The Instigator
RedEye
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
TheRaven
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Resolved: Co2 Theory is false.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,429 times Debate No: 4398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (69)
Votes (12)

 

RedEye

Pro

Resolved: Co2 Theory is false.

Definitions:

Co2 Theory: Greenhouse Effect
False: Not real

Case:

I. Temperature Record

One central problem for those who promote the idea of man made global warming is the earth's temperature record – on almost all time scales.

In the last decade, there has been no clear warming trend (as the UK Met Office and IPCC's own figures demonstrate). In the last century, much of the warming occurred prior to 1940, when human emissions of CO2 were relatively small compared to today. During the post-war economic boom (when one would have expected the temperature to rise) the world cooled, from the 1940s till the mid-70s (again, this is evident from accepted data used by the IPCC).

But it's important to look back further in time 1,000 years. The climate record which used to be accepted as the standard account of this period was published in the first IPCC report. But this account posed a problem. A thousand years ago there was time a warm period – apparently warmer than today (known to climatologists as the Medieval Warm Period). This was followed by a relatively cold period (known as the Little Ice Age), from which, over the past two to three hundred years, seem to have made a slow, welcome recovery.

This was all rather undermined the idea that current temperatures were either unusual or alarming.

In subsequent IPCC reports the original graph was replaced by another – the famous ‘Hockey Stick' (so-called because it looks like one). The Hockey Stick was a lot more dramatic, and was featured proudly on the top of the front page of the new IPCC reports. But was it true? The Hockey Stick debate is very telling, and we urge readers to review the links below.

Further back in time, still within our current ‘interglacial period, we find more warm spells – notably what geologists call the ‘Holocene Maximum' when, for a few thousand years, the earth was significantly warmer than we find it today.

Over longer time periods of course, the earth has been far, far hotter than it is today (with tropical forests covering much of the earth) and also far, far colder, with much of the earth buried under miles of ice. The Earth's climate has always changed, and changed without any help from us.

But there is another problem, a very major problem, for those who promote the idea of CO2-led global warming. According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth's atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007).

II. CO2 & Temperature

The ice-core data is frequently cited as principal evidence to argue that CO2 is the earth's main climate driver. It is, in a way, the jewel in the crown of the theory of man made global warming. But the ice-core data does not show that CO2 drives climate. It shows, very clearly, that variations in temperature precede rises in atmospheric CO2 – not the other way round. The two phenomena are divided by a time lag of several hundred years.

There is no evidence that CO2 has ever ‘driven' the climate in the past, nor is there any compelling evidence that it is doing so now.

According to global warming theory, if an enhanced greenhouse effect (from increased levels of CO2 or indeed any other greenhouse gas) is responsible for warming the earth, then the rate of temperature rise should be greatest in that part of the earth's atmosphere known as the troposphere, specifically in the tropics. And yet the observations, from weather balloons and satellites have consistently shown that not to be the case. I urge readers to look at the Christy et al papers below. The latest one was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research (2007). This may seem like a rather technical issue, but it strikes at the very heart of the theory of man made global warming.

*I ask the debate community decide on facts/evidence and the actual debate rather then personal preference.

Sources:

IMPORTANT: Letter from 4 leading scientists to the IPCC: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com...
TheRaven

Con

Resolved: The CO2 theory is false.
Definitions:

CO2 theory- the theory that states Co2(Carbon dioxide) causes a warming effect on the earth.
False- contrary to fact or truth.

Case:

1) The CO2 theory has adequate scientific evidence and reason behind it and therefore should be looked to as fact.

Experiments conducted by the US government and many independent scientists, such as George Simpson and Richard Lindzen have shown that CO2 absorbs radiation, which is basically heat.

a) The unique way the Earth works is that the sun's heat enters the atmosphere, travels down and hits the surface. Then, most of the radiation is reflected back into space. However, while is it reflected, it goes though several layers of the atmosphere, and at each layer some of the heat being reflected back is absorbed into the atmosphere and either remains in that layer, or is radiated back to the surface of the Earth. If more CO2 is added into the atmosphere, then more heat is absorbed per layer, and less energy is radiated back into space.

Now every argument that is against the CO2 theory does not attack this, they are only used to attack other factors concerning the CO2 theory. If this empirical evidence cannot be refuted, then there is no clear disproving of the CO2 theory, and therefore we should look to the negative for this debate.

b) 250 million years ago, there was a huge extinction of many species of animals, plants, and life. Known as the "great dying". Recent evidence found by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)shows that the global temperature increased by about 10 degrees at that time,which would interrupt life processes and cause this "great dying". They have also found that the CO2 levels around that time had increased dramatically, probably due to an increase in volcanic activity.

"Refute"

In response to my opponents first contention, I would first like to say that IT DOES NOT DISPROVE THE CO2 THEORY. It simply states that there have been some periods of warming and cooling in the past that were not caused by an increase in the level of CO2, and could be caused by another factor.

Secondly I would like to point out that my opponent seems to be leaning toward an argument trying to disprove man-made global warming, whereas here we are debating the CO2 theory.

As a third response I would like to offer a graph, shown in a link below that depicts the warming and cooling trends for the past 1200 years, presented by the NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). This graph shows that the temperature for the past 1200 years has been highest in the 20th and 21st century, where CO2 levels have risen greatly due to man's emissions.

For my opponents second contention, I would like to reiterate that he is not directly disproving the CO2 theory. He is merely stating that there are times when the temperature has fluctuated, not being caused by CO2 levels.

Also, the ice core samples are not the main factor of the CO2 theory, the evidence that CO2 absorbs heat is. I also ask my opponent to provide more detail on his statements about tropospheric temperatures. Where does the CO2 theory state that the troposphere should have higher temperatures? The heat being absorbed into the atmosphere, as I have stated, is absorbed and distributed among the layers. Although the troposphere is the warmest layer, it does not necessarily have to have the greatest rise in temperature.

Please review the graph on the link below to see trends for the past 1200 years.
I agree with my opponent, please don't base your decision on personal preference.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
RedEye

Pro

Ok, first off a resolve clarification for its only the 2nd round. The Co2 Theory implies man-made greenhouse effects, not natural.

Moving on.

"1) The CO2 theory has adequate scientific evidence and reason behind it and therefore should be looked to as fact.

Experiments conducted by the US government and many independent scientists, such as George Simpson and Richard Lindzen have shown that CO2 absorbs radiation, which is basically heat."

My opponent has missed one big point of this experiment. The experiment was only done on a small scale. Lindzen even said himself it can't be applied totally to the Co2 Theory in that his evidence does not apply to a size of that of Earth.

"a) The unique way the Earth works is that the sun's heat enters the atmosphere, travels down and hits the surface. Then, most of the radiation is reflected back into space. However, while is it reflected, it goes though several layers of the atmosphere, and at each layer some of the heat being reflected back is absorbed into the atmosphere and either remains in that layer, or is radiated back to the surface of the Earth. If more CO2 is added into the atmosphere, then more heat is absorbed per layer, and less energy is radiated back into space."

This is not proven, as I pointed out in Lindez's arguments. If it were actually true then why is it that time-periods in the earth's temperature record have been hotter with less Co2 admission.

"Now every argument that is against the CO2 theory does not attack this, they are only used to attack other factors concerning the CO2 theory. If this empirical evidence cannot be refuted, then there is no clear disproving of the CO2 theory, and therefore we should look to the negative for this debate."

My opponent is making an A Priori without any truth to it. The arguments I have posed are in direct correlation to what my opponent is saying. My opponent says that I need empirical evidence. Look at my case, I've already provided it.

"b) 250 million years ago, there was a huge extinction of many species of animals, plants, and life. Known as the "great dying". Recent evidence found by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)shows that the global temperature increased by about 10 degrees at that time,which would interrupt life processes and cause this "great dying". They have also found that the CO2 levels around that time had increased dramatically, probably due to an increase in volcanic activity."

This only affirms my side. The process is NATURAL, NOT MAN-MADE.

"In response to my opponents first contention, I would first like to say that IT DOES NOT DISPROVE THE CO2 THEORY. It simply states that there have been some periods of warming and cooling in the past that were not caused by an increase in the level of CO2, and could be caused by another factor."

My Response: Exactly, looking at empirical evidence, time-periods have been hotter then they are now. Human Co2 is therefore NOT DOING IT.

"Secondly I would like to point out that my opponent seems to be leaning toward an argument trying to disprove man-made global warming, whereas here we are debating the CO2 theory."

My Response: Thats the point of this debate. Is the Co2 theory real or not. the Co2 Theory is the theory that man-made Co2 has disrupted a balance and therefore responsible for Global Warming.

"As a third response I would like to offer a graph, shown in a link below that depicts the warming and cooling trends for the past 1200 years, presented by the NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). This graph shows that the temperature for the past 1200 years has been highest in the 20th and 21st century, where CO2 levels have risen greatly due to man's emissions."

Lol ok, then I'll provide the medieval warm period (Time with no man-made Co2 Emissions and its the hottest time in the past 1000 years.)

http://www.trendlines.ca...

Also, the Holocene Period, the hottest in the past 10,000 years was not hot because of human-Co2 emissions. Its because of a natural cause.

You can affirm right here on the fact my opponent has not explained how the hottest times in history have absolutely no human Co2 emissions. He then says its "other factors" i.e. natural reasons. Not enough scientific evidence has come out proving that human Co2 has caused global warming. The scale leans towards the pro.
TheRaven

Con

I would like to first respond to my opponents "clarification." of that the CO2 theory implies man-made emissions.

The CO2 theory does NOT imply man-made emissions.

The CO2 theory is a subset of the Greenhouse Effect, which states that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb heat and thus warm the earth.
NOWHERE does it imply man-made emissions. Things other then man emit CO2, and the CO2 theory pertains to all of them. Also, the idea originated in the 19th century and work began in the early 20th century- which as my opponent has pointed out, was BEFORE man-made emissions became a controversial issue. If my opponent would like to debate current man-made global warming, I would be happy to do so, but this resolve specifically states "CO2 theory", and therefore I ask you to disregard all comments made about man-made emissions.

Moving on to my opponents rebuttal.

"My opponent has missed one big point of this experiment. The experiment was only done on a small scale. Lindzen even said himself it can't be applied totally to the Co2 Theory in that his evidence does not apply to a size of that of Earth."

While Lindzen may not have agreed with his evidence, other experiments have been done on larger scales that prove CO2 absorbs heat, and computer models of atoms of CO2 show it can absorb heat. In fact, a study done just this year by a team of Russian and French scientists have shown that CO2 does absorb heat.
http://www.greencarcongress.com...

For point a)(the way heat is retained by CO2)my opponent said: "This is not proven, as I pointed out in Lindzen's arguments. If it were actually true then why is it that time-periods in the earth's temperature record have been hotter with less Co2 admission."

Ok once again, Lidzen didn't agree with his data, but many other scientists such as Michael Chrysos have proven this.
Also,in response to my opponents question- my opponent seems to think that the CO2 theory states that the earth's temperature is only influenced by CO2 levels. This is not true, and by saying that there were other times when the temperature was hotter with less CO2 is merely saying that the earth was heated for another reason. Other things affect the climate as well.

For my point b)(the great dying and CO2) my opponent said "This only affirms my side. The process is NATURAL, NOT MAN-MADE."

Once again my opponent is misstating theories to support his argument. The CO2 theory DOES NOT IMPLY MAN-MADE EMISSIONS. We are debating the CO2 theory, not the theory of man-made global warming!
Even if you don't want to believe this (although it is true)then levels of CO2 fluctuate throughout time naturally. That would account for that heating period. Humans are putting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere at this time, thus causing the same effect that happened then, although on a larger scale.

Moving on to my opponents defense:

"My Response: Exactly, looking at empirical evidence, time-periods have been hotter then they are now. Human Co2 is therefore NOT DOING IT."

Ok here we are again at this idea that the CO2 theory has man-made emissions in it. It does not, that is the theory of Man-Made Global Warming, which we are not debating.
I also refer you to my previous statement of how CO2 is not the sole factor controlling the environment and that a number of other factors could have caused the heating.

"Lol ok, then I'll provide the medieval warm period (Time with no man-made Co2 Emissions and its the hottest time in the past 1000 years.)"

My opponent and I seem to have contradicting graphs here, because the graph I provided clearly shows that the late 20th and 21st centuries are the hottest periods the earth has seen for the past 1200 years. I would like to ask my opponent to provide some information on this " www.trendlines.ca" though, in order to compare accuracy.
The graph I provide is at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov... on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) website

"Also, the Holocene Period, the hottest in the past 10,000 years was not hot because of human-Co2 emissions. Its because of a natural cause."

I would like to offer a clarification here. The Holocene Period does not refer to a period within the past 10,000 years, it refers TO the past 10,000 years. Once again, my opponent tries to attack my case by confusing the CO2 theory. Also, the hottest period within the Holocene Period, as can be found on the graph I provided, is the late 20th-21st centuries.

Also my opponent dropped all attacks I made on his second contention,"The ice-core data is frequently cited as principal evidence to argue that CO2 is the earth's main climate driver," therefore acknowledging he made faulty assumptions in his case.

You can negate right here and now because nearly my opponents entire case is based on a false assumption- that the CO2 theory revolves around man-made emissions. As I have shown, it does not, that is the Man-Made Global Warming theory. The bulk of my opponents' arguments are non-resolutional.
Therefore, my opponent has yet to disprove the evidence I have provided, as he as only offered one scientists opinion against it. He has based his entire case on faulty assumptions, i.e. CO2 is the only factor in the climate. It is not, and any account of the temperature rising in the past not caused by CO2 does not disprove the CO2 theory, but rather shows a time when the climate was altered by another factor.

There has been absolutely no scientific evidence offered by my opponent to disprove the CO2 theory. Because of this, and the evidence I have provided to prove that CO2 does indeed absorb heat, the scale falls completely on the negative.

*I would like to add, if my opponent would like to debate me on Man-Made Global Warming, I would be happy to do so after this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
RedEye

Pro

Ok, my opponent never proves the Co2 Theory True, first of all. However, Co2 theory implies man-made. The only reason we are having this debate is to debate the fact that human Co2 emissions have caused global warming.

But, either way my opponent has failed on both terms:

1)Even if we aren't debating human emission of Co2, my opponent has still failed to negate the resolution.

A)He brings up first the argument from Libnez, which after my rebuttal has agreed that the experiment was only done on a small scale. He then brings up the Russian experiment. However ill give you the study and I'll explain how it doesn't help my opponent.

"the new study improves the study of greenhouse warming in several ways: (1) It allows us to calculate exactly how much of the IR photon energy (intercepted by a CO2 molecule during a CO2-CO2 collision) is transferred directly to the neighboring gas molecule, where it is converted to kinetic energy of translation; it's about half of the IR photon energy. The other half of the IR photon energy goes to rotation of the two molecules, which will then start spinning more quickly. (2) It shows how to introduce higher-order effects, such as the simultaneous collision of three molecules. On Venus such collisions should add significantly to IR absorption. (3) It provides evidence that inter-molecular interactions at close range separations (interactions acting when the colliding molecules approach to within a few angstroms) have no effect on absorption, a conclusion in conflict with the mainstream belief that short range interactions should play a substantial role in collision induced molecular absorption."

According to the site, it only improves the study. The study doesn't prove that HEAT is absorbes, it only proves that light can be transferred from molecule to molecule. And again, it was only done on a small scale.

B) He never brings ANY scientific or empirical evidence to prove the heating effect. He uses INDIRECT studies to infer that heat is absorbed, but it hasn't been proven outright yet.

You can drop my opponent's arguments. For this reason I win the blank Co2 Theory debate.

Now, I'll explain why my opponent can't win the man-mad Co2 theory either.

A) In his previous round, he already said that natural processes make global warming.

B) He never proves that human Co2 is causing the heating.

C) The Temperature record disproves human Co2 creation of global warming.
===============================================================================

Voting Issues:

1) The temperature record goes against the man-made Co2 Theory.
2) My opponent, nor any other study has proved man-made Co2 Theory true.
3) Even if you buy my opponent's only Co2 general theory argument, he still loses on the fact that its not proved that heat is trapped.
4) My opponent has essentially affirmed the resolution on the fact that in his previous rounds, he has agreed the natural process in the Co2/global warming debate.
===============================================================================

IMPORTANT READ

Letter to the IPCC: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com...
TheRaven

Con

Ok first off the CO2 theory does not imply man-made emissions, just that CO2 is involved with heating the planet. I have given reasons for this correct statement, while my opponent has only offered his statement alone. He refers to the theory of man-made global warming, and if that was the point of this debate, he should have included it in the resolve.

1) My opponent fails to disprove the theory, as he fails to disprove the data that proves it. In response to the experiment done by Libnez, Simpson, and many other US government scientists, my opponent only offers Libnez's opinion.

In response to the experiment done in Russia, my opponent states that "The study doesn't prove that HEAT is absorbes, it only proves that light can be transferred from molecule to molecule."
My opponent has misunderstood what heat is. Radiation, which includes light, is heat, and therefore LIGHT IS HEAT! The study clearly shows that CO2 absorbs IR(infrared radiation) which is heat.

Also even though the experiments were done on a smaller scale than nature, almost every experiment is done on a smaller scale than nature, this does not make them invalid.

My opponent also says that I do not provide evidence, but "infer" from experiments. This another untrue statement, I have not "inferred" anything. The experiments I provided were meant to prove the CO2 theory, which they did.

2) My opponent has dropped ALL the attacks I made on his case. He must disprove the CO2 theory, and the only evidence he provides against me is a scientists opinion and a misunderstood statement about heat. He has not provided a single standing point against it!

I realize that some people may wish for this to be about man-made global warming, so I'll show why my opponent's logic is flawed here too.

1) I have proven that CO2 does absorb heat, thus keeping in the Earth and heating the Earth.
2) CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past naturally, brought about by things such as an increase in volcanic activity. In present times, man is releasing massive amounts of CO2, and there have been no natural causes for the heating.
3) The temperature record merely shows times when the temperature has changed for reasons other than CO2. It is not the only thing that affects the climate!

**Also, my opponents 3rd voting issue is also false. By absorbing heat, CO2 keeps it in the atmosphere and also radiates heat to the ground.(My very 1st point)

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

Voting Issues:

1) My opponent has failed to prove that CO2 does not absorb and retain heat.
2) The temperature record, and every other argument offered by my opponent does not stand.
3) My opponent continues to use the non-resolutional theory of man-made global warming, although he fails to prove that as well.
Debate Round No. 3
69 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
unfortunately, as much as i would love to continue debating this. I'm going to start my job as a camp conseler tomorrow, and will be unable to continue this debate. i may be able to pop in and make a short comment or two, but nothing compared with what I've been able to previously.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Wow, that was a quick banning and/or self-closing of the account.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
i was just looking through my old posts, and i noticed a typo. GHG account for ~.1 percent of the atmosphere, not ~1 percent.
just to make sure all the math is right ill repost the correct numbers (it may be right, but I've posted these alot on all 3 debates and want to make sure its accurate.)
ghg's make up ~.1% of the atmosphere, and CO2 is ~.04. it used to be ~.03, but in the last 20 years we've increased it 33.33% to ~.o4. this increase has also increased ghg levels by 10%.
i know it doesn't sound like much, but ghgs kept our planet at its expletive comfortable temperature when only making up ~.1 % of the atmosphere, so any increase is significant.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
Will do. It's been fun. ooooooooooo
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
well, if your going to continue your points:
that humanity isn't causing it.
other factors are effecting it
or that the effects would be marginal
that CO2 inst the cause
ect.
i would appreciate it if you would at least go to the grits site i posted. the pentagon one if you have time.
the videos take a while to watch, but also cover all of your points in a way thats impossible on a comment section. and in more detail then i can here. so it would be a good idea to eventually watch those.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I think you've confused my not reading your links during this discussion with having not studied global warming at all. My apologies. I'm just exploring your logic here, so no scientific references were needed to question you.
Posted by SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
hands, I'm gonna be frank with you here.

global warming is the most important issue of our time. so if your going to learn about anything it should be that.

I've been reasonable throughout my debate with you on this. I've provided a multitude of evidence, and explained it here. I've addressed your concerns, but you still aren't convinced, why? because you haven't bothered to learn about the issue, or even look at the evidence I've provided. I've taken the time to look at yours, and i expected someone who i thought cared about this issue to do the same.

guess i was wrong.

if you dont bother to educate yourself on the issues, then your never going to change. you'll just go by whatever your preconceived notion says. thats no way to go through life sir.

i also find it a huge insult that you would stand here, and say that global climate change is a hoax, and science isnt behind at, when you haven't even bothered to check

i thought you were better then that. good day

I SAID good day.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
Good debate RedEye.
Hey, what? Where are you planning on going RedEye?
Posted by RedEye 8 years ago
RedEye
Good debate Raven. Have a good summer.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
RedEyeTheRavenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Luddite40 8 years ago
Luddite40
RedEyeTheRavenTied
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 magpie 8 years ago
magpie
RedEyeTheRavenTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
RedEyeTheRavenTied
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 SweetBags 8 years ago
SweetBags
RedEyeTheRavenTied
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 liberty 8 years ago
liberty
RedEyeTheRavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
RedEyeTheRavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 sciencemaster 8 years ago
sciencemaster
RedEyeTheRavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Dorian 8 years ago
Dorian
RedEyeTheRavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
RedEyeTheRavenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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