The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The General Theory of Relativity Is True

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 5 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,681 times Debate No: 28158
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

Anti-atheist made a comment on a debate claiming that the theory of relativity is false, so I challenge him to this debate to see if he can back up his claim.

The definition: "The second is the General Theory of Relativity, which primarily applies to particles as they accelerate, particularly due to gravitation, and acts as a radical revision of Newton"s theory, predicting important new results for fast-moving and/or very massive bodies."[1]

Rules:

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)

Sources:

[1]: http://www.allaboutscience.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank Anti-Atheist for accepting this debate.
For this round, I will be attempting to affirm the resolution that the general theory of relativity is true. Therefore, I will provide a more in-depth definition, and then provide three tests that show that this theory is true.

What Is the General Theory of Relativity?

"In it [the theory], he [Albert Einstein] determined that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity."

"As he worked out the equations for his general theory of relativity, Einstein realized that massive objects caused a distortion in space-time. Imagine setting a large body in the center of a trampoline. The body would press down into the fabric, causing it to dimple. A marble rolled around the edge would spiral inward toward the body, pulled in much the same way that the gravity of a planet pulls at rocks in space."[9]

The Perihelion Precession of Mercury

The precession of Mercury can prove relativity.

What is this?

Under Newtonian physics, a two-body system consisting of a lone object orbiting a spherical mass would trace out an ellipse with the spherical mass at a focus. The point of closest approach, called the periapsis (or, as the central body in our Solar System is the sun, perihelion), is fixed. A number of effects in our solar system cause the perihelia of planets to precess (rotate) around the sun. The principal cause is the presence of other planets which perturb each other's orbit. Another (much more minor) effect is solar oblateness.

Mercury deviates from the precession predicted from these Newtonian effects. This anomalous rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was first recognized in 1859 as a problem in celestial mechanics, by Urbain Le Verrier. His re-analysis of available timed observations of transits of Mercury over the Sun's disk from 1697 to 1848 showed that the actual rate of the precession disagreed from that predicted from Newton's theory by 38" (arc seconds) per tropical century (later re-estimated at 43").A number of ad hoc and ultimately unsuccessful solutions were proposed, but they tended to introduce more problems.[1][2]

How does relativity solve this problem?

A number of ad hoc and ultimately unsuccessful solutions were proposed, but they tended to introduce more problems. In general relativity, this remaining precession, or change of orientation of the orbital ellipse within its orbital plane, is explained by gravitation being mediated by the curvature of space-time. Einstein showed that general relativity agrees closely with the observed amount of perihelion shift. This was a powerful factor motivating the adoption of general relativity.[1]

What is the evidence?
The total observed precession of Mercury is 574.10±0.65 arc-seconds per century relative to the inertial ICFR. The total observed relativity is 42.98 ±0.04. The correction by 42.98" is 3/2 multiple of classical prediction with PPN parameters:



Thus the effect can be fully explained by general relativity. More recent calculations based on more precise measurements have not materially changed the situation.[3][4][5]

The Expansion of the Universe

The fact that the universe is expanding proves relativity.

What is this?

In 1922 Alexander Friedmann found that Einstein equations have non-stationary solutions (even in the presence of the cosmological constant). In 1927 Georges Lemaître showed that static solutions of the Einstein equations, which are possible in the presence of the cosmological constant, are unstable, and therefore the static universe envisioned by Einstein could not exist (it must either expand or contract).Lemaître made an explicit prediction that the universe should expand. He also derived a redshift-distance relationship, which is now known as the Hubble Law.[6]

How does relativity solve this problem?

If the expansion of the universe exists, so does relativity, because the latter would be the cause of the former.

What is the evidence?

The expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929 was then considered by many (and continues to be considered by some now) as a direct confirmation of the general relativity. In the 1930s, largely due to the work of E. A. Milne, it was realized that the linear relationship between redshift and distance derives from the general assumption of uniformity and isotropy rather than specifically from general relativity. However the prediction of a non-static universe was non-trivial, indeed dramatic, and primarily motivated by general relativity.[7][8]

Gravitational Lensing

The phenomena known as gravitational lensing can prove relativity.

What is this?

Light around a massive object, such as a black hole, is bent, causing it to act as a lens for the things that lay behind it. Astronomers routinely use this method to study stars and galaxies behind massive objects.

A gravitational lens refers to a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer.[9][10]

How does relativity solve this problem?

If gravitational lensing exists, so does relativity, because the latter would be the cause of the former.

What is the evidence?

Einstein's Cross, a quasar in the Pegasus constellation, is an excellent example of gravitational lensing. The quasar is about 8 billion light-years from Earth, and sits behind a galaxy that is 400 million light-years away. Four images of the quasar appear around the galaxy because the intense gravity of the galaxy bends the light coming from the quasar.

The entire sky is slightly distorted due to the gravitational deflection of light caused by the Sun (the anti-Sun direction excepted). This effect has been observed by the European Space Agency astrometric satellite Hipparcos. It measured the positions of about 105 stars. During the full mission about 3.5×106 relative positions have been determined, each to an accuracy of typically 3 milliarcseconds (the accuracy for an 8–9 magnitude star). Since the gravitation deflection perpendicular to the Earth-Sun direction is already 4.07 mas, corrections are needed for practically all stars. Without systematic effects, the error in an individual observation of 3 milliarcseconds, could be reduced by the square root of the number of positions, leading to a precision of 0.0016 mas.[9][6][10]

Sources:

[1]: http://www.alberteinstein.info...
[2]: U. Le Verrier (1859), (in French), Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences (Paris), vol. 49 (1859), pp.379–383.
[3]: Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions". Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
[4]: Lorenzo Iorio (2005). "On the possibility of measuring the solar oblateness and some relativistic effects from planetary ranging". Astronomy and Astrophysics 433: 385–393.
[5]: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de...
[6]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7]: J. W. Rudnicki, M. Wu, C. H. Kuo and L. M. Keer, "Surface Deformation and Energy Release Rates for Constant Stress Drop Slip Zones in an Elastic Half-space", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, 16,509-16,524, 1991., pg. 28.
[8]: "X-Ray Scattering Study of the Critical Exponent h in Argon," E. Gurmen, M. Chandrasekhar, P.E. Chumbley, H.D. Bale, D.A. Dolejsi, J.S. Lin and P.W. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. A22, 170 (1980)., pg. 37.
[9]: http://www.space.com...
[10]: http://www.rssd.esa.int...
Anti-atheist

Con

1. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury

Relativity cannot account for the loss of arc-seconds per century. As the sun is losing mass all the time[1][2]. If relativity is true the curvature of space-time is also in loss of the sun and a gain in precession mercury. Yet mercury"s arc-seconds per century is almost constant[3].

Relativity has ad hocs too, however they're never published due to censorship and reletivist bias.[4]

2. The Expansion of the Universe

Eienstien also proposed a relativity theory for a static universe. So it shows the theory can be twisted to fit (like dark matter). Relativity only allows for a various expansion and eccentricity rate. Increasing expansion in the universe has been observed contradicting relativity[5] and increased eccentricity in things such as the moon have been observed contradicting relativity[6]

3. Gravitational Lensing

This was already known, light gets bent by objects. Quantum Physics predicts this. If relativity was true the light should also bounce around other objects[7], however light spreads out in all directions.

Argument against Relativity
1. Black holes.

Computer models that are based off relativity predict a large number of black holes. More than are actually in the universe[8]

[1] Williams, Tarry. 2000. The Sun and its mass
[2] http://www.universetoday.com...
[3] Femmingway, Lewis. 2010. Mercury"s Orbit
[4] Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June).
[5] http://www.eso.org...
[6] http://arxiv.org...
[7] Grille, Kim. 1998. Light waves with massive objects.
[8] "The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe."
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank Anti-Atheist for presenting his arguments.

I. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury

My opponent doesn't seem to grasp the science behind this proof. I will explain why my opponent's criticism is unwarranted.

First, my opponent is trying to blow the sun's loss of mass way out of proportion. As this explains, "Over one year this [the mass loss] is 7 x 10^19 grams, and over the entire life of the Sun to date is about 3.1 x 10^29 grams. The mass of the Sun is 4 x 10^33 grams so this loss equals 0.008 percent of its current mass."[1] Does this really sound that big?

In fact, in relation to the Earth's orbit, it will only add 7000 miles over the next 4.5 billion years. The Earth's spproximate current orbital distance is 577108800 miles.[1][2] This is about a 0.0001% increase in its orbital distance; again, a rather increase.

The arc-seconds per century decrease would equal around 0.0001% in 4.5 billion years compared to today, so this is rather irrelevant.

I will now explain why relativity's effects are important here. Here is a chart detailing this process:
Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury
Amount (arcsec/Julian century)Cause
531.63 ±0.69 Gravitational tugs of the other planets
0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.98 ±0.04 General relativity
574.64±0.69 Total
574.10±0.65 Observed

No other theory tried fits in with this kind of accuracy. Relativity explains it perfectly.[3][4][5]

In addition, this is confirmed when other planets are studied. The farther away a planet is, the less relativity there is because the less precession there is. This has been confirmed: The other planets experience perihelion shifts as well, but, since they are farther from the sun and have longer periods, their shifts are lower, and could not be observed accurately until long after Mercury's. For example, the perihelion shift of Earth's orbit due to general relativity is of 3.84 seconds of arc per century, and Venus's is 8.62". Both values are in good agreement with observation.The periapsis shift of binary pulsar systems have been measured, with PSR 1913+16 amounting to 4.2º per year. These observations are consistent with general relativity.[6][7][8]

Therefore, relativity does cause this perihelion precession.

II. The Expansion of the Universe

Einstein did at first propose a static universe, but as my opponent's source 5 explains, Einstein's equations of relativity never indicated that the universe was ever static. In fact, it did predict an ever accelerating expanding universe. His cosmological constant and equations explain this expansion. "In modern terms, it represents the contribution of the vacuum energy."[14]

Recently, a team of cosmologists have announced the most accurate measurement ever made from when the expansion of the universe began to accelerate. Their results? "The new test of Einstein's view of the universe has proved him right with ‘incredible accuracy’ and is helping scientists to understand the mysterious acceleration of the universe... It means that the phenomenon can be explained using just Einstein's general theory of relativity and the cosmological constant - the simplest theoretical explanation for the acceleration of the universe."[9][15]

In fact, "[A] team found that the galaxies, located up to 3.5 billion light-years from Earth, are clustered together in precisely the way that general relativity predicts.
By combining measurements of the galaxies' clustering with other properties—such as the galaxies' movements relative to one another and the way they bend each other's light—Reyes's team calculated EG, a quantity physicists use when looking at objects' expected interactions.

General relativity predicts that EG should be around 0.4. The value of EG measured in the study was 0.39."[10] Relativity predicts this pretty well.

III. Gravitational Lensing

My opponent fails to make any sense with his point here. Relativity predicts that, "[there will be] apparent bending of light as it passes near a massive body."[11] "This effect was conclusively observed during the solar eclipse of 1919, when the Sun was silhouetted against the Hyades star cluster, for which the positions were well known."[11] The fact that is exists proves relativity because gravitational lensing was one of the predictions of Einstein and the general theory of relativity.

"Einstein's theory predicts that the direction of light propagation should be changed in a gravitational field. Precise observations indicate that Einstein is right, both about the effect and its magnitude. We have already seen a spectacular consequence of the deflection of light in a gravitational field: gravitational lensing."[12]

IV. Black Holes

Because of, "Scientists think somehow galaxies are ridding themselves of much of the mass that would have ended up falling into their central black holes."[13]

Even so, I fail to see how this disproves relativity. My opponent needs to explain why the fact that simulations produce more black holes than are actually in the universe disproves relativity.

Sources:

[1]: http://www.astronomycafe.net...
[2]: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[3]: Clemence, G. M. (1947). "The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions". Reviews of Modern Physics 19 (4): 361–364.
[4]: Lorenzo Iorio (2005). "On the possibility of measuring the solar oblateness and some relativistic effects from planetary ranging". Astronomy and Astrophysics 433: 385–393.
[5]: Myles Standish, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1998)
[6]: Biswas, Abhijit; Mani, Krishnan R. S. (2008). "Relativistic perihelion precession of orbits of Venus and the Earth". Central European Journal of Physics. v1 6 (3): 754–758.
[7]: http://books.google.com...
[8]: http://aspbooks.org...
[9]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[10]: http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[11]: http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...
[12]: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
[13]: http://www.scientificamerican.com...;
[14]: http://www.eso.org...;
[15]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Anti-atheist

Con

I. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury

Pro evades. Even a slight change would change the curvature and rapidly change the APS

II. The Expansion of the Universe

Pro says eienstien"s first theory was for a static universe. This shows it can be made to fit. If the universe was contracting relativity can be changed. Relativity does predict expansion of the universe but at a certain rate. The universe is expanding at too fast a rate. The fact of eccentricity increasing is ignored (because he cannot refute it)

III. Gravitational Lensing

Pro ignores everthing here. This lensing was already known and was proven by quantum mechanics before relativity. Pro also ignores the fact that light goes off in all directions instead of bouncing contradicts relativity

IV. Black Holes

Pro evades again. Asking me to explain how instead of going after the argument

"Relativity would cause black holes to increase in depth curvature causing an influx of increased black holes. Computer models can predict the number with a 0.7% error rate."[1]

Here is a picture of pro"s performance in this debate
http://www.best-of-web.com...

1. Greene, Brian. 2011 Black Holes interacting with quantum gravity.
Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank Anti-atheist for this debate, however he has put a less than satisfactory amount of work and sense into his arguments. I will explain.

I. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury

Pro continues to ignore my argument. I proved that the sun's loss of mass is basically irrelevant when determining the overall trend of perihelion precession. It has around an 0.0001% effect. I am unfortunately going to have to use some pretty complicated mathematics to prove my point.

The apsidal angle is:



From this, we can derive that:





Thus, the perihelion advances by:



...radians per revolution due to the general relativistic correction to Newtonian gravity. It follows that the rate of perihelion precession due to the general relativistic correction is:

arc seconds per year.

Where:

= The amount relativity plays in the precession

M = The mass of the sun

c= The speed of light

r = The radius of Merucry

R= The mean orbital radius of Mercury in mean Earth orbital radii

T= The orbital period of Mercury in years

F = h/(r)^2

h = The angular monemtum per unit mass

G = Gravitaitonal attraction

Hence, the general relativistic contribution to the perihelion advance for Mercury is 0.41 arc seconds per year. It is easily demonstrated that the corresponding contribution is negligible for the other planets in the Solar System. If the above calculation is carried out sightly more accurately, taking the eccentricity of Mercury's orbit into account, then the general relativistic contribution to the perihelion advance becomes 0.43 arc seconds per year. It follows that the total perihelion precession rate for Mercury is 5.32 + 0.43 = 5.75 arc seconds per year. This is in exact agreement with the observed precession rate. Indeed, the ability of general relativity to explain the discrepancy between the observed perihelion precession rate of Mercury, and that calculated from Newtonian dynamics, was one of the first major successes of this theory.[1]

The perihelion advance can be illustrated here:



[2]

As Mercury's orbit moves, so does its perihelion, and this is partially because of relativity. Gravity Probe B did detect relativity around the Earth, looking something like this:



[3]

No other theory ever formulated fits in with this kind of accuracy on the perihelions.[4][5] "The GTR explains precisely this difference [perihelion] between the Newtonian theory and observation."[6]

II. The Expansion of the Universe

My opponent has not read the synopsis of the theory and of the cosmological constant, so I am going to have to elaborate. Einstein first proposed that the universe was static; however, when he formulated relativity, the results of the theory never indicated a static universe - they indicated an expanding universe. Einstein then propsed a "cosmological constant" to make relativity fit with his original hypothesis. However, when Edwin Hubble proved the universe was expanding, Einstein scrapped both his theory for a static universe and the cosmological constant. Relativity only explained a universe expanding at a constant rate. However, when it was found that the universe's expansion is accelerating, the cosmological constant was brought back into play as the cause of this. And it fits very well with the acceleration.

"One possible solution is Einstein’s cosmological constant. If cosmologists put the cosmological constant back into Einstein’s general relativity equations, then general relativity equations can predict that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The value of the cosmological constant would have to be different than the value Einstein originally used to force the theory to predict a static universe. The idea basic is however the same."[7]

"The value of the [cosmological] constant is responsible for the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe."[8]

The general theory of relativity also postulated the existance of dark energy, which is directly responsible with the acceleration of the expansion of the universe (NOTE: Yes, dark energy does exist and Einstein hypothesized it with relativity.[10][11]) :



[9]

Indeed, looking at the universe's history, the universe did not start an acceleration of expansion until dark energy overtook dark matter around 5 billion years ago:



[10]

Also, indeed, with dark energy and relativity at the helm, this very well may explain why the universe is speeding up (NOTE: Purple is dark energy and green is relativity (gravity)):



[11]

"New results... confirm that dark energy (represented by purple grid) is a smooth, uniform force that now dominates over the effects of gravity (green grid)."[11]

"The universe's acceleration also confirms Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, since the expansion was required by the famed scientist's cosmological constant in that famed equation."[12]

Also, on the fact of eccentricity, I never ignored it. It was never part of this argument. Anyway, it does not disprove relativity. In the words of your source, relativity only doesn't explain it. That's not enough to disprove a theory.

III. Gravitational Lensing

The term gravitational lensing as we know it today was actually piloted by Einstein. In fact, "Einstein predicted that matter would deflect light. More than a century earlier, John Michell and others had reached the same conclusion... but Einstein's theory of 1916 predicts double the rate of deflection. [Studies] show that the general relativistic prediction [of lensing] is correct to 1 part in 1000."[13]

This process can be illustrated with this:


[14]

Einstein's cross is a wonderful example of this process:



[15]

"The four separate images have the same redshift of Z= 1.695 . This suggests that they are quasar images, and in fact multiple images of the same quasar."[16] The reason there are four images is due to strong gravitational lensing.[15]

In fact, this can be seen throughout the universe. Here is a near perfect example:


[15]

And this shows multiple lenses around the same location:



[17]

Therefore, gravitational lensing does exist and relativity did predict it.

Also, my opponent claims that light should be bouncing instead of going off, however, this makes no sense. Gravitational lensing proves relativity.

IV. Black Holes

"Computer models can predict the number with a 0.7% error rate." This is in contradiction with my opponent's earlier argument here. In fact, black holes can help to confirm another proof of relativity, frame dragging.[18]

Sources:

[1]: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu...
[2]: http://ase.tufts.edu...
[3]: http://www.alberteinsteinsite.com...
[4]: http://aspbooks.org...
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6]: http://www,relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i1_en/
[7]: http://www.decodedscience.com...
[8]: http://physicsworld.com...
[9]: http://dsc.discovery.com...
[10]: http://www.examiner.com...
[11]: http://phys.org...
[12]: http://www.space.com...
[13]: Murdin, Paul, and Margaret Penston. The Firefly Encyclopedia of Astronomy
[14]: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[15]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[16]: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[17]: http://www.nasa.gov...
[18]: http://science.nasa.gov...;
Anti-atheist

Con

Since this is the last round itll be a conclusion.

In this round pro evades everything and tries to wow everyone with his fancy pictures. Don't fall for this trick. Look at the arguments and its clear mine are on top.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
NATURE 10:19--Here are two who never knew the holy binky once in their entire lives. Never learned a single word in any book ever written. One of them even goes to the bathroom in a box everyday and the other one goes to the bathroom outside everyday in front of people. Yet, somehow, they both figured out how to be good, and playful without a holy binky or any binky at all, maybe humans can do without a binky, watch this. http://www.wimp.com...

DUH 11:8--Think of information as nutrition for the brain. Education is then nutrition for the brain. So it stands to reason you would want thoughts, ideas, information and education to be as nutritious as possible. If thats so then we would be teaching "I dont know the reason for everything, lets roll up our sleeves and keep looking", instead religion teaches"The reason for everything is admittingly jealous and proud of it, plus you dont have to look far, the reason for everything can convict you of thought crimes" :)

KNUCKLEHEADS 5:12--Hi Ladies, look at this jewel of a scripture, so inspirational. Leviticus 15:28-30--"But if she is cleansed of her discharge, she shall count for herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons and bring them to the priest, to the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the priest shall use one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her before the Lord for her unclean discharge" Dont forget the burnt offering, tsk, tsk ladies :)

Misogyny 7:2--If men could get pregnant, not only would abortions be legal everywhere, there would be abortion clinics on every street corner :)

WAKEUP 11:3--Its called brainwashing for a reason, the right amount and it sometimes works, and tax exempt church leaders relish in the effects :)

The preceeding true scripture is brought to you by our faithful sponsors, CHECK and MATE :)
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Ron Paul, Watch the YOU TUBE, clip titled God vs science,

It actually has nothing to do with God, buit is a challenge to einstiens theory of relativity, and claims its the end of physics as we know it. Michio Kaku is the narrator.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
stfu ron paul
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
@Anti-atheist:

Good job on ignoring all my arguments, fabricating sources, drawing false conclusions from the few real sources you have, and generally just running away from this debate altogether, as evidenced by your horrible final round.
Posted by Blacksnake 4 years ago
Blacksnake
go anti i can't vot sorry :(
Posted by errya 4 years ago
errya
After reading this I suddenly feel unintelligent..
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
And I have enough evidence to write a counter book 3 times the length. And still write a book to destroy reletivity
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Lol Anti. One, I had three finals yesterday and I'm bushed, and two, I'm currently creating another argument for another debate. I've already found enough evidence to write a book.
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Funny pro hadn't posted an opening argument yet. I think he cannot find any evidence
Posted by Anti-atheist 4 years ago
Anti-atheist
Lies muted. Conservapedia is great.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
Ron-PaulAnti-atheistTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro rebutted Con's points with solid science. Pro used the scientific sources. In the last round I couldn't see the maths on my PC for some reason. Anyhow, the issue was settled before then.
Vote Placed by utahjoker 4 years ago
utahjoker
Ron-PaulAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: gave better sources as well as better reasoning
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Ron-PaulAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Trolls like CON are ruining the purpose of this website. If such trolls continue to populate this website, I would consider floating a petition to ban all usages of "accept on demand" challenges. PRO is clearly debating in earnest, and CON clearly is not.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
Ron-PaulAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments went largely unrefuted and con simply asserted that he was right as his main arguments, which resulted in him getting a thorough a** whipping in this debate. Arguments to the pro, sources to the pro since his case was backed up by a lot more evidence then the Con's, and conduct to the pro too since con basically forfeited in the last round and since con routinely acted like a dick in the debate.
Vote Placed by Stupidwalrus 4 years ago
Stupidwalrus
Ron-PaulAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I tried to fit my entire RFD into this box, but 1000 characters isn't enough for this magnificent debate.