The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Defro
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,953 times Debate No: 48194
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

There are many conspiracy theories about the sinking of the Royal Mail Ship Titanic. I, however, remain convinced that the story of the ship hitting and iceberg and sinking because of that is the truth. I look forward to debating anyone that disagrees with the traditional iceberg story.

Before we begin, I would like to implement a few crucial views:
1. Sources must be cited.
2. Pictures must be used.
3. Arguments must be sophisticated.
4. Proper spelling and grammar must be used.
5. Proper conduct must be used.
Defro

Con

I accept. I would like to begin by defining the term "sink" so that we establish common ground.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

sink
(noun): to displace part of the volume of a supporting substance or object and become totally or partiallysubmerged or enveloped; fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom
http://dictionary.reference.com...

*I will be presenting two different theories concerning how the Titanic sank. If just one of my theories is proven more likely and more possible than Pro's theory, then I obviously win the argument.


I wish good luck to Pro in presenting his case in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Before we begin, I would like to define "iceberg":

1. a large floating mass of ice, detached from a glacier and carried out to sea.
2.Informal. an emotionally cold person.
3.Australian Informal. a person who swims or surfs regularly in winter.Idioms
4.tip of the iceberg, the first hint or revelation of something larger or more complex: The new evidence in the case is just the tip of the iceberg. [1]

We will be using definition one. Now, let's begin.

Critical Evidence Analysis
The idea of the Titanic sinking because it hit an iceberg should not be treated as a theory. It should be treated as fact. First of all, there is plenty of evidence to suggest an iceberg. There are pictures of the iceberg believed to be the iceberg to have sunk the Titanic and there are witness accounts as well supporting an iceberg. The pictures are the following:



You can also find evidence by analyzing a map. The Titanic's voyage was concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, thus being susceptible to icebergs and pack ice. The Titanic was believed to be "unsinkable", but both you and I know that that is not true.



The
Titanic had multiple safety measures installed, but they did not work. The ship could have floated with a few compartments filled with water. However, too many were fillled and the weight of the water pulled the ship down.



I do not see what could have caused such exponential damage to the ship. I am aware there are theories involving Unterwasserboots, but that theory can be eliminated due to a lack of evidence. The damage can be seen in an illustration below:



Now, you must admit, the image below does not work at all:




I have eliminated that theory. I will eliminate further ones in the coming rounds. Now, I await your response.


References

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Defro

Con




Thank you for your quick response. I will begin with a brief rebuttal of your theory before presenting mine. If you notice there is a video on the right. You can watch it after reading my first theory.


Rebuttals:

"First of all, there is plenty of evidence to suggest an iceberg. There are pictures of the iceberg believed to be the iceberg to have sunk the Titanic"

-
The keywords made by Pro in this statement are "suggest" and "believed". This means that Pro's evidence does not prove anything at all. It merely implies that the Titanic was sunk by an iceberg, no one can be a hundred percent sure.


"The damage can be seen in an illustration below:"


-This is not an accurate piece of evidence. In fact, this is not evidence at all. During the sinking of Titanic, no one was taking a picture of the bottom of the ship, and if there were people who did this, they would likely have died before the picture can reach civilization.

-Using this image does not support you at all because it is not evidence. They way Pro is using it is as an logical fallacy. It is like asking the illustrator of the image why they think this image is accurate, and he/she will say: "Because the Titanic hit an iceberg", and if asked why he/she thinks the Titanic hit an iceberg, he/she will say: "Because this picture says so!"

-Pro must realize that this image is not evidence, but a claim. This image is the theory itself. You cannot use a theory as evidence for itself.


"Now, you must admit, the image below does not work at all:"


-Why must I admit that this image does not work when you haven't proven against it?


Rebuttal Conclusion:

-Pro has not provided sufficient evidence that proves that the Titanic was hit by an iceberg. The evidence he has only implies that the Titanic was hit by an iceberg, but we are not 100% certain. He used a logical fallacy and requests me to admit something when he hasn't explained why.

*Furthermore, in Round 1, Pro mentioned himself in the rules that sources must be cited, yet he provided "evidence" without providing any sources. The only source he provided was a link to a dictionary page of the definition of the term "iceberg".

________________________________________________________________________________________

I will now present my theories
________________________________________________________________________________________


Theory 1:

-Something happened to make the Titanic weigh more than the water it displaced.

-->This is the only way a ship can sink. The only reason a ship can float is because it displaces it's own weight on water. Regardless of how heavy it is, if it can displace it's own weight on water, it will float. However, if it weighs more than the water it displaces, it will definately sink. This has been proven 100% true for all boats and ships, therefore my we are 100% sure that my theory is correct, while we are not 100% sure Pro's theory is correct. The picture on the left demonstrates water displacement. The picture on the right demonstrates how ships can displace it's own weight on water.



-->Unlike Pro, I will provide plenty of sources that support my claim below, and there will also be a video above.
http://science.howstuffworks.com...;
http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...(fluid)

________________________________________________________________________________________


Theory 2: Captain Jack Sparrow Did It

-Now, everyone knows Captian Jack Sparrow, the notorius pirate, but few know this tale, and I am assuming Pro does not, or else Pro would not suggest such an absurd theory such as the Titanic hitting an iceberg.

Gather round children, I shall tell you the unkonw tale of Captain Jack Sparrow and the Titanic

This is a tale of the time Sparrow was yet again stranded on an island, with one gun and one bullet. This time, he was cast out by the mighty pirates "The New York Yankees" led by thier loved captain, Captain Paul Mccartney. Jack was stranded on the island for 4 days, with nothing to eat, and nothing to drink. There was nothing to shoot, so his gun rendered useless.

Suddenly, Jack sees a ship! For some reason, Jack felt the need to take a picture of this great ship so he pulled a camera out of his ear and did just that. Here is the picture he took.



Jack realized that this ship could be his ticket to civilization. It could save his life! However, no matter how hard he yelled, the ship would not notice him. He needed something to make a large noise that. He looked to his gun and had a great idea!
.
.
.
.
.
He then proceeded to shoot his leg so that he would scream loud enough for the ship to hear him. Lo and behold the ship heard him and brought him on board.

Now, Jack was born with a rare disorder in which his fingernails grew 100 times faster than your average human. But it was not a huge issue because he had his handy dandy nail clipper! However, after being on the ship for 3 hours and having left the island he was stranded in so far way, he realized he had forgotten to bring it!

He resorted to biting his fingernails instead.



But the outcome was not expected. Instead of cutting his fingernails shorter, his teeth only sharpened them!



Now, Captain Jack Sparrow is a natural pirate therefore, he loves ships. On his 3rd day in the ship, he requested a tour of the ship from one of the sailors. The sailor gladly obliged.

As we all know, Captain Jack Sparrow also likes to touch things.
"Hmm...this is a very nice ship. Tell me sailor," He asked while stroking the walls with his fingers, "what are these walls made of OH BLOODY HELL!!!"
Because of how sharp his nails were, he's made a 2 meter long opening in the ship from where he stroked the walls!

Water started rushing in. This is where Jack Sparrow's heroic side kicks in.

"Tell everybody to evacuate the ship damn you! Quick!"
"But...but..sir! What about you?"
"YO HO YO HO A PIRATES LIFE FOR ME!"

After everyone evacuated the ship, Jack was planning, but he could think of nothing.

"I guess I'll improvise? Let's see...what's in my ear?"

He pulls out an empty whiskey bottle that he finished the night before out of his ear.

"Perfect!"

By this point, the ship was already underwater, so everyone assumed it had sunk and that Sparrow has died. But this was not so because Jack has an empty bottle.

With the might of a thousand suns Jack shoved the ship with all his might into the bottle.

You see, the Titanic hasn't sunk. It still lives! In Jack's empty bottle!"

Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

I would like to begin with a rebuttal of your rebuttal. I posted an image of the Titanic's hull being damaged and you wrote:

"This is not an accurate piece of evidence. In fact, this is not evidence at all. During the sinking of Titanic, no one was taking a picture of the bottom of the ship, and if there were people who did this, they would likely have died before the picture can reach civilization."

My friend, I must say, that is completely invalid. Of course nobody would have taken a picture of the Titanic's hull while it was sinking. But you see, the discoverers of the the wreck - most notably Robert Ballard - have taken pictures of the wreck and analyzed the damage. They have found plenty of evidence supporting the iceberg theory (it is not a theory. It is fact supported by witness accounts as well as physical evidence).


I would now like to make a rebuttal about your first theory:

That is not a theory. It is fact. Of course this is what enabled the Titanic to sink, but you did not specify what enabled this issue to occur. You wrote:

"Something happened to make the Titanic weigh more than the water it displaced."

That sentence actually supports my argument. The iceberg caused damage to the ship's hull, thus resulting in water flow into the ship and the increase of the ship's weight. I understand science very well, in fact. I do not need a science lesson from you. I understand displacement and weight. I believe you wrote your argument way to fast and that you didn't take your time. You weren't thinking.

Now, my rebuttal of your second theory:

You made a highly uneducated vindication. That, I am sorry to say, will cause you to lose this argument. When beginning this, I intended on having a mature, rational debate with someone who does not think the Titanic hit an iceberg. You have disappointed me. You have made a childish, illogical, unreasonable argument. You have failed to fulfill your duties. As I have written in the first round as the third rule, "arguments must be sophisticated." Until you can present a theory that is logical and that corresponds with the physical evidence, this debate is over and I have won. However, if you do indeed have another theory, I am eager to hear it.


Conclusion
I have not presented as much evidence as I could have, I understand, but my points are more valid than yours. Your second theory is complete bulls**t. I am sorry if my conduct is a little weak, but I must say, that is what it is. Currently, I do not need more evidence. I just need to make rebuttals about your points. However, if you can come up with new theories that correspond with the evidence, I would be eager to find out what could have maybe happened to the RMS Titanic. You do realize what the Titanic's legacy is, right? Many people lost their lives that night. It was a gigantic tragedy. Please do not disrespect the victims' memories again.
Defro

Con

*Disclaimer: Pro has broken the first 2 rules he has implemented in Round 1 by not citing sources and using pictures in this round. As a matter of fact, he hasn't provided any sources for the last round either. Therefore, Pro's evidence is not valid until he provides their respective sources next round. I shall await your submission.

_________________________________________________________________


Counter-Rebuttals:


"That is not a theory. It is fact. Of course this is what enabled the Titanic to sink..."

-I will provide the definitions of the terms "theory" and "fact".

--> Theory (noun): A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

--
> Fact (noun): Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

-->> Knowledge or information based on real occurrences can be used as a set of statements to explain a group of other facts.

-->>> Therefore, all facts are theories, but not all theories are facts."That sentence actually supports my argument."

-No it doesn't, not neccessarily, because there are many other events that could have enabled by theory to occur, not just yours. Remember that I am arguing that my theory is more likely to be the cause of the Titanic's sinking than yours.


"I understand science very well, in fact. I do not need a science lesson from you."

-Great! Because I am not a science teacher, and though I would gladly get my science teacher to give you a science lesson had you needed one from me, I would preferable not want to bother him.


"I understand displacement and weight."

-So does that mean you concede to my thoery?


"I believe you wrote your argument way to fast and that you didn't take your time. You weren't thinking."

-Pro is using ad hominen, which is a logical fallacy. In case you don't know what ad hominen means, it's when you attack your opponent's character rather than answer my argument.


"You made a highly uneducated vindication. That, I am sorry to say, will cause you to lose this argument."

-And you are making a claim not backed up by any evidence. You have shown or proven in anyway why my second theory is an uneducated vindication. As of now your evidence for your theory that the Titanic was hit by an iceberg is invalid because you have not provided sources.


"As I have written in the first round as the third rule, "arguments must be sophisticated." Until you can present a theory that is logical and that corresponds with the physical evidence, this debate is over and I have won."

-I'm going to have to define the term "sophisticated" because you haven't. To stick to your rules that you haven't followed this round, I will provide a screenshot picture from Google instead of text.



-My second theory is certainly developed to a high degree of complexity. As a matter of fact, one can argue that it is more complex than your theory because in my second theory there are much more factors and explanations of how Jack Sparrow sunk the ship.

-Furthermore, as mentioned in Round 1, I will be presenting two theories and if just one theory tops yours, then I win. Therefore it is logical to assume that even if one theory breaks your rules, if the other doesn't, then I still have a valid case.


"I have not presented as much evidence as I could have, I understand..."

-On the contrary, you have not presented any evidence at all because of your lack of sources. In Round 2, I presented sources and pictures that support my first theory. You only have pictures, which aren't very credible without sources. Of course, you can say the same about my second theory, but as established at the beginning of the round, as long as one of my theories stick to the rules, then I am fine.


"Your second theory is complete bulls**t."

-Quite frankly I don't understand this at all! How can you say that my theory is the feces of a male cow?

-This is my second theory: Jack Sparrow sunk the titanic.

-This is bulls**t:



"Currently, I do not need more evidence."

-Indeed you do. Your stated "evidence" has no credibility whatsoever without their respective sources!


________________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion

-Pro has broken two of his rule that he implemented into this debate that sources must be cited. Due to the fact that I must remind him to do so, this should surely result in deductions in his conduct and sources. Voters remember to put that on the scoreboard.

-Pro has conceded to my first theory.

-Because Pro's evidence is not credible, as of now they are invalid, therefore I have no need to address his argument. Hopefully, he lists credible sources in the next round so that I can address them.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

You misinterpreted what I wrote. At first glance, what you wrote makes complete sence. But when you really think about it, it is absolutely terrible.

I did not break my rules. I wrote:

"1. Sources must be cited," not "1. Sources must be cited in every single argument." I also wrote, "2. Pictures must be used," not "2. Pictures must be used in every single argument."

You disappoint me.
Defro

Con

***I stand corrected! You have not provided a single source to back up your claims of the Titanic having hit an iceberg. You did not provide one source. The closest thing you provided to a source was a link to Dictionary.com explaining the definition of an iceberg, which does not count as a source because it does not support your theory.

Therefore you have still broken your own rule!

-I on the other hand, provided 3 sources plus a video explaining my first theory.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

-I have given you time to reclaim your evidence as valid, yet you put that time to waste by trying to justify your violation of your own rule. And the one who is dissapointed is YOU?
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Due to Pro's lack of rebuttals, it is implied that he concedes to my argument.

-Pro presented an image that depicted the ships' damage and claimed that this supports his theory that the Titanic hit an iceberg. I am certain that an iceberg is not the only possible thing that could have done this to the ship. For an example, Pro has shown another image in which it depicted some sort of creature with an unusual crystallic back. The image clearly shows how something else like a giant underwater creature can cause the exact same kind of damage to the Titanic as an iceberg.




-This shows that Pro's theory is not the only possiblility. However, regardless of what caused these damages to the ship, my first theory would still be a valid explanation for how the Titanic sunk, therefore, my first theory is more likely. In fact, my second theory would also be possible in this case because Jack Sparrow's nails were so sharp and long that it could hav caused this much damage.
_________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion:

-Pro has broken 1 of his rules.

-Pro's argument is not supported by any credible source, rendering his claims invalid.

-Pro has conceded to my argument.

-My 1st thoery has been established to be more likely than his.

__________________________________________________________________

*Pro was allowed to reclaim his arguments as valid in the previous round by providing sources. He has not done this. He should not be allowed to provide sources in the last round because it is the round in which we wrap up the debate and it would not leave enough room for debate.

*I will wrap up the debate in the next round.

Debate Round No. 4
WilliamsP

Pro

First, I shall make a few rebuttals and then I will write a conclusion:

Rebuttals

Your first theory should not even have been listed at all. It is a fact that everyone with a basic knowledge of science is familiar with. When I started the debate, I did not want a theory that is fact. I wanted a theory that could be considered fact once the sufficient evidence is found. I wanted a theory that corresponds with the physical evidence and witness testimonies. You said that the ship sank due to it weighing more than the water it displaced. Yes, that is fact. However, you did not say what caused this. My stance is supported by this fact. Also, I don't think you understood the debate's intention when you accepted it. I wanted to hear a theory such as "a U-Boot was under the Titanic and rammed it" or "the Titanic collided with pack ice." The displacement of water is not a theory. It is fact. I wanted to hear a theory explaining why the ship had such exponential damage to its hull. Of course, when the water came into the ship, the ship weighed more than the water it displaced. Your "theory" makes it sound as if the Titanic randomly started sinking. That is not how it happened. There are witness testimonies that clearly state that the Titanic was half in the water, half in the air, in a diagonal angle. The ship broke into two pieces! Your theory does not state how this could occur. You just said "Something happened to make the Titanic weigh more than the water it displaced." True, that is the science aspect of the event, but not the physical aspect. I acknowledge the truth of your first "theory", but I was not looking for that when I started the debate.


Conclusion

I have not provided sufficient evidence. I understand. I should have listed more sources. I will try to remedy this issue at the end of this argument by listing sources to witness testimonies. However, if I lose the sources points in the votes, I understand. Furthermore, I believe I have still won this debate. But I still look forward to the outcome of the votes. If I lose, I lose. If my opponent wins, my opponent wins.

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...

http://www.caperace.com...

http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org...
Defro

Con

*NOTE. In this round, Pro has essentially repeated everything he said in Round 3, which I have already refuted and he as already conceded to. Therefore, I will simply repeat what I said in my counter-rebuttal in Round 3.

__________________________________________________________


Counter-Rebuttal:


"It is a fact that everyone with a basic knowledge of science is familiar with. When I started the debate, I did not want a theory that is fact."

-You did not specify that you desired a theory that is not fact, therefore my first theory remains valid, even though it is a fact because I have established earlier that my fact is also a theory.


"You said that the ship sank due to it weighing more than the water it displaced. Yes, that is fact. However, you did not say what caused this."

-So you concede to my theory. It is a valid theory to use in this debate nevertheless because I have established it to be and you have conceded that while it is a fact, it is also a theory. Because it is already a valid theory to use in this debate, I do not have to say what caused this.


"My stance is supported by this fact."

-Your stance is not supported by this fact. That would be saying: "The Titanic got hit by an iceberg because when a ship weighs more than the water it displaces, it sinks." See how absurd that sounds?

-However your stance supports my theory and my theory is supported by your stance. That being true, your theory does not account for any other possibility, whereas mine does, and therefore my theory is more likely than yours nevertheless. And because my theory is more likely than yours, it is obvious that I have proven my point.


"The displacement of water is not a theory. It is fact"

-And I have shown that this fact is also a theory because it in no way contradicts the definitions I used.

-If you insist on going this route, you must explain why this fact cannot be used as a theory, yet you have not.


"I wanted to hear a theory explaining why the ship had such exponential damage to its hull."

-Again, you did not specify. My theory in no way broke any of your rules or contradicted your requirements of the debate, therefore it is valid. If you had specified what you wanted, this might not have happened.


"Of course, when the water came into the ship, the ship weighed more than the water it displaced."

-So you DO concede!


"Your "theory" makes it sound as if the Titanic randomly started sinking. That is not how it happened. There are witness testimonies that clearly state that the Titanic was half in the water, half in the air, in a diagonal angle."

-The Titanic randomly sinking is a possibility. You have not proven it wrong, nor have you proven your theory right, therefore this theory could be a possibility. The testimonies of the witnesses does not help your cause at all. Perhaps the ship randomly sank in a diagonal angle, half in water, half in air. And this would work for my theory! However, my theory would account for an almost infinite amount of possibilities, not just the possibility that it was all random. Therefore, my theory is more likely than yours.


"Your theory does not state how this could occur. You just said "Something happened to make the Titanic weigh more than the water it displaced." True, that is the science aspect of the event, but not the physical aspect."

-Again, how does this contradict your requirements in Round 1 or break any of your rules? I don't think you are using terms correctly. Water displacement is a very physical thing, therefore it is a physcial aspect.

-Besides, your theory did not state how it occured either. You said: "The Titanic sank because it hit an iceberg." Yet you didn't explain what caused the Titanic to hit the iceberg, or what caused that caused the Titanic to hit an iceberg, or what caused the cause that caused the Titanic to hit an iceberg, or what caused the cause that caused the cause that caused the Titanic to hit an iceberg.


"I acknowledge the truth of your first "theory", but I was not looking for that when I started the debate."

-Again, you have conceded, and I must remind you again that If that was not what you were looking for you must specify in Round 1, because my first theory does not break any of your rules.


________________________________________________________________________________


Conclusion Rebuttal:

-Pro has attempted to reclaim the credibility of his argument by posting a few sources that support his claims. As mentioned in the previous round, it is too late for him to do this because his arguments lacked credibility throughout the whole debate, therefore it was unneccessary for me to attack his arguments. And now, by providing the sources in the last round, there is no more room for debate. I have graciously allowed him to provide sources in round 4, yet he wasted his offer.

________________________________________________________________________________


To Wrap up the Debate:

-I presented my first theory with sufficient sources.

-I have shown that my theory is more likely than Pro's theory.

-Pro has conceded to my theory several times.

-Pro broke his own rule by not providing any sources to support his claims. Even after being reminded by me, he refused to provide sources until the last moment when it is too late.

-Because of his lack of sources, his arguments contain no credibility, therefore they are not at all convincing.

-Pro wasted his entire argument in round 4 by trying to justify his violation of his own rules instead of just fixing it and providing sources.

-Pro wasted his entire argument in round 5 by repeating basically everything he said in round 3, which I have refuted, and I have refuted again in round 5.

-Pr has not addressed my argument in round 4, whereas I have addressed everything he's said, except for his "evidence" because they had no sources.

-Vote Con!

________________________________________________________________________________


Good night.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
@jamccartney
It really didn't ruin my argument because all I have to do is show that one of my theories is more likely than his. The second theory was just for fun.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
"Theory 2: Captain Jack Sparrow Did It"

After reading this, I wanted to throw my computer out the window and onto the street so it could get run over by a car. That was bad. I mean...REALLY? That just ruined your entire argument.
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
I eagerly await your response :)
Posted by Defro 2 years ago
Defro
This is going to be fun....

*evil laugh*
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
From the following website http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net...

While doing research for my documentary, I came across the smoking gun. This evidence is so hot that the government shut off my Internet access when I discovered it. I called the cable company and they said that they turned off my Internet access for not paying my bill. So it was just a coincidence that the government turned off my Internet at the exact same moment the cable company did? Nice try government.

Here's what they don't want you to know: if you take the word "TITANIC" and you remove the letters T, I, and T, and then you add the letters C, O, S, P, R, and Y, then it spells:

CONSPIRACY

COINCIDENCE???

I literally got chills when I discovered this. Whoever orchestrated this plot really knew what they were doing. I'm tired of being lied to. I'm mad as hell and I'm going to keep editing video until I get some answers. All day if I have to. Spread the truth!!!

So, I guess a conspiracy does exist. I may accept this if nobody else does.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
On the other hand. I hope someone does take it and proves that it was an inside job. That would be interesting.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I've never heard any conspiracy theories. I've heard of design flaws that contributed to this. I doubt you'll get any takers for this, though.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
There are conspiracy theories. I want to prove that they are wrong.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
The Titanic took on a sufficient volume of water as a result of it's hitting the iceberg which caused the ship to sink, and the Titanic indeed sank also because it's anti-sinking mechanisms were insufficient to hold off the water the ship took on as a result of hitting the iceberg. This is one of those things that's just not up for debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 2 years ago
Dennybug
WilliamsPDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct, since Pro attacked Con's theories and tried to weave them into his own argument instead of disproving them which he could have easily done, but resorted to attacking him instead. Arguments go to Con, becuase his theory that the boat took on too much water is definite. While a boat sinking because it hit an iceberg is a ridiculous theory. Many boats have hit icebergs and stayed afloat with minimal damage. Sources go to Con since he provided actual credible sources and not just a picture with an ice dinosaur. Spelling and Grammar also goes to Con since Williams made multiple grammatical errors. - William could have easily won the debate but instead attacked his opponent, and argued that a boat hitting ice is what makes them sink.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
WilliamsPDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro broke the rules set fro the debate, which is rather ironic. As such Source and conduct points to Con. Con was clearly trolling with the Jack Sparrow argument, and the other argument was elementary but did not get to a cause which was disappointing. As such argument points to Pro. S&G is tied. The debate was disappointing, as such a draw result would be apt.
Vote Placed by jamccartney 2 years ago
jamccartney
WilliamsPDefroTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: As always, someone like Con took a serious debate and ruined it. Con's second point and his picture of cow feces was not germane. For that reason, Pro get's points for conduct. They both had relatively good conduct and they both used good sources. As for spelling and grammar, they both did well.