The Instigator
Blade-of-Truth
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

People can be proven wrong.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,140 times Debate No: 66735
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (5)

 

Blade-of-Truth

Pro

This is a challenge I am sending to Vajrasattva-LeRoy, as he actually said that "it's impossible to prove people wrong."

My aim is to prove him wrong, should he accept the debate.

Rules:

No plagiarism, no trolling, a forfeit = automatic loss.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

Please remember that you've taken the Negative, not the Positive position.

As I understand it, it's Impossible to prove a negative.

It's Impossible to prove Impossibility.

It's Impossible to prove Absence of Evidence.

One person might claim there's no evidence.

Another person might insist thst there is, & present it.

L. Ron Hubbard stated in his 1950 book on Dianetics that

Absolutes have to be considered logically Impossible.

BOP to disprove that is on you.

Pure Truth, therefore, cannot exist.

Pure Falsehood, therefore, also cannot exist.

A person cannot, therefore, be completely right or completely wrong.

A person, therefore, cannot be proved right, or wrong.

Since you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claim,

I also claim Absense of Evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.

Con said, "it's impossible to prove people wrong."

I will first present two hypothetical scenarios where someone is proven wrong.

I will then present 4 cases of other people who were proven wrong.

Lastly, I will rebut the arguments presented by Con.

I. Hypothetical Scenario.

Say a man was arrested by police shortly after a reported robbery occurred. The man claims to the arresting officers, "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I didn't rob the store."

During the court case, prosecution presents video evidence of that very man committing the robbery. His face is clearly seen on the screen, it's, without a doubt, the same man sitting in the court room. In presenting that evidence, the prosecutor has proven that the man was wrong, he did infact rob that store. If it wasn't the same man, then the defense attorneys would have proven that the man was right, that it wasn't him.

In essence, if it was indeed the same man, then the prosecutor proved the man wrong. Hence, someone proved someone else wrong.

II. Hypothetical Scenario Two.

You are walking your dog down the road when suddenly a man drives by. The man then stops his car and tells you that all pigs can fly. Ironically, you are across the road from a pig farm and can clearly see that those pigs do not have wings nor the capacity to fly. You then show the man that those pigs across the street can't fly. Bam, the man was proven wrong.

III. Four other, real-world examples.

"The Beatles have no future in show business."
This was said by a Decca Records executive after the Beatles auditioned for them in 1962. The Beatles went on to become one of the greatest bands during the 1960's, and most certainly found their future in show business.

"There is no reason any individual would want a computer in their home."
This was said by Ken Olson, founder and former CEO of Digital Equipment Corp. in 1977. Nowadays, computers are found in 84% of American houses. [1]

"There is no chance that the iPhone will get any significant market share."
This was said by Steve Ballmer, the former CEO of Microsoft, in 2007. Nowadays, the iPhone is the most recognized phone in the entire world, and it's most certainly taken control of the market.

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one."
This was said by W.C. Hueper, of the National Cancer Institute, in 1953. Nowadays, we know that excessive smoking is one the most common causes for lung cancer.

Each of these can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com...

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...

I have now shown multiple cases proving that people can be proven wrong.

**Rebuttals**

IV. Irrelevant arguments

My opponent seems to enjoy posting abstract, irrelevant claims in some effort to negate the resolution.

As I understand it, it's Impossible to prove a negative.

This is irrelevant to the resolution which focuses specifically on proving people wrong.

It's Impossible to prove Impossibility.

Please see above response.

It's Impossible to prove Absence of Evidence.

Please see above response.

V. L. Ron Hubbard

My opponent said:

L. Ron Hubbard stated in his 1950 book on Dianetics that Absolutes have to be considered logically Impossible. BOP to disprove that is on you.

This is, again, irrelevant to the resolution since we are not discussing absolutes. There is no BOP on me, in this regard, because there is no relevance of your argument to the resolution at hand.

VI. Purity

My opponent then goes on to state:

Pure Truth, therefore, cannot exist.

Pure Falsehood, therefore, also cannot exist.

A person cannot, therefore, be completely right or completely wrong.

A person, therefore, cannot be proved right, or wrong.

There is a difference between being completely right, and just being right. Con is jumping across that gap without giving any justification for doing so.

Furthermore, there are most certainly scenarios where someone can be proven wrong - please see above examples.

VII. Absence of Evidence

First off, it's absence* with a *c*, not an *s*. This site has the option to "check your spelling", use it.

Secondly, the reason I hadn't provided any evidence to back up my position was because I hadn't posted yet, lol. You literally went before me - so obviously I wouldn't have any chance to present evidence until my turn came. To claim absence of evidence when I hadn't even had the chance to present any yet is just absurd and fallacious.

Lastly, I've now presented evidence - thus the absence has been filled.

In closing,

I believe my opponent fundamentally misunderstands what I am trying to debate here. Roughly 80% of his arguments were either irrelevant, unjustified, or nonsensical.

I have presented several instances where people have been proven wrong, both hypothetically and in reality. I've also provided rebuttals for each argument raised by Con.

I now return the floor to Con, and caution him that trolling is against the rules of this debate.

Thank you.

Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

You're using the same arguments that you used in your Messages to me.

Since I've already refuted them, I see no reason to repeat myself.

As I've already pointed out, it's the PROSECUTORS, not the DEFENSE who have the BOP in the so-called "criminal justice system" .

The Defense isn't required to prove, or challenge, anything whatsoever.

Your claim that if you show me a bunch of pigs & claim that I can see that the pigs you've shown me can't fly,

then insist that that proves that no pigs can fly

doesn't make sense.

Nor does your apparent claim that Wings are necessary to fly.

Check out Wikipedia articles on Levitation, Physical Mediums, such as D. D. Home,

Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, maybe even Transcendental Meditation, etc.

If 999 out of 1,000 people who smoke heavily supposedly get lung cancer, & 1 doesn't, that proves that smoking DOESN'T cause lung cancer.

Thank you for pointing out that, in your personal opinion, many of my arguments are what you call irrelevant.

If they are, in fact, irrelevant, why bother repeating them?

I believe that your claim that wrongness isn't a negative is wrong.

You had plenty of time to present your evidence before but you admit that you didn't.

My claim of absence of evidence therefore WAS correct.

In your Messages to me you called me a f*cking idiot, an autistic child, & a cowardly troll, & now you tell me that trolling is against the rules?

If I'm a troll, what else can I do but troll?

Why don't you use your mind instead of writing Dumb things?
Debate Round No. 2
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I. Hypothetical Scenario.

Con refuses to refute this argument based on the grounds that he already did so in the PM. The whole point of this debate was because Con kept claiming he refuted them, when in reality he didn't. Instead, he went on some rant about how everything nowadays is photoshopped. Furthermore, regardless of whether Con refuted it or not, he needs to do so in this debate or else it will be considered a dropped argument on his part.

Con is absolutely right though, it is indeed the prosecutors who have the BOP. In this scenario, they met the BOP when they showed the tape as evidence in court. So, I don't really understand why Con is re-hashing this point when it's already been handled.

II. Hypothetical Scenario Two.

How does the pig-flying scenario not make sense? It's pretty clear and easy to comprehend. If someone claims that all pigs can fly, and are then shown pigs that can't fly, the person was proven wrong.

Also, I never said that wings are the only things which are necessary to fly. I said, "the pigs don't have wings nor the capacity to fly." Con is ignoring the entire second half of my explanation in the scenario.

My opponent then suggests I should check out articles on levitation, physical mediums, etc., but these have nothing to do with the second scenario I provided - as pigs cannot levitate either, nor act as mediums. Unless Con presents evidence showing otherwise, this line of argumentation remains standing.

III. Four other, real-world examples.

Con only responds to one of the four examples I provided. Thus, I immediately extend the other three as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

As for his response to the smoking example - If only 1 out of 1,000 doesn't get lung cancer, while the other 999 do, it's safe to say that smoking "plays a role in the production of lung cancer". I never said it was the absolute "cause" but only that it "plays a role". Please see my previous round to verify that.

IV. Irrelevant arguments

I pointed out that these arguments presented by you, in specific, were irrelevant because they were. I even provided reasoning to show their irrelevancy. I was not "repeating" them, but merely copying them into my round so the audience/judges knew what I was responding to.

Con has yet to provide any reasoning as to why they are, in fact, relevant. Thus, I extend this argument as well because it currently remains standing unchallenged.

V. L. Ron Hubbard

My opponent provided no response to this line of argumentation whatsoever, thus I extend this.

He did state this: I believe that your claim that wrongness isn't a negative is wrong.

I'm not sure if that was actually a response to this line of argumentation or not, so I'll reply to it here by saying: Prove it.

VI. Purity

Again, no rebuttal was presented for this line of argumentation by Con. Thus, I extend this.

VII. Absence of Evidence

Con states this in response to my rebuttal:

You had plenty of time to present your evidence before but you admit that you didn't.

My claim of absence of evidence therefore WAS correct.

The first round of the debate is for presenting rules, conditions, and general information about the debate. What you SHOULD have done was just use your first round for acceptance instead of beginning immediately. This is because you are Con and I am Pro. So, I need to build my affirmative case before you'd present the Neg case. You totally went past this general debating rule and began immediately. Furthermore, that claim would only be valid if there was still no evidence presented - now there is. So, while it might have been reasonable to make that claim if I hadn't presented any by the end of the debate, this isn't the case. Evidence is here now, thus your claim is moot. Additionally, you didn't even spell "absence" correctly the first time, so technically you didn't even make the claim since it wasn't the correct terminology.

XI. Additional comments made by Con.

In your Messages to me you called me a f*cking idiot, an autistic child, & a cowardly troll, & now you tell me that trolling is against the rules?

First off, I called you an idiot because you claimed that "you won" in the PM and you had done nothing of the sort. Let's not forget that by this point you had already called me "stupid", "dumb", made an argument about how you aren't a duck which came from nowhere, "crazy", AND you threatened to sue me for defamation after I told you about scientologists kidnapping people.

Secondly, I didn't call you an autistic child, I asked if you were autistic because your behavior was leading me to believe that you are.

Thirdly, I didn't call you a cowardly troll, I said that if you don't accept my debate challenge then you'd be nothing more than a cowardly troll. Since you accepted the debate, obviously I can't consider you a cowardly troll.

Lastly and most important, none of this is relevant to the resolution we are debating.

If I'm a troll, what else can I do but troll?

Why don't you use your mind instead of writing Dumb things?

If you are a troll, and continue trolling, it's an automatic loss for this debate as stated by the rules I posted in R1.

You've yet to prove how what I write is "dumb". I'll ask nicely that you stop with the unsubstantiated claims and focus on negating the resolution since it's your job to do so as Con.

In closing,

I've provided rebuttals to each challenge raised by Con. I've also extended any and all challenges that Con failed to rebut.

I now return the floor to Con.

Thank you.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

You accuse me of "ranting" before, & apparently are still insisting that I'm "ranting" .

I'm not.

You continue to refuse to take me seriously.

You keep insisting that you have to be right, & that I have to be wrong, without ever bothering to check out or think about my arguments.

You keep deliberately refusing to try to see or to understand my point of view.

For example, as I've pointed out to you over & over again, BOP is on the Prosecution in the so-called "criminal justice system" .

The prosecution CAN'T meet the BOP by showing a movie.

It just doesn't work like that.

Period.

I NEVER threatened to charge you with kidnapping,

&, as I wrote before, how could a RELIGION kidnap anybody?

You DID call me an autistic child.

You DID call me a cowardly troll.

You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t.

There is no way that you can win

It's obvious that I'm wasting my time.

As I wrote in my Message

PLEASE don't write to me again.

I just don't have time for your cr*p !!!
Debate Round No. 3
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I. Hypothetical Scenario

Con refuses to provide a rebuttal against the scenario itself. Instead, he focuses on one sentence of this argument where I state: "In this scenario, they met the BOP when they showed the tape as evidence in court."

Con replies to the video evidence charge by saying the following:

As I've pointed out to you over & over again, BOP is on the Prosecution in the so-called "criminal justice system". The prosecution CAN'T meet the BOP by showing a movie. It just doesn't work like that. Period.
The prosecution isn't showing a movie though, they are showing video-tape surveillance of the man, who was charged with robbery, committing the crime.

To correct my opponents misunderstanding regarding videos proving someone's guilt - here is an article of a man charged with 3 counts of murder after his video was submitted as evidence during his trial: http://www.nme.com...

As you can see Con, video evidence most certainly upholds the prosecutions BOP.

II. Hypothetical Scenario Two

Con never provided a rebuttal for this in his last round, so I therefore extend this argument.

III. Four other, real-world examples.

Con never provided a rebuttal for this in his last round, so I therefore extend this argument.

IV. Irrelevant arguments

Con still hasn't provided any reason for these arguments to be considered relevant. I therefore extend this as well.

V. L. Ron Hubbard

Con states:


I NEVER threatened to charge you with kidnapping, &, as I wrote before, how could a RELIGION kidnap anybody?

I never said that you threatened to charge me with kidnapping. You threatened to sue me for defamation after I told you about scientologists kidnapping people against their will.

Also, it wasn't the religion that kidnapped the people, only the followers of the religion did that. To be even more clear, it was not Scientology which kidnapped people, but scientologists.

VI. Purity

Again, no rebuttal was presented for this line of argumentation by Con. Thus, I extend this.

VII. Absence of Evidence

Con apparently drops this argument as well since there is no rebuttal provided for it.

VIII. Additional comments made by Con

Con states:

You DID call me an autistic child. You DID call me a cowardly troll. You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t. There is no way that you can win.

My opponent is incorrect. What I actually said was:

Wednesday, December 10, 2014 @ 12:28:19 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Are you autistic or something? Can you confirm that you are for me?

**

Regarding the cowardly troll thing, what I actually said was:
Wednesday, December 10, 2014 @ 6:12:35 PM
Posted by:
Profile Card
Enough talk, put your money where your mouth is and accept my debate challenge. If you don't accept it, then I hope you are content being a cowardly troll, because that's what I'd consider you if you don't.

****

As everyone can see, I didn't "call" him these things like he claims. I believe at this point I am arguing against someone who has abandoned all reasoning and logic.
This is evident with his following statement:

You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t.

Con now relies on Ad-Hom attacks, which is a logical fallacy and extremely poor conduct for any debate setting. I would ask the audience/judges to please consider his incredibly rude comments to me when determining who had the better conduct.

In closing,

Con has dropped a majority of my arguments. I've extended each of those arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged. I've additionally provided rebuttals in a respectable manner where they are needed, unlike my opponent who relies on the "not ugh" tactics and offensive name-calling.

I would ask Pro to merely concede the debate if he wishes to continue acting in this manner, as it is offensive and borderline trollish. At-least, I hope it is trolling. If it isn't, then it's even more offensive.

I now return the floor to Con for the final round.

Thank you.
Vajrasattva-LeRoy

Con

The reason that I'm answering "B-O-T" is because, unlike our Private Messages,

these are available to everybody.

"B-O-T"continues to deliberately put out Crazy, Lying, Garbage, instead of valid arguments, true statements,

logical reasoning, etc.

It's obvious that "B-O-T" is a lost cause.

He's Lost this Debate.

ONCE AGAIN, just showing a movie ( which *** insists ISN'T a movie !) in the Kangaroo so-called

"court system" DOESN'T meet BOP.

(Check it out.)

It's IMPOSSIBLE to show pictures, movies, etc. , of so-called "crimes" .

"Crimes" , "criminals" , "felonies" , "misdemeanors" , "robbery" , "illegalities" , etc. , DON'T EXIST.

Such concepts Violate BASIC Legal & Constitutional Principles, such as Presumption of Innocence,

Legal Due Process, etc.

(Since people are Presumed to be Innocent of "crimes" , there can't be any such things as "crimes" .)

I never claimed that movies can't tend to SUPPORT the prosecution.

As I already pointed out, if my arguments are, in fact irrelevant, why keep bringing them up,

wasting everybody' s time?

I already stated that I didn't threaten to charge you with defamation.

(For one thing, as far as I can tell, I wouldn't have Legal Standing to bring such a Lawsuit. )

You didn't refer to scientologists at first- you specifically accused LRH of kidnapping.

THAT is why I warned you about false accusations, libel, slander, defamation, etc.

You stated before that scientology kidnapped people, & that you could prove it.

I'm glad that you've admitted that you were wrong.

You've stated again that scientologists kidnapped people, but you haven't proved it.

MORE Libel, Defamation ?

If you want to insist that it was, in fact, scientologists who did, in fact, kidnap people,

prove that they were, in fact, scientologists, & that they did, in fact, kidnap people.

BOP is on YOU.

Purity:

It was YOUR premise FOR THIS DEBATE that "People can be proved wrong. "

That, obviously, refers to absolute truth.

YOU didn't write, for example, "Most people can be, basically speaking, proven more or less wrong. "

I already proved that your "Purity" arguments were wrong (see above).

You called me an autistic child in your PM to me- on Wednesday, Dec10,2014@12:11:24PM

The Message you CLAIM that you sent me on Dec 10 doesn't agree with the Message I have on my site.

I'm quite willing to allow the Moderator(s), etc. , to check my Messages out-

ARE YOU ???

The Message that I aparently received from you reads :

" I hope you are content being a cowardly troll, because so far that's all you've amounted to. "

Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy ?

Prove it. BOP is on you.

Telling the truth is being extremely rude?

Prove it. BOP is on you.

Telling the truth is extremely offensive?

Prove it. BOP is on you.

Nobody in their right mind would consider what I've written in this Debate "trolling" ,

or even "borderline trolling" .

I have no intention of conceding.

"B-O-T" has obviously Lost this Debate.

Everybody Please Vote For me !!!

THANK YOU ALL !!!
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Even though your Command wasn't addressed to me,
I'll respond to it:
You believe that asking 3 simple questions, making a reasonable suggestion & saying "Thank you" is
"harassing the voters" ???
REALLY???

Talk about being Insulting, Disrespectful, Condescending, Scornful, Abusive !!!
Who in heck is Leroy Jenkins, anyway?
( I looked it up & got Leeroy Jenkins.
Can't you spell ??? )
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Leroy Jenkins, stop harassing the voters.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
ANOTHER Troll ???
As I already asked, if an argument of mine is, in fact,
irrelevant, why keep harping on it ???

Aren't any of you actually going to read & try to understand
the Debate & Comments before Voting ???

If you'd like to Vote for me & have any questions, etc. ,
feel free to Comment before you Vote.
Thank you !!!
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
ANOTHER TROLL ????
c'mon- Knock off the Lying, Emotionalistic, Garbage, already!
Pro called ME a Duck, a f*cking idiot, an autistic child, & a cowardly troll,
NONE of which I am,
& you just keep accusing ME of insulting HIM ?????

All of you keep using Inflammatory Statements & Emotionalism instead of Logic,
& you accuse ME of throwing a temper tantrum,
when I never did any such thing.

As I stated in my Comment, telling the truth about somebody is
a perfectly valid form of argument,
& ISN'T AN INSULT, AT ALL.

Refer to my Comment below.
Pro didn't state that Trolling would bring a forfeiture or automatic loss,
but he did say NO TROLLING !

Refer to the 9th Commandment.
You aren't obeying it ...
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Fine, but your new nickname is Leroy Jenkins. Git R Dun.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
No, I won't.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Go away LeRoy. Crawl back into the hole from which you came.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
@Valkrin:
Nobody in their right mind would accuse a person who told the truth of Lying,
or insist that a person who lied told the truth, without any proof.
But you did.
As I stated in the Debate, I'm quite willing to allow the Moderator(s) , etc. ,
to check out my Messages.
I'm still waiting ...

@ Everybody:
Telling the truth about others is a perfectly valid form of argument,
& isn't insulting them, disrespecting them, abusing them, scorning them, etc. , at all.
"B-O-T" & all 3 Voters have been rejecting logical reasoning, facts, valid arguments, etc. ,
& have been deliberately using Inflammatory statements & promoting emotionalism.
All 4 are apparently TROLLS ...
As "B-O-T" stated, trolling means an automatic loss.
"B-O-T" has lost.
Please vote for me !!!
Thank You !!!
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
I'm not quite sure what "B-O-T" meant by writing
"I know my rights pertaining to free speech" ,
in his Comment 20 hours ago,
but if that's a reference to the First Amendment,
"B-O-T" obviously doesn't understand it, at all.
The First Amendment DOESN'T protect Free Speech-
it protects Freedom of Speech.

It states, quite plainly:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech ..." .
It's been expanded to also cover other means of communication besides speech.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
#RevNge:
I tend to think, speak, & write quickly.
I accept your statement that BOP was shared.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Blade-of-TruthVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Irrelevance argument by Con
Vote Placed by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
Blade-of-TruthVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made this debate incredibly irrelevant, he threw all logical reasoning out the window, he insulted Pro and he essentially through a temper tantrum as soon as he realised that he was wrong. Everything goes to Pro for those reasons.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
Blade-of-TruthVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Atrocious conduct (insulting his opponent at will, acessive use of CAPSLOCK, consecending tone) and no sources. Con has lost this debate before I even consider the arguments. As for arguments.... Con argued for absence of evidence not proving absence, I think BOT handled this rather poorly, giving examples as opposed to attacking the philosophical implications. But does so adequately to rebut Con's poorly given points. Con offers nothing substantial on the matter (it was hard to see his arguments past the layers of insulting, condescension, and poor rhetoric). Clear 7 point win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
Blade-of-TruthVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Alrighty, an interesting one. For Con lying about messages sent and failing to refute points, both conduct and args go to Pro. The rest of the voting topics are plainly visible in the debate: misspellings, bad grammar, etc. and sources. Overall, full victory to Pro.
Vote Placed by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
Blade-of-TruthVajrasattva-LeRoyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: "You're a Lying, Crazy, Piece of sh*t." (LOL) Conduct obviously goes to Pro. S&G is another point attributed to Pro for many broken sentences and minor misspellings on Con's part. Arguments go to Pro as Con was the one who was advocating a change in the status quo, therefore he had the BoP, and instead he wasted his rounds by ranting how Pro was supposed to have it. At the very least, it was shared, and Pro has rebutted all of Con's weak arguments along with upholding his BoP. Sources to Pro, because, well, he actually has sources.