The Instigator
mageist24
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
losedotexe
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points

Public schools schould teach Creationism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 10/31/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,963 times Debate No: 13524
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (12)

 

mageist24

Con

This is my first debate in debate.org so even though I would not expect leniency towards the validity of the arguments I bring forth, please be easy on me as I am not aware of Debate.org debate protocol, manners, or structure.

That being said I stand in firm negation of the resolution "Creationism should be taught in public schools." My definitions are as follows

1) Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

2) Teach: to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in

Both definitions were from dictionary.com.

I will give my contentions when my opponent accepts the debate =]
Good luck.
losedotexe

Pro

I accept your debate on the PRO side.
Because I am PRO, I will post my argument first.

I agree with my opponent's definitions.
In addition, I offer the following definitions.
Should - Used to express obligation or duty.

I would like to offer a pre-case observation : Public School SHOULD teach creationism indicates that Public Schools hold a obligation to teach creationism. This does not mean that they have to teach it De Facto, merely that it should be taught.

On to my case ;

-Contention 1-
Creationism is relevant in the teaching of history

Creationism has been taught throughout the ages. The first recorded case of an argument was shown between 106BCE and 43 BCE, where Cicero made a Watchmaker style argument. (De natura deorum, ii. 34) From this point on, creationism was both debated, and many a time in history, a respected aspect of human society. There is a LOT of technological and societal advances during these eras, for example, the invention of glass mirror, which was used in telescopes, which was invented 11th century in Spain. (^ Dr. Kasem Ajram (1992). The Miracle of Islam Science (2nd ed.). Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN 0-911119-43-4.) These eras had a strong focus on education and religion simultaneously.
In order to understand a lot of social behaviors, we have to look at their driving factors. For example, the values of the Puritans who migrated to America during the 16th-17th century. Their values basically were to do the Will of God. Because this factor drove them, they worked hard to ensure this was met, resulting in a successful culture. This culture can be considered successful because they survived to make a strong society. This is important to know, that we must teach what creationism is, in order to understand WHY this made individuals so dedicated.

-Contention 2-
Teaching Creationism helps explain modern science protocol

This is a basic idea. People took a claim, which was accepted by many, and considered it true, without strong evidence. They used false positive evidence to 'prove' the existence of God. (Intelligence, Free Will, Self consciousness, etc) This was a bad scientific teaching, because it led to inaccurate or flat out incorrect results.
This is important to acknowledge WHY our system of science today is so meticulous to ensure there are no biases ; only facts. We build off of our mistakes, and in order to teach people why, we need to explain blunders in the past that led to our more modern systems.

Creationism is important to understand. It does NOT need to be taught as TRUE, as the resolved does NOT state this. It merely says it should be taught. As I've shown, teaching, which is defined as imparting with knowledge, helps teach students how these fields of study have developed, as well as how to understand past societies.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments, and I'd like to thank him for creating this exciting debate.

In addition, I encourage all judges of this debate to remove any bias from either side of this resolved, and look strictly at the arguments ; this is a hot button issue, and as such, we must look at it for what the arguments are.

Please vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
mageist24

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and wish you good luck.

I will first of all like to agree to my opponent's resolutionary analysis on that the word "should" means a basic obligation by public schools to teach this subject. However I do not agree with the Pro's definitional analysis of the word "teach." He offers the following "Creationism is important to understand. It does NOT need to be taught as TRUE, as the resolved does NOT state this. It merely says it should be taught. As I've shown, teaching, which is defined as imparting with knowledge, helps teach students how these fields of study have developed, as well as how to understand past societies." This statement only uses half of the definition used, and must be thought about in the context of today's society. The whole definition is "to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in." You will notice that you left out the part that this definition includes imparting skill in this subject, being creationism. One does not develop skills in a subject if it was not taught to be true, which if taught in public schools would be the case.

Responding to contention 1) Creationism is relevant in the teaching of history.

As I have stated before, given instruction and knowledge of anything means that it being taught in the first place is the indication that it must be taught as fact. And if I put his in relation to your first contention, you should notice some things. First of all, if creationism is so relevant in the teaching of history, and really needs to taught in public schools as factual, then why aren't you also concerned with the ideology that the earth was created flat? Of course, this theory has been proven wrong by other theories currently taught in public schools, but since this way of thinking was so important to understanding contextual history, do you really believe that we should impart knowledge and instruction that it has a possibility of being true and make our children listen for the reasons? The same idea can be applied to multiple "theories" such as Holocaust denial, the Geocentric Theory, and so on.

2) Teaching Creationism helps explain modern science protocol

I honestly don't see how this has relevancy in our debate. Most people in the world believe in creationism of some sort, and therefore, would probably take offense to the fact that you would categorize this teaching as a "blunder." That being said, I don't think that science protocol was made to counteract the lack of evidence of fundamental creationism. Your leap in logic is assuming that modern science was meticulous by way of stemming from creationist ideology. I agree with your claim that creationism is without strong evidence however and will later use this in my case.

Now onto my case
-----------------------------------

I stand in firm negation of this resolution. Here are my reasons

1) Creationism Vs Evolution.

I do not need to push this point too hard because you admitted yourself of the overwhelming lack of evidence creationism has and how it explains our scientific frontier being so based around fact. We obviously don't agree on the definition of teach, but i await your rebuttal on that.

2) Separation of church and state.

Creationism does have a role to play in our world, a big role in fact. It gives many a sense of belonging and purpose, even if that is not true. It gives many people joy, hope, and relief. However, it remains a religious doctrine and I chose a definition specifically because the words "scientific theory" are never to be found, and rightfully so. Also, you must understand something about our world. It is multicultural. This is very important to keep in mind because the number of religious deities that are accredited the creation of everything man knows are almost limitless. Jesus, Allah, Krishna, Horus, Etc. When teaching the religious doctrine, the question has to be asked "who really stuck their hand in the cookie jar?" meaning, who really created our universe. Christians know for a fact that it is their god, yet Muslims know for a fact that it is their god. Involving religion in any way with public social teachings such as math, science (real science), or literature strips the fundamental value of what our country offers, which is, that government will make no law respecting any religion.

In conclusion, to avoid religious indifference, intolerance, and to create a safe learning environment, religious doctrines must stay out of Public Schools. If you want your kid to learn a specific way, there are specific schools (private) that surely offer that curriculum, and you will get what you pay for.

Thank you again for this debate and I await your response.
losedotexe

Pro

First, I'm going to contest my opponent's counter-analysis of the word teach. They assert that in order to meet the full definition of the word, we have to 'Impart knowledge of *OR* skill in ; give instruction in'. They go on to CHANGE the definition to 'To impart knowledge of *AND* skill in ; give instruction in'. I CAN select which one in this sense that teach is referring to, as it says OR, not AND. As far as to give instruction in, yes. We are educating what creationism is. We teach them how to analyze the idea, in order to better understand past societies.
Again, I do NOT have to meet the idea of teaching a skill. This is an OR definition ; my opponent should have provided a better definition if they didn't want to play by this one.

On to my opponents rebuttals

-Contention 1-

My opponent says that it must be taught as FACT. Is that why we teach philosophies in psychology as fact? Or political views as fact? Or religious studies as fact? The answer is NO. This is just a false assertion.
My opponent further says that if I think it's important to teach creationism, shouldn't I also be concerned with teaching the world was flat? Because arguing for the teaching in a historical sense of people thinking the world is flat is ATOPICAL. This is IRRELEVANT to the current debate and should be ignored.
Further, he says there's evidence against it. That's GOOD. This supports the idea that not everyone in history has had ideas that were RIGHT. We still teach that medicine men would bleed out the sick in order to remove tainted blood. This is FACT. The part that is WRONG is that tainted blood isn't the cause of all illness, and bleeding out doesn't assist in this.
In addition, he talks about holocaust denial as a theory, and etc. These are no where near as relevant as something that existed and was vital to society for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
He also mentions the geocentric theory ; We do teach about it. High school teachers teach about Copernicus and Galileo. Geocentric Theory is TAUGHT in order to provide for better comprehension. We provide their reasons because it assists in knowledge ; SCHOOLS NEED NOT ASSERT IT AS FACT. ONLY THAT IT WAS CONSIDERED FACT.

-Contention 2-

My opponent basically claims that it's atypical. This is wrong. Because we can use past examples of BAD EVIDENCE or LACK OF EVIDENCE, it helps form a more modern way of thinking. Yes, a lot of people in this world DO hold creationist beliefs today ; I'm not debating to protect peoples' feelings. I'm here to present the facts and reasons.
This contention stands as other than making a false assertion of atopicality, he only goes on to say that it has nothing to do with the scientific method ; okay? It still serves as an EXAMPLE of BAD EVIDENCE OR LACK OF EVIDENCE being used to ASSERT something as FACT.

On to my opponent's case

1 Creationism vs Evolution

My opponent asserts that this is contention is basic. Because he provides NOTHING to argue against, I'll use what I'm assuming is his argument. He automatically assumes that we can only teach ONE or THE OTHER. We can teach one for better understand, ie, creationism, and the other as fact, ie, evolution. These are powerful tools when used TOGETHER, in teaching both SCIENCE and HISTORY.
This argument falls ; Schools need not teach one or the other ; it's best to teach BOTH in PROPER CONTEXT.

2. Separation of Church and State

My opponent basically is arguing against teaching creationism because there's so many types of creationism from different cultures. This is IRRELEVANT. When talking about Europe in history, we refer to CATHOLICISM and PROTESTANTISM, because these were CULTURALLY RELEVANT of the time.
As far as for a science perspective, my opponent once again ASSERTS we must PICK which CREATION STORY we teach. This is, again, false. We can teach the IDEA OF CREATIONISM without teaching the STORIES OF IT. We can teach it as it has been shown throughout history. Basically, the easiest way to destroy this argument is to ACKNOWLEDGE that we do NOT need to teach it as FACT.
This EDUCATION of creationism doesn't infringe on separation of church and state ; It's necessary to be taught in history classes to understand historic actions, from the crusaders, the the witch hunt trials, to the Spanish Inquisition. These are VITAL to understand the reasons of the culture.

Again, we are NOT arguing that this is teaching it as FACT. Only imparting someone with knowledge. I've shown that this knowledge is demanded to understand history, and is supplementary to understanding the scientific method.

He asserts that in order to have a viable field for academia, religious doctrine must stay out ; I've shown that the OPPOSITE is true. That we must teach SOME doctrines that are RELEVANT TO HISTORY and SUPPLEMENTARY to science.

To make children aware of their society, their history, and of how people learn today, it is VITAL TO UNDERSTAND THE PAST.

VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
mageist24

Con

I would like to take this time to thank my opponent for an interesting debate and wish him luck in the final round.

This debate comes down to two thing. The definition of teach and the analysis of our impacts. Let's look at first what my opponent chose to ignore from my definitional argument.

My opponent made two claims about this debate.

1) That I made the claim that the definition MUST be both imparting knowledge AND skill in. This is a clear straw man as I never made this claim. My claim was and I quote, "must be thought about in the context of today's society" which was an argument dropped by my opponent. But for the sake of clarity, I will explain what I mean. In the contextual structure of creationism, it has been taught as far back as we can remember, also stated by my opponent. What he does not accept to realize is that today, it is still being taught as fact from the majority, just not in school. You and I may realize that creationism lacks in fundamental proof, reasonable logic, or empirical evidence, but that is the REASON that it must not be taught in public schools. If schools taught creationism, almost solely because it is the ideology accepted by 80% of the world, it would be taught as so. Every one of your arguments are dependent on the fact that it would not be taught as something that is true. Sarah Palin is one of many political voices trying to make this happen. What you must also understand is if creationism would be taught, what subject would it be taught as? You make the argument that it would be taught as "a blunder in history" This is just simply not true. The ceationism theory was made popular after intelligent design was deemed unconstitutional as a scientific theory for its religious content. Therefore, creationism was changed by definiton to fit scientific prerequisites, so that it could not be shut down for being religious. They have done this so that IT CAN BE TAUGHT AS SCIENCE IN SCHOOL! This has nothing to do with history, and no pro creationist share the same idea that you have about its importance to science. They will argue that creationism IS science. According to Guardian.co.uk, 29% of teachers actually believe it should be taught as science. (1). Not the students, not priests, not concerned parents, THE ACTUAL TEACHERS. If this doesn't just blow your whole "it wont be taught as fact" position, then I'm not sure what will, but I will continue on.

2) Creationism is important to understanding history and science. Impact analysis: The impacts listed by my opponents are fuzzy, but I will see if I understand properly. Your impact is, if we do not make children aware of their history, they will not properly understand the past. This is irrelevant because if creationism is to be taught, I have proven that it would not be taught as willy nilly as you suggest. This is a very serious concept my friend. When one holds religious beliefs dear to their heart, it becomes personal. The majority of America takes it personal when you say that creationism is a blunder in science protocol and contextual history. To them it IS science and it IS their history. Just like a public school cannot and should not teach creationism as a fact, it should not be taught as nonfactual either. This also goes against the separation between church and state. My impacts are completely intact. The magnitude of teaching creationism in public schools in catastrophic because, 1) It respects religion 2) it downplays real science and 3) It creates religious intolerance between every theist group, atheists, and just peaceful people who don't want to get involved for the reason that religion is tied very emotionally. The likeliness of this happening? Its already happening. This debate is proof of that. If creationism would actually be taught, violence would ensue.

In conclusion, because the society we live in wants us to teach creationism in a way that would assume that it is factual (science) then in that context, the definition battle is clearly won by me. It is an OR definition, not an AND definition, my opponent is right on that. But he is clearly wrong when he states that the definition supports him. I agree, we should teach doctrines in history. Teaching the IDEA of creationism is off topic, because the debate at hand is the scientific ideology of creationism, and if my opponent does not adhere to the resolution, the ease vote con.

We as Americans need to protect our children from dangerous religious dogma, protect our constitution, and protect science. A vote for pro is a vote for ignorance. It is for these reasons, that I urge a negative ballot.

Vote CON.

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
losedotexe

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for this fun debate, and this interesting final round.

-Contention 1-

My opponent accuses me of a straw man argument ; This is false. My opponent said, quote, "The whole definition is "to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in." You will notice that you left out the part that this definition includes imparting skill in this subject, being creationism." His accusation falls, as I didn't accuse him falsely of making a claim, he accused ME of dropping part of the definition unreasonably.

My opponent, in his first point, he says that creationism is still being taught as fact as a majority, just not in school. I acknowledge this. It is being taught as fact. That does NOT mean the school must take the same position.
He goes on to say because of it's lack of evidence, it should NOT be taught. This is NOT true. The EVIDENCE that we are searching for here, is a HISTORICAL context, not a RATIONAL one. Historically, people BELIEVED in creationism ; this is what matters. He makes the PURE ASSUMPTION that because it's a common world view, it'd be taught as fact. He provides no evidence ; I've SHOWN HOW to TEACH creationism ; this argument falls as well.

He goes on to argue that people pushed for creationism to be taught as a way to put god in school. Who cares? I've already SHOWN HOW it should be TAUGHT in school. He's not arguing against my argument here, only a strawman ; he builds up an argument to tear it down. This should be disregarded.

He further says that creationists call it science ; again, this doesn't MATTER. He's not arguing against my contentions ; only his own that he's telling me to take a stance on.

His statistic only further supports the straw man ; this should be disregarded. He's ASSUMING TEACHERS WILL TEACH IT AS FACT ; THIS IS SHOWN WITH A STATISTIC that has NO LINK to HOW IT WOULD BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS. What teachers want DOESN'T MATTER. He assumes teachers' choose what to teach ; hence saying they'd teach it as fact. Teachers have to abide by certain regulations to teach.
This disproves your entire first point.

-CONTENTION 2-

He accuses my points as being fuzzy. They are clear cut ; the values of the Puritans who migrated to America during the 16th-17th century. Their values basically were to do the Will of God. Because this factor drove them, they worked hard to ensure this was met, resulting in a successful culture. This is clear cut ; it's not my fault he didn't understand the argument.

He ADDS an ARGUMENT IN THE LAST ROUND ; We shouldn't teach it as fact or non-fact because it'll offend people ; Evolution offends people too, and we don't seem to be bothered with that. We don't have to teach it as non-fact ; Only what it is. That it lacks empirical evidence (which my opponent concedes in his closing argument) and that it's valuable throughout history.
He says it goes against separation of church and state ; teaching the general 'theory' harms this separation? No. It does not. It shows how it is VITAL IN OUR HISTORY and as an EXAMPLE OF a supported 'theory' WITHOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

-OPPONENT'S IMPACTS-
1. He claims it respects religion. I disprove this in my previous argument, that it's not SPECIFICALLY ONE RELIGION, UNLESS IN HISTORY ; IN WHICH CASE, IT'S RELEVANT IN A HISTORIC SENSE ; NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE. This impact falls.
2. "It downplays real science" This is uncredited ; I've shown throughout my arguments that it's being taught as a theory without empirical evidence ; the opposite of this claim is true. It STRENGTHENS real science.
3.He says it'll cause intolerance ; There is ALREADY intolerance, and that VIOLENCE WOULD ENSUE ; He provides ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for this. Children ALREADY are intolerant from it ; the fact of it being taught has no impact. His claim is unsubstantiated of violence ; this falls as well.

His conclusion says that 'society we live in wants us to teach creationism in a way that would assume that it is factual (science) ' I've destroyed this point over and over. He's using a straw man, and tearing it down.
In addition, he says that if I do not adhere to HIS HAND PICKED RESOLUTION, not the RESOLUTION AT HAND, then he should get the vote. The resolved is : Public Schools should teach creationism ; I've shown WHY, and he attacks straw mans.

MY OPPONENT CONCEDES THE RESOLVED : Public schools should teach Creationism with his statement, " I agree, we should teach doctrines in history."

A vote for PRO is a vote to teach children accurate history, to educate them in science as to what is and isn't supported by empirical evidence. A vote for PRO will ensure that it WONT be TAUGHT in a BIASED MANNER ; ONLY WHAT IS FACT.

CON argues straw man arguments, re-iterates his points without taking into account my rebuts, and HAS CONCEDED TO THE PRO.

I MUST urge a VOTE FOR PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
@ Losedotexe

Thank you and I enjoyed this as well as my first debate experience on this website. And yes as I commented before, I did dabble into debate when I was in High School and I do rather miss arguing with intellectuals as yourself. Challenge me anytime as well.

Take care
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
Mageist ; I'd like to thanks for this debate, reading back, I really enjoyed it :)
Also, welcome to DDO, i'm guessing this isn't your first rodeo, just a different stadium. :P

Great debate ; challenge me any time, :)
Posted by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
Legendary, put your money where your mouth is. Debate me on the validity of evolution vs. the validity of creationism. It is actually something I was wanting to debate anyways. Do you accept my challenge?
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
sherlockmethod
Debate the subject angel, being that you are legendary and all. Macroevolution is an observable occurrence. Hell, even some YEC organizations agree it is. Did you bother learning the definition before you spouted off? Or do you, like many creationists (not as legendary as you) confuse common ancestry with macroevolution? And science does not work on 100%; yes, this applies to gravity also. Also, apes did build cars and computers. You, as well as every other human, is a member of the great apes. Now, scratch your arm pits and get over it and debate the subject. As with any evolution denier, I will take it.
Posted by legendaryangel 6 years ago
legendaryangel
Until I see a human mutate into another species I will then say macro evolution in humans is indeed a proven fact. That's basically all I'm saying you both are making it more then what it is....it is not a proven fact until it is indeed observed, until then it is still speculation, whether it is almost proven or not. Until it is 100% proven then I will buy into it. Apes and Mice cannot build cars, computers or skyscrapers, for common ancestry they sure seem pretty different.

You can have a 96% or 99% chance at winning a rigged slot machine at a casino, but still come up with nothing after you put all your money inside it.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
This is for Legendaryangel ;
Assuming you do not think DNA is a hoax, this should be evidence enough to find evolution as fact.
I don't mind either way how you determine evolution came to be ; You could easily say it's God's brilliant way of creating man, and giving man a way to learn of themselves. After all, would God make such highly intelligence beings, and then not give them unbelievably complex things to discover and learn about?

The reason I say DNA is the ultimate fact ; Is that the DNA-closeness of like species to not like species is insane. humans are ~96%+ like apes in their genetic code.
Compare humans to mice and the percentage is ~99% (take into account that this is the mouse's genome to human's, where mice have significantly less genome, ~400,000 'letters' off)
Go into plants, the number will be roughly 50%, give or take depending on the species.

All of this seems to be strong evidence of common ancestry ; just as any intelligent, all knowing creator would make. God knew what he was doing ; his reasons for creating evolution seem unbelievably clear to me.

I hope you found this useful, if not, I apologize.
Posted by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
Im not interested in a comment war. Debate me or not. I could care less. Debating a Creationist is like debating a Holocaust Denier. I could be happy with or without debating you.
Posted by legendaryangel 6 years ago
legendaryangel
"of course evolution in humans has not been proven"

I rest my case...

"Such an event is completely unpredictable and could happen in a timeframe that could be thousands or hundreds of thousands of years."

I think you meant to say millions of years....and IMO this statement just makes macro-evolution harder to disprove, that's why the scientists were very clever...

"by Charles Darwin in his book Origin of Species"

IMO Alfred Russel Wallace > Charles Darwin

http://knol.google.com...#
Posted by mageist24 6 years ago
mageist24
of course evolution in humans has not been proven, don't be silly. That hardly discredits evolution. There is overwhelmingly massive amounts of evidence for evolution that cannot be denied. When being taught evolution, as explained by Charles Darwin in his book Origin of Species, it explains how and why humans are so closely related to the animals that walk the earth now, not how and when humans will evolve. Such an event is completely unpredictable and could happen in a timeframe that could be thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

If I am going to look at scientific evidence alone, Creationism can be proven false. If I am going to look at it completely based on faith, then that kind of defeats the purpose of science doesn't it?
Posted by legendaryangel 6 years ago
legendaryangel
How is evolution in humans proven???? Have you seen a human mutate into another species?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Infidel 5 years ago
Mr.Infidel
mageist24losedotexeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote Bo,b.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
mageist24losedotexeTied
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: Cons separation of church and state won me over
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
mageist24losedotexeTied
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 SOFTero 6 years ago
SOFTero
mageist24losedotexeTied
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 mrman63 6 years ago
mrman63
mageist24losedotexeTied
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 Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
mageist24losedotexeTied
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 Deziky 6 years ago
Deziky
mageist24losedotexeTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
mageist24losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
mageist24losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by darkhearth 6 years ago
darkhearth
mageist24losedotexeTied
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:16