The Instigator
bthr004
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
76 Points

One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 8/22/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,134 times Debate No: 5112
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (87)
Votes (17)

 

bthr004

Pro

My burden,.. I am to show that no one is or ever has been or ever will be in control of their OWN existence.

Definition: existence;

1 aobsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b: reality as presented in experience c (1): the totality of existent things (2): a particular being d: sentient or living being : life

2 a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b: the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c: being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect

3: actual or present occurrence

www.merriam-webster.com

I will not limit my opponent to adhere to any conditions,.. I do not believe in calling out fallacy, or playing referee,... I feel the voters are smart enough to judge for themselves.

With that I wish my opponent luck, if they so choose to take the debate.

Thank you.
Rezzealaux

Con

I negate, that "One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence."

DEFINITIONS:

EXISTENCE: I'd like to point out that my opponent apparently didn't pay attention to what he was talking about at all and just copypasta'd what he found on Merriam-Webster. The entire first set of definitions he provides (from: http://www.merriam-webster.com...) is, as M-W says, obsolete – meaning

1 a: no longer in use or no longer useful b: of a kind or style no longer current (This definition is also from Merriam-Webster)

If my opponent meant for me to pick a specific definition, I'll go with "2 a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence ". I'm not exactly sure what he's trying to do by posting all the definitions; we're going to have to go with one of them in the debate anyways.

CONTROL: As PRO defines from M-W, I shall define from there as well. But, I'll pick a specific definition: "2 a: to exercise restraining or directing influence over" (from: http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In turn, "influence" is defined as "4: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways" Since the definition of control is "directing influence", however, the definition of "control" can be clarified to be "the power or capacity of causing an effect in a direct or tangible way".

So.

PRO puts forth the resolution as true.
I don't see any arguments that prove it to be as such.

If he puts forth no arguments or fails to prove the resolution, then you default vote CON because I have not made any claims to truth. The only arguments I have made thus far are in the definitions, which I have sufficiently warranted with sources or analytics. Think of the resolution as a claim, such as "Flowers look nice". If that person that claims that flowers look nice and fails to show it, then you automatically vote for the other side, as the other side does not have to prove anything at all. That being said, I already default win the debate since PRO's currently nonexistent case fails to prove the resolution as true.

I await some evidence or argument to refute.
Debate Round No. 1
bthr004

Pro

"One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence."

My burden,... to prove the above topic is true. No more no less.

My opponenent has given me enough to argue this and prove it.

"the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence" >my opponents chosen definition of existence.

"to exercise restraining or directing influence over"> my opponents chosen definition of control.

>opponents definition of influence= "the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways"

OK! This is the proof,.. if my opponent is claiming one has absolute control of their own existence,.. than they must be in a state or have been in a state or will be in a state or fact of being especially independent of human consciousness,..

Since his existence has already depended on the outside human consciousness of his parents,... that proves he in past has NOT been in control of his existence. Really since his entire existence currently, depended on his past and those outside beings and forces,.. he really had not any control and I could extend the argument he does not currently have control SINCE his current existence has already proven to exist due to outside human consciousness, thus ruling he is, was or will ever be in control of his own existence.

However, Someone can gain control of ones existence much like one could gain control of a skidding car,... WRONG! The very existence of my opponent depends to heavily on outside forces to give my opponent what would be considered absolute control.

He may control his actions, but he does not conrol his existence. He exists in his hometown because of outside forces beyond his control,... he exists as a living person because no one or nothing has killed him. He can not have absolute control because it can be taken to easily for it to even be considered his possession. Even temporary control is void due to the outside forces that are prevent control of his own existence,.. everyday he is alive is due to somethig outside of his choice,..

Even suicide would yes be ultimately his action, but not his ability to control his existence, for everything needed to end his own life was brought about by something other than himself.

He could shoot himself, but it requires a gun and a bullet. He could jump from a building but requires the existence of a building.

Even air, food, water, prevents you from controlling your own existence, as your control does not exist since your existence ultimately requires air food and water to exist.

Hairless cats are freaky, and I feel its impossible to drink a gallon of milk in one hour.
Rezzealaux

Con

""One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence."
My burden,... to prove the above topic is true. No more no less."
> That's his most important burden, yes. But there's a burden of proof for every argument he makes as well. This is basic argument theory; every [good] argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. The burden of proof on the argument level is the warrant; my opponent still needs to provide evidence or analytics for each of the points he makes.

Existence: "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence".
Control: "to exercise restraining or directing influence over".

The problem with definitions comes in at "Influence". My opponent says that my definition of influence is "the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways", which is true. The issue here is that we are not talking about influence itself, we are talking about CONTROL. The only reason I defined influence at all was because it was in the definition of control, and I wanted a little more clarification for the readers.

"OK! This is the proof,.. if my opponent is claiming one has absolute control of their own existence,.. than they must be in a state or have been in a state or will be in a state or fact of being especially independent of human consciousness,.."
> The definition of "influence" has not been shown to prove his claim.
> I didn't claim absolute control, anywhere in my R1.
> His conclusion is non-sequitur.

"Since his existence has already depended on the outside human consciousness of his parents,... that proves he in past has NOT been in control of his existence."
> This much is true: I did not develop anything most of us could call "consciousness" until I was around 3. However, just because I depend on others does not mean that I do not have any control over my own existence. Look to the definition of control: "to exercise restraining or directing influence over" – Nowhere in the definition does it say that I must have absolute control over everything that happens to me. Indeed, in my clarification of the definition, I said control is clarified as "the power or capacity of causing an effect in a direct or tangible way" – as long as I have some sort of direct influence over anything that happens in my life, I can be said to be in "control" to some extent. The resolution does not specify what extent this is and is therefore open to any and all extents of control – which in turn means that all "absolute" arguments my opponent brings up can now be thrown out.

"However, Someone can gain control of ones existence much like one could gain control of a skidding car,... WRONG! The very existence of my opponent depends to heavily on outside forces to give my opponent what would be considered absolute control."
> Like this one here.
> There's no reason to believe that such an analogy is even rational.
> And if there was, it has no effect. There's something called drifting (http://en.wikipedia.org...(motorsport))

"He may control his actions, but he does not conrol his existence."
> And MY ACTIONS DEFINE MY existence or LIFE. Game over, vote CON.
> I also control it because I have the ability to kill myself at any time.

"He exists in his hometown because of outside forces beyond his control,..."
> Bullsh*t. I'll walk five minutes south and I'm in a different city. OUTSIDE FORCES EH?

"he exists as a living person because no one or nothing has killed him."
> This is the same thing as "I exist because I exist". What the hell does that prove?

"He can not have absolute control because it can be taken to easily for it to even be considered his possession."
> This one too.

"Even temporary control is void due to the outside forces that are prevent control of his own existence,.."
> I would really like some evidence on these "outside forces", or even better, what these "outside forces" are. Like, a definition. Because right now they're vague, and vague things don't count as warrants in debate.

"everyday he is alive is due to somethig outside of his choice,.."
> I'm not too sure about everyone else reading this, but when I see that, I read:
"everyday he is alive due to reasons that I refuse to explain,.."

"He could shoot himself, but it requires a gun and a bullet. He could jump from a building but requires the existence of a building."
> Hold my breath or strangle myself with HANDS.

"Even air, food, water, prevents you from controlling your own existence, as your control does not exist since your existence ultimately requires air food and water to exist."
> Voter: He has bad grammar.
>The LACK of air, food, and water aren't though. My refusal to use them in an attempt to kill myself is totally within my own power – unless you're arguing that air, food, and water are part of myself, in which case I can say that my existence is totally within my own control. Heads I win, tails you lose.

"Hairless cats are freaky, and I feel its impossible to drink a gallon of milk in one hour."
> Voter: Spam.

Even though there's still one round to go, I can already give you guys voters:
1) He has bad grammar. This makes things more difficult for everyone reading the debate.
2) His last sentence is spam. Spam belongs in Monty Python, not on Debate.org.
3) The topic does not say "One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in ABSOLUTE control of their existence", so everything he's said is nontopical.
4) Even if it's nontopical, his warrants and impacts are nonsequitur and nonspecified.
5) He fails to show that I have zero control whatsoever on my life, therefore failing the burden of proof placed on him by the resolution he put forth.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
bthr004

Pro

*spam also belongs on toast.

"The issue here is that we are not talking about influence itself, we are talking about CONTROL. The only reason I defined influence at all was because it was in the definition of control, and I wanted a little more clarification for the readers."

>Pretty much just conceded the point I was trying to make there.

""the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways",

>My opponents definition of influence,... I just take what you give and run. These are the definitions,... if I show how you do not have control of your existence, which is all I need to do,.. I win.

"I didn't claim absolute control, anywhere in my R1."
>My opponent can claim whatever he wants,.. The topic claims control for him!

If my opponent wants to split hairs with control and absolute control,.. that is his doings,.. it only strengthens my point every time he concedes a difference.

"Since his existence has already depended on the outside human consciousness of his parents,... that proves he in past has NOT been in control of his existence."
> This much is true:"

>>>> My opponent concedes I have proven my point he has not been in control of his existence.

"However, just because I depend on others does not mean that I do not have any control over my own existence. Look to the definition of control: "to exercise restraining or directing influence over" – Nowhere in the definition does it say that I must have absolute control over everything that happens to me."

Because you concede that you depend on others to excerice restraint and direct influence over you,.. that is why you do not have control over your own existence,.. your existence as it is defined past present and future, as you have already conceded, is due to your dependece on others and their controls,..

"as long as I have some sort of direct influence over anything that happens in my life, I can be said to be in "control" to some extent."

> again,.. you have control of actions,.. not your existence. Plus my opponent makes a weak arguement when he says "to some extent" after control,.. How can you call it control if its to a certain extent?

"And if there was, it has no effect. There's something called drifting"

> This analogy certainly does not prove your stance at all,.. It proves mine,.. A car requires a driver to make it drift,... the driver is in control of making the car drift,.. the drift would not exist if the car had no driver to put it there, and a drift no longer exists if the car suddenly hits a wall, and as for the future drifts, the car, the driver, the track, etc. etc. all are required to make drifting exist!

"And MY ACTIONS DEFINE MY existence or LIFE. Game over, vote CON."

> Yikes,... sorry,.. Existence define actions,.. silly, if you didnt exist how could you act? GAME OVER!! VOTE pro!

In case that was hard to pick up, here is another analogy,..

I exist on a farm,.. My actions, due to my existence, are to do things farmers do,.. feed cows, plant corn, etc etc,..

Sure I could pick up and move to a town,.. I would then exist in a town,.. but my actions no more define my existing in a town than they were before,... Even in the action of trying to change my existence,.. It was only due to my existence in the first place!

If you existed as a fish,.. your actions would be swimming and doing fishy things. As hard as you tried,.. your actions could not make you exist as anything but a fish!

" Bullsh*t. I'll walk five minutes south and I'm in a different city. OUTSIDE FORCES EH?"

> This changes nothing,.. the town 5 minutes south existed with or with out you, again you going there is only an action, the town itself is where you are existing. Even if you had not existed there five minutes earlier. It required the town to make you exist in it!

Oh,.. and dont mean to make "outside forces" seem magical and spiritual,.. I mean outside of your control, that force you to do things or define you in general,.. ie, parents, enviornment,.. etc.

"> This is the same thing as "I exist because I exist". What the hell does that prove?"

- sorry you couldnt understand that,.. I mean, you exist as in you are alive, but someone can take that existence away, you are not in control.

"> Hold my breath or strangle myself with HANDS."

- impossible, but good luck with that. Or better yet, you have hands cut off, otherwise,.. no, cant happen.

"Voter: He has bad grammar"

- I concede to this,.. But my opponent has a potty mouth.

"The LACK of air, food, and water aren't though. My refusal to use them in an attempt to kill myself is totally within my own power – unless you're arguing that air, food, and water are part of myself, in which case I can say that my existence is totally within my own control. Heads I win, tails you lose."

- this makes NO difference,.. My opponent concedes that he requires food, water, and air to exist,.. rendering control of his existence out of his hands,.. My burden was only to prove he is not in control of his existence,.. I never said he was not in control of his non existence,.. though I do not concede he is of that either.

To recap,.. My opponent has conceded a few times that I have proved my point,.. My point of course,.. Ones own existence is not in there own control,.. ever! Because of (for just only one example); food, air, and water direct influence (control)of our existence.

We can not act if we don't exist.
Rezzealaux

Con

Hmmm.........

Nope, nothing new and no refutations in PRO R3.

With that,

VOTERS:
1) He has bad grammar. This makes things more difficult for everyone reading the debate.
2) He says that I have a "potty mouth". Straight turn this on him; the "potty mouth" words that I use are much more high quality than what he uses.
3) The topic does not say "One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in ABSOLUTE control of their existence", so everything he's said is nontopical.
4) Even if it's nontopical, his warrants and impacts are nonsequitur and nonspecified.
5) He fails to show that I have zero control whatsoever on my life, therefore failing the burden of proof placed on him by the resolution he put forth.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
87 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
I commit suicide... therefor I am.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Then I agree,.. I would have strengthened my point by stating the obvious.

"Control over nonexistence means you can alter the truth value of the statement "I exist," thus, it means you have some control over whether you exist- the question of your existence. Control one way or another is still control :D."

-- I never conceded any such control.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
"-- Would you have had agreed with me if I had stated absolute control in the topic?
"
I would say yes to this as well.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
You exist first,.. then you act,... Your actions are within your existence,... death is the cause of non existence,.. you guys keep trying to say that because you think you can make yourself not exist or die,.. that means you can make your self exist, or control the facts that make you exist, or made you exist."

Control over nonexistence means you can alter the truth value of the statement "I exist," thus, it means you have some control over whether you exist- the question of your existence. Control one way or another is still control :D.

"-- Would you have had agreed with me if I had stated absolute control in the topic?
"
Yes. There are a number of things one does not control. :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
":
-- Exactly! Proving that fire is not in control of its own existence,.. it requires oxygen, combustible somethings, etc, which dictates fires existence."

Make possible. Not dictate.

"
Ok.. please read carefully here,... A bullet is a sufficient cause of death. A bullet is not a sufficient cause of life. The people bieng shot and killed stayed alive prior to bieng shot (proposed end) because they did enough to meet the needs of reaching (proposed end of life) by eating, drinking, and breathing. The key word is cause,... one causes life (existence),.. the other causes death (non existence)."

No, key word is sufficient- if something can cause death despite x, x is not a sufficient cause of life.

"
Existence and non existence are opposites. You are defining sufficient causes of non existence."
Exactly the problem with your argument. Since they are opposites, anything which does not account for the lack of sufficient causes of nonexistence- is not a sufficient cause of existence.

"
Absolute control is a given when the resolution is absolute existence. "
No, the resolution is ABSOLUTE NOT IN CONTROL. You are pretending the solution is the opposite of what it is, and pretending you are Con, basically. As such, you've misplaced the "burden of absoluteness" so to speak :D.

"You guys are not defining existence,... you guys defining control,... Its like because you think you can open a can of soup, that controls your existence.
"
Whether or not I open a can of soup and eat the consequence, has a significant effect on whether I live.

"
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Have you ever had control of your existence, at any time over the course of your existence,... not control over your actions over the course of your existence,...

You exist first,.. then you act,... Your actions are within your existence,... death is the cause of non existence,.. you guys keep trying to say that because you think you can make yourself not exist or die,.. that means you can make your self exist, or control the facts that make you exist, or made you exist.

Sufficient cause of non exist,.. sufficient cause of exist.

"Controlling something, sometimes, is quite sufficient to disprove the resolution, which states an absolute lack of control, not a lack of absolute control."

-- Would you have had agreed with me if I had stated absolute control in the topic?
I assure you that is what I meant, I figured it was a given,,... if not, than I should have been more concise, I admit. You can only fit so much in the topic heading.

Are we arguing over the resolution of absolute VS some of the times control?

Either way, I stand the same,.. But I would admit, the debate would have been stronger.

Ones conscience, and control over their own actions, do not ultamitely control their existence.

Example,... Ones conscience says I must eat and drink, I will act by eating and drinking. Proof that they control their actions. A by product of a necessary function needed to exist.

Now that same person,.. I must eat and drink, I will act by eating and drinking,.. I want to eat and drink,.. that person is in the middle of the Sahara desert,.. No food, water,... Sure they have the power to eat and drink,.. but only if food and water exist to had,.. Said person will die, despite having this abilty,.. proving that control is rendered to what is necessary for existence,.. not what actions are compiled. Your actions can be bypassed and yet recieve the same results. Your actions are not necessary.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
You guys are not defining existence,... you guys defining control,... Its like because you think you can open a can of soup, that controls your existence.

"Second, no one spoke of absolute control, control in all situations. If the necessary conditions exist, however, one's action controls the situation for so long as they do-- i.e., it is the variable one can change, and will affect the result. In other words, you control it SOMETIMES. At other times, other things prove beyond your control. Controlling something, sometimes, is quite sufficient to disprove the resolution, which states an absolute lack of control, not a lack of absolute control."

Absolute control is a given when the resolution is absolute existence. Again, its a matter of have, will have, and/or ever had.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I completely understand what you guys are saying,... but your still wrong.

"Quite simply, if x is a necessary cause of y, y cannot happen without x. If x is a sufficient cause of y, then if x is true y is inevitably true. Say, for example, there is oxygen. This is a necessary cause of fire, this does not, however, render fire inevitable-- something combustible is also needed, at a temperature at which the chemical reaction that is burning can take place."

-- Exactly! Proving that fire is not in control of its own existence,.. it requires oxygen, combustible somethings, etc, which dictates fires existence. Dicatate= control. You cannot without something = with out control. The necessary something controls.

"I can disprove the statement that breathing, drinking, and eating are sufficient for existence. It's easy. If I take an AK-47 into a restaurant, and shoot people who are breathing, eating, and drinking, shoot them in the head or the heart, they are dead, regardless of the breathing, eating, and drinking. They are necessary, you cannot exist without them- but they are NOT sufficient- if you do them, you can still die. They are not "enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end."

Ok.. please read carefully here,... A bullet is a sufficient cause of death. A bullet is not a sufficient cause of life. The people bieng shot and killed stayed alive prior to bieng shot (proposed end) because they did enough to meet the needs of reaching (proposed end of life) by eating, drinking, and breathing. The key word is cause,... one causes life (existence),.. the other causes death (non existence).

Existence and non existence are opposites. You are defining sufficient causes of non existence. You are not defining how you came into existence and have existed.
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
I agree with R_R once again here,

But watch, bthr004 is going to equivocate the fact, again.

Unless he understands

XP
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"The action(s) exist due to another factor,... a person merely has the choice in which action to choose. The choice is ultimately a response to the pre existing circumstance that leads to the action. Ones mind is also already "shaped" by the enviornment, thus proving that true and absolute control over ones own self existence has never, or will ever be."
First, the choice is not necessarily a response merely to the circumstances- it is also a response to standards one forms oneself. So I reject your premise here.
Second, no one spoke of absolute control, control in all situations. If the necessary conditions exist, however, one's action controls the situation for so long as they do-- i.e., it is the variable one can change, and will affect the result. In other words, you control it SOMETIMES. At other times, other things prove beyond your control. Controlling something, sometimes, is quite sufficient to disprove the resolution, which states an absolute lack of control, not a lack of absolute control.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pitz004 7 years ago
pitz004
bthr004RezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 solo 8 years ago
solo
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 jess_ily 8 years ago
jess_ily
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
bthr004RezzealauxTied
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:61