The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Einstein
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The Ethics of Voting. It is possible for someone to vote Pro in the below listed scenario.

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: 2/8/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,300 times Debate No: 2495
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (8)

 

Yraelz

Pro

Here is the scenario.

The debate resolution is as follows.

"Chocolate ice cream is better than any other kind."

Pro takes this stance:

"Vanilla ice cream is better than any other kind."

Con argues this stance:

"Toffee ice cream is better than any other kind."

Here is my contention. Providing that the Con never points out that Pro is not fulfilling the resolution a voter cannot ethically vote on this point. Therefor the voter must vote for whoever has done the best job debating in round. Thus, if Pro argues successfully that Vanilla is the best kind of ice cream and says you should vote for him because of it, you can ethically vote for him and should. (Providing con does not point out he is not fulfilling the resolution)

Dare to oppose me?
Einstein

Con

I will start by providing two assumptions that will become the foundation for my arguments.

1. The "Instigator," as this site calls it, has voluntarily taken the initiative to start a debate topic, and when they do, lay out an open challenge for anyone to argue their acceptance (or rejection) of the topic at hand.

2. Voting for someone, on this site, is optional.

The basis of my point of view is based on the first assumption. The Instigator is essentially saying, to all potential challengers, that "this is my point of view; your job is to prove me wrong." This means that when someone creates the debate "Chocolate ice cream is better than any other kind," they are actively saying that this is the point of view they would like disproved by the Con side. Even though the Contender voluntarily chooses to accept a given debate, the Instigator still has the burden of proof to prove their point of view. Creating this topic is tantamount to saying "I must prove that Chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream." All that the Con side must do is prove that Chocolate is not the best, or that there is some other ice cream that is better than Chocolate. The burden of proof on this case is on the Pro. Con has no burden other than proving Pro wrong; Pro must defend against Con's remarks AND defend his/her original point of view. This is the burden of being the Instigator; when one creates that topic, one must defend the point of view. This will be the primary reason why you would not be able to ethically vote Pro in this situation. Note that the debate topic here is not whether you simply "can" vote for Pro; anyone "can" do that by clicking the mouse button. Rather, we are debating over whether it would be ethical/correct to vote for Pro in this situation.

Second, the second assumption I made is a supporting reason why this point of view on how this debate format works is the best one. Since voting on any topic is completely optional and voluntary, and no one is obligated to vote on any topic, one should only vote for the Pro (Instigator) if the Pro has defended their side adequately. This is why my opponent's argument that, if the Con did not point out that the Pro had not defended their point of view adequately, is irrelevant in this circumstance: under my framework for voting, one only votes for the Pro if and only if the Pro has proven the point of view established in the topic title. Since you do not have to vote, you can be absolved of any moral/ethical guilt you might have felt from voting Con, by simply abstaining from voting. The corollary to this is that when someone votes, they are NOT voting on who did the "better job" in general; they are voting based on who did the "better job" proving or disproving the topic, respectively. If the Pro did not prove the topic, then by default Pro cannot win. This does not mean that Con has won; it only means you cannot ethically vote for Pro.

I would also like to note that in this instance, the scenario my opponent chose is self-defeating to his own argument. If the topic is "Chocolate ice cream is better than any other kind," and the Pro argues that, instead, "Vanilla ice cream is better than any other kind," Pro is not only arguing something different, he is actually arguing against his own topic. If Pro wins that Vanilla ice cream is better than any other kind, he has in fact proven that Chocolate ice cream is NOT the best kind, and should therefore lose automatically. If Con wins that Toffee is the best kind, he has proven that Chocolate ice cream is not the best kind, and should therefore win, as he/she has fulfilled his burden.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

Alright thank you for arguing this with me. I will attack the points in your argument that need to be attacked and then go on to show you exactly how this is possible.

"1. The "Instigator," as this site calls it, has voluntarily taken the initiative to start a debate topic, and when they do, lay out an open challenge for anyone to argue their acceptance (or rejection) of the topic at hand."

>> This is very true. You go into more detail on this later. However I would simply like to point out one thing. The person who accepts the debate is being just as voluntary as the instigator. In other words the contender has just as much voluntary action involved as the instigator.

"Creating this topic is tantamount to saying "I must prove that Chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream." All that the Con side must do is prove that Chocolate is not the best, or that there is some other ice cream that is better than Chocolate."

>>It is not the same as saying "I must prove that Chocolate ice cream is the best" it is the same as saying "I will be arguing that chocolate ice cream is the best"

"The burden of proof on this case is on the Pro. Con has no burden other than proving Pro wrong; Pro must defend against Con's remarks AND defend his/her original point of view."

>>Here is where I bring my first point back into play. You say the Pro has the burden of proof, but this is not true, both sides equally volunteered to do the debate. Both sides have a burden of proof to show you that their side of the resolution is correct. For instance if the resolution is the ice cream one then the pro ideally is proving it is and the con is proving it isn't.

"This is the burden of being the Instigator; when one creates that topic, one must defend the point of view. This will be the primary reason why you would not be able to ethically vote Pro in this situation."

>>I will do a lot more on this farther down. However for now all I must say is I would like to offer me some source where it says the person who creates the debate must defend it. This is simply your opinion and I will show you how it is flawed later.

Alright now for my proof on how this works and why. I will offer you scenarios, parallels to the situation if you will, and prove in logical order.

1. A dropped argument in a debate is a conceded one. For instance if Pro says during a debate that, "Apples are red", and Con does not say anything about this then Con is agreeing that "Apples are red".

Another prime example in this argument itself would be me having dropped my opponents second point that says specifically, "2. Voting for someone, on this site, is optional." thus I have conceded it.

2. A voter can not ethically vote on an argument that was not brought up in the debate. For instance, in a debate about whether Democrats or Republicans are better the Pro says "Republicans are red which is cooler" and Con says "Democrats are blue which is cooler" a voter cannot say "Democrats have a better platform, thus I will vote for Con" as that is not a point brought up in the debate.

3. A voter can only ethically vote on arguments brought up in round. Thus in the last example only on the Red vs. Blue issue.

4. Under these premises a voter can ethically vote for something that has nothing to do with the resolution. For instance. On my current example. If the pro decides not to debate the resolution and instead debates Vanilla he has effectively changed is advocacy. However, if the Con does not point out the change in advocacy then it is thereby a dropped issue and a voter cannot ethically vote on it. Thus the new argument standing in the round, "Vanilla is good" has been conceded by the con through the con's silence on said issue. To vote on the fact that Pro did not uphold the resolution would be to blatantly disagree with Con as he has agreed that Pro can change is advocacy to Vanilla.

If Con pointed out that Pro was not upholding his/her resolution then the voter could ethically vote on this fact. However once again, if con concedes this, through silence, a voter cannot vote on this issue.

Lets look at our current resolution, "The Ethics of Voting. It is possible for someone to vote Pro in the below listed scenario." My resolution says quite clearly two different sentences. They appear to have no link between them what-so-ever, except if you look to my first round, which creates a link. Thus I have changed my advocacy from that of the resolution. The resolution states quite clearly that it is possible for a voter to vote Pro in scenario. However this would be impossible for my opponent to argue, thus I changed my advocacy to ethically vote in my first speech. My opponent has conceded to this change in advocacy thus no voter can ethically vote on it.

Thanks! =)
Einstein

Con

n my first argument I made the argument that the Pro (to ensure that things are clear to the reader, the Pro will be "The Instigator" and the Con "The Contender" for the rest of my argument) side voluntarily creates a debate topic and leaves it open for anyone to voluntarily join. This is obvious, and my opponent did not disagree with this. I then, from that assumption, made two conclusions. The first is that the Pro is obligated to defend the argument made in the title of the topic. In his argument, Yraelz argued this point, so I will expand on it here. If the Pro creates a topic titled "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," then the Pro side is obligated to argue that chocolate ice cream is indeed the best kind. On one level, this is simply a courtesy and something we should expect from a Pro that is doing his or her job. If the name of a given debate topic is thus, the Pro should naturally be expected to defend that point of view. On the other hand, this is necessary for any sort of order to having a debate. If the Pro is not expected to defend the point of view in the topic title, then the Con could never predict what the Pro were going to say; if the Pro did defend the topic in the first argument but then in the second argument said vanilla is the best ice cream, then everything the Con said in his first argument to rebut that would be completely pointless. There must be some sort of standard for Pro to adhere to. So, this essentially sets up two potential frameworks; one is where the debaters can debate about anything they want regardless of the intent of the debate, which moots the point of the debate and the site itself, and the other, more preferable framework is where the Pro must affirm the topic and the Con must negate it.

Now, this is a slightly different question from the point being debated here. The corollary to my original assumption, which I established in my last argument, is that the Pro has the burden of proof of showing that they are correct about the stance in the topic. Above I demonstrated why it would not be a feasible framework to allow debaters to not have to debate about the topic at hand; but now I am talking about the question of voting. The central question is this: if the Pro does not prove the point of view in the topic title, can a person still ethically vote for the Pro? My answer, as I established it earlier, is an emphatic no for the reason of this point. The Pro has the obligation to prove the statement that is the "name" of the debate. My opponent argues that the Pro has no such obligation, but I showed above why the Pro should have an obligation to do so. There are two directions the debate went in from here.

First, my opponent argued that the Con also has a burden of proof. I agree, but I would say that the only burden of proof the Con has is to disprove the Pro's supposed point of view. This is preferable if one considers potential situations that would occur if debates were conducted the way my opponent would like them to be. For instance, consider the debate "Racial profiling is an unethical method for law enforcement use." Under my framework, the Con would only need prove that racial profiling is not unethical. Under my opponent's framework, the Con would be forced to argue that racial profiling is ethical, i.e. he or she would be arguing that racism is good. This forces debaters into positions that they should not be in. The Con, as The Contender, ought only need to disprove what The Instigator sought to debate about.

Second, this is where the second assumption I established in my first argument comes into play. On this site, voting is optional. This means that the only ethical reason for someone to vote is if someone has clearly won. Under my framework, the Pro wins if he or she proves the statement in the topic; the Con wins if he or she disproves that statement, and/or shows that the Pro has not proven the statement at hand. In the situation listed here, my opponent argues that it is only ethical to vote Con if the Con in fact does point out that the Pro did not prove their point of view. I disagree vehemently on this point, because this is a flawed way to view the voting system. Under my point of view, this is not a question of whether you should vote for the Con; it's the fact that you can not ethically vote for the Pro. If the topic name is "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," and the Pro does not prove this, then a voter cannot ethically vote Pro. Now, this does not mean one could ethically vote Con either; if the Con did not prove that Chocolate is not the best kind of ice cream, then you could not ethically vote Con either. However, that is why we are fortunate enough to have an optional voting system. Under my framework, one only votes Pro or Con if they have upheld their burden of proof, as I mentioned above. My opponent responds to this by saying that one can only vote on arguments made in the debate; however, my framework neatly responds to this by establishing the fact that I essentially agree. One can only vote on arguments made in the round; so, if the Pro doesn't prove the topic, you cannot vote Pro.

I would also like to extend the argument I made at the end of my last argument, that my opponent conceded. In the given situation, if the Pro argues that, instead, vanilla is the best kind of ice cream, they are actively disproving that chocolate is not the best kind of ice cream, and since Con is doing his or her job by proving that toffee is best (and thus chocolate is not), the only way to vote is Con.

Finally, my opponent tries to apply this situation to the current debate. However, this does not apply for a couple of reasons. First, the debate topic itself was somewhat ambiguous; obviously it is always "possible" for someone to vote Pro, however based on the "debate" we had in the Comments section of another debate that led to this and also based on the arguments made in the first, supporting argument by the Pro, there was no question as to the intent of the topic. In the case where the statement in the topic is not what the debater intended on debating, it can be reasonably changed provided both debaters agree. This has nothing to do with the current topic of debate; in the situation where the topic title is, "Chocolate is the best kind of ice cream," there is no ambiguity as to what the Pro is supposed to prove, and Con could legitimately argue that; whereas Con, based on the way the topic title is read, could not be voted for. The debate would also be a wash under the opponent's framework; if you agree with the Pro here, that if neither side argues what's in the topic, then you must default to voting based on who debated here, then you could still vote for me (Con) in this case, if you believe that I have done the better debating here (since who did the better debating is irrespective of how you feel on Pro's argument). At worst you would not vote, in line with my framework.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Alright I'm going to attack one paragraph at a time.

Your first paragraph you simply pull your old argument back into this debate without actually addressing any of mine. Though I did notice something new this time, you said the pro creates the topic but this isn't true. The creator of any debate can be pro or con. You also attempt to point out that in my idea people could just debate about anything and this moots the point of debate however this is not true. If one debater feels it is doing so that debater can point out that the other is not uphold his/her side of the resolution, which in turn should result in that debater getting voted down. However if the debate was about abortion and the debaters end up arguing when a fetus is human life and drop the abortion question then it is still a debate even if it has little/nothing to do with the resolution. The fact that neither debater points the topic change out only means that they both agree with the topic change. Once again I bring across the point that for you to judge based on the original resolution, should the debater choose to argue about something else in round, is simply to go against the wishes of both debaters and bring your own opinion into a debate round.

Your second paragraph is simply a reiteration. I will move on to the third.

Your third paragraph entails this excerpt,

"For instance, consider the debate "Racial profiling is an unethical method for law enforcement use." Under my framework, the Con would only need prove that racial profiling is not unethical. Under my opponent's framework, the Con would be forced to argue that racial profiling is ethical, i.e. he or she would be arguing that racism is good. This forces debaters into positions that they should not be in."

>>My response. This has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Under my framework the Con can argue anything they want. As can the Pro. Under my framework the con can argue it is not unethical, the con can argue it is ethical etc.... Obviously if the Con decides to argue that it is indeed unethical then he is simply bolstering the Pro's argument and all the Pro needs to do is point this out. However if the Pro allows this to happen and then advocates that is ethical, thereby flipping the entire debate, this is his choice. At that point both debaters have mutually agreed to flip the entire debate, and this is how a voter should ethically vote. To not vote this way is to vote on an issue not presented within the debate. When judges/voters intervene in this way it voids the point of voting.

On the flip side, if the Pro decides to argue the opposite from the start then the Con can point this out and will win. However if the Con agrees to the flip of argument and argues the opposite him/herself then both sides have mutually consented to debate a new issue. Once again to vote on the fact that they are both advocating differently than the debate was set up is to bring into the round ones own opinion and vote on an argument not presented. To vote on an argument not presented is ethically wrong in debate! This would be like me voting on a debate simply because I feel one way or another. This turns debates into polls! This method of voting is no better than voters who vote like a debate is a poll. Ethically wrong!

Fourth paragraph you state,

"In the situation listed here, my opponent argues that it is only ethical to vote Con if the Con in fact does point out that the Pro did not prove their point of view. I disagree vehemently on this point, because this is a flawed way to view the voting system. Under my point of view, this is not a question of whether you should vote for the Con; it's the fact that you can not ethically vote for the Pro. If the topic name is "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," and the Pro does not prove this, then a voter cannot ethically vote Pro."

>>The fact that debaters decide to argue something differently in round is no different than before the round. Debaters before round make the resolution to say one thing and try to debate it. However it is still a debater who makes the resolution at which point a decision is made by him/her to debate a topic. If after this point the debater decides not to debate the topic and his opponent concedes to the change in topic then both debaters are mutually agreeing to debate the new topic. TWO debaters agree mutually to debate a topic. This compared to the ONE debater who made the topic in the first place and decided no to debate it. Voters need to vote on what debaters choose to debate in round, not on the resolution. The resolution is typically what one enters the round expecting to debate, therefor if it is not debated that person can say it is abusive to them because they entered the round expecting to debate it. At which point they probably win the round on the abuse argument. However if both debaters choose to change resolution in round it should be of no consequence to either of them. Saying that you can't ethically vote pro in this situation moots the entire point of their mutual debate, and rigs the voting system. This is unfair to both sides!!

Your 6th paragraph reads thus,

"I would also like to extend the argument I made at the end of my last argument, that my opponent conceded. In the given situation, if the Pro argues that, instead, vanilla is the best kind of ice cream, they are actively disproving that chocolate is not the best kind of ice cream, and since Con is doing his or her job by proving that toffee is best (and thus chocolate is not), the only way to vote is Con."

>>You can vote on the fact that Con correctly argues his side of the resolution but only if Con points this out. Otherwise Con has conceded to now be debating "Resolved: Vanilla is better than Toffee". To vote on the fact that Con upheld his side of the original resolution and Pro did not is to vote on your own argument that holds no ground in the current debate! THIS IS YOUR OWN OPINION, it is UNETHICAL to vote based on your own opinion! I advocate to voting on content presented in round!

My opponents final paragraph attempts to disprove that this debate has any correlation to what I'm talking about but it clearly does. The debate topic states, "It is possible" obviously this not what either of us intended to argue thus we have mutually agreed in round to change the debate topic to what suits us. My opponent attempts to argue a justification for this and ends up simply agreeing with me by saying, quote,

"In the case where the statement in the topic is not what the debater intended on debating, it can be reasonably changed provided both debaters agree."

He is agreeing with me that if both debaters to change the topic in round that it can be ethically changed. This is true, and is what I am arguing. I am saying that if both debaters concede either through silence or text that they are now debating something that was not the original resolution then they can ethically do this and the voters can ethically vote for pro.

Furthermore I would like to point out my opponent dropped all of these arguments, from my last round, thereby conceding them:

"1. A dropped argument in a debate is a conceded one."

"2. A voter can not ethically vote on an argument that was not brought up in the debate."

"3. A voter can only ethically vote on arguments brought up in round."

As my conclusion I would like to point out that under my opponents framework you cannot ethically vote in this round for me because I have not upheld the literal resolution. However you also cannot ethically vote for my opponent because he does not disprove the literal resolution. Thus my opponents framework moots the point of this entire debate.

Thanks.
Einstein

Con

As this is the last argument, I will respond to some of the things my opponent mentioned in his last argument before summarizing my points.

The gist of what much of my opponent is saying in his last argument focuses around the idea that if the debaters do not argue about what is in the name of the debate topic, then you must vote based on what is in the round. However, this is obviously contradictory to another of the points that he makes. My opponent claims, "Saying that you can't ethically vote pro in this situation moots the entire point of their mutual debate, and rigs the voting system." This is the corollary to his theory that voting on something other than what was "in the debate" is unethical and is unfair intervention. However, it is actually he who is advocating unfair intervention: if the Pro (again, to clear up any confusion here, I am simply assuming that the Pro is The Instigator in this case; the results are the same if Con is The Instigator) chooses to unilaterally change the debate topic first, my opponent argues that if Con points this out, then Con wins; but if Con doesn't point this out and argues what the Pro said, then Con doesn't win. This is a completely arbitrary framework. Whether someone ought to win should not only be based on what the opponent said. My opponent attempts to justify this by saying that one cannot ethically vote on something that is not in the round; however, this is irrelevant to the current situation. As I stated in earlier arguments, since voting on this site is optional, I do not advocate that the Pro abandoning his/her original position means you must vote Con; however, it does mean that you cannot vote Pro. As I stated above, if Con were the Instigator and created the topic "Chocolate is the best kind of ice cream," and Con later argued that nuclear proliferation is bad, then he/she would no longer be disproving the fact that chocolate is the best kind of ice cream. Does it matter if Pro didn't point this out? One cannot ethically vote for the Con in that instance. This is why the second assumption I made in my first argument is so important to this framework; since one is not required to vote, one ought only vote when a debater has clearly proven the point they were supposed to prove. My opponent has consistently conceded this point - it is irrelevant whether the opposite side points out that the other side didn't uphold the original resolution, because whether they upheld it or not is something that is either true or untrue, and if it is untrue, one cannot ethically vote for the Pro. The other main argument my opponent justifies this with is the fact that "silence is consent;" i.e., if the Con doesn't point out that the Pro isn't upholding the original resolution, then you can only vote for who debated better in the round. While this may be true in a system where voting is mandatory and one has no other parameters to vote on, the voting system here is optional. If the topic is "Racial profiling is ethical," and Pro argues that abortion is good and Con argues that abortion is bad, then one cannot ethically vote for either debater - that is the crux of my framework. The only way to ethically vote for someone is if they uphold their original point. If Pro creates said topic, all Con has to do is give reasons why racial profiling is unethical or why the Pro is wrong. If Pro responds by saying abortion is good (and thus concedes that he cannot ethically be voted for on the topic of racial profiling), all Con needs to do is reiterate his arguments on racial profiling to win. If Con instead debates what the Pro is saying, Con is conceding any chance to win the debate. Note that we are debating about ethics here and not just about possibilities; if one would like to vote ethically and for the "correct" reasons, then one could not vote for either party. Of course, you can vote in general, and no one can stop you; but that is not what we are discussing here.

My opponent argues that this very subject does indeed apply to what we are talking about; the name of this topic is, "The Ethics of Voting. It is possible for someone to vote Pro in the below listed scenario." Now, in my last argument I said, "In the case where the statement in the topic is not what the debater intended on debating, it can be reasonably changed provided both debaters agree." This means that if there is some clerical error that causes the name of the topic to be different from what both debaters originally intended to debate about, then the debaters can mutually agree to change this in the round so that it becomes clearer to the voter what they ought to be arguing about. My opponent responds by saying that this is essentially what he is arguing for; however, this is clearly untrue. Prior to this debate, we had discussed this, and his first argument indicates that we would like to discuss whether it is ethical to vote Pro in the listed scenario, not simply "possible." This fits the requirement in my statement - it is not what the debaters intended to debate about. However, if the Pro creates the topic "Chocolate is the best kind of ice cream," and then stops debating about said topic, it is clear that the implicit assumption coming in was that the topic was about chocolate ice cream, just as the implicit assumption I agreed to when I accepted this debate was that we were arguing about whether it is ethical to vote. If both debaters start to argue about a different topic, this is not something one can ethically vote on, as it was not the original debate topic. My opponent misinterpreted my statement, and thus has essentially conceded the fact that the only ethical situation where the topic can be changed and it is still ethical to vote for either party is when the topic is not what both debaters intended to debate about. Con not pointing out that Pro is no longer debating about whether chocolate ice cream is the best does not mean that Con originally intended to debate about whether vanilla ice cream is the best, or abortion or nuclear proliferation. Thus, it is irrelevant to whether one can vote Pro.

Finally, I would like to go back over the inherent error my opponent made in choosing this particular situation he did. If the topic is "Chocolate ice cream is the best kind," and Pro argues that Vanilla is the best kind, Pro is now arguing that chocolate ice cream is NOT the best kind. If Con argues that toffee is the best kind of ice cream, then Con is also arguing that chocolate ice cream is NOT the best kind. Since it was originally Con's burden to point out that chocolate ice cream is not the best kind, one can only logically (and ethically) vote Con in this instance. This situation is quite clear. This does not mean Con is now arguing against "Vanilla is better than Toffee;" it means Pro is disproving his own original point and Con is still proving his original point. There is no ethical way to vote Pro and it is quite ethical, and correct, to vote Con in this instance.

To summarize:

- Voting on this site, being optional, means one can only vote Pro if Pro upheld his or her burden and proved the topic statement true; similarly, the converse applies. If Pro and/or Con do not uphold their burden(s), one cannot ethically vote for them.

- I concede that one can only ethically vote on arguments brought up in round. However, this goes my way since this means that one can only ethically vote Pro if Pro proves the original statement; if Pro does not do this, then one cannot vote on anything else Pro said.

- Voting on the original topic, and not necessarily what the debaters ended up arguing about, is actually the only inherently non-arbitrary way to vote; what happens if Pro argues abortion bad and Con argues nuclear proliferation bad?

- In this debate, the intent of the debate was not quite what was stated in the topic, so we modified it. This is only ethical if the intent of the debaters was not the original topic.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Haha, mine was long also, your turn. =)
Posted by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
Wow that was long... my arms are tired ;P
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
-Groan- We'll see indeed.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Personally, I agree with the con, but I am curious to see how this one turns out.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
YraelzEinsteinTied
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 8 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzEinsteinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzEinsteinTied
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 THEmanlyDEBATER3 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
YraelzEinsteinTied
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 qwerty15ster 8 years ago
qwerty15ster
YraelzEinsteinTied
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 floydington25 9 years ago
floydington25
YraelzEinsteinTied
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 GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
YraelzEinsteinTied
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 SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
YraelzEinsteinTied
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