The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Psychological Egoism is an Inconclusive Empirical Doctrine.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 2/12/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,821 times Debate No: 6891
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (13)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

If I remember correctly, this is my first debate with L-M. SUH-WEET. Onto the debate:

[Definition - Psychological Egoism]
http://plato.stanford.edu...

1. Claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare.

~I find the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition of Psychological Egoism (PE) to be quite accurate and with minimum hope of semantics. Basically, it states that every conscious act a person does is in the sake for their own welfare.

[Definition - Welfare]
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

1. the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity

~The definition of welfare is straight-forward: whatever is in your best personal interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call "happiness".

=====Arguments=====

I have two arguments:

1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement:

"If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment."

This is a muck that PE has yet to come out of, and something I dearly await my opponent to "fix".

2. PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest. However, PE can't reconcile an example of a soldier jumping on a grenade in a few seconds to save his buddies. Where is the self-interest involved in that when he's DEAD?

=====Conclusion=====

I'll leave it at two arguments since I Have too many debates to tend to. These two arguments show that while Psychological Egoism may not be false - since future empirical evidence can show a process which makes us act in self interest - it is best left inconclusive.
Logical-Master

Con

Lets duel!

I agree with PRO's definitions, thus shall not concern myself with them. Lets just get right down to the arguments presented:

==========================================================
RE: 1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement:
==========================================================

The instigator uses the following statement from wikipedia as a means of proving that PE relies on circular reasoning:"If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment."

However, this is merely a fallacious means of making an argument concerning PE. Indeed, just as I could use the same kind of argument and have it conclude that the sky is blue. The obvious solution is to use premises that logically follow to a logical conclusion. I shall do this below in syllogism format:

Premise 1: All willing conscious actions are performed based on one's "upbringing" and biological influences.
Premise 2: One's upbringing and biological influences is what one's conscious/unconscious mind consist of.
Premise 3: One basing their actions on their own conscious/unconscious mind is a means of satisfying it (in other words, doing what it wants to do).
Conclusion: Therefore, people only willingly perform acts that satisfy their own conscious/unconscious mind.

And voil´┐Ż . . . an argument in favor of PE that doesn't rely on begging the question.

NOTE: In case of confusion, we can consider upbringing as being "external influences."

Depending on PRO's objection, this rebuttal may need some clarification.

============================================================================
RE: 2. PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest. However, PE can't reconcile an example of a soldier jumping on a grenade in a few seconds to save his buddies. Where is the self-interest involved in that when he's DEAD?
============================================================================

Quite simple really. Obviously, the soldier had values which were brought about externally or perhaps even biologically. The soldier sought to appeal to these values which he/she had claimed to be his/her own. Clearly, these values of the soldier meant more to him/her than his/her own life. Nevertheless, it was still self interest, giving that the soldier was acting based off of his/her own values. Essentially, fulfilling his own values equates to mental prosperity, mental well being and happiness.

Of course, let us further dismantle that flawed insinuation that self interest cannot possible be the factor at hand when one loses his/her life. Let us say that my very opponent is strapped down into a chair and is given the option of either being burned at the stake or shot in the fore head immediately via shotgun. Now, according to my opponent's logic (or lack of rather), given that death would be a factor regardless, there would be no reason for us to conclude that self interest would be the decisive factor in either condition. However, this is false. My opponent would likely choose the means of death which he perceives as less painful. Of course, if he is a masochist, then it would be quite the opposite. The point being made though is that self interest is easily involved even in matters which concern one's own death.

==============
Conclusion
==============

I'm inclined to disagree with my opponent. PE is rather conclusive especially if we are to agree with the very first premise which I provided in response to his first argument.

Given that I too am short on time, I'll leave my position at that for now . . .
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

On guard!

=====Counterarguments=====

1. Circular Reasoning

So my opponent attempts to defend PE by using a syllogism he himself creates. Delicious, I shall now attack it.

>>>Conclusion: Therefore, people only willingly perform acts that satisfy their own conscious/unconscious mind.<<<

----> Assuming your premises are true, which I do agree with, then your conclusion logically follows. However, ladies and gentlemen, this is a red herring. Let's look back at the definition of PE which my opponent has agreed with. PE is the doctrine that all our conscious actions are done ultimately for our OWN WELFARE. Simply acting in accordance with your psyche does not mean it can be for your welfare.

For example, what if there is some combination of external influences or genes that makes you act purely altruistically? An altruism gene? This would be acting in a manner that satisfies your conscious/unconscious mind but that does not satisfy PE. Therefore, my opponent's syllogism fails and we are left in the same inconclusive muck.

2. PE can't account for some examples, etc.

>>>Essentially, fulfilling his own values equates to mental prosperity, mental well being and happiness.<<<

----> Yes, it is very well conceivable that the soldier jumped on the grenade for purposes of self-interest. However, to give a situation in where person H can act selfishly does NOT mean every other person will act in the same way in the same situation. You have not shown how everyone will necessarily act selfishly in this situation with the grenade, which we will call situation X.

Until my opponent can give some evidence for why every soldier who jumps on a grenade does so for selfish reasons, then to say all who do so are necessarily acting out of self-interest is fallacious.

Secondly, my opponent brings up the idea of acting in accord with ones values. He states that fulfilling one's values equates to mental prosperity. This is not necessarily true:

A. Acting in accords with one's values does not necessarily mean you act ultimately for your own welfare. Welfare and personal values have different meanings. In fact, one's values can directly conflict with their personal welfare. Take a terrorist bomber for example. Their values dictate that they should destroy themselves - the ultimate denial of one's welfare - for the sake of their values.

>>>Of course, let us further dismantle that flawed insinuation that self interest cannot possible be the factor at hand when one loses his/her life.<<<

----> I never stated such a thing nor intended to imply so. I have stated that there are examples of where altruistic actions are possible. This pertains to the previous argument so I won't go much into it here again. Notwithstanding, my opponent's example is a closed dilemma - both situations ask for self-interest to be involved since there is only one person involved in the scenario - YOU yourself. Situation X (the grenade one) involved other people - so this allows for the possibility of altrusim.

=====Conclusoin=====

My opponent's argument fails on two accounts. First, he erroneously equates acting in accord with one's external and internal influences as acting for one's welfare. Secondly, he has not shown how altruism cannot exist in Situation X. Simply giving a possible explanation for the soldier's actions (a selfish one) does NOT exclude other explanations that say he acted out of altruism. So until my opponent has somehow shown the other explanations are not possible, PE stands as an inconclusive empirical doctrine.
Logical-Master

Con

==========================================================
RE (Round 2): 1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement:
==========================================================

Having seen my argument, PRO has abandoned his initial position that PE uses circular reasoning. He now focuses on the premises which I have used to support it (also note that he states he agrees with them), but attempts to accuse the argument of being subject to the red herring fallacy on the basis that "acting in accordance with your psyche does not mean it can be for your welfare." However, I beg to differ. Let us refer back to PRO's very own interpretation of welfare in terms of this debate:

"~The definition of welfare is straight-forward: whatever is in your best personal interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call "happiness"." - TheSkeptic

Indeed, whatever is in one's best PERSONAL interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call happiness is deemed as welfare. This is precisely what my argument suggest. If people only willing perform acts which satisfy their own conscious/unconscious mind (which is what both my opponent and myself agree to), then we can say they are acting based on their personal interest. The "personal" being the conscious/unconscious mind and the interest being what the conscious/unconscious mind favors. Ergo, my opponent has placed himself in checkmate for agreeing with my syllogism.

In response to his example, let us again note that PRO has agreed with my syllogism. If that is the case, he agrees that one acts to satisfy their conscious/unconscious mind. If one's conscious/unconscious mind is satisfied through helping others (in other words, altruism), then that is exactly what one is doing. Since acting to satisfy the conscious/unconscious mind is acting out of personal interest, acting altruistically does indeed fall under PE, therefore making PRO's example beneficial to no one's argument but my own.

============================================================================
RE (Round 2): 2. PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest. However, PE can't reconcile an example of a soldier jumping on a grenade in a few seconds to save his buddies. Where is the self-interest involved in that when he's DEAD?
============================================================================

This part shall now be broken down into three sections given that PRO's rebuttal is broken into three sections.

SECTION A:

The instigator seems to misunderstand my intent in showing one self interested reason as to why the soldier would jump in the way of an enemy grenade to save his buddies. I provided a single solution for 2 reasons:

1) As indicated by PRO's very own words, there supposedly could not possibly be a self interested reason as to why a solider would jump on a grenade to save his own buddies. As you can see in round 1, I gave a perfectly self interested reason.

2) My syllogism indicates that all willing actions are done to satisfy one's conscious/unconscious mind. Answering a seemingly impossible to answer example was merely a means of demonstrating this.

I have in fact shown how everyone acts selfishly in this situation with the grenade based on premises which my opponent has actually AGREED to. If people willing act to satisfy their conscious/unconscious mind, then that's all there is to confirming PE as a conclusive empirical doctrine. Me providing exactly how a solider in PRO's example is selfish is merely a means of elaborating on the syllogism I had provided.

SECTION B:

Next, my opponent attempts to dismantle the fact that one acting to fulfill their own values is a means of pursuing mental prosperity (which, as insinuated by PRO, is welfare).

1) One's values fall under one's personal interest for it is one's own values which one is personally interested in fulfilling. In other words, this goes back to one satisfying their conscious/unconscious minds when willingly acting. Ergo, acting to fulfill one's own values is indeed acting out of one's own welfare (to which has apparently been dubbed mental prosperity).

2) As for the terrorist bomber example, this is absolutely no different than my opponent's example of a solider hopping on a ground to save his pals. Once more, even if the result is the loss of one's own life, it matters little given that one was willingly acting to satisfy their conscious/unconscious minds (once more, something which both my opponent and myself agree is applicable to all willing actions) , hence was acting out of personal interest, hence making PE very applicable.

SECTION C:

Finally, PRO states "Notwithstanding, my opponent's example is a closed dilemma - both situations ask for self-interest to be involved since there is only one person involved in the scenario - YOU yourself. Situation X (the grenade one) involved other people - so this allows for the possibility of altruism."

In response, I state: It doesn't matter. This is a situation where one ends up dying in the process, yet as I've clearly shown, personal interest is still very much involved. The purpose of PRO's terrorist and soldier example is to show that one cannot act based on their own welfare in situations that deprive them of their own lives. This example challenges this fallacious insinuation by pitting an individual in situation that denies the individual of his own life, yet allows the individual in the situation to willingly act. If PRO's only objection is that my example mentions no opportunity for altruism, then we can dismiss his soldier/terrorist analogy on the basis that death does not equate to denial of one's own welfare; if individuals can act out of self interest in situations that result in death, PRO's reasoning is proven false.

==============
Conclusion |
==============

This debate has already been decided. 1)In agreeing to my syllogism provided in R1, PRO concedes to the legitimacy of psychological egotism. 2) His altruism example merely reestablished my case given that altruistic behavior would still be acting in accordance to one's own values, hence acting out of personal interest. 3) PRO's grenade example simply allowed for me to elaborate on my syllogism which established Psychological egotism 4) In providing no real objection to the self interest scenario I provided at the end of R1, PRO has agreed that one can act out of self interest even in situations that result in death, hence negated both his grenade and terrorist bomber example.

And that about sums it up. I now stand ready for round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

=====PE uses circular reasoning=====

>>>Having seen my argument, PRO has abandoned his initial position that PE uses circular reasoning.<<<

Nope, I haven't. The circular reasoning I was referring to is circular because people usually use it that way. The reason PE is circular is because there is no independent empirical evidence that shows everyone acts out of selfish reasons. You argue for PE in another way, by equating it with how we make decisions.

>>>Indeed, whatever is in one's best PERSONAL interests that culminates into the one big juicy word we call happiness is deemed as welfare<<<

Happiness/welfare is what you PERSONALLY believe to be, not whatever you decide to do.

>>>The "personal" being the conscious/unconscious mind and the interest being what the conscious/unconscious mind favors.<<<

The interest being what the mind (no need for the conscious and unconscious distinction) favors? Not every decision the mind makes happens under the pretense of satisfying our welfare (self-interest). Secondly, with advances in neurology it get's fishy what you even mean by what the mind favors, or desires. It's been shown in split-brain patients that our behaviors (thus what the mind desires) change drastically in reference to each hemisphere[1].

>>>If that is the case, he agrees that one acts to satisfy their conscious/unconscious mind. <<<

Once acts in accordance with their mind, but the mind does not always act in accord with one's welfare.

=====PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest.=====

>>>As indicated by PRO's very own words, there supposedly could not possibly be a self interested reason as to why a solider would jump on a grenade to save his own buddies.<<<

Untrue. There very obviously be a selfish reason, but you haven't shown that all the reasons are necessarily selfish. For example, you haven't ruled out every altruistic reason.

>>>My syllogism indicates that all willing actions are done to satisfy one's conscious/unconscious mind.<<<

As said before, acting in accordance with one's mind (a tautology) does not mean acting in accordance with one's welfare.

>>>One's values fall under one's personal interest for it is one's own values which one is personally interested in fulfilling. In other words, this goes back to one satisfying their conscious/unconscious minds when willingly acting.<<<

Again, refer to my argument that acting in accordance with one's mind does not mean acting in accordance with one's conception of welfare.

>>>As for the terrorist bomber example, this is absolutely no different than my opponent's example of a solider hopping on a ground to save his pals<<<

Again, remember that my opponent hasn't shown that every soldier who jumps on a grenade does so for selfish reasons. He hasn't conclusively shown that every reason is a selfish one, he only gave an example of what could be one.

>>>This example challenges this fallacious insinuation by pitting an individual in situation that denies the individual of his own life, yet allows the individual in the situation to willingly act.>>>

Untrue yet again. My example was to show that while people (like you) explain their actions with a selfish reason, you fail to show that no altruistic reason is possible. You show the possibility of a selfish reason, but you have not excluded the possibility of every altruistic reason.

=====Conclusion=====

My opponent fails to realize that acting in accordance with one's will does not equal acting in accordance with one's conception of welfare/happiness., i.e. self interest. My opponent also fails to necessarily justify every situation (in this case the solder) with selfish reasons. He gave the possibility for one, but has yet to exclude every altruistic one.

---References---
1. http://nobelprize.org...
Logical-Master

Con

Slight format change: I'm running short on time, so I'm just going to directly quote and respond to PRO on each point

==========================================================
RE (Round 2): 1. PE uses circular reasoning - this can be easily shown with the following statement:
==========================================================

>>>"The circular reasoning I was referring to is circular because people usually use it that way. The reason PE is circular is because there is no independent empirical evidence that shows everyone acts out of selfish reasons. You argue for PE in another way, by equating it with how we make decisions."<<<

It doesn't matter. If circular reasoning cannot be applied to all arguments that favor PE, this point fails.

>>>Happiness/welfare is what you PERSONALLY believe to be, not whatever you decide to do.<<<

However, individuals willingly act based ON what they personally believe to be, hence this is a moot point.

>>>>The interest being what the mind (no need for the conscious and unconscious distinction) favors? Not every decision the mind makes happens under the pretense of satisfying our welfare (self-interest). Secondly, with advances in neurology it get's fishy what you even mean by what the mind favors, or desires. It's been shown in split-brain patients that our behaviors (thus what the mind desires) change drastically in reference to each hemisphere[1].<<<

1) Ultimately, this claim depends on whether or not my opponent's altruism argument succeeds (given that he cited altruism when making this claim in the previous round). However, ladies and gentleman, my opponent has failed to overthrow my argument which proves the value of altruism to still be a value related to self interest as you shall further see in this round.

2) Red Herring fallacy. It doesn't matter on whether or not our mind is complex enough to the point where we cannot always reasonable deduce the exact process which it works through. What we do know that all individuals act based on external/internal influences. This knowledge is good enough to uphold my position (not to mention that PRO conceded to it in the previous round). Given that this point is irrelevant, it is requested that those reading this dismiss the source which PRO had provided and not conclude that he provided any reliable.

>>>Once acts in accordance with their mind, but the mind does not always act in accord with one's welfare.<<<

Once more, this depends on whether or not my opponent's altruism defense is successful (which, as I show below, it isn't).

============================================================================
RE (Round 2): 2. PE states all conscious actions are done out of self-interest. However, PE can't reconcile an example of a soldier jumping on a grenade in a few seconds to save his buddies. Where is the self-interest involved in that when he's DEAD?
============================================================================

>>>Untrue. There very obviously be a selfish reason, but you haven't shown that all the reasons are necessarily selfish. For example, you haven't ruled out every altruistic reason.<<<

On the contrary. Acting based on the premise of altruism is acting based on your own values (the fact that PRO concedes that I've given a reasonable reason as to why the soldier could be considered as acting out of self interest does not bode well for his case given that the very reason I provided precisely suggest that all actions are based on self interest; it suggest that acting based on your own values is a form of acting out of self interest . . . as acting based on your own values translated to you being interested in seeing your values upheld).

>>>"As said before, acting in accordance with one's mind (a tautology) does not mean acting in accordance with one's welfare."<<<

As I said before, the success of this argument depends on the only premise my opponent provided to favor it. I have already vanquished this premise, hence, his argument falls apart.

>>>Again, refer to my argument that acting in accordance with one's mind does not mean acting in accordance with one's conception of welfare."

See above.

>>>Again, remember that my opponent hasn't shown that every soldier who jumps on a grenade does so for selfish reasons. He hasn't conclusively shown that every reason is a selfish one, he only gave an example of what could be one"

Again, note that my opponent agreed that the reason which I provided is reasonable yet fails to note that the reason which I provided would be applicable to ANYONE who jumped on the grenade given that acting on the basis of preserving one of your own values is acting for the sake of satisfying self interest.

>>>Untrue yet again. My example was to show that while people (like you) explain their actions with a selfish reason, you fail to show that no altruistic reason is possible. You show the possibility of a selfish reason, but you have not excluded the possibility of every altruistic reason.<<<

1) I don't need to (or have ever attempted to) show that no altruistic reason is possible. This is because I proved that acting based on altruism is still acting out of self interest (specifically, an individual who willing behaves altruistically in interested in committing to altruism, hence in interested in preserving his/her values concerning altruism, hence is acting based on satisfying his/her self interest (values fall under self interest and altruism is a value, so . . .) 2) Altruism is described as being "selfless" , hence being devoted to others. I need not explore the specifics of every way one can behave altruistically. I merely approached the concept of altruism alone and demonstrated how an individual who values altruism is still acts based on self interest.

=====Conclusion=====

Closing statements: I believe that my opponent and I have exhausted all avenues of the subject at hand. I maintain my position that "psychological egoism is a conclusive empirical doctrine" is correct and that my opponent has failed to demonstrate how his position overcomes the following:

#1. In round 1, I provided a syllogism in favor of psychological egoism. PRO went about responding to it by first claiming he agreed with but that it was irrelevant on the basis that it didn't prove all actions were ultimately done for one's own welfare. He attempted to establish this by citing altruism, but as I've shown, even if one behaves altruistically, one is still attempting to satisfy their own welfare (self interest) based on the fact that persona values (how an individual lives their life) as well as acting based on them falls under one's self interest.

#2. PRO attempted to refute my refutation of his grenade example through pointing out that my refutation doesn't necessarily apply to everyone, but if we keep in mind my argument on altruism being an area of self interest (which was the goal of my refutation) we note that my refutation is sufficient as it does indeed apply to every possibility that concerns altruism.

#3. PRO dropped the whole area discussion concerning the matter of values being part of self interest (given that it isn't present during his round 3)(this area can be found under section B in my round 2). This hurt his argument as it easily allows me to claim that satisfying values such as altruism is indeed satisfying self interest.

#4. PRO failed to respond to my arguments on the matter of an individual being able to act out of self interest in situations that result in death. He can deny ever having supported that position as much as he likes, but if you'll read all prior arguments on this matter, you'll see how his argument relied on this.

Of course, provided you agree with #1 and #2 (which are the only matters which PRO felt the need to address in his conclusion), then you can easily vote CON in good conscience.

Thanks for the debate! :D
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
I disagree. Once you agree that my explanation suits the basic makeup of a human beings method of thought, you are agreeing that all cases are being covered. Once more, the example does nothing more than illustrate how this idea works.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Which is your exact problem. While you give a possible account of some cases, there is no reason to think it covers all cases.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
The example of the soldier itself isn't important; it is merely establishing the principle. Give me any example and I can illustrate as to how it meets said principle.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
L-M:

Just because you give an example of how the soldier/grenade case could have been motivated by selfish reasons, it does not mean it covers all cases.
Posted by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
Nope; there are no valid examples of altruism provided you are willing to accept the assumptions needed to adhere to what we deem as reality.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Are there any valid examples of altruism?
Posted by brattyone 8 years ago
brattyone
im confused, bad :)
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logos 7 years ago
Logos
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by falafel 7 years ago
falafel
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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