The Instigator
mecap
Pro (for)
Winning
133 Points
The Contender
GodSands
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Resolved: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) confirm common ancestry (evidence for evolution)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,433 times Debate No: 6530
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (142)
Votes (20)

 

mecap

Pro

Resolution: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) confirm common ancestry (which is evidence for evolution).

Definition: "Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are retroviruses derived from ancient infections of germ cells in humans, mammals and other vertebrates; as such their proviruses are passed on to the next generation and now remain in the genome. Retroviruses are viruses that reverse-transcribe their RNA into DNA for integration into the host's genome."(1)

Proposition 1. Humans and Chimpanzees share 16 K-Class ERVs and the only way this could happen is if there is a common ancestor. Humans and chimpanzees share some 16 K-Class ERVs with chimpanzees, the probability that a virus infected a human and a chimpanzee in the EXACT same location 16 times in a row is "1 in 2 x 10^138...." This is the roughly equivalent to the "chance that you have of being struck by lightning after just winning the Power ball, Pick 3, and Pick 4 lotteries while simultaneously throwing snake-eyes at craps, being dealt a 2-card blackjack, winning on black 13 in roulette, AND being dealt a royal flush in poker with no draws, all THREE TIMES IN A ROW," you and your friend randomly picking the same "molecule [of water] from all the world's oceans", being involved in a plane crash "at precisely 9:00am, exactly 24 hours before a comet strikes the Earth killing all life as we know it." (2)

Proposition 2. 135 different vertebrates were sequenced for ERVs and the distribution of ERVs matches the hierarchical distribution expected if evolution is true (3). The 135 vertebrates sequenced include reptiles, birds and mammals (3). The fact that ERVs are inherited, they're shared between multiple species, and the improbability of a virus transcribing its RNA in the EXACT SAME location of the genome of different animals leads us to conclude that pretty much the only way multiple animals could have obtained those unique sequences in the DNA is if it shares a common ancestor.

Proposition 3. The existence of common ancestors for multiple species of animals confirms that macro-evolution occurs. Proposition 1 and 2 show that humans and chimpanzees must have shared a common ancestor, and 135 vertebrates which were sequenced for ERVs also show that they must have had a common ancestor, all of this matches the hierarchical distribution of life which would be expected by evolution.

I wish my opponent good luck, I hope you enjoy this debate, and thank you for accepting it!

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.mediafire.com...
(3) http://jvi.asm.org...
GodSands

Con

Again evolution versus creation debate. Who ever said that evolution even occurred? Scientist's maybe and then a flock are formed. A flock of rams. When will people learn that evolution just can not even take part in life? I say "Evolution go to sleep and never awake again!" It is not the fact that evolution is being kept awake because it is true or reality but because men keep it alive and awake. I would state that anytime in my life I will see no change when I should have seen many. But I simply do not. When really I should I just don't. What makes evolution happen, what inspires evolution to begin? What does life go to do with competition? The Devil love competition and God loves co-operation.
Evolution is packed with competition, and you may say "This is just what life is." But no it is not. Life is not violent as we are alive. Life is not cruel are we get along. What makes life like it is? Science is based and finds things which are true. Science was meant be God to be used not to not find Him but to find more about Him. Since this has not happened in the way God had originally planned. Science has trued a wrong turn and I clearly see that this wrong turn has posed evolution as a result. And others like the Big Bang.

If we we're to stop evolution today and forget about it forever. The world would only become better. We would understand that God exists and we would understand why sin is evil. As we would not act animal like? With sexual desires or violent, fights or thievery. So I believe. Evolution is not even science; it defines science in fact to a belief system. Were one observable view becomes a belief view. Where micro evolution (kinds with in a species.) To macro evolution (one species jumps to the next.) With no real evidence that is like me flinging a rubber band into one direction, while videoing then editing the rubber band when landed and changing it into a rubber tire. When really just because a rubber band and a tire are both made from the soot from a tree you suggest that they are the same. Nothing in the way of nature can stop a rubber band and a tire from changing in to one another with out there being a define change process. Both are circle I suppose.

Who decide on what fossils are what? Who can say this looks like this one so they must be related in some way. Which one is first? Which one evolved into which? Is it because one is larger and has larger bone fame? Or because they are further in the ground? Evolution can escape failing with ease. When I say this fossil is deeper than this one when they should not be. According to the creatures' age. Scientists would suggest there was softer ground or maybe this area was "flooded" And excuses like this are full up to the neck in evolution. As a reason why is always more likely then there being a completely different story, and from there escalation is born. Where one problem is found they include it with the entire planet, "There must have been a meteorite here about 65 million years ago." Because? So many dinosaurs have died at once. This simply is not the case at all. There is not evidence that the meteorite in Mexico wiped any dinosaur out. I think that the flood is perfectly reasonable rather than a meteorite. The chances and evidence are more on the floods side. (I will give link at the bottom.)

When you say evolution what do you mean? I mean that when I say evolution I think of 3.3 billion year evolution. But I have never seen that happen, so why? I recon you have to consider that a science teacher at school and your self is responsible. Why does evolution exist? Could be a question. Why do creatures evolve from one species to another?
I think that as humans are the only being with a conscience of time, and God made the universe for humans that time started when Adam was made. Yet Adam was around 30 but only seconds old. This alone could have set off the fact that people think earth/the universe is much older. As Adam new he was 30 not seconds old. This would have escalated in our DNA over a period of 6000 years, thus the flood adds to this effect. By think to wipe out all of those dinosaurs and other creatures must have taken millions of years. I suppose the meteorite only killed 10 dinosaurs then as in your case there should be trillions of bones and fossils of dinosaurs. When really the amount of fossils found matches the age of the earth. Not all just about the variation of fossils found. Yet God is too immense to say "God can not create only this much because my mind can not think up anymore." So time did not exist before humans so how do you link this with evolution if our "so called" ape relatives had no knowledge of time? One minute I do not know what time is then the next my knowledge of time is available? I can not see how this is at all possible. Can you?

Like leaves on a tree they are not attached together and yet you compare the evolution of creature to a tree, and they are neither attached. You say they are related but are they? Because they look the same. Lion and tiger are both cats. Snake and rat and totally different and I would not say they are related in any amount of time. You put them further away from each other on the tree to make it seem more realistic. It would not make a difference how far they were apart as they are not related. Now with a loin and tiger it would matter how close they were apart as we know they are related. But which is more cats like the lion or the tiger? How can you decide what animal before that evolved into o the lion or the tiger? And as you go further down the cat family you will realise they are all as cat like as each other in till you reach a none cat completely. What I am saying is that there is no in-between species, you can give me the Pika but that is a rabbit. There has never been a creature which has had effort in which a group of scientists have disgusts which type of species a certain creature belongs into. Link in comments.
Debate Round No. 1
mecap

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for taking on this debate...
I also want to point out that my opponent did not even address the resolution of my debate: ERVs confirm common ancestry. As a matter of fact, during my opponent's entire argument he did not mention ERVs even once! So all of my arguments on ERVs still stand and they carry over to this round. I'll summarize again:

1. Humans and Chimpanzees share 16 K-Class ERVs which indicates they had a common ancestor.
2. 135 different vertebrates were sequenced for ERVs and the results match the expected hierarchical distribution as predicted by the Theory of Evolution.
3. The evidence supports the idea that common ancestors existed, therefore macro-evolution happened.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please Note: I'm not obligated to address most of my opponent's propositions since they don't even address the topic at hand, but I'll address them for the sake of argument.

"Again evolution versus creation debate."
> I purposely placed this debate in the Science section, so not to make it an "evolution vs creation" debate.

"Who ever said that evolution even occurred?"
> Everybody that has done legitimate research on the topic confirms that Evolution has occurred. Project Steve (1) is a testimony to the enormous amount of accredited scientists that support evolution.

***"R. Joe Brandon initiated a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution in October 2005. During the four-day drive A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science gathered 7733 signatures of verifiable scientists. During the four days of the petition, A Scientific Support for Darwinism received signatures at a rate 697,000 percent higher than the Discovery Institute's petition, A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism."(1)

"What makes evolution happen, what inspires evolution to begin?"
> Life cannot exist without evolution, there is no known life form that is not subject to evolution- perhaps that's the long awaited Law of Evolution that creationists have been waiting for... the law would state something like: "Anything that alive is subject to Evolution"

"What does life go to do with competition?"
> Has my opponent ever watched the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet? Life is ALL about competition! Amongst people or amongst animals, competition is the foundation of life. Let's take human competition: people compete for a mate, they compete for an education, then for a job, then they compete for a husband/wife, those who seem best fit to support a family get to reproduce and pass on their genes.

"I would state that anytime in my life I will see no change when I should have seen many. But I simply do not. When really I should I just don't."
> That's appeal to ignorance... just because you don't understand how nature works, it doesn't mean that the scientific conclusions are incorrect.

"If we we're to stop evolution today and forget about it forever. The world would only become better. We would understand that God exists and we would understand why sin is evil. As we would not act animal like? With sexual desires or violent, fights or thievery. So I believe."
> There are MANY places in the world that Evolution is STILL not accepted and violence is rampant... but a quick look back in history would show us why you're wrong: Evolution has ONLY been around for about 150 years, before that most people in the world believed in God, yet violence occurred even more often. Since Evolution has been around, life has not become worse, as a matter of fact it has only become better! The life expectancy of people has gone up from about 30-40 years to 66.2 years (2).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, my opponent is YET to address the issue of Endogenous Retroviruses... therefore none of his arguments have ANY relevance to the evidence and resolution I presented.
Conclusion: Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) provide undeniable evidence for the existence of Common Ancestry.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
GodSands

Con

Ok I am sorry to spoil it, as in I do not know a lot on Endogenous Retroviruses. However I can say that I am quite obvious that people would come to think that DNA is similar in great apes than it is in us. This is so obvious when people are blinded from the existence from a powerful God this result is almost impossible to miss.

I see to reason to think evolution has happened. The best proof an evolutionist has is the fossil record, with out that then they are ruined. With no base to work off they can not take off. And the fact that Peter in the Bible said that the Golden Age would be long forgotten about as a prophecy came true. The seminar that a Great global flood happened would make such a result as from today. What can people expect when the Godden Age is forgotten about? The only solution is to think Earth must be 4 odd billion years old and that death has crept all over the Earth for at least 3.3 billion years. That would be the only other way to say that God does not exist. The meteorite (Mexico) may as well not even happen. But neither should have the flood in your thinking scheme.

We share many DNA with many creatures and plants; we share 50 - 60% of DNA with a banana. You would say we a related somewhere down the line (which does not even connect) that we are a distant relative of the banana. Correct? I hope you are aware that human beings are more able than apes. That DNA is so hard and so coded that no new information can crack its way in. Apes have a completely different mind set to ours. A dolphins brain is larger than ours. Yet they are intelligent for a creature what gives human beings that edge? It is the spirit with in us. This allows us as humans to have the knowledge of time. Have morals and to speak language. How did language evolve? No animal can speak and that is one reason why we are different to animals. No evolutionist has ever figured this out. All attempts to make a chimp speak have failed. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of the human language. Did we meteor under our breaths in till "Yes alright I can speak, sweeeet, Isn't this awesome, this is awesome." (Afterwards takes out a cigarette are lights it, in a Family Guy kind of fashion.) Sorry I will not fall for evolution.

The Bible tells us why we can speak many languages "as God had to "confuse" the common language being used in Babel after the flood, in order to force people to spread out around the world as He wanted." (Not from the Bible) This was only a slight modification in language speaking, as the same meanings are still used among different language and we can, with medium effort learn new languages. When a animal simply can not. Only a parrot. The record number of words spoken by a parrot is like 800. But no most can not even say one word.

How does a asexual creature for example worm evolve/ Why would a creature forget or abandon such a effective and easy way to reproduce? Now a creature needs to find a mate. This just does not make sense. Despite that you can just say "That is what evolution has done" Partly the reason why this topic is so difficult to destroy. Sex is very complex with in the body. Most animals breed and meet and a typical place or time. To understand how this and considering the existence of sperm and eggs is simply impossible. The associated machinery which must be used in sex, defies the imagination.

The oldest fossils found were fully formed for any creature and the complexity does not seem to change from today's creatures. The "Cambrian Explosion" which gave way for complexity of most major groups of animals "There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms." No I too have not heard of that. It just happened...Again.

There are no middle class fossils. It would only be an opinion to say which one is worse or which creature would win in a fight. When evolution should say "there are worse creatures than other creatures" No there is not. All animals have their own way of living. And in no amount of time will conclude there being a match of two different species. If you find a new species tomorrow it will only be a new find. Not a middle form otherwise you and your other team of evolutionists can be deciding which creature is worse or in the middle of this creature degustation. I simply have better thing to do my self. So what do you need to find? A creature half of one animal and half of another animal. Trust me I have thought hard over this. Let's say a dog. Would you say this dog is apart of a died out creature and therefore we are unable to suggest what it has formed/evolved from? No I say! I think that dogs may have came from wolfs. Evermore wolfs and dogs are quite alike and there is no other creature on the planet which says "Look there is a creature which is like a wolf/dog and like another mammal." (Small bear) We may not see the future but we can look into the past. And say no other creature has come from a dog or wolf. When you look the tree of life (evolutionary tree) you will see a rabbit then follow the branch up and look a wolf. The only thing we all have in common is that we are all alive and well. So they thought "We're just stick it on a tree and say we are all related because we all have blood." How about not. In the Bible it says the life is in the blood, yeah you know what I am saying.

This whole evolutionary tree is a scam. To make a tree like this to work would need to be so intensely detailed. That you eyes would make one animal merge into the next, having no gapes. As the branches do not actually link up the animals at all. They may as well not be there. This whole evolution thing is a joke. The only reason why evolutionists think evolution happens is because the amount of creatures there are.

And that is it. The only reason is based on Gods grand, genius. Incredible unimaginable and divers universe God has offered Earth. You choose you to say no to that!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
mecap

Pro

Yet again, my opponent has failed to address the topic at hand! My opponent CLEARLY stated that he doesn't know anything about ERVs, and the ONLY thing he can say about evolution is that HE doesn't think it's possible! His entire argument is an argument from ignorance.

*** AGAIN- My arguments from round one carries unaddressed, my opponent has not offered a single argument against my resolution ***

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to address some of the off-topic questions and comments that my opponent has for me.

"You would say we a related somewhere down the line (which does not even connect) that we are a distant relative of the banana. Correct?"
> Indeed, plants, fungi and animals are ALL in the Eukaryote domain, meaning that they're basically constructed of the same type of cells... Bacteria have their own domain, which is just as rich as the Eukaryote domain. DNA allows us to look at the genetic code from each cell and match it to the hierarchical distribution... this distribution indicates a gradual progression of life from simpler to more complex life forms and it DOES NOT match the model proposed by creationists: a single event of creation in which DISTINCT life forms just pop out of the mud when a Magical Sky Daddy sprinkles some magic on it!

"How does a asexual creature for example worm evolve?"
> It evolves by random mutations during reproduction... if reproduction occurs, then mutations can occur, if mutations occur, then beneficial mutations can accumulate... and so forth. Genetic programming (1) uses the same concepts as evolution, it works in "asexual" reproduction and with "sexual reproduction". We've been able to use the principles of evolution to invent new patentable ideas (2), we've used evolution to DESIGN things, a process nature uses to design living organisms. There have been 36 instances of human competitive results achieved by evolution of applications, 2 have been brand new, never before seen, patentable ideas!

"Why would a creature forget or abandon such a effective and easy way to reproduce?"
> Because sexual reproduction introduces more variety, and more variety donates faster evolution.

"The oldest fossils found were fully formed for any creature and the complexity does not seem to change from today's creatures."
> Of course they're fully formed, they're not going to have 1/2 an eye sticking out of their 1/4 eye socket... the complexity though is definitely not as high. But what we DO see is the gradual development of organs, simple eyes to complex eyes, simple reproductive systems to complex reproductive systems, crawling to limbs, swimming to walking (3)... it goes on and on.

"To understand how this and considering the existence of sperm and eggs is simply impossible."
> Argument from personal ignorance! My opponent cannot understand how sperms and eggs work, therefore he concludes that evolution is wrong! Absolutely ignorant!

"The best proof an evolutionist has is the fossil record, with out that then they are ruined."
> This is just a false statement; my opponent just fails to even recognize that the topic of this debate is ERVs, I find ERVs to be one of the best proofs for evolution, yet my opponent has completely failed to address it!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
My opponent has failed to provide an argument for the topic at hand, his signature is an argument from ignorance and his ignorance is abundant. Again, I stress that my opponent never even addressed the topic at hand, so please find judge based on the facts of this debate, not on your personal feelings; while I know that some of you may not agree with evolution, please consider the topic of this debate, determine if my opponent even addressed it and vote appropriately.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.genetic-programming.com...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
GodSands

Con

The very words you speak are impossible to know if they are true. You say we are related to a banana, but you do not know that. This may sound a bit iffy but it is also true. I can simply say "were you there?" By saying no would make your claim unstable just like that. By saying long words you expect to win over votes because the ignorant voters fall for long complex words. Were the true actually comes in simple form. There are different types of bananas but which animal is closes to being a banana? That you can not say.

"It evolves by random mutations during reproduction" The only random mutation during sex is disease. There is no such thing as a good disease. The word disease means lack of ease. And would this mutation be a disease when only a few are mutations? The only positive mutation is where you are immune. And you can still carry the disease. This whole random mutation is not possible you body would need to suffer first before and that leads to death. I also said that asexual reproduction was before sexual reproduction so where is the catch. Is not asexual reproduction more efficient? All mammals are sexual. Where is the mammal which is asexual?

"Because sexual reproduction introduces more variety, and more variety donates faster evolution."
Would this not make the world harder if there is more variation roaming the world? You evolutionists say evolution the way you think is right.

"Of course they're fully formed, they're not going to have 1/2 an eye sticking out of their 1/4 eye socket..." No I meant when the animal was alive. All fossils where fully formed to their species, when a new kind is found they know what species it belongs into straight away. Once back at the lab. When will be a day where a new species will be found and still that what relations would it have? Apart from "say" fur and warm blood?

"To understand how this and considering the existence of sperm and eggs is simply impossible."
I am aware how sperm and eggs are made, but to understand how it all evolved, well that is a mystery. And how can a mutation be so accurate? Why do we not have mutations today like that? Come on I know it takes millions of years but as humans there just be one. Never heard of one. It's a myth from my knowledge.

The best proof an evolutionist has is the fossil record, with out that then they are ruined."
Yeah with no fossils there would be no proof or any "proof". Seriously what the heck would you work off? Living creatures?

Oh boy. Looks like somebody hasn't been as convincing as they should have been. If you taught chemistry to me I would be convincing, I'm just not. Evolution is a belief system.

I am, in all my time reading debates on evolution, listening, watching and learning about evolution have not found a piece of evidence which says to me evolution is reality. Therefore I can not say evolution is science. Simple as. There is always an answer for both sides of the debates I choose creation. Well sometimes there is an answer. "Evolution" I can proudly say you have let me down.

You did not refer to my argument on time started when Adam was made by God and thus no point in evolution. Evolution would be a wild guess into the unknown as it is. You are saying time has been where it has not. Only to have another stab at where we came from but God. Why can I not see evolution, why has evolution not showed it self to me like it has to you? Can you see where I am comming from?

Reference:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com...
Debate Round No. 3
142 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
Ooooh, look at that now... it looks like GodSands lost all his fake votes! WOW what a surprise!

Thank you Debate.org for cleaning up the site!
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
This is an obvious case of vote bombing. GodSands is probably creating fake profiles. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that Debate.org will do anything about it.
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
Re: Roy
"That is consistent with fake vote bombing."
> I can't really say that this is the case, but it sure smells like it! :)

"However, possibly there are a lot of incredibly ideological new members on the site."
> All of those incredibly ideological new members on the site just happen to go and vote ONLY on GodSands' debates to put him over the top on 8 out of his 14 debates :). Even in the cases where GodSands debates other creationists, those same new ideological voters are STILL rooting for him! We have to love commitment :), but it also tells us what kind of people we're dealing with here...

Completely illogical and utterly stupid!
OR
Cheaters, out to score a win regardless of how ridiculous their argument is (GodSands).
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
I don't think that stupidity -- actually it wouldn't be stupidity, it would be ideological commitment-- can explain it. First, it seems that none of the Con voters is willing to explain their vote relative to what went on the debate. Usually, even an ideologue will be willing to provide some rationalization for what he is doing. Although, I suppose, if there is not even a thread of logic, as is this case, then that may be excluded on grounds of it being just too embarrassing. Second, in the voter breakout, note the large number of of Con voters in the 25-35 age group. That doesn't seem to match any other religious topic on the site, where we see lots of under 25 voters. Beyond that, most of the *Pro* voters identified themselves as "Conservative" whereas most of the Con voters were "Not saying." That is consistent with fake vote bombing. However, possibly there are a lot of incredibly ideological new members on the site.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
The obvious conclusion is that there are far more stupid people than GodSands out there...
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
Amazing voters! LOL :) Con NEVER addressed ERVs in an ERV debate, and he's winning :) LOL HAHAHA
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Since Con paid no attention to the topic of the debate and provided no counterarguments, I cannot understand how he got a single vote. The only explanation I can think of is that voters were really voting on "Resolved: It is possible that evidence contrary to my religious beliefs might exist." That would lead to voting Con without reading the debate. Did anyone vote Con based upon the debate? Or think the topic was addressed by Con? Do tell.
Posted by oasisfleeting 8 years ago
oasisfleeting
pope jon paul said evolution can no longer be considered a theory. If the pope admits to evolution there shouldn't even be a debate. Not to mention it's obvious that humans did not come from sand and rocks with a little magic god dust.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Too true!
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
All Christians have to do is show up to get votes.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
mecapGodSandsTied
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 Liverhawk25 6 years ago
Liverhawk25
mecapGodSandsTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
mecapGodSandsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
mecapGodSandsTied
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 zach12 8 years ago
zach12
mecapGodSandsTied
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 Metz 8 years ago
Metz
mecapGodSandsTied
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 sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
mecapGodSandsTied
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 bigg3r_trigg3r 8 years ago
bigg3r_trigg3r
mecapGodSandsTied
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 SixSigma 8 years ago
SixSigma
mecapGodSandsTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
mecapGodSandsTied
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