best medicine was prayer. Now, pills and needles are the cures.

First, man was only walking dirt, that the god's made for pleasure. Later, man was made in God's image and is devine over the rest of the animal kingdom. Now, man is the result of millions of years of mutations from an ape.

It was fact that beyond a certain point, the Earth stopped and became heaven. Later, the Earth is flat, because if it wasn't we'd all fall off into space. Now, the Earth is round, and we hold onto it by gravity.

The moon and the stars are a painting in the sky when a chariot crosses the horizon. Later, the moon was moved by God, and the stars are his angles. Now, the Moon moves by gravity, stars are luminous gas giants billions of light years in the an infinite universe.

What people knew to be fact at one point proved to be false in another instance. Then something else happened and that other knowlege is wrong. No one has ever known anything to be a fact in their life. All belief's and idea's of knowledge are wrong and will forever be wrong. Anything we think could possibly be right will be proven wrong, thus, you are wrong.
anwermate

Con

I'll start by saying that I have been a member of this site for a while, but have never taken up a debate as of yet, but this topic was way too tempting to resist.

So first, you put a gigantic burden upon yourself when you state that "no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life". Seriously, you have to prove that every thing that all billions the of people that have ever been alive and known something have been wrong about it. Your burden of proof is to prove that every single truth known by every single person is false. But as that is not possible for either of us to check once it is stated, i will lower your burden to showing that everything that you, and I have ever known is false.

Because you have no definition for truth, such as being only textbook truths or something of the sort, i take truth to be anything that I, or you believe to be true.

Let me just say that you are of course correct in the cases of your examples that you give, and that we, as a species, have made many mistakes in the past in what we believe is true, but there are many more instances where what we believe as truth is actually true.

So, my following arguments will be truths that i believe. For you to win this debate, you must disprove everyone of the following

First, I believe that i exist, my proof for this is that I am typing this now, and that I am consciously thinking about the act as I do it, and that this isn't possible without my existence.

Second, i believe that I am 18 years of age, with years being defined as each rotation of the earth around the sun

third, i believe that my name on this website is anwermate, and yours is FalseReality

fourth, i believe that i have parents, parents defined as the ones that cared for me through my childhood

fifth, i believe that at this exact moment, i am putting pressure on keys with letters corresponding to the ones that are appearing on the screen.

I of course could continue for hours and still not finish, but here are enough examples for now, also i realize you may be talking about scientific truths in your speech, but at the point that you do not clarify, it falls upon me to do so.

Finally I will isolate the title of this debate to be hypocritical with itself, therefore making it impossible for you to win. You state that no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life, and you must either believe this statement to be true, or perhaps you just arbitrarily wanted to debate on this topic without believing it, and believe that it is false. In the instance that you believe that it is true, you automatically lose, as you say that no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life, and you believe that to be true. Second, if you believe it to be false, than you also lose as then you agree with my point.

I look forward to your answer. And voters, please read the arguments made and then vote instead of merely voting like this is a survey. If either debater drops, or concedes a point, consider that a reason for decision. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
FalseReality

Pro

truth - things that are true.

I'm sorry I did not post this before, as I believed it to be common knowledge. By this, I do not mean, as you say "truth to be anything that I, or you believe to be true". No, rather, it means that things are the way they are and there is absolutly no way to say they are not. What does this mean? Here is an example though yes, in the end it is a lie: The grass is green.
Well, that's not true. Humans see green grass, dog's see grey grass? Who is right? What we believe to be true is never true. If we stepped out of the physical world and saw hings through the eyes of "what really is", we might see that grass is not green, or grey, but tangerine, or even clear, or invisible totally. We we know to be colour is what our eyes identify by way of light passing through something and our sences registering it. More indepth "knowledge" can be found here:

http://www.hhmi.org...

Here's the rub though. In ancient times, we saw things the way we did, because we just did. Our eyes saw, and were something within itself. Now today, that is wrong. Would anyone in the past have predicted this, dreamed that what they knew as fact was a lie? No. Same goes for us. As time shows, what we think is true now is a lie because sometime, somewhere, somehow, it will be proven wrong. That in turn will also be wrong, and so on and so forth until our inevitable extinction. Everything down to basic thing's we never even dreamed of think had a reason, like breathing, and wind, and ground, have all been explained then proven false somehow. Every single time.

Now to your specific example, which will be explained in order as given.

1) You do not exist. How is this possible? Because I do not know you exist. I do not know that I exist. This could all be a figment, a dream, an inigma. All we have as proof that we exist is our own beleifs. But belief is not fact. There is a truth as to what we really are and how it works, but we are not seeing it or interpreting it right. This is proven because every other explaination on self awarness has been wrong somehow. Your reasoning now is not right, as it will be proven wrong in the future. Until that is found and there is no possible refutation, we can safetly say that you and I are both lies.

2) Time and age are both lies as well. Both where made solely by humans, and is thus wrong. They where made as explainations to forces that work beyond comprehension, and kept because they proved to be the most reasonable reason out there. Your parents where taught this lie, and they (and others) taught you as well this lie. Thus you believe a lie. The Earth does not rotate around the sun making you age. It is neither an accurate measurment. It will at some point be found to be untrue, so you are not 18 years old, and niether am I.

3) We do not have names on this site because there is no site. You are under the impression that there is a site, just as in the past, people were under the impression that ptting coins on the eyes of the dead would bring them to the afterlife. You believe it to be true by what you see, and the accounts of other's and youself. In a more present sence, your "name" is only assorted pixels you have convinced yourself forms "answermate". This argument is also another lie your convinced exists because you see it, and are being effect by it. It is a figment that you think is real, but is not. Again, you lie to yourself.

4) You don't have parents. You may never have been born at all. Again, my reference to existance (existance - to be real beyond a doubt). At some point, you will not exist and no one will be able to prove you did. You will never have been raised by parents as they will never have existed either.Any trace that you did will be lost and thus, you will have never existed. While you may say you do because you think that you do, your own evidence will prove useless as it will no longer matter. We'll all be found to not exist somehow, infact, our species as a whole will not exist, as it does not now. On Jupiter, we do not exist. There is no knowlege that we exist. So then, we do not. 1 billino years on Earth, all forms of us will be gone on this planet, and we will have never existed. You where never raised by parents, you have none, there is no you.

5) Your sences decieve you. again, proven through history (another lie). A while back, you felt what you felt because you did. Then you felt what you did because it was your soul in a mud casing. Now it is nerves. In the future, it will be something else entirly. Perhaps to the point where it is found no one has ever felt anything ever because nothing was there to be felt to start with. How is beyond both me and you. But so was nerves to and acient Egyptian, or a Neandrathal, but here we are today, believeing another "fact". Believe that what you feel is keys for now, because one way or another, your really not.

Now, as to how I feel about this debate. I feel it is a lie as it will be proven false. But I also think it is true because it is. Does that make me lose? No. Niether does it make you win. If what I say is true, then you too do not know any truth, and are thus lying, which means that if I'm wrong, and your right, then you are wrong and I am right. Once you believe me to have lost I have won. SInce neither can be proven true, they are thus lies, and that's all we know. If I think it is a lie than that again proves me right. I believe it is a lie because it will be wrong somehow, somewhere, at sometime. But I know it to be fact. Therefore, I believe a lie, proving what I say to be true for now. So, if you think about it, I win.

BAISC THESIS FOR WHY EVERYTHING IS A LIE.

Tell me what this is:

:)

There's an extremly high probablity you said it was a smiley face. But it's not. Its a semi colon and an end parenthasis. But its not that, its a compelation of black pixels. But it's not that, its an assortment of 1 and 0. But it's not that, its protons and electrons. But it's not that its something else entirly. It keeps going like this. But at some point, there is an absolute truth, no matter how large or small, as to what :) is. We think we know, but we don't and are proven to be wrong everytime. Until that absolutleness is known (which it probably never will) we are all believing the next most convenient lie that helps to make this universe make sence.
anwermate

Con

Since you failed to clarify what truth meant in your opening speech, the duty fell upon me to define it, therefore i will continue the debate in answering your responses to the truths that i stated earlier. You didn't seem to have a difficulty answering those though, so i hope you dont mind continuing the debate in this sense

firstly, the method that you are using to try and prove your arguments is a fallacy. Because things have been disproved in the past, it does not mean everything will be disproved in the future.

I can group your answers and answer them as one essentially, because most of your answers are that what i believe doesn't exist because empirically it has been proved that what humans believe, is always proven wrong. you cannot use this type of reasoning because at the point that there has ever been a single thing that has stayed proven, then you cannot completely fall back on this. I'll say grass is proven true, we accept grass in some way, shape or form to be true. Also, you must prove my arguments false yourself, even at the point that we both accept that everything prior to now is false,

1) you say that i do not exist b.c you do not know that i exist, and that my only proof is my own belief, and that it will be proven wrong in the future. First your only proof is stating that you dont know i exist and that i will be proven wrong, so i can just say that i believe that i exist and it will not be proven wrong in the future. This will function as long as i can prove that a singular thing has not been unproven. Lets say that one thing is the grass example from above. In addition, in order to communicate the statement that things exist there has to be a medium in which it can be communicated, proving existence. Also I think, therefore, I am.

2) the earth may or may not rotate around the sun, however there is a way to consistently measure the passage of the sun over the sky and the movement of celestial objects, and with that consistent measurement we can reliably say that someone "is 18 years old". You must prove that the figments i refer to are not true to win this argument.

3) You say that the website is not real just because i believe it to be true, and it will be proven false, and also that my name is only assorted pixels. First of all, since i provided the definition for truth in this debate, what i believe is true becomes truth. second you see my name to be assorted pixels, i see it to be my name. we both see the truth under the subjectivity of the universe. in the same way that there may be a god for one person, and not for another, and both coexist in being true, this functions.

4) Just b.c i wont exist at some point, it doesn't change the fact that i exist now, and that i came from somewhere, namely my parents. No matter if the truth is lost in time, it doesn't change the fact that it is true. Also, extend from my last speech, that i consciously type my thoughts therefore i exist, therefore my parents exist.

5) The definition of sense has changed, however i feel what i feel because i feel it, as you say we first believed. What we call feeling officially changes, however what it essentially is stays the same.

like, really, all your arguments are based on the fact that what i believe now will be proved wrong, its your burden of proof to show that they are wrong, not that they eventually will be, because that is not showing that they will be wrong. there is never a hundred percent chance that something will be wrong, even if it has been shown a hundred percent of the time previously. Empirical proof simply isn't enough. Also we may both be right, our truths may be different, yet co-exist. Also to the existence arguments, i might as well say sophism and say that nothing exists except me, because the only thing im sure about is myself, which at the least would prove some of my arguments true and yours false.

On the hypocrisy of your title stuff, you make the assumption that since it is unprovable it is false, and that you know it to be fact because it will be proven wrong at some point. But ill choose to think of this logically. You say that no one has ever known a lick of truth their entire lives. then you say that that will be proven wrong in the future. If you state your assumption to be proven wrong, then your assumption is incorrect to some extent, even if it proves your idea later on its incorrect now. But say im getting confused, cause ,i might be since my winning being your losing being me being right being you being right is a weird concept, you state this: " I believe a lie, proving what I say to be true for now" at the point that you believe anything to be true, you automatically lose as you now know a lick of truth and thereby cannot prove your title of the debate false because even if what you know to be true now changes, the fact remains that it is truth, and you have known it in your life.

to the smiley, pixels, protons electrons thing. im just going to say that this applies to the subjectivity of the universe and that we both see things differently and that they both are the truth.

By the way, ontology makes my head hurt, i would appreciate it if you reduced the number of rounds as i have had debates like this with my friends, and in the end noone can prove each other absolutely correct or incorrect and results in all parties involved with some level of head acheness.

To the voters: remember that he relies almost entirely on empirical proof, and must instead himself prove that they figments i refer to are completely false himself, not that they will be false someday. Also that i believe stuff to be true right now, and according to the definition of truth that was provided by me, since he failed to provide one intitally, thereby making mine the one to prefer, his argument is proved false as i believe something now, showing that something is true sometime in my life. Also we can both believe thing different things and they both can co exist. Finally he believes the title of this debate to be true to some extent even if he believes it will be wrong later on, as long as he believed it to be true at some point in his life, he loses

and it hurt my head enough to write that, so i only proof-read it once so their may be some gramatical errors, sorry if there is. And wow, this stuff is really hard on the mind.
Debate Round No. 2
FalseReality

Pro

The flaw in your definition is that it is a lie. Personal belief does not constitute fact. There is an IS. What that means is that there is a truth within the whole spectrum of the universe and everything else is a lie. I can say that the president is made of jelly beans and believe it in my whole heart that he is, but does that therefore mean he is? Absolutly not. It can easily be disproven and will be somehow. He could be, and we do not realize it, but until then it is a lie. The only way that real truth can be discovered is if no one in the entire universe and beyond cannot disprove it any way, at any point, in any way at all. I can say the grass is green, but while there is someone who can show that I'm wrong, regardless of the time or place or way they are in or are at or do, then I will be saying a lie in the whole spectrum of things. This, it is not my burden, as you say, to prove everything is false, as everything already has or will be some how at some place in some time in some way. No, my friend, the burden is cast on you to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything is true. The grass is green must apply to every being, everywhere, at every time, in every way for it to be true. Not a single being, including a diety of some kind assuming there is one, can be able to prove you wrong for it to be actual truth. Until that time, everything else is a lie. The true truth is the only truth, everything else is merely a fantazm the one has convinced themself is the truth. I say this agruement is a lie because I have not, and cannot show beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I'm saying is the absolute truth because someone can argue with me that it's not. LIkewise, what you are sayng is a complete lie because you have not shown me beyond any measure of doubt that what your saying is true. Someone will prove me wrong, and someone will prove you wrong some how, some way, some where, at some time. Either of us may have come reasonably close to finding the real truth, but the simple fact is that we didn't. Thus, what both of us are saying is complete bunk, or a lie. Neither of us knows the real truth (my definition), we are just convinced that we do (your definition) which proves my argument to be right, although it is a lie. You yourself said that when you debate amoung your friends that one of you agree, thus you are all wrong, and all telling lies. None of you proved yourself so that none of the rest of you could disagree, so none of you found the real truth, even if you came close. Until it is absolute, it is a lie.

This is why I brought up my :) example. You may believe that it is a smiley face, but the fact is it is not. It is an illusion of one, your own interpretation of something that has a much deeper and more right meaning. We get closer when we say it is a semi colon and an end parenthasis, but we're still not there, because someone else can prove that it is just pixels, thus niether a smiley face nor a simicolon/end parenthesis. It will continue to be like this until someone finds the true, definite meaning of what :) is, to the point where no one, at anytime/place/way can ever prove it wrong. Every other explanation is a lie that we think is the truth, although it is not. Thus none of us really has known a lick of truth ever.

Thank you for this debate, although everything you said to me was a lie. Everything I said is also a lie, so excuse me for that.

To the reader: in summary, what we think we know is not what really is. I think I'm right, he thinks I'm wrong. There is a right answer, and thus there is a wrong one. What really is is. But I implore you to vote not on personal feelings, but to the person who proved their lie better.
anwermate

Con

First, id like to apologize, my answer will not be as complete as i would wish it to be, but my grandparents are flying home today, so i dont have time to post a full response.

So the basic arguments that my opponent makes in his last speech are that: first my definition is flawed, next that everything will be proven wrong at some point, so i must prove everything ever to be correct to win, he also says some other things but these are mostly just expansions of the two arguments that he says above.

There are several reasons that he will lose this round, the first being the definition debate

It is always the one writing the topic to present definitions to what everything is, at the point that he didn't provide one, the responsibility falls onto me. He says that my definition is wrong in his next speech, but this is quite unfair for me. If he is justified in not defining what he means in his first speech, he can sever from his question at any point. This justifies him in saying that "no one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life", and then once i answer the question in my first speech, he can say "actually truth means the act of lying". Then i have no chance to win the debate. in addition, in this round itself, his definition would completely nullify my first speech. Thereby, you must regard this round in terms of my definition.

the second reason i will win is this, because, remember from my first speech that i asked everyone to please regard dropped arguments as a reason to vote in either direction. essentially all my arguments are dropped although ill concede that some of what he said applies, but he did not do enough specific work on what i said:

i will only point out the dropped arguments that are detrimental to him, the first being that he concedes that i think therefore i am. At the point that i am writing this statement, i cannot be a dream or nonexistent.

the next huge point he concedes is the subjectivity of the universe. This is just gigantic, it is the theory that there can be different truths for people. he can believe that everything is a lie, and i can believe that everything is truth under this theory. Even if you believe this argument to be completely false, it is dropped by him, therefore meaning that he essentially agrees with this, meaning that you must vote for me.

the next point is that he drops that his title is hypocritical within itself. Remember that he either believes that everything is a lie, meaning that he loses since he believes that one statement to be true. or that he doesn't believe everything is a lie, and simply states that, also meaning he loses. Even if you dont believe my logic here, he dropped this argument, meaning he agreed with it, meaning you vote con.

now ill answer the part where he says i have the burden or proof.
this is just ridiculous, first of all, the pro always has the burden of proof. Second he relies on empirical evidence, meaning he must prove all the empirical evidence to be true, if i prove just one to be false, he loses all of his evidence. And remember my example that grass exists in some form, shape or being, which he dropped meaning that he agrees with it, meaning that he can no longer relie on his empirical evidence, meaning that he loses.

READ THIS I GUESS IF YOU DONT WANT TO READ ALOT OF STUFF

Basically you must vote con b/c of the following reasons
1. He drops my examples that things actually exist, meaning that he has no empirical evidence, meaning he loses
2. he must either believe his title of this debate to be true or false, either way contradicting what he says, meaning he loses
3. This one is huge, he drops the theory of the subjectivity of the universe. Meaning that he agrees that we can simultaneously see things as true and false at the same time, proving him wrong.
4. It will destroy the fairness of debate if you look at the round from his definition which he introduces way to late into the round. He can skew my strat by severing out of specific words in his resolution, by redefining them.

Voters - thank you for voting and commenting

falsereality - thanks for a cool debate, even if it was about ontology which is probably the most headache inducing subject ever
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
No one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life.

If you believe that to be true, than you contradict yourself Falsereality. Or should I say, Nietzsche.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Seeing as i was in this debate i cant decide fairly who should win or not, but i agree with falsereality in that i would prefer that you read the entire debate and then vote for or agaisnt me rather than just reading the title. But that being said, i think that the majority of the people voting have read a good portion of the debate.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"From what I've read, you are all voting for con because of what my topic is"

Not me. I voted against you because you told me you were wrong in your argument itself. I agreed so I voted for your opponent.
Posted by Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
Dear god, guys, that was brilliant. Good show you too!
Posted by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
From what I've read, you are all voting for con because of what my topic is rather than how well either of us defended it. Need I remind you all that it says "Who won this debate", not "Who chose the subject you like better". I think it's getting old saying that I'm wrong simply because of my stance. This isn't a popularity contest, its a battle of wits. If you don't think I defended my position well, then fine. But don't say con is right just because you don't like the title of my debate.

ANyway, thanks answermate for your time. I'm not saying I don't think you shouldn't win, I just don't think that you win because of what side I chose.
Posted by Daxitarian 9 years ago
Daxitarian
Isn't "No one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life" itself a "lick of truth" that is known by someone? If what we believe to be true is never true, then isn't falserealities whole argument itself not true? It is a self-refuting concept.

"Humans see green grass, dog's see grey grass? Who is right? What we believe to be true is never true."

The problem is that you do not distinguish between apperances and what is reality.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Pros own argument is an admission that he's wrong, always has been, and always will be.

Good enough for me. Vote to con.
Posted by lmeo3 9 years ago
lmeo3
No one has ever known a lick of truth in their entire life

Is that true?
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
i guess this stuff applies mostly to what korezaan says,
yeah i know the pro doesnt always have the burden of proof, but my argument looked to short, so i added it in there. However i still believe that the feeling a human would get thousands of years ago, when say for example, touching some grass (yes, i know i use grass as an example alot, but grass is cool), is the same feeling i get when touching grass. Even if somethings arent the same between what a human felt long ago and what we feel now, the fact that there is a few disproves his entire case. But in any case, thanks for voting for me! that goes for GBretz too and anyone else that voted me up. and i guess i can grudgingly thank ppl that voted against me for atleast paying attention to this debate.
Posted by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
Pro, Round 2, Point 2 - "Both where made solely by humans, and is thus wrong."

Circular reasoning, you may want to prove your point before you use it as an argument.

Voted Con.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kusfraba 9 years ago
Kusfraba
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 Wierdkp326 9 years ago
Wierdkp326
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 A-ROD 9 years ago
A-ROD
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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 paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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
FalseRealityanwermateTied
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