The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

Quantum Physics is False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,904 times Debate No: 29723
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (39)
Votes (9)

 

Anti-atheist

Pro

QP isn't true. As an avid sturdier of quantum physics I can say I understand it completely and it's false and ungodly.
imabench

Con

YES I GOT IT!!!! :D

You may state your case about how Quantum Physics is false.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Pro

Thanks you poor poor man for accepting because you will certainly be owned.

Argument 1

Quantum Mechanics is contradictory

When someone say "prove quantum mechanics false" We must ask which one? The copenhagen is the most popular but all are just as good as the other. So there's many contradictory interpretations of quantum physics all are under quantum physics. Some say QP is determanistic some are indertermanistic both are quantum physics. This means QP Is self contradictory and false.

2. Quantum wave particle dulity vs logic.

Many wave functions are interpreted to be both particles and waves. This is assuming an invalid false philological view point, that the laws of logic are non existent. This is contradicting reality. Its like saying a square circle exists. But in no possible world can that be possible, therefore quantum physics is false in every possible world!

3. Uncertianty principle

Another contradictory principle is the uncertainty principle. Its nature is contradictory. we're so certian that were uncertian. That can't be true. How are you certian about uncertianty, that would be certian...contradicting uncertianty.

If you know where a particle is you will know how fast its going. The whole principle is nonsensical. If you dont know how fast its going you can't know where it is! Null and void.

4. Imaginary Time.

Apart of quantum physics is imaginary numbers and imaginary time. None of these things exist in reaility because their imaginary. Nor have they shown they exist. Since this is true, QP doesn't discribe reality.

This concept kind of shoots itself in the foot, so I don"t need to spend much time on it. Using an imaginary number in an equation is like intentionally using a false premise in an argument, which is of course totally inappropriate in scholarship.

In fact, the man who invented Imaginary Numbers was an ophthalmologist named Renes Descartes. He coined the term. And guess what. It was in a criticism of the idea. Orwell would have a field day.

Imaginary objects have never been measured or proven to exist. Whats next imaginary root beer? Are physicists going to say we can all live off imaginary food and water? What has science come to?

5. subatomic what?

Scientists believe in fairies; they call them electrons. That"s just a language game, and we all know what Wittgenstein uncontroversially proved about language games.

Supposedly there are these magical little floating things and here are their essential properties:

1) We can"t see them
2) They hold everything together

That sounds to me a lot like fairies. And you might say, "Well, there are different types. Protons, electrons, etc. etc. quarks whatever." So the fairy creatures come in different races, so what? Now I"m not one to doubt the existence of fairies. Frankly I see no evidence of their non-existence and you can"t prove a negative. But let"s stop teaching that there is anything scientific about them. No one has ever even seen one, and noted anthropologist Sam Harris has explained that this is the key feature of myth. The subatomic world (actually Latin for "below the earth" " and where do fairies live exactly? yep.) is false as traditionally explained. And the diagrams shown to children are simply outrageous.

Qp is fail
imabench

Con

Oh this will be easy as hell...

- 1 - "Contradictory"

"there's many contradictory interpretations of quantum physics all are under quantum physics. Some say QP is determanistic some are indertermanistic both are quantum physics. This means QP Is self contradictory and false."

Just because some people INTERPRETS quantum physics differently from others, it doesnt make it false... It just means that one of these groups of people have no idea what theyre talking about... Much like one of the two people in this debate.

If I believed that the movie "Saving Private Ryan" was meant to illustrate how hellish war can be, but someone else believes that the movie was meant to illustrate how glorious and honorable war can be, those interpretations are contradictory but that doesnt mean it makes "Saving Private Ryan" false.

- 2 - "Contradicts Reality"

"Many wave functions are interpreted to be both particles and waves. This is assuming an invalid false philological view point, that the laws of logic are non existent."

Not exactly. Quantum Physics describes the mathematical properties of particles of energy and matter that are particle-LIKE and wave-LIKE. Many wave functions are interpreted to have certain qualities from both particles and waves, but not all of the qualities from both.... The Wave-Particle duality explains how some particles from energy and light exhibit a combination of wave-like and particle-like behavior......

So basically, the laws behind Quantum Physics do not contradict the laws of logic.

- 3 - "Uncertainty principle"

"If you know where a particle is you will know how fast its going"

That only works for objects you can easily observe, like an automobile. However when you try to measure objects so small that they are on the subatomic level, then that whole wave-particle duality thing kicks in. What happens is that the way some particles move (very very fast and very very sporadic), that the better you can guess its position, the less you know about its speed. They explain it better here and in this video:
http://www.britannica.com...

- 4 - "Imaginary time"

"Apart of quantum physics is imaginary numbers and imaginary time. None of these things exist in reaility because their imaginary. Nor have they shown they exist. Since this is true, QP doesn't discribe reality."

Imaginary time is the thing that made Steven Hawkings famous. In his own words (uttered from a computer) he (it) explained that: "It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed in the universe, but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?"

Basically, Imaginary time was something that was made to better understand the universe in a way that our conventional perception of time couldnt do, and the results that have been based off of imaginary time are supported by other laws of physics. Quantum physics uses something made up to describe something real, so it doesnt make quantum physics false....

Also, Quantum Physics doesnt focus only on imaginary time, a vast majority of the field is structured around things that do exist. Just because a part of it explores imaginary time (which has yielded real world results), it doesnt mean all of Quantum Physics revolves around imaginary things.

"In fact, the man who invented Imaginary Numbers was an ophthalmologist named Renes Descartes. He coined the term. And guess what. It was in a criticism of the idea. Orwell would have a field day."

Im gonna need a source for this because I found no evidence suggesting that Rene Descartes was the one who made it, or coined it, or why he invented it....

"Are physicists going to say we can all live off imaginary food and water? What has science come to?"

Just because you cant understand physics, it doesnt mean its false....

- 5 - Subatomic particles

"1) We can"t see them 2) They hold everything together. That sounds to me a lot like fairies."

Again... Just because you cant understand it, it doesnt mean its false....

"So the fairy creatures come in different races, so what?"

Dont make me say it a third time....

"Now I"m not one to doubt the existence of fairies"

Well of course not, youre a creationist... Im sure that fairies and other magical creatures that defy logic and reason are central to your beliefs....

"The subatomic world (actually Latin for "below the earth" " and where do fairies live exactly? yep.) is false as traditionally explained."

Nobody has traditionally explained anything here... All you was pick the most absurd definition of "subatomic" you could find and try to sell that like its the actual definition to disprove the entire theory.... Subatomic in this case refers to anything that is smaller then an atom, which includes protons, neutrons, and electrons..... And their existence has been proven time and time again.

==========================================================================

Pro's arguments revolve entirely around semantical wordplay to make some components of Quantum Physics seem stupid, and dismissing everything about Quantum Physics as false based on no actual evidence.... Quantum Physics can naturally come off as confusing to people, but it isnt false simply because its confusing.
Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Pro

1 contradiction

Oh wow con.just wow.He say just because quantum physics contradicts itself doesn't mean its wrong! Con clearly doesn't know what a contradiction is. There's many people who know QP and study it and come to different conclusions this is physicists! Not kids, kid. Your saving private Ryan analogy is fail. We can ask the creator what it means. And QP deals with how the world works not the meaning of a the world. You take two contradcitory meanings NOT how something works. Lol con!

- 2 - "Contradicts Reality"

LOL con ignores stuff again!!!!!!!!v!!!v!! You say QP is on math but it cant just be on paper it must be in the real world. It's not that its only a discription its how they say the world works

" Wave"particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave"particle_duality

It cant have both! They're both contradictory!

- 3 - "Uncertainty principle"

Facepalm. Its simple! Look if you know where a particle is you must know where its going because where a particle is can direct you to how fast! It doesn't matter how small!

4 - "Imaginary time"p

Oh so just because Stephen hawking said it, its true? No. SH acts like imaginary time exists and so does physicists. Same with imaginary numbers . It doesnt matter if quantum physics revolves around imaginary things it only matters if its apart of the theories.

" Rene Descartes came up with the standard form for complex numbers, which is a+bi. However, he didn"t like complex numbers either. He assumed that if they were involved, you couldn"t solve the problem. Lastly, he came up with the term "imaginary", although he meant it to be negative. Issac Newton agreed with Descartes, and Albert Girad even went as far as to call these, "solutions impossible"."

rossroessler.tripod.com/

I understand physics more than most on ddo. I've made physics majors cry!

- 5 - Subatomic particles

Con ignore everything here! Wow. He can't disbunk his preconceived notion of fictional subatomic particles. There is no evidence they exist!
imabench

Con

1) QP is itself Contradictory?

"He say just because quantum physics contradicts itself doesn't mean its wrong! Con clearly doesn't know what a contradiction is"

Thats not even close to what I said.... What I said was just because two different sets of people INTERPRET Quantum Physics differently, it doesnt mean it by default IS contradictory.... It just means that one side is wrong in their interpretation..... This argument was about how some people interpret Quantum physics to opposite sides.

Pro forfeits the argument....

2) QP contradicts reality

"You say QP is on math but it cant just be on paper it must be in the real world."

When I speak words.... Do you hear only dolphin sounds in your head or something? This argument was that some particles exhibit both particle-LIKE movement and Wave-LIKE movement at the same time....

"It cant have both! They're both contradictory!"

They can and they do:http://physics.about.com...

When you shine a light through a hole, the light goes straight past it in a straight line and exhibits particle like movement. But when the width of the hole is just small enough, light actually bends around the corners and begins to behave like it has wave properties...... Basically they both can exist at the same time because we have observed that they both can exist at the same time.... Unless you deny the existence of light Pro....

3) Uncertainty Principle

"Look if you know where a particle is you must know where its going because where a particle is can direct you to how fast! It doesn't matter how small!"

And thats what every other idiot in the history of idiots who thought they knew what they were talking about has thought too, but individual particles dont behave like large objects that we are accustomed to measuring the speed and position of simultaneously. Particles move in a very erratic way (meaning not in a straight line) and unbelievably fast as well, so we can only know a limited amount about their speed and their location. But we cannot know a good amount about both of them at the same time.

4) Imaginary time

"SH acts like imaginary time exists and so does physicists. Same with imaginary numbers"

They dont say it exists idiot, they just use it to accurately explain how the universe works because occasionally, time the way we interpret it as doesnt give us enough information or data, whereas imaginary time does, and has given us conclusions about the way the Universe works that doesnt contradict what more realistic concepts tell us would happen.

"He assumed that if they were involved, you couldn"t solve the problem"

Sadly he was wrong, because he, like pro, is ASSUMING EVERYTHING

"Issac Newton agreed with Descartes, and Albert Girad even went as far as to call these, "solutions impossible" "

But 100 years later they were proven wrong because again, they were only assuming.....
http://www.ualberta.ca...

"I understand physics more than most on ddo. I've made physics majors cry!"

You making physics majors cry is the one claim in your entire argument that is most likely to be true... But im sure everyone who has ever read one of your 'debates' can agree that you make physics majors cry because of your stupidity....

5) Subatomic particles

"There is no evidence they exist!"

But there kinda is.... And theres a lot of it too.....
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
http://education.jlab.org...
http://library.thinkquest.org...
http://dsc.discovery.com...
http://www.scienceclarified.com...
http://io9.com...
http://www.nsta.org...
http://www.pitt.edu...
http://education.jlab.org...
http://web.eecs.umich.edu...
http://gk12.rice.edu...
http://www.physicscentral.com...
http://www.chemistryconnections.com...
http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com...
http://scienceforkids.kidipede.com...
http://askascientist.co.uk...
http://howdoweknow.org...
http://www.colorado.edu...
http://www.oocities.org...

When you send in your concession, just leave it as 'vote con', mkay pro :)


Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Pro

Look here, I know quantum physics is false by the power of the holy spirit. I'll give a Bible proof.

In the gospels Jesus tuned water into wine. This contradicts quantum entanglement because of the action at a distence ratio. The bible is the final authority of everything, therefor quantum physics is false

1. QP is itself Contradictory?

OMG! Con go learn some qp! You clearly are ignorant in your own gas!!!!!!!!!! We know its different interpretations of th e same thing. STOP SWIMMING AROUND IN YOU'RE OWN FILTH OF IGNORANCE!

2) QP contradicts reality

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh I c! Con now says the light is a particle and a wave but last round he said it wasnt. What wrong with him.

In a sense light doesn't exist. God is all light. Light is him and us.

Physicists donald rankman said

"I must say, all evidence of light is flawed. We can't be sure of its existence, it could all be an illusion based on string theory ec=m^e. All evidence says light is null." 1

3) Uncertainty Principle
Con runs he fails. I win

4) Imaginary time

Why do physicists treat it as real! Live off imaginary water! And use this excuse to disprove it,! No imaginary numbers weren't proven right! IT WAS WRONG!

5) Subatomic particles

All that evidence is disproved by me. I'm banned from science journals becaus e the stupid physicists.

I win u lose I am boss

1. Rankman"s diary 2010
imabench

Con

"Look here, I know quantum physics is false by the power of the holy spirit. I'll give a Bible proof."

If I had to pick one place to show where this debate ended..... It would probably be right at that line....

Seriously, theres a reason why the Bible isnt an acceptable source for arguing about pure science, and its the same reason why you cant flush a Bible down a toilet..... Its because even toilets cant handle that amount of sh*t.

1) QP isnt itself contradictory

"We know its different interpretations of the same thing."

And we know that just because two people think QP in different manners it doesnt make QP contradictory. You have yet to acknowledge this argument so Ill just treat it as a forfeit....

2) QP doesnt contradict reality

"Con now says the light is a particle and a wave but last round he said it wasnt."

I didnt say last round that light wasnt a wave particle and a light particle... I said that it has qualities of both kinds of properties.....

"In a sense light doesn't exist. God is all light. Light is him and us."

You are actually a dumba** pro.... light does exist and its the reason why we have night and day, why you can see anything at all, and if you say light doesnt exist and that God is all light, then your almost saying that you dont think God exists..... Get it together pro.

"Physicists donald rankman said..."

There is no evidence of a physicist named Donald Rankman who denied light, in fact there isnt even any evidence that there is a physicist named Donald Rankman.... So im assuming wither Pro is struggling with the English language to a tremendous level or hes just making sh*t up now at this point.

Pro forfeits this argument too then....

3) "Uncertainty Principle"

Pro forfeits this too

4) "Imaginary Time"

"Why do physicists treat it as real"

They dont treat it as real dumbf*ck, they just use it when studying the Universe and its mysteries, successfully too.

"No imaginary numbers weren't proven right! IT WAS WRONG!"

Are you going to give actual non-biblical evidence to support your claim or is the caps lock button your number one argument at this point?

5) Existence of Subatomic particles

"I'm banned from science journals"

Sounds like progress to me.

Pro has now forfeited 4 of 5 arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Anti-atheist

Pro

7 point loss for con. He ignores the bible and my arguments.

He says donald rankman no exist. Does he not know how to use google. Rankman is a famed physicist. Con didnt prove quantum physics true.

He failed

vote 7 point me
imabench

Con

"He ignores the bible and my arguments."

I think calling your work 'arguments' is a bit abusive to the integrity of the word 'arguments'..... What you gave was more along the lines of 'retardedly unsubstantiated opinions'.....

"He says donald rankman no exist."

Y U no speak good english?

"Does he not know how to use google. Rankman is a famed physicist."


http://www.google.com...

^ Not even Google f*cking knows who Donald Rankman is.... I assume that he is just a figment of Pro's imagination....

"Con didnt prove quantum physics true."

We'll let voters decide that.

"He failed"

He forfeited all arguments.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Harassment only happens to victims B-i-t-c-h a-s-s crybaby

Now get up, I aint heard No bell :)

SAD 10:52--Theres more evidence that religion is a poison then there is evidence for gods :)

Intriguing 8:58--Skeleton eating Zombie Worms have an interesting sex strategy, you should look it up and see for yourself that its highly unlikely a slave supporting sexists especially concerned with who, when, where and why someone ejaculates has anything to do with anything :)

Buddies 9:17--The reason for zombie worms that have sex in whale bones, made an appearance in the middle east so we would know to obey or get a spanking. That was nice of god to let us know that :)
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
engage me in pitched intelletcial combat and ill show u how as gay ppl fvuck
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
devient.genie im sick of yor harrasment! Lets debate and let me destroy u
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
anti, Im Not concerned with your pole sliding, pole stroking, or pole sucking.

Pull all the semen you want from men, thats Not a problem

The insurmountable evidence of your ignorance is astounding :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
@somehuman

Pro is proof that religion makes people say and do stupid things :)

Seriously, a wasted pile of DNA is the best explanation for religious leaders in the 21st Century

A brainwashed pile of DNA are their followers.

Brainwashed is a diagnosis like cancer, its Not an insult, its an unfortunate condition :)
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
"2) Believes denying humans equal marriage rights is ok because the reason for gravity is homphobic"

I am gay you ignorant foomanchoo
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
Tl;dr devient
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
"The voter are to stupid to understand this"

Gullible Nation:

1) Believes all planets, stars and galaxies were created by a being that had a human sacrifice and resurrection in the middle east thousands of years ago.

2) Believes denying humans equal marriage rights is ok because the reason for gravity is homphobic

3) Believes that the reason for the sub atomic world of particles and DNA was all created by a being that knows how to keep slaves and told us how in his holy book :)

4) Believes that the reason for the earths rotation, helps Ray Lewis win Superbowl but still allows birth defects :)

Scatology in the bible? In psychology, a scatology is an obsession with excretion or excrement, or the study of such obsessions. In a sexual context, scatology refers to the romanticism of fecal matter, whether in passing admiration, the use of feces in various sexual acts, or simply the act of seeing it. Entire subcultures in sexuality are devoted to this fetish.

Look it up lazy "god did it" kids :)

Malachi 2:2-3

2 If you do not listen, and if you do not resolve to honor my name," says the Lord Almighty, "I will send a curse on you, and I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have already cursed them, because you have not resolved to honor me.

3 "Because of you I will rebuke your descendants; I will smear on your faces the dung from your festival sacrifices, and you will be carried off with it.

Your Love in Poop,

The Morality Master
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
wow, ima got his a$$ raped by me. I handed him his raped a$$, The voter are to stupid to understand this
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
TrueOrFalse 7:2--Theory and mathematical definition of the Butterfly Effect, prove the reason for everything will walk on water as a man, will experience torture and human sacrifice, then rise from the dead after 3 days :)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It's an obvious win for Con, who used sources and made convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: I'm actually tying this. S&G: Pro's grammar was atrocious. Arguments: Pro mainly argued through appeals to my incredulity, and religious arguments. Neither really flies in this kind of debate. Sources: One of pro's crucial sources /does not exist/.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Monstrous idiocy from PRO. No further explanation is required.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed no understanding of basic physics. Wave/particle duality and the uncertainty principle are established science, and they do not pose any contradictions. Con correctly cited the physics and correctly argued the resolution of Pro's claimed conflicts. Pro loses conduct for claiming "Donald Rankman" as a source, and then being unable to produce a valid link when challenged. Perhaps he had a wrong spelling or recollection, but if so, he had to figure out the mistake and correct, not provide a bogus link. In physics, the way something is proved false is to show the theory makes wrong predictions. Pro did not show a single case of a wrong prediction. He only claimed that he couldn't understand how the predictions were made.
Vote Placed by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro was extremely rude and his final argument was basically a concession. S&G: Pro doesn't seem to have a command of the English language. Sources: Pro used none, con used 25. Arguments: Pro was using absurd arguments and had no proof whatsoever. As a likely physicist, I abhor at pro's lack of understanding of science. This is a new low, even for YECs.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: +1 TheSaint's explanation. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, to commend of Pro's position. My favorite quote from the debate--"^ Not even Google f*cking knows who Donald Rankman is.... I assume that he is just a figment of Pro's imagination...."
Vote Placed by TheSaint 4 years ago
TheSaint
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro created a troll debate Grammar: Obviously con. Arguments: Hard to argue with science. Sources: Minute physics is awesome so that +1. Not to mention the fact that no sources whatsoever were utilized by con.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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: This is 1 of those rare occasions that warrant a full 7 point vote.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Anti-atheistimabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: If Pro was really an "avid sturdier" of QP, he'd know that his arguments were poor. But then, so was his S&G and conduct. Bench gets the sources, too. I can only hold out hope that Pro is a Poe.