The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
Logical-Master
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points

Resolved: If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
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: 1/30/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,904 times Debate No: 2321
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (52)
Votes (23)

 

Yraelz

Pro

I, of course, am in favor of such a resolution. I believe the tree actually does make a sound whether animals are there to perceive it or not. Will you stand in opposition!?

Feel free to offer definitions, chances are I will change them if I don't agree. =)

DEBATE!
Logical-Master

Con

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for extending this debate challenge to myself. I ask that you (the audience) vote on behalf of who provided the better arguments rather than what constitutes as your personal opinion. With that said, let us proceed.

This opening round will be very brief. I would like you (the audience) to observe the claim being made in affirming the resolution: "If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound." Ladies and gentleman, there is quite an ENORMOUS hidden assumption being made in this claim. That assumption is this: That existence is as we perceive it to be; my opponent is advocating that reality exist as we perceive it to be. Well since that is the case, I challenge him to prove it. As the pro, it is his job to present conclusive evidence that reality is as we perceives it to be; that we aren't merely dreaming, that we aren't merely ideas of something greater, that what we know to be "true" is all a ruse (The Matrix), etc. With this being known, he cannot even authoritatively state that the concept of sound exist (which is yet again an assumption in his resolution).

Due to my schedule, I have other things to attend to right now, but I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Thank you for accepting Logical, always a pleasure to debate with you.

I suppose I will quote you and attack specific points and then create a conclusion.

"Ladies and gentleman, there is quite an ENORMOUS hidden assumption being made in this claim. That assumption is this: That existence is as we perceive it to be; my opponent is advocating that reality exist as we perceive it to be."

>>Am I? And even if I am, does it matter that I am arguing reality is a we perceive it to be? In the perceptual reality of humans the tree falls in the forest and makes a sound. I am not the one assuming things here, it would be you assuming that I am arguing existence as we perceive it and it is by this point that you will lose.

"Well since that is the case, I challenge him to prove it."

>>To prove that reality exists as we perceive it to? First off, this would be your assumption so I challenge you to prove that it doesn't. Secondly your argument moots the point of debate. If we cannot debate a topic from human perception what perception can we then debate a topic from?

"As the pro, it is his job to present conclusive evidence that reality is as we perceives it to be; that we aren't merely dreaming, that we aren't merely ideas of something greater, that what we know to be "true" is all a ruse (The Matrix), etc."

>>Once again your argument moots the point of all debate. And also once again this is your point is it not? If you cannot provide conclusive evidence and neither than I then we are going to be forced to consider this point a wash. Have anything for me?

"With this being known, he cannot even authoritatively state that the concept of sound exist (which is yet again an assumption in his resolution)."

>>This is where you are wrong. My resolution makes no assumption that sound exists what-so-ever. You are the one pulling the assumption that sound even exists. But sound as we know it does exist and thats what matters. We are debating this entire resolution from a human perspective. This entire site is from a human perspective. The entire world as you, I, and every other person knows it is from a human perspective. Thus we have to evaluate this resolution from a human perspective, up until the point where you can prove to me that the world is not as we see it. At which point I will lay down my debating skills a bow to you as a god.

Conclusion: In our world, as we know it, sound occurs. Sound is, simply put, on a scientific level a transfer of energy. As we know it mass and energy cannot be destroyed thus the energy occurring through the falling of the tree that produces sound can be tracked for an eternity ideally.

My opponent brings up such ideas as us being in the Matrix. However his allusions to Plato's Cave serve no purpose in this debate as from either point of view I will win this round. Here are the two scenario's outlined.

Scenario 1: Human perspective, the one which we evaluate everything from. Yes sound obviously exists under this perspective.

Scenario 2: Plato's cave, the Matrix etc.... First off we have the inherent flaw, being we can't ever actually know. Secondly however even if everything that is happening is utterly fake it still must be caused by something. Lets go with the Matrix example. In the Matrix example a computer hits a button to cause a tree to fall which makes us perceive a sound (which is actually a couple computer programs running). This only serves to re-define sound, not to discredit its existence. Instead of sound being a transfer of energy it would now be defined as a couple computer programs. Definitions change as people become more knowledgeable about the world. If ever we find out that we are truly living in the Matrix then our definitions for "sound" and numerous other things will change.

Example of when definitions have changed:

The sun started as a god, became with time a random body that orbited our earth. Then we figured out it was actually our earth orbiting it, thus it became the center of the solar system. Then we decided it was a large mass of hydrogen, helium and oxygen, and only one of many stars. Finding out that we lived in the Matrix would change the Sun's definition yet again. It would not somehow destroy the suns existence though. Thus the sun exists in either scenario as does sound.

Your turn =)
Logical-Master

Con

My opponent states that my exploitation of his topic's assumption doesn't matter. This is false. Reality being as we perceive it to be is an assumption made in most topics. However, like all assumptions, there is nothing to support it with. Usually, overlooking the common human assumption (that reality is as we know it to be) is socially acceptable within these debates, but since this topic concerns an occurrence of nature which is believed as being scientific "fact", I figured that one of the best counters against such a resolution would be to question it's so-called "factuality." So if he intends to argue that a sound is produced in a forest when a tree falls, he is obligated to prove that sound and trees are more than delusions or ideas and that they actually exist beyond our human perspective..

He claims that I would be assuming that he is arguing existence as we perceive it to be. This is no assumption. The fact of the matter is that his knowledge is based on the existence which he perceives to exist, thus, it is the only "existence" which he is referring to.

My opponent reiterates that I am the one making the assumption. This is incorrect. He clearly dictated that my assumption would be what position he is arguing from. I've shown that he is arguing from the position that reality exist as we perceive it, so his challenge suffers in that it is shifting the burden of proof. Besides, I'll clarify this in the following part of my rebuttal.

Yraelz: [If we cannot debate a topic from human perception what perception can we then debate a topic from? ]

The above statement is my opponent's downfall as he has just conceded that human perception is the only perception at which a topic can be debated on. This negates his above claim that I'm merely assuming what position he is arguing from. As for my argument mooting the point of debate, this is hardly the case. Debate has many purposes. The primary purposes involve finding the truth and persuading an audience. Often times, audience persuasion is being pulled off through means of deception. One example of deception would be what I had exposed in round 1: The assumption that existence is as we perceive it to be. As I've noted earlier, that assumption is consistently overlooked in debates as well as life in general. At any rate, whether or not this truly negates the purpose of debate, this observation which I've insinuated has negated his argument and that's all that is relevant for the purposes of this debate. Therefore, his claim that it moots the purpose of debate is an example of red herring as it in no way refutes the fact that the resolution is assuming that human perception is correct.

My opponent reiterates that I moot the point of debate and that I am the one who has to provide conclusive evidence. I believe that holding to the fact that my opponent is shifting the burden of proof will suffice here (as I've noted above). And again, the "mooting debate part" is an example of red herring.

My opponent suggest that sound "as we know it" exist. People classified with certain mental disorders claim the existence of many things due to what they think they are seeing or hearing. There are many cases where individuals come to believe that their dreams are real while unknowingly dreaming. Surely my opponent doesn't intend to claim that just because we believe our senses are able to detect something, that this something MUST exist as we perceive it? If so, it would be his burden to prove that his mind is not leading him to delusion as it does many others. With that variable being taken into account, it is impossible for him to conclude what we "know" (as in what we have conclusive evidence for). Thus, I can only conclude that my opponent defines know as "what we believe and perceive."

As for suggesting that we are debating this resolution from a human perspective, this line was not presented in the resolution and he presented no clarification of it being defined that way in round 1. The statement "In terms of what humans believe, if a tree falls in a forest and animals aren't around to hear it, it produces a sound" is not equivalent to stating "If a tree falls in a forest and animals aren't around to hear it, it produces a sound." One statement concedes to not having conclusive evidence whereas the other does not.

In response to my opponent's conclusion, he is arguing from a position which the pro doesn't allow (as I've clarified above). Through stating "In our world AS WE KNOW IT", he is conceding to the con as he is acknowledging that he has no conclusive evidence to suggest that existence IS as we know it. Therefore, this alone is legitimate grounds to vote against his case. With this said, I am not obligated to address his two scenarios, but for the sake of pacifying, I will anyway.

Re Scenario 1: Due to the last three terms, this does not link with the resolution as it is a concession. Furthermore, merely adding in "from this perspective" to justify his arguments is erroneous not just for the reasons I've already listed. For instance, through the addition of those terms, I can get away with the following statement: According to my perspective, flying monkeys exist 100 billion light years away from earth. To disprove that statement, one would have to prove that this isn't my true perspective; the center of attention on such an ordeal would be what constitutes as my perspective rather than the flying monkeys existing 100 billion light years away.

Re Scenario 2: My opponent yet again resorts to the fallacy of red herring. There being a cause for all that is happening has nothing to do with whether or not sound/trees/etc truly exist. As for his matrix example, it suffers from one gaping flaw: Inside the matrix, the trees ,the sounds, and the animals are not trees, sounds, and animals. As he unfortunately (for his case) points out, they are computer programs. To suggest that they are only re-defining sound is misleading. Rather, they are being substituted by their realistic counterparts. In the film, sound occurs both in the real world AND inside the matrix, so it therefore cannot be defined as being a computer program Substitution is not the equivalent to redefining.

For instance, lets say I have a dream about big foot and Bugs Bunny sucker punching me while I'm rollerblading along Saturn's rings. When I wake up and find out that I have been dreaming, do I henceforth "redefine" big foot, bugs bunny, and rollerblading along Saturn's rings as a chemical process within my brain? Of course not. I come to the conclusion that they were substituted instead. By my opponent's logic, we can come to the conclusion that Big Foot, bugs bunny, and the concept of rollerblading along Saturn's rings exist.

My opponent's sun analogy is an example of false analogy. In the matrix film, the process of sound is given a counterpart (computer programs that manipulate the human brain into believing that sound is occurring) whereas the sun never really served as a counterpart (according to our perspective of course), hence the reason my opponent can advocate that it is being redefined. However, if we relate the sun to the sun inside the matrix, it is henceforth not being redefined by the evil artificial intelligence computers, but is rather being substituted with computer programs for the purpose of deluding humans.

I believe I have given sufficient grounds for you (the audience) to vote against my opponent's case and now await his final rebuttal.

Your move. =D
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Awesome, okay i'll start this round my conceding a point to you.

I am indeed debating this round from a human perspective, as I am a human and have no other perspective to which I can debate this claim from.

With that out of the way let us continue with the human perspective debate.

So my first point is thus. My opponent is the one who has brought this point into the debate. Like he mentioned most debates never incorporate this point within them because like he says most debates automatically assume that the world is how we see it. Or that reality does indeed exist. So for starters I am going to expand on why this moots the point of debate.

1st and foremost my opponent could attack every single resolution EVER this way, let me pull up the list of the 10 voting period debates right now and show you. I will list each of the 10 topics and what my opponents hypothetical response to each could be under his logic.

1. "Intelligent Design is not a Science" Does science even exist as we know it?

2. "Pop Tarts > Toaster Strudel" Do Pop tarts even exist?

3. "Affirmative action is right and necessary" Does affirmative action exist?

4. "Environmental sustainability and the Economy" Does the environment exist?

5. "Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul should drop out for America's sake" Can my opponent prove to me that America is actually real?

6. "A woman cannot be president" Is this world even real?

7. "Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions." Does our reality even exist? Perhaps we are in the matrix?

8. "We should to war with Iran" Can you prove this world + Iran exist?

9. "Should the U.S. Government Substantially Increase its help to Sub-Sahran Africa" Can't prove the world exists? Thats to bad, guess we have to vote Con.

10. "I know that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not the church found in the Bible." You can't prove any of that, I win.

As we can see this defeats the purpose of all of the debates. While my opponent does ask a very thought provoking question it should be its own debate. If my opponent did not want to come here and debate whether a tree falling in forest makes sound or not but rather if reality actually exists as we know it he should have declined my offer and created his own debate.

It is a thought provoking question, but we should consider it its own debate, as it does not actually refute my resolution, which is from a human perspective. As my opponent stated:

Logical-Master: "my opponent is advocating that reality exist as we perceive it to be. "

Which brings me to my second point on this matter. That being, my opponent redefines my resolution by saying that it is from a human perspective (an underlying assumption), which I have conceded to and then argues that we do not exist. However even if we do not exist, if everything is made up, the resolution is still from a human perspective. So to humans the tree, its sound (notice my opponent never contradicted my argument about how the tree makes sound in round 2) and the forest all exist.

Which brings me to my third point. Even if you as a voter want to believe my opponent and discard the last two point I made; keep in mind that while I cannot prove that we exist as we see our existence neither can my opponent. Thus it once against moots the point of debate. We can debate our existence for all eternity but never come up with the answer. There will always be the possibility that we do not exist. What we, and you as voters need to keep in mind at this point, is that my opponent cannot prove we and the world as we see it does not exist. Therefor for the sake of debate, it is essential that we assume that the world and us do exist. If we did not make this assumption here is how real life would proceed:

Bob: Hey Jill, how are you?
Jill: Not bad, want to go get some ice cream?
Bob: Does ice cream even exist? Do we exist?

Actually they probably wouldn't even get to that point. For at the point that Bob spotted Jill in the first place he would probably ask himself if she really existed. Without this assumption we destroy the ability to make any decisions at all. Politicians would sit around the world contemplating whether or not we exist so that they could make decisions.

At this point i'm going to pretend that whether we exist or not is pertinent to this debate and show how, even if we don't exist as we think we do my resolution still works.

Lets take a look at the resolution:

"Resolved: If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound."

So let us consider the words in this resolution for a minute. The words here are not words. Words themselves do not exist in the real world, they are simply categorizing agents that man has created to define and communicate thoughts. Trees, forests, animals, sounds are all thoughts. Thoughts can be re-defined renamed etc, but they still describe the same thing.

For instance if we translate my resolution into Spanish, just because the words are all different it doesn't mean that suddenly the resolution has changed or describes something new.

From here I go back to the Matrix analogy. My opponent describes the hypothetical in which perhaps we are living inside the matrix thus sound does not really exist. However I once again find myself arguing that the concept, the idea behind the word (which is what we are debating, as debating words would be meaningless) would still remain even if we found out we lived in the matrix.

Sound now as I described above is the transfer of energy upon the impact of two objects. Should we suddenly find ourselves to be in the matrix sound would instead become a computer program. My opponent correctly argues that this would a substitution of real world sound HOWEVER sound as known in the matrix still exists. We may re-word "sound" as perhaps "matrix-sound" and we may re-define "matrix-sound" as a series of computer programs. But the idea still exists.

For an example of what I mean, with my resolution in mind. My resolution is:

"Resolved: If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound."

so at some point should we find out that we are living the in matrix my resolution would be redefined along with every word:

"Resolved: If a matrix-tree falls in the matrix-forest and no matrix-animal is there to hear it, it does make a matrix-sound.

so now you may ask, "Why would the words all change?" Simply because we are still debating the ideas behind the words. When I make this resolution, supposing that we are in the matrix and I have no way of knowing this, then my resolution refers to all of these objects within the matrix. As these objects, if we take their true definitions under the matrix, would all be defined as a computer program. Therefor should we live in the matrix or any other such concept, my resolution deals with the matrix.

Next onto my opponents dream concept. He speaks of bigfoot and bugs bunny punching him in a dream while roller blading on Saturn's rings and then asks if he should redefine bigsfoot, bugs bunny, and Saturn. My answer... First you need to realize that these are all ideas as defined by the chemical process in your brain. Then as not to confuse these ideas with the similar ideas you know outside of your dream you may want to re-word them as dream versions. However once again the ideas still stand and can be referenced if need be. Thats what words are, reference points. The ideas, even if dreams, are still ideas.

Having said all of the above I would still like my opponent to prove in his rebuttal that existence is not as we perceive it. Otherwise he has no argument.
Logical-Master

Con

My opponent against insist that I was the one to bring this point into this debate, but this is false dichotomy. As I've explained earlier (note: my explanation has not been rebutted to this round), his case automatically makes the assumption that the human perspective is correct; that existence IS as we perceive it to be. Therefore, the burden of proof belongs to him. Thus, I do not need to provide conclusive evidence to the contrary.

As for mooting the point of debate, my opponent has provided no rebuttal to my response concerning this in the previous round. You are therefore warranted to extend the point I previously made. And just for clarification, my point was that there are many purposes for debate and that my even if my case did moot all of those purposes, that it would in no way fulfill my opponent's job (which is to disprove my case) (thus my accusation of red herring).

My opponent attempts to better establish his point by listing a laundry list of debates where my case could effectively be used to attain victory. First, one could very well prevent my case from even being used by establishing that the debate will be worked under the assumption that existence is very well as we perceive it (keep in mind that I had insinuated this in the previous round when I had pointed out an alternate version of this resolution). Second, my opponent suggest that no valid arguments can be provided to counter my stance, but this is false as debates concerning Objective/Subjective reality have been running strong for centuries. Although there are arguments that can be used to discredit my stance, I will not provide them as that is my opponent's job. There is also the fact that my opponent himself doesn't actually support this notion as he goes to provide arguments that actually attempt to negate this stance below.

My opponent again insists that my exploitation of his assumption doesn't actually refute his stance, but as he long as he cannot meet my criteria (which is to provide conclusive evidence that his perspective is true), it effectively negates his stance.

My opponent commits the strawman fallacy by claiming that I am arguing that we do not exist. If you (the audience) reread the debate, you'll notice that there isn't one instance where I suggest or support this notion; just because I advocate that there is no conclusive evidence for the human perspective being correct, it does not mean that I am advocating that we (as well as what we observe) don't exist. For clarification purposes, I'm upholding the stance that our perspective being correct is possible. As one might conclude, concluding that something is definite and concluding that something is possible are two different conclusions.

My opponent then insists that whether or not trees don't exist, that they do exist when it comes to humans, but I've already exploited the falsity of this argument. According to my opponent's logic, the images presented in hallucinations and dreams can be argued to exist. This is in spite of the fact that we humans uphold that such images aren't actually a part of reality.

My opponent suggested that I never contradicted that trees make a sound, but this is false as this falls under my argument of him having to conclusively prove that trees and sound actually exist in the first place.

My opponent again attempts to shift the burden of proof through claiming that I have not provided evidence that we do not exist, but as I've already suggested, there has not been one point of this debate where I've insinuated that we don't exist. As I've clarified above, I support the notion that our perception of reality being correct is possible. That said, the primary concern here is whether or not my opponent provides evidence since he was the one to initiate the claim.

My opponent then claims that we will never be able to prove our perception to be correct, but this is yet another claim which he provides no evidence for; this is baseless conjecture. Furthermore, we humans only grow more and more knowledgeable throughout the centuries. We've gone from being ignorant of the earth's spherical shape to having an exceptional understanding of the earth's origin. So far, it would seem that our capacity for knowledge is limitless. Nevertheless, this is just more of my opponent's attempt to shift the burden of proof onto my case.

About my opponent's analogy, it is an interesting analogy, but it is just another analogy that commits the fallacy of false analogy. Bob and Jill have no reason to care about whether or not ice cream exists or whether or not they exist. Not only that, but just because they couldn't prove their perceptions, it doesn't mean they would have to sit around and debate about the matter rather than enjoying their lives. Here on this website? Our purpose is to debate. As I've pointed out earlier, the primary functions of this sport is to find the truth and/or convince an audience of our positions. Since my opponent has provided no reason for Bob or Jill to be obligated to fulfilling the above debate criteria, this analogy is therefore a false analogy.

About Politicians, their only real obligations are to persuade/aid their audience. They typically do this through means of deception, as finding the truth is hardly a necessary goal for them.

My opponent changes his argument by insisting that the concept (or idea) behind the word sound still exist. As V says in V for Vendetta, ideas are bullet proof. This is a powerful statement as ideas truly are impervious and exist without question. As fascinating as it is, there are one main problem with my opponent's new advocacy.

Problem: My opponent overlooks the fact that all ideas must be taken into account. For instance, there are some who have the idea that a tree falling in a forest won't produce a sound if no animals are around to hear it. Basically, one idea is just as good as another. It's how these ideas are utilized that unbalances them.

My opponent concedes to my point that matrix sound is merely a substitution of actual sound, but still urges that sound as known in the matrix still exist. My opponent has made a grave error in conceding as my argument directly contradicts his. Sound "as known in the matrix" is not sound as it does not uphold my opponents definition of sound; my opponent suggest that sound requires the impact of two objects, but no objects are colliding inside the matrix since every action only occurs within the human minds. What makes use of the matrix so detrimental to my opponent's case is that all of it is admittedly a DECEPTIVE (or in other words, admittedly false) ploy by the machines. Not only that, but as I had insinuated with my dream analogy, one can argue that things exist merely through witnessing these things, even if they occur in an admittedly false reality.

My opponent resorts to some trickery by stating that we are debating the idea behind the words, thus his position is completely justified. Although the first part is true, that is not all we are debating. Ideas need weight in order to lose their equivalency to other ideas. This weight is something classified as evidence. In this case, the evidence my opponent needs is the evidence that suggest the actions in his resolution to actually be occurring. So the question comes back to "What conclusive evidence is there to support my opponent's ideas?"

Concerning the dream analogy, his main point is that the ideas presented within my dreams still stand, but this does not address my point; whether or they these ideas occurred is besides the point. The question is: Do they uphold the standards of the real world merely because I have perceived and understood them?

Closing statements: My opponent has provided no conclusive evidence for his ideas, thus gives you no real reason to support them. Without the proper evidence, ideas cannot properly distinguish themselves from any other ideas. Thus, vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
52 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
Also, if they get soo mad at to why people havent read and still choose, then why make thier arguements so long. And at least 88% of all people are too buisy to read a novel on someones oppinion
Posted by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
It goes to show, einstine is dead and you haven't read the history books. poser
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
And it goes to show you STILL didn't read the arguments.
Posted by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
No it doesn't as it clearly shows shows in the topic of debate "Resolved: If a tree falls in the forest and no animal is there to hear it, it does make a sound." Being that a camera is not animal, nor person, it cannot defeat it's purpose. Since that's how technical Logical Master can get. It goes to show you, you both did not state if cameras can be used or not.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Wow.... dude your an @ss. Its a philosophical question, the meaning behind it is the question of whether the world can exist without subjectivity. Having the camcorder defeats the purpose of the question, it allows subjectivity. Sorry logical =/
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
... Like he said, you obviously didn't read his arguments.
Posted by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
What are you talkin about, your like in every debate. Maybe your setting yourself up. and it does make a noise, just as your computer is real. it has to no mater what, its physics
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
LOL! Eyeleapy, your way of voting against me without even bothering to read the debate is hilarious! :D
Posted by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
If you ever took physics, i can asure you it does make a noise. get a cam corder and you'll see what i mean, that like asking if gravity works. It'll always be the same regardless if anyone was present or not.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Yeah... sorry buddy, but the point regarding the burden of proof and the direct contradiction of your topic still weighed in heavily without the addition of my pet-peeves.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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 jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
YraelzLogical-MasterTied
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:30