The Instigator
Evan_MacIan
Con (against)
Winning
63 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Pro (for)
Losing
57 Points

The Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/5/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,895 times Debate No: 1398
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (18)
Votes (41)

 

Evan_MacIan

Con

I was reading a debate in which my opponent stated that the Big Bang theory rationally disproves God, and I wanted to get a little explanation for that.

So, I think Korezaan should prove the point that the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God, which I just don't get. Before I let him get started, I'd just like to say a few things.

I believe the Big Bang Theory is basically correct.
I believe Creationism is basically incorrect.
I read Genesis at the allegorical level, as do most of the Catholics I know.
I see no contradiction between Science and Religion.
Science and Religion approaches to the same thing, which is truth.

A bit more explaination might be beneficial. For the purpose of this debate, I define Religion as any organization or system that claims to have supernatural knowledge. It's not the best definition, but I think it's acceptable for our purposes. I define science as any systematic method for aquiring knowledge about the natural world. Again, it is not perfect, but it'll do.

A note here, I have no intention of defending belief in the supernatural. A discussion like that seems far to complex for the purposes of Debate.org. What I am concerned with is the claim that science the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God. Supernatural claims might be completely unjustified, but they are not disprovable by science. That is what I want to talk about.

***Bows at the waist***

Let us begin.
Korezaan

Pro

I'm probably going to lose this debate because there are a lot of religious people out there that just don't take the time to read my arguments. I've had two other debates thus far about religion, both in which people tell me that I "completely pwnt" the other debater, while people that didn't say that gave no reasoning as to why they voted for the other person.

Meh. I guess you can't have everything perfect.

I affirm, that The Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God.

__________________

First off I will go over the definitions of this debate, then go on to refute his points, and finally provide you with my own case and why you should vote PRO on this topic/resolution.

I'll accept his definition of Religion, though I'm not sure why he defined it that way; one of his previous versions of this debate included the words "The Christian God" in his case. (This debate is the third of his attempts to challenge me; i refused the previous two since he doesn't like me running abuse and I don't find it all that fun running it.)

Since God normally refers to the Christian God, and since my opponent declared himself Catholic, I define "God" as the Abrahamic God mentioned in the Bible.

I also define "rational" as "logical conclusions". Basically all I need to do in this debate is show a logical way to see that if The Big Bang Theory is true, there is no reason to believe that God exists.

"A note here, I have no intention of defending belief in the supernatural."

I would like to know what Evan's burden IS then. If it's not defending the supernatural, what is it? He has the burden of proving that God's existence and The Big Bang Theory are compatible, and with that, he has to at least back up how they do. I'm not too sure who has the burden of proof here, so I'll put one on myself as well. But if he doesn't meet his, you automatically vote PRO. Obvious reasons.

"I believe the Big Bang Theory is basically correct.
I believe Creationism is basically incorrect.
I read Genesis at the allegorical level, as do most of the Catholics I know.
I see no contradiction between Science and Religion.
Science and Religion approaches to the same thing, which is truth."

Good. I do too.

Good. I do too. Wait. What is he defending then? Nothing?

He needs to tell me what specifically he believes in when he says "allegory". I've heard that different churches within Christianity have different interpretations, so I'm not exactly sure what his interpretation is. Actually at this point you can ALREADY vote AGAINST Evan because he'll essentially be a moving target in the next round; he should have clearly defined in R1.

There are actually many contradictions between science and religion. Oh wait, he can just say it's an allegory if it conflicts. Moving target. Hmm.

This last claim is his only link of how The Big Bang Theory and Christianity/Religion are compatible, and I disagree. Christianity was set up as a political control structure that claims to know supernatural things. Overlooking that, I also do not see how confessing to a priest reaches truth. Since Evan does not say anything specific about how religion reaches truth, you cannot believe his argument to begin with.

(Actually, you can extend that to his entire position; he doesn't give a single warrant anywhere.)

But even then, to claim that religion creates charities and other nonprofit beneficial organizations Evan has the burden of proof and must argue that religion is the basis of morality. Which it isn't.

"Supernatural claims might be completely unjustified, but they are not disprovable by science. That is what I want to talk about."

With that, here are my arguments.

The thesis of my position is that: There is a rational explanation of how the world began, and because there is one, it rationally disproves God.

Let me begin by saying this. Some of you may have seen this video, some of you may have watched my debates and are asking yourself the question "Why is he using the same stuff over and over again?", but I'm using it because EVERY-SINGLE-TIME, it's a debate about "proof".

(Pretty much one of my past debate's args.)

Albert Sweigart in his video, "An Atheist Response" explains

"[...]Next firefly brings up that both atheism and christianity require faith because you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God.

But the problem with this argument is that you really can't prove or disprove the existance of pretty much anything outside of abstract areas like mathematics or predicate logic.

You can't prove that werewolves don't exist.
You can't prove that Invisible Pink unicorns don't exist.
You can't prove that carniverous humanoid underground dwellers don't exist.

Technically this means we have to be agnostic about the existance of invisible pink unicorns and everything else. But we'd feel rather silly if we had to admit that there is a remote chance that Santa Claus really does exists building those wooden toys that no kid ever gets for Christmas."

Just step outside the logos bubble for a moment and think rationally. The PRO's argument is essentially that 'just because theres no evidence doesn't mean he doesn't exist'. 'For all we know he could be choosing to hide his existence from you.' I don't know about you, but that sounds like a point that comes from your stereotypical conspiracy theorist. Evan does this kind of thing somewhere else too, where he mentions "allegory" (The moving target argument I have against him). It is to my knowledge that whenever something new comes up that defies religion, they merely change their interpretation of their holy text which they hold to be the absolute truth.

If it was the absolute truth, why the heck are there new interpretations every three or four centuries?

Al continues,

"The issue here is who has the burden of proof.

If I told everyone that I saw a UFO land in my backyard, the burden of proof would be on me to produce evidence that this actually happened because I'm the one making the sensational claim.

I don't have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof rests with the unicornians.

This is why I consider myself an atheist even though technically I can't disprove the existence of the Christian God. If you claim that an omnipotent God sent his son to be crucified so he could rise into Heaven and provide salvation for mankind, you'll have to produce sufficient evidence if you want me to believe you. Otherwise I'll simply believe that that isn't the case."

So yeah, I agree when he says "supernatural claims are not disprovable by science". But then, neither is Santy Clause.

My attack on the other interpretation I have to his case can't be made, because he doesn't define what allegories he believes in. To define anything next round he opens himself up to me running abuse. I suspect his actual question to me is "how does science disprove the allegories of religion".... but he didn't say that. I'm open for a " DO NOT VOTE " ending to this debate if that is the case, Evan.

Otherwise, get ready for some debate theory.
Debate Round No. 1
Evan_MacIan

Con

I started seriously, but I got to having fun towards the end. I just thought I should warn you.

----------------
Why did you bother rejecting my first two topics and accepting this one?

I mean, seriously, it isn't like I wasn't clear. I have no intention of debating the validity of belief in the super natural. It's not because I don't think I couldn't do it, it's just completely inappropriate to try and hash out something as complex as the existence of God on a site as clumsy as this. Besides, I've already proved to be somewhat inarticulate on here, why would I make the attempt one of my most complex beliefs?

Unfortuneately, it sounds like this arguement is going to be primarily about abuse and you trying to say I need to support belief in God.

That is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I made this debate. There is a reason that I took the Con position and gave you the exact topic you wanted. Read the resolution. The only burden I have is to disprove that the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God.

You were the one talking smack. You were the one making big claims. I never said you ought to believe in God. I never said that I had any reason to believe in God. All I said, all I have tried to say with this debate, is that the Big Bang Theory does not disprove God. You talked the smack. You set terms. You accepted the topic the way it is. If you don't like the distribution of the burden, don't come crying to me about it.

--------------------
Before I get to the actual arguement, I'll go through the stuff that shouldn't even be an issue based on the topic and the first round, but will probably be argued anyway.

"I would like to know what Evan's burden IS then."
To show that you don't meet your burden. That's why I'm CON.

"He has the burden of proving that God's existence and The Big Bang Theory are compatible"
I, and my position, are innocent until proven guilty. I started this topic expressly stating that I did not understand how they were incompatible. To prove that they are compatible, then, all I should have to do is show that any incompatibility you put forth isn't really incompatibility at all.

"I'm not too sure who has the burden of proof here"
The Pro does.

"But if he doesn't meet his, you automatically vote PRO. Obvious reasons."
Mine is to negate yours.

"Actually at this point you can ALREADY vote AGAINST Evan because he'll essentially be a moving target in the next round"
But neither one us wants to argue abuse, right?
And what moving target? Your target is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Mel Gibson. How does a target get any broader than the Alpha and the Omega? Fire away!

"he should have clearly defined in R1."
How is my method of Biblical Exegis relevent to my belief in God? I didn't define it for the same reason I didn't tell you I've had a planter's wart on my big toe since the eigth grade. I didn't see how it was relevant.

"Since Evan does not say anything specific about how religion reaches truth, you cannot believe his argument to begin with."
I never claimed religion reached truth. Actually, I messed up that particular sentence. You'll notice it is not even gramatically correct. They are both approaches to finding truth. Whether or not they are valid apporaches is beside the point. They are both approaches. Science has not always been right, and I don't believe every religion has been right either. Regardless, they are both ATTEMPTS at truth. I never said they were good attempts.

"But even then, to claim that religion creates charities and other nonprofit beneficial organizations Evan has the burden of proof and must argue that religion is the basis of morality. Which it isn't."
And what in the name of the Pink Panther's Purple Panties does morality have to do with anything?
--------------------

"The thesis of my position is that: There is a rational explanation of how the world began, and because there is one, it rationally disproves God."
Now this is worth addressing, though it is not actually true. The Big Bang is the beginning, but one has to ask what came before the Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang come from. I think it was Stephen Hawkings who said that this was a nonsense question. Before the Big Bang, there was no time. There was no change before everything started expanding out, therefore there was no time. But this is as big a mystery as anything. How could the Big Bang have begun? There was no time for it to begin. The universe was born literally in no time at all. What set off the Big Bang if there was no change possible to set it off?

And now, the rational explaination is suddenly clear. Korezaan understands less than he thought he did, and God sneaks back into the realm of possibility (though I still don't know if a rational explaination of the beginning of the physical universe would exclude Him anyway). Now, my opponent will be tempted to bring up the God-of-the-Gaps. It's a fine arguement, but why bother? It is not a disproof, and that is what he claimed he could provide.

------------------------
Back to the superfluous extra-topical junk.

""[...]Next firefly brings up that both atheism and christianity require faith because you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God."
I don't care to prove God, and given the topic, I don't see why I should have to. You're the one who bit off more than you wanted, not me.

"because theres no evidence doesn't mean he doesn't exist'"
That is not even remotely my arguement.

"Evan does this kind of thing somewhere else too, where he mentions "allegory" (The moving target argument I have against him)."
Hey, I could argue that Original Sin (or the fallen state of man, they're the same thing to my mind) is practically self-evident, but that wouldn't really be relevant, would it?

"It is to my knowledge that whenever something new comes up that defies religion, they merely change their interpretation of their holy text which they hold to be the absolute truth."
Actually, our moral teaching has remained remarkably the same.

"If it was the absolute truth, why the heck are there new interpretations every three or four centuries?"
I blame the protestants, but that's just me.

"If I told everyone that I saw a UFO land in my backyard, the burden of proof would be on me to produce evidence that this actually happened because I'm the one making the sensational claim."
But I never claimed that a UFO landed in my backyard. You're the one who claimed you could "rationally prove" that no UFO has ever landed in my backyard. I'm not the one making sensational claims.

"I don't have to prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist because I'm not the one making that claim. The burden of proof rests with the unicornians."
Not according to the topic. This unicornarian has learned that some people just won't see the invisible pink unicorns in front of their eyes and has decided to pick his battles. I can't debate the existence of unicorns with everyone, especially if I want to get in some time for riding.

"This is why I consider myself an atheist even though technically I can't disprove the existence of the Christian God."
Congratulations to the Pro for admitting that he cannot support the topic.

"If you claim that an omnipotent God sent his son to be crucified so he could rise into Heaven and provide salvation for mankind, you'll have to produce sufficient evidence if you want me to believe you."
Wait, I thought we were talking about unicorns.

"My attack on the other interpretation I have to his case can't be made, because he doesn't define what allegories he believes in."
What allegories do you have? I just heard a great one with a dragon.

"I suspect his actual question to me is "how does science disprove the allegories of religion".... but he didn't say that."
I was actually going to ask you what your shoe size is.

"Otherwise, get ready for some debate theory."
Can I pass?
Korezaan

Pro

Okay, that's fine.

Voting issues are going to be inside the responses; don't have enough space to repeat them coherently at the end.

_________

"Why did you bother rejecting my first two topics and accepting this one?"

Because it was better. However, I didn't really consider his case.

"The only burden I have is to disprove that the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God."

Incorrect. But even if that were true, he didn't do that in R1.

"You were the one talking smack. You were the one making big claims."

I don't believe I make big claims. Even if that were true, at least I gave my warrants.

"I never said you ought to believe in God [...] don't come crying to me about it."

Evan, you started the debate. Don't come crying to me if you didn't get what you wanted.

"Before I get to the actual arguement, I'll go through the stuff that shouldn't even be an issue based on the topic and the first round, but will probably be argued anyway."

In the next several responses this preface he gives will be debunked.

"To show that you don't meet your burden. That's why I'm CON."

CON does not necessarily have no burden. If the topic was "A UFO landed in my backyard", the PRO has the burden of proof. If the topic was "A UFO didn't land in my backyard", the CON would have the burden of proof. On this topic I believe that theres no obvious distribution, so I just set up something where we both had burdens. His burden is not ONLY to prove I'm wrong, but also to prove that he's right.

"I, and my position [...] isn't really incompatibility at all."

Incorrect. This justifies "Invisible Pink Unicorns exist until proven untrue". There is no innocent or guilty in this debate, we aren't condemning anyone, he cannot just evade your own burden simply by saying "since theres no proof against, you ought to believe they're compatible". Burdens do not work that way.

"The Pro does."

Responded to this earlier. Also, this is a new argument, he should have defined what the burdens were in R1.

"Mine is to negate yours."

This too.

"But neither [...] Fire away!"

Just because I don't want to doesn't mean I won't. Moving target is a term used in real debate where the affirmative position alters their case in the rebuttal speech(es). In this case he's being abusive by changing your position. BTW that was a response to allegories. But even if that fact is overlooked, I still win the round.

"How is my method [...] relevant."

I don't know what an Exegis is. Even if what he said here is true, he still gives me no interpretation so I can't really fight his case. He tells me to prove that theres a mutual exculsiveness going on, well, I can't do that if I don't know EXACTLY what he wants me to show. He tells me to attack the Abrahamic God, and I do that in my R1. But I can't really disprove, IE, Affirm if he doesn't give me something to argue against.

"I never claimed religion reached truth [...] I never said they were good attempts."

Not a reason to believe they're compatible.

"And what in the name of the Pink Panther's Purple Panties does morality have to do with anything?"

It's called pre-empting an argument. Apparently you chose not to make the arg.

"Now this is worth addressing [...] set it off?"

I'd like to mention that the debate that sparked off this one had my definition of Big Bang in it (http://www.debate.org...). It doesn't say anything about time not existing. He's bringing up a new definition.

"And now, the rational explaination is suddenly clear [...] he claimed he could provide."

Hmm. Wonder where I talked smack? But okay back to the argument.

Realm of possibility: I've disproved this over and over and over and over again. Just because its possible doesn't mean its true. Just because its possible doesn't mean its compatible. He isn't meeting his own burden, regardless if he believes he has it or not.

I don't know what God Of The Gaps is. I'll look that up later.

I agree, this is probably the most relevant part of the entire debate. And I win it, because you don't rationally believe in something unless there's proof for it. THIS EXISTS BEYOND THE REALM OF JUST THIS DEBATE, SO EVEN IF I LOSE EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I'VE PRESENTED IN THIS ROUND, THIS ONE STANDS TRUE: YOU DON'T RATIONALLY BELIEVE IN ANYTHING UNLESS THERE'S PROOF FOR IT. Since the Big Bang theory is an alternative explanation and there IS proof for it, it is more rational to believe in that than believing in a divine being. Therefore, since an alternative, the Big Bang Theory rationally disproves God.

The only arguments against this would be that 1) The Bible is a series of allegories, 2) God made the Big Bang happen, and 3) Just because you can't prove he doesn't exist means that he does.

The first one I have already talked about; he doesn't define his allegories, AND HE CHOSE to not do so in R2.

Second and Third, refer to the stuff I typed in all caps.

"I don't care to prove God, and given the topic, I don't see why I should have to. You're the one who bit off more than you wanted, not me."

He needs to prove that they're compatible though, and my point there was that he'd need to prove something about God. Even if my second subpoint is false, he didn't met up to the requirements of the first.

"That is not even remotely my arguement."

He has no argument. All he does is refute me.

"Hey, I could argue that Original Sin (or the fallen state of man, they're the same thing to my mind) is practically self-evident, but that wouldn't really be relevant, would it?"

It's EXTREMELY relevant; I can't affirm unless I know what I'm arguing against.

"Actually, our moral teaching has remained remarkably the same."

Women not being allowed to speak in church, stoning people to death because they work on the sabbath, killing your neighbors because they worship a golden bull.... I'd say no, it isn't the same.

"I blame the protestants, but that's just me."

Okay. Don't see an impact tho.

"But I never claimed that a UFO landed in my backyard."

Wrong again. Though this argument may seem like OMGZTHECLEVERESTTURN EVARRR it falls apart rather quickly with just a little bit of scrutiny. First of all, that was an analogy. Any reasonable person would conclude that I was doing that. Then he just directly inserts the wording of this topic into the structure I gave in the analogy. Like everything else he's done so far, this is a misinterpretation. He's actually just attacking my quote from Albert anyways.... But that's nitpicking.

The response to his argument is simple: I have rationally proved that no UFO has ever landed in my backyard by simply saying that there's no UFO. The sensational claim comes in when you DO claim that a UFO lands in your backyard. Otherwise I'll simply believe that isn't the case.

And even before you look at my argument... Do you, as a reasonable human being , honestly believe what he's saying? He just said "that proving that no UFO has ever landed in my backyard", IE, "not saying that a UFO has landed in my backyard", is a sensational claim. What the heck???

"Not according to the topic."

Responded to this near the top.

"Congratulations to the Pro for admitting that he cannot support the topic."

Congratulations to the CON for not seeing that he's attacking a quote.

"Wait, I thought we were talking about unicorns."

Wait, I thought we were talking about affirming or negating.

"What allegories do you have? I just heard a great one with a dragon."

Responded to this earlier.

"I was actually going to ask you what your shoe size is."

It's 12.5.

"Can I pass?"

No.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lucretius 9 years ago
Lucretius
Read it. You don't need to be a theologian to realize it's filled with errors.
Posted by breaker11 9 years ago
breaker11
Tell me who has proved the bible to not be true...
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"Korezaan when you said that the churches change their scripture, you are wrong i am a Baptist and we use the King James Version Bible which is the Bible to have translated to English."

That's what every single church claims. BTW the King James version has plenty of mistranslations on it, one of which among says "I will be with you even to the end of the world". It's supposed to say "end of the age". Which is a whole astrological thing you can look up on your own time.

"And your little opinion on Christianity being a set up as some sort of political control system, is completely ridiculous!"

I never argued it, you can't take it into consideration. However if you are interested, go watch ZeitGeist.

"And you want proof that Jesus Christ died on that cross for OUR sins and rose from his grave into heaven. Well read the bible and it will tell you that he was dead when he was put into that tomb and than covered. But when they went back to finish the embalming process Jesus was not there!"

So I have to believe in the bible to see that the bible is true to prove that the Bible is true. Okay, that makes sense. Now tell me why the Bible is true and why Zeus, Poseidon, and the Greek gods don't exist.

Even better. Challenge me to that debate: "The Christian God exists because of the Bible and the others do not even if they have their own holy scriptures".
Posted by Lucretius 9 years ago
Lucretius
If you want, Evan, we could debate one of your proofs of God?
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
We are to be "all things to all people." Any proof of God I would give with the belief that it would satisfy an atheist would require far too much explaination to give on this site.
Posted by breaker11 9 years ago
breaker11
Korezaan when you said that the churches change their scripture, you are wrong i am a Baptist and we use the King James Version Bible which is the Bible to have translated to English. And your little opinion on Christianity being a set up as some sort of political control system, is completely ridiculous! And you want proof that Jesus Christ died on that cross for OUR sins and rose from his grave into heaven. Well read the bible and it will tell you that he was dead when he was put into that tomb and than covered. But when they went back to finish the embalming process Jesus was not there!
Evan i can't believe that you would not stand up for God and prove that he does exist.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
I can speak for myself, thank you. I did not run that arguement because I generally agree with the Big Bang Theory. It may surprise you, but the things I DON'T argue are not necessarily a reaction to something you said.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Re: EricW1001

This is verbatim from the debate that Evan said he saw me in in R1. Basically, this is why he doesn't bring up that argument.

"First, the argument would be abusive. It doesn't matter if it's completely proven or not, nothing in science is ever complete. It's not a religion. EVEN IF you don't reject it on the grounds of abuse, the line of reasoning is still flawed. The theory of gravity has even less proof than the Big Bang theory, yet both are pretty much accepted in the scientific world. and EVEN IF you don't believe THAT, the resolution/topic presupposes the two so we can argue about if the Big Bang theory disproves God or not, and EVEN IF you don't believe that, this isn't a debate about the truthfulness of the two ideologies, just if one disproves another."
Posted by EricW1001 9 years ago
EricW1001
I'm not saying either way but,

The bing bang "theory" (kew word)

Are we not assuming that it actually occured? Do you have any solid evidence to support that?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Just looked up the "God Of The Gaps" thing you mentioned. I know what it is and I've hit it before, but I didn't know it by the formal name.

"He needs to tell me what specifically he believes in when he says "allegory". I've heard that different churches within Christianity have different interpretations, so I'm not exactly sure what his interpretation is. Actually at this point you can ALREADY vote AGAINST Evan because he'll essentially be a moving target in the next round; he should have clearly defined in R1.

There are actually many contradictions between science and religion. Oh wait, he can just say it's an allegory if it conflicts. Moving target. Hmm."(R1)

I explained that specifically when I entered this debate. What I was saying there is since you didn't explain what exactly I was supposed to be attacking, you could merely use a God Of The Gaps tactic and say that it's just an allegory. Since that tactic would require you in changing what you started off with in R1 and since this is only a 2 round debate, my point about the Moving Target still applies.

Yeah I didn't need to know what it was; I already attacked you from that angle.
41 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by brokenboy 5 years ago
brokenboy
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 kelstwa 9 years ago
kelstwa
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 wooferalot101 9 years ago
wooferalot101
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 rnsweetheart 9 years ago
rnsweetheart
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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 captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
Evan_MacIanKorezaanTied
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