The Instigator
FrozenLichBox
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PericIes
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Science definitively proves Creationism to be factual

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
PericIes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 78799
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

FrozenLichBox

Pro

Science clearly proves that Creationism is, in fact, very real. To prove my argument, I will make four points (out of many possibilities, for the sake of expidency):

1. The argument that "nature" has the power to create life is ludicrous. My evidence for this argument is derived from logic (the science of reason): If pure chance can create life, than why can't humans? We are an intelligent race which can synthesise chemicals and clone animals, so why can't we produce the protiens necessary to create life?

2. Hypothetically, if point 1 was somehow invalid, and if life WAS created by pure chance, than why do we have such a diversity of life on Earth? Furthermore, why do symbiotes exist? Why do we just happen to consume oxygen to remain alive, and why do plants just happen to consume carbon dioxide, and in turn produce oxygen? How can two mutually dependant species "evolve" at the same time, just in time to save one another from extinction?

3. How can Evolutionists explain the presence of such irreducibly complex organs as the eye? How can a light-sensitive organ so astronomically complex organ "evolve" out of single-cell life forms?

4. Why do humans have emotions such as anger and compassion? Anger blinds us to reason, and this is counter to survival. Compassion (true compassion, by the way) is utterly selfless, thus also counter to survival. By the same note, why do we feel better when we donate resources to charity? It can't bring us any survival benefit (in fact, we're losing resources, so it actively harms our survival), so why does it exist?


Note: If you want to argue with me, I'd rather you provide good, logical responses instead of slinging mud (an Issue I often deal with).
PericIes

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for posting this debate and for giving me the opportunity to partake in it.

Firstly, I think that this is quite obvious, but I'd like to point it out in order to avoid future confusion: Burden of proof rests squarely on my opponent's shoulders, as they are making the claims. Furthermore, they are claiming a few things here, rather than just one. 1- Creationism is definitely factual. 2- Science definitely can and does prove something to be factual. 3- Science definitely proves Creationism to be factual (as per the title). I only need to show that there is insufficient evidence to assume any number of these claims as fact beyond a reasonable doubt, even though, if I wish, I could go on to argue further. That is my prerogative in this instance.

I will address my opponent's points systematically.

1- " The argument that 'nature' has the power to create life is ludicrous." Nature creates life on a regular basis. Nature is full of life, and living organisms reproduce, so I don't see how nature can't create life. I have a feeling that you may be referring to inorganic nature, but in case you weren't, I addressed the statement from this angle as well. Since you tie this to the idea that humans can't synthesize the components needed for life, I will address that tie directly.

You say that humans have not synthesized and cannot synthesize the compounds necessary for life. This is untrue. Stanley Miller, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago, synthesized amino acids, a vital component for life and the second-most prevalent materials in the human body (after water), by simulating in a laboratory setting the conditions and substances likely to have been found on Earth at the time that terrestrial life was believed to have begun. (1) Amino acids exist in the forms of proteins and other substances.

2- "... why do we have such a diversity of life on Earth?" The diversity exists because of evolution. I see no argument against evolution in this instance, and so I see no need to provide further explanation here.

"Why do we just happen to consume oxygen to remain alive..." We don't just happen to. Oxygen, as I understand it, is corrosive in nature. It is needed to break down glucose that it may be turned into substances that the body can use. A by product of this is carbon dioxide, which we breathe out. Also, I really don't see how the breathing of oxygen validates creationism in any way. Is there something divine associated with oxygen? You'll have to specify why oxygen in particular is associated with the alleged factual nature of creationism.

"...why do plants just happen to consume carbon dioxide, and in turn produce oxygen?" Insert the same type of rebuttal as the oxygen one immediately above.

"Furthermore, why do symbiotes exist?... How can two mutually dependant species "evolve" at the same time, just in time to save one another from extinction?" Symbiotes don't necessarily save each other from extinction. I'll answer this point as well as the question regarding how they evolved with an example:

There is a small bird that eats insects off of the backs of either rhinos or hippos. I forget which (it might have been both), so I'll just say rhinos for the purpose of this example. Many birds eat insects. At some point, an insect-eating bird noticed that a rhino had insects on its back, and so, naturally wanting to eat the insects, landed on the back of the rhinoceros and began eating the insects off of its back. The back of a rhinoceros is a good place for the bird to find insects (particularly mosquitoes and ticks), and is a relatively safe spot as well, as the rhino will likely frighten off some potential predators. The rhino also benefits, because it is now less likely to get insect-caused diseases. The birds that adopted this habit thrived because of how nutritionally lucrative and how relatively safe it was, and their descendants adopted this trait as well, eventually forming a group of birds that found a niche and did this almost exclusively. Likewise, the rhinos that did not throw off the birds benefited and out-reproduced those that did throw off the birds, because they were far less likely to die from disease. That is how one symbiosis likely happened. Now, addressing your statement on extinction, rhinos and these birds probably wouldn't have gone extinct had they not found this partnership. Or at least, not for that reason. Both were likely doing fine prior to it. It's just that they're doing even better now.

3- "How can Evolutionists explain the presence of such irreducibly complex organs as the eye?" That's actually a tough one, and there are a number of theories on it. Darwin actually thought that the original "eye" may have been a simple optic nerve capable of sensing photons in some form. As the ability to "see" became a greater and greater advantage, the capacity to "see" became of greater and greater magnitude. Regardless of how the eye came into being, though, we can see its evolution from basic light-sensors to more complex eyes such as our own. Amoebas, which are single cell particles, actually have very primitive eyes, or "eyespots."


4- "Why do humans have emotions such as anger and compassion? Anger blinds us to reason, and this is counter to survival. Compassion (true compassion, by the way) is utterly selfless, thus also counter to survival."

Anger gives us the will and strength to try to take what's our when we feel that we're being treated unfairly. In a primitive world without laws, this was key to survival. Push-over cavemen could not survive in such a hard world.

Compassion is less about individual survival and more about group survival. As far as the species is concerned, Spock was right when he said that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

"By the same note, why do we feel better when we donate resources to charity? It can't bring us any survival benefit (in fact, we're losing resources, so it actively harms our survival), so why does it exist?" See what I said regarding compassion.


There are a few more things that I'd like to point out here.

As always, my arguments here may or may not be indicative of my beliefs. Aside from that I believe in evolution, I choose to keep those private.

Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Catholic Church officially blessed the concept of evolution decades ago.

You seem to be arguing more against the validity of evolution than for the validity of creationism. You provided plenty of arguments as to why evolution was isn't correct but provided none as to why creationism in specific is. There are plenty of non-evolution alternatives to life on Earth.

Also, which creationism are you talking about? Judeo-Christian? Hindu? etc.

Sources:

1- http://www.pbs.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
FrozenLichBox

Pro

While I am aware that the burden of proof rests solely on my shoulders, I will say that, as I mentioned in the comments, the point of my thesis hadn't correctly come across. I had assumed that it was stipulated that Science in of itself is truly capable of proving much of anything with 100% certianity, thus "definitively" proving Creationism would mean showing that the bulk of current scientific evidence supports Creationism over the alternative. In the same vein, it is a fact that the world was either created by a supernatural force, or it wasn't. This is a simple argument, the answer of which can only have one outcome, one being true, the other false. As there is no truly direct way of proving that a supernatural force exists (you can't physically measure God), the goal of my arguments must be to show that the bulk of evidence suggests that Macroevolution is false, only allowing for, and proving, that a supernatural force created our world.

Now that we have that out of the way, I shall rebut your points as you did mine, in the same order:

1. "Nature creates life on a regular basis" The definition of "nature" in this context has not been stipulated yet. I used it to mean an unguided force which Evolutionists believe created life, or random chance. If you observe the entirety of the Stanley Miller experiment, you will find that while he did, in fact, produce many of the raw materials needed to sustain life, he also failed to produce several key amino acids, and also produced many chemicals which inhibit the beginning of life. Afterwards, many people attempted many experiments designed to create the aformentioned key acids, to no avail. So, I pose the question again (this time a bit more clearly): How can random chance create something we humans, an intelligent and capable force, are incapable of?

I have not adressed one rather important part of this point, that humans can "create" life through procreation. This is not really a valid argument, as it is not chance so much as mechanisms of the body that "create" more life.

2. The sheer diversity of the life on Earth is, I don't believe, possible through natural selection alone, but as I have no statistical evidence to support this idea, it remains only an opinion and thus pointless to argue over, so I'll drop it.

Adressing your second point, what I meant by "...just happen to consume oxygen/carbon dioxide and produce the other..." was how did we adapt, through sheer chance, the ability to sustain ourselves through, among other forms of sustenance, consuming oxygen and in turn producing carbon dioxide? How can an entire species suddenly develop such a complicated ability?

As for symbiotes, I was specifically referring to two seperate species mutually dependent on one another for survival. I don't think that birds ridding hippos of insects is essential for survival. A good example of what I'm talking about is termites and the (seperate) bacteria that reside within them, that allow them to digest cellulose. This is a clear example of two species who are mutually dependent on one another for survival (not merely convenence); termites benefit greatly from the ability to burrow through wood, and the bacteria are ensured a supply of sustenance. How could these two seperate life forms simply "evolve" with individual inefficiencies, in the same relative location, at the exact same time, solely for the purpose of saving one another from extinction?

3. Interesting rebuttal, I've never actually heard of more simple light-sensing organs. Although, how a simple organ that can merely detect photons can slowly develop into a human eye, which has a lense with an alterable shape to alter the focus point, 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones, and can do both in less than a billionth of a second is beyond me.

One more thing I feel I must adress on this particular area, is, supposing that something as complex as the eye could come into being through Evolution, how can you explain the peculiar human brain? The human brain hardly resembles the brain of any other living creature, as it's vastly more complex. Supposing that humans Evolved into their current state, why aren't there other creatures with similar attributes? If developing a large, complex brain capable of conciousness provides such a huge survival advantage (which, in fact, it does), then where are all of the other intelligent races developing similar advantages? Why are humas so unique in this area? We're clearly the dominant species of this planet, so where are the competitors?

4. If "group survival" as you put it, is so ingrained in our psychology, than donating resources to less capable people still doesn't make sense. Take, for example, a disabled veteran. Why would we share our resources with this person? It couldn't possibly aid any "group survival", as such a person would (depending on the extent of their disability) be an overall drain on a community, not contributing anything meaningful in the way of survival, while simltaniously draining resources. Yet we still provide them with resources, and feel good doing so. How does this stem from Evolution? It's totally inimical to survival.

Before I close up my argument, I'd also like to adress a few things:

First off, there is a major difference between evolution and Evolution (micro- and macro- respectively). "evolution", otherwise known as adaptation/gene variablity is an irrefutible fact. This word covers things such as eye/skin color, and the beak differences of finches that Darwin was so fond of. Macro-Evolution, on the other hand, is a theory, which by it's nature is controversial and subject to change. The reason I bring this up is because it's extremely important to clarify which you're using, due to the confusion and misunderstanding it may cause.

Your argument that Religion and Evolution (macro-, I assume you mean) are not mutually exclusive. This, taken at face value, can be true. "Religion" is a very broad topic, and if you wanted, you could religiously believe in Darwinian Evolution (something I find many do). If, by "Religion" you meant Theism, that's where we start having issues. Deism, the belief that a supernatural force created the universe, but then left it to develop itself based on the laws that that force set in motion is consistent with Darwinian Evolution. However, this runs counter to all Monotheistic Religions (I don't know much about specific Polytheistic Religions, but I'm fairly certain that they're incapable of accepting Deism as well), due to the fact that we Christians believe that God (the supernatural force that created the universe) plays an active role in our world. If the Catholic Church has accepted Darwinian Evolution as consistent with their beliefs, they've clearly abandoned Biblical truths.

Last of all, to answer your question, in this specific debate the particular Deity to which I'm referring is irrelevant, I'm only making the claim that science supports a supernatural force over an unguided one created our universe. The reason for this is purely for simplicity, as the particular kind of creation has nothing to add to the overall argument, and it would significantly complicate things, unnecessarily. If you wish to debate the specifics of Creationism, I'd be glad to do so in the future.


PericIes

Con

I will again address my opponent's points systematically.

Preamble- "In the same vein, it is a fact that the world was either created by a supernatural force, or it wasn't. This is a simple argument, the answer of which can only have one outcome, one being true, the other false. As there is no truly direct way of proving that a supernatural force exists (you can't physically measure God), the goal of my arguments must be to show that the bulk of evidence suggests that Macroevolution is false, only allowing for, and proving, that a supernatural force created our world."

What I read was "If I prove that the world was created by a higher power, then I have also somehow proved that evolution is false." It's possible that I misread that, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's what I got. But yeah, there is such a theory as theistic evolution, so proving that the world was created by a higher power does not disprove evolution. In fact, the Catholic Church blessed the concept of evolution a few decades ago.

Also, you seem to be looking at this very black and white, as if there were only two possible ways that life could have reached the point that it is at now. There are far more than two. First of all, there are different theories of evolution. (1) Darwinian is definitely the most prominent, but there are others. Then, there are different theories of creation, and they vary so widely that you'd have to specify which one that you were talking about if you wanted to effectively argue for it. Then, you have miscellaneous theories/stories, such as that of Scientology, which posits that human life was created when an alien overlord named Xenu dropped hydrogen bombs on billions of emigrants that left his planet and went to Earth to live near volcanoes (no joke, look it up). So, merely "disproving" any given type of evolution will not automatically prove whichever form of creationism you are arguing for (which seems to be Christian creationism, and, I remind you, it is the official position of the Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, that macro-evolution is real).

1- "I used it to mean an unguided force which Evolutionists believe created life..." Not all evolutionists believe that an unguided force created life. As an example, I again point to the Catholic Church. You seem to be confusing evolution with atheism. Evolution can and does exist within religions.

"If you observe the entirety of the Stanley Miller experiment, you will find that while he did, in fact, produce many of the raw materials needed to sustain life, he also failed to produce several key amino acids..." Okay, but I was addressing what you said, which was that we couldn't create proteins necessary for life. We clearly can, even if, at this point (or, rather, way back when that experiment was conducted), we can't create all of them.

"How can random chance create something we humans, an intelligent and capable force, are incapable of?" Again, random chance originally creating life isn't required for evolution to be true. Evolution occurs after the original creation of life.

"I have not adressed one rather important part of this point, that humans can "create" life through procreation. This is not really a valid argument, as it is not chance so much as mechanisms of the body that "create" more life." Any way that humans intentionally create life, whether via sex or in a laboratory, is not by chance. It sounds like you're challenging me to find an example of intentional beings intentionally creating life by accident.

2- "The sheer diversity of the life on Earth is, I don't believe, possible through natural selection alone..." Evolution is a theory that directly accounts for the diversity if life. That's what it's for. That's its purpose. Unless you find something in particular wrong with how the diversity of life occurs within the bounds of evolution, we'll have to assume, for the purposes of this debate, that you've conceded this point.

"...how did we adapt, through sheer chance, the ability to sustain ourselves through, among other forms of sustenance, consuming oxygen and in turn producing carbon dioxide? How can an entire species suddenly develop such a complicated ability?" We didn't adapt through sheer chance, it was out of need. Organisms that had means by which they allowed oxygen into their body to break down things survived and most others didn't. There are actually a few kinds of cells that still breathe carbon dioxide. And, we didn't develop it suddenly. It wasn't just, like, flipping a switch and BAM we breathe oxygen. Life and evolution don't work like that.

"How could these two seperate life forms simply "evolve" with individual inefficiencies, in the same relative location, at the exact same time, solely for the purpose of saving one another from extinction?" I'm not sure about any theories put forth by actual scientists, but I'll give it a shot. Firstly, I want to point out some errors in your question. They didn't evolve at the "exact same time." Again, evolution isn't like flipping a switch. And they didn't evolve just to save eachother from extinction. Animals/insects/bacteria aren't that altruistic. They did it for self-preservation. Anyway, on to my amateur theory. The wood-eating bacteria were in the wood, eating it. The termites at that time used to bite off and/or eat the wood to make homes like they do now, only it went slower because of the lack of bacteria. In the process of doing so, they ate some bacteria. The bacteria thrived because of the income of wood, they found their niche, reproduced, etc. Likewise, termites tolerant to the bacteria thrived. Now they're good buddies.

3- "...how a simple organ that can merely detect photons can slowly develop into a human eye, which has a lense with an alterable shape to alter the focus point, 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones, and can do both in less than a billionth of a second is beyond me." As I said last round, "As the ability to 'see' became a greater and greater advantage, the capacity to 'see' became of greater and greater magnitude." Organisms that could see better thrived more often and produced offspring with their superior optic traits. The process continued and now here we are. Simple as that.

"...how can you explain the peculiar human brain?" That's a great question, and here's a great TED video explaining it in length. http://tinyurl.com... I could never fit the whole thing here, but, basically, we cook our food. It sounds crazy, I know, but watch the video. It's great.

4- "If "group survival" as you put it, is so ingrained in our psychology, than donating resources to less capable people still doesn't make sense." Our instincts tell us to help people for the betterment of the species. There just hasn't been significant enough harm done by helping disabled people to warrant sufficient evolution of that instinct to keep us from helping disabled people.

My argument addressing your closing statement is in the comments because I am running high on characters. Also, I posted this round with about 5 minutes to spare, lol.

Sources-

1- http://tinyurl.com...
2- http://tinyurl.com...
3- http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 2
FrozenLichBox

Pro

FrozenLichBox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
FrozenLichBox

Pro

FrozenLichBox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
FrozenLichBox

Pro

FrozenLichBox forfeited this round.
PericIes

Con

Extend. I'd like to thank my argument for this debate and for arguing rationally during the rounds that they participated in.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
FrozenLichBox
The problem with your fuzzy definition of "evolution" is that in a debate it's extremely important to define your terms. Say, for example, that I argued that God exists. I could argue that Evolution (the theory) fits in with my argument because I didn't specify what I meant by "God". The same goes for "Evolution"; one sort is a visible phenomena in nature, the other is a controversial theory. I've noticed that a common tactic in debating is to deliberately keep terms ambiguous so you can abuse similar things. I've heard it said before that "Dog breeding is a form of Evolution, and you believe in dog breeding, don't you?" This deliberately abuses the meaning of "Evolution" in this case, as dog breeding is micro-evolution (if it were unguided; as it is, it's a guided force, so this argument actually works against Darwinists), the argument that it's equivalent to Macro-Evolution is obviously false. I find this distinction very important if the truth is to be found. You can hold it in whatever light you want, but I believe it's imperative.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
Evolution between species has been observed. You might need to touch base with Ken Ham or the Creation Research Institute on the "accepted" definition. The point being, you can define it however you want. There is no accepted standard, since *science* doesn't care. Within biology, it's just a convient convention meaning basically "narrow" and "broad". Just be careful to get all observed evolution squeezed in. Ask any old-school ID'er how embarrassing it is to be seen moving the goalposts.

(Protip: Great faith overcomes embarrassment.)
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
FrozenLichBox
"Micro-evolution is defined as evolution within kinds" Assuming you meant species by "kinds", there is a HUGE difference between macro- and micro- evolution. Macro-Evolution is a Darwinian theory, where micro-evolution is a visible fact. Micro-evolution, evolution within species (or adaptation) is evident within nature (Darwin's finches, if you need an example), while Darwinian Evolution claims that all life developed from one single cell organism. So tell me, how exactly is this a "difference of imagination"? You seem to be trying to discredit me with ambiguous accusations of delusion,a slam I commonly find when dealing with this topic.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
@FrozenLichBox

> Interesting rebuttal, I've never actually heard of more simple light-sensing organs.

They're quite common. Many fish have a third-eye known as a "parietal" eye on the top of their head to sense shadows shapes moving above them. Not only are they very simple, but evolved independently of their primary eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, there is no difference between "macro-" and "micro-evolution" that has any meaning. Micro-evolution is defined as evolution within kinds. Kind is defined as a group of organisms subject to micro-evolution. Ergo, micro-evolution is defined as evolution between organisms subject to micro-evolution. It's a circular definition, and begging the question. Without defining "kind" separate from "macro-" and "micro-evolution", the claim that their is a difference relies completely on the imagination.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
No problem
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
FrozenLichBox
Sorry about that, I've been extremely busy the past week. Well, that's extremely embarrassing.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
Closing argument is here, because I ran out of characters.

Closing- "If the Catholic Church has accepted Darwinian Evolution as consistent with their beliefs, they've clearly abandoned Biblical truths." They don't necessarily interpret the Bible literally. Here's a scene from the movie Noah. http://tinyurl.com... I thought that it was a "meh" movie, but this particular part was really great, I thought, because it shows how science and religion don't have to be at odds. Most people don't interpret the Genesis, or the entire Bible literally. Why should they? For one thing, much of it was written in code (most notably Revelations) so as to avoid discovery by various foreign occupying forces. For another, if we are to assume for our purposes that God exists, is independent of the laws of the universe, and is eternal, a "day" for him certainly wouldn't be the same thing as a "day" for us. Also, "Biblical truths." You assume that the Bible is necessarily true. As Descartes pointed out, nothing is beyond doubt other than that "I think, and therefore I am."

"The reason for this is purely for simplicity, as the particular kind of creation has nothing to add to the overall argument..." As I've pointed out, it does.
Posted by PericIes 1 year ago
PericIes
@prioritisingmorality I don't agree with "If Creationism wins this debate we will have lost all knowledge of the world and things like medicine will be lost." Ideally, people are supposed to vote on who debated better, not on what they agree with.
Posted by FrozenLichBox 1 year ago
FrozenLichBox
How does Creationism oppose science, and how is it harmful?

Also, how is it harmful to public education? Common Core (the national "standards" here in the US) has absolutely nothing to do with Creationism...
Posted by prioritisingmorality 1 year ago
prioritisingmorality
Creationism if you ask me is one of the most harmful beliefs in the world today. Regardless of whether it is true or not it is still doing lots and lots of damage to the public education system.

Science is VERY important. I'm not sure people realize how so important science is for the world. Science means KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge of the WORLD. That is IMPORTANT.

The more knowledge we have on how things work the better we are able to make our world right? I mean supposing you have a rubix cube. Its easier to solve it if you KNOW how to right? Same thing applies with science.

That is why science has bought us MEDICINE. The more we know of the world the more things we can do! Thus we know loads about the world and how diseases work so medicine has come to solve it.

Creationism is opposing science. Its opposing knowledge of the world. If Creationism wins this debate we will have lost all knowledge of the world and things like medicine will be lost. Even if it IS true the fact it is opposing SCIENCE makes it harmful.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
FrozenLichBoxPericIesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asserts 4 arguments. The first addresses man's inability to create lie, which obviously does not support that life is created. The second and fourth are completely irrelevant. Only the third is relevant at all. However,Pro failed to establish any "irreducibly complex" structures or processes. Although I'm disappointed Con didn't point out any claim to IC is necessarily an argument from ignorance, they rebutted the example cited. Con provided a source.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
FrozenLichBoxPericIesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
FrozenLichBoxPericIesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.