The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points

The existence of God.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 3/15/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,863 times Debate No: 11441
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (72)
Votes (17)

 

GodSands

Pro

I am of course debating that God indeed exists, not only that but that God created the universe. How, why and when are not necessary in this debate. I am only here to persuade that God exists and that God created the universe. So please note that whoever debates me.

"To be an atheist requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny." - Joseph Addison.

One of my largest problems with atheism is that if there is no God, how does one know what is true and real? God being the creator and head of existence determines what is real and what is not, given the understanding of hallucinations and illusions. I now understand why Richard Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion', because God isn't his foundational belief and thus anything goes. Now atheists do not believe in God, why? Because their foundational belief is that there is no God, so when an atheist is confronted with the notion of God, they totally refute it because God's existence is just as profound as the absence of God. Simple really.

State of mind:

There are two sides to this argument, God or not, neither changes your appearance of the world, a car will still seem like it should if you believe in God or not. Believing in God is all about your own perception of what already is, believing in God does not and cannot modify anything to make it's self a fact, for the belief in God or in no God requires a will to accept what already is has a meaning for you or for God. If for you, you are the centre of the universe, for if it was not for society, this would be indeed true. If you really believe in God, then God is the centre of all things, however again because of society, you become so what selfish.

The only thing that enable Hitler to do what he did, was that he was in power, otherwise Hitler would not have stood for a second if there was a higher authority in the same country as him. Yet there was still a society, he was still included in it despite what he did.

One thing, two identities:

Say for example someone says, "The music is too loud!" and another replies, "No it isn't." In reality the music is the same volume, but one find the music to be loud while the other doesn't. Who decides to turn the music up or down and who is right? At the same time both of them are wrong and right. But what does the evidence say?

If the widows were vibrating and all the neighbours were asking for the music to be turned down, then it would be clear that the music is too loud. But if you were able to fall asleep while allowing the music to play, then that would be evidence that the music is not loud at all.

In the same way we argue over whether God does exist or does not exist. What is the evidence, problem is, evidence can also be seen as one thing with two identities.

For example, someone might say that the existence of morality proves that there is a law maker, but another might reply in saying that morals prove that there is no God because there are morals. If God did exist, then there would be no evil, and morals can only exist with good and evil.

Of course that would be refuted by simply saying, "How do you know what good and evil is without the notion of God?" And by believing that you are the decider of what is good and what is evil, given the situation would simply wipe out all your arguments against God, not including God at all is different to refuting God's existence. To refute God, you must first acknowledge what God is, otherwise you don't fully understand what you are refuting. You might say, "I don't believe in anything objective, only subjective." Well no you don't, you believe that God does not exist which is objective. So by refuting morality totally as an objective truth rather than subjective truth will only lead you to have no other choice but to completely strip you from your faith in atheism. That is because if there is no God, we do not know good from evil, not because there is no God but we still can know good from evil subjectively.

I will leave it there, I want to see what Con has to say.
Puck

Con

Godsands succumbs to the same error judgement as a lot of theist attacks - what constitutes as 'atheistic'. At its base and core atheism is simply non belief in god(s). That's it. There is no additional doctrine, command, ethos, principle or proposition included with being 'an atheist'. As such statements such as 'atheist believe' and their ilk are largely devoid of meaningful relationship to the terms employed.

"One of my largest problems with atheism is that if there is no God, how does one know what is true and real?"

Before any exposition on my side we must address the premise you purport. That belief in god is knowledge (a true claim). The same issue you purport is upon an atheist is not removed from your position simply because you have a belief in god. The exact same relativistic arguments can be applied, with the exact same intent. Namely, simply because the belief is held, what constitutes that belief as true - simply holding that belief is not enough. While your belief may detail what is *supposed* to be true *in context of* that belief, it does not however support that such additions are true (i.e it begs the question).

On the atheist side the retort is simple. It has nothing to do with atheism at all. I/you may use logic as foundational or not. I/you may use empirics as foundational as not. I/you may be a Cartesian dualist or not. I/you may be follow some hybrid of positions and so on it goes. Simply, 'what is atheistic' is this regards is a nonsensical question since atheism does not address it.

I am happy to provide a model where 'knowledge = true, and is knowable', however that is not an atheistic claim, though I as an atheist may regard it as true. As such my model is not 'the atheists model' nor is any model as such.

"Because their foundational belief is that there is no God"

Incorrect. Atheism is a conclusion.

"believing in God does not and cannot modify anything to make it's self a fact, for the belief in God or in no God requires a will to accept what already is has a meaning for you or for God."

Incorrect. It's called confirmation bias, i.e. your belief may predispose your analysis of an event in a certain direction (e.g. prayer works).

"Hitler"

What?

"Music volume"

Perceptions are relative by definition, yes.

"How do you know what good and evil is without the notion of God?"

There are many moral systems. Good and bad are defined within those moral systems themselves. A moral system only needs god as an arbitrator of good and evil if it posits god *as* the arbitrator of what is good and evil. Otherwise there is no internal inconsistency of a non god required moral system and the notion of good/evil (moral and good are synonyms after all).

"And by believing that you are the decider of what is good and what is evil, given the situation would simply wipe out all your arguments against God, not including God at all is different to refuting God's existence."

Atheism =/= moral relativism. A moral relativist may be atheist, sure as is some modern interpretations of Christianity. That's not the same thing though. The notion of 'evil' under subjectivism is not self refuting anyway, it simply has no standard outside the subject - which doesn't make it incoherent, just not universal. Do non god based objective moral systems exist? Yes. Is your moral system arguably subjective? Yup.

"To refute God, you must first acknowledge what God is, otherwise you don't fully understand what you are refuting. You might say, "I don't believe in anything objective, only subjective.""

To refute a concept of god requires a definition of god. 'God doesn't exist' is an empty statement devoid of conceptual meaning.

"you believe that God does not exist which is objective"

Objective in metaphysics means independent; epistemologically, that knowledge is meaningful in relation to reality. Again, what any one atheists epistemological stance is, it is not 'atheistic'.

"So by refuting morality totally as an objective truth rather than subjective truth will only lead you to have no other choice but to completely strip you from your faith in atheism.

That is because if there is no God, we do not know good from evil, not because there is no God but we still can know good from evil subjectively."

1. God is only source of good and evil

2. Atheists claim to know good and evil

3. Atheists must believe in God.

Complete non sequitur I'm afraid.

===

Godsands, despite his opening spiel has not set about to show 'that God exists and that God created the universe' at all. All that has been presented is epistemological/ethical concerns over relativism none of which relate to either god's existence or the universes.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

Thank you Punk for accepting my debate.

With some cases of sophistry to my understanding, at least, and other accounts of criticising my argument instead of refuting it, seems to me I haven't made my argument clear enough.

However before that: 'that God exists and that God created the universe'.

Where did the universe come from, I believe it was created by God. Why? It is impossible for nothingness to create anything, because if nothingness created the something, surely one would have to conclude that this nothingness is not nothing but indeed something. The universe being something = the universe did not come from nothingness.

If not created by God, by what? The word created means, 'made from nothing' so in this term relating back to the prior paragraph on nothingness cannot create anything, 'create' is an abstract word. Consulting the fact that atheists also think nothingness cannot create anything, there are only two options remaining.

1. Universe has always existed.
2. God created the universe.

Ok so say the universe has always existed, that would mean there has been an infinite amount of past events prior to the present. But lets put this to the test. If I asked you to flick a light switch forever, and once you finish you get a prise. Would you get that prise? No. Why? Because if you flicked the light switch a infinite amount of times, there would be a countable number which has a beginning and a end. But infinity has no beginning and no end. So the present exists though, the now. So before all the understood events in the past, there would be an infinity of events prior to those. Our understanding of the universe's history, given that it is so many billions of years old, should not have event happened, if the universe has always existed.

One option left, I have given sufficient reasons to believe in God and that God created the universe.

I, instead of referring back to your argument will explain myself again on objective and subjective morality. I will be using a script type approach to this, to make it easier to understand.

I thoroughly believe that you can have objective morality without there having to be a supreme law maker. Since the reason that there is morality and that there is law is because there is no God, and if God did exist there would be no evil. Ok so...

Mr A and Mr B get into a discussion.

Mr A: "I believe in God, because I believe there is morality which of course means there is good and evil."
Mr B: "I would disagree there with you, because there is evil, there is morality, that we agree on, but because there is evil, there is no God because if God did exist, there would be no evil, since after all God is good and loving right?
Mr A: "Yes indeed God is good and loving, but you have hit a problem."
Mr B: "What's that?"
Mr A: "If there is no God, how do you know of good and evil? How do you decide what is just and unjust?"
Mr B: "Well that is simple really, I decide by my own individual understanding of a situation. I'm a utilitiarianist.
Mr A: "Well ok, but a second ago you said that because there is no God there is morality, as other wise if God did exist, there would be no evil. And morality implies that good and evil both exist. So what first, you are a utilitarianist, implying that good and evil is decided on the out come of an action rather than the means, or you do not believe in God not because there isn't any evidence against God but because that you believe there is a replacement of a loving, good God, otherwise there would be no evil?"
Mr B: "I would have to say I am a utilitarianist, and that good and evil is decided by myself."
Mr A: "Right, therefore you have no argument against God, since you are not including that because there is no God, there is morality but instead you are saying there is good and evil not objectively but because I decide that there is good and evil. In other words, you have disproved you own argument against the premise that because there is no God, there is morality."

"1. God is only source of good and evil

2. Atheists claim to know good and evil

3. Atheists must believe in God."

No, that wasn't what my argument said. Have another read?. I understand there are many ethical views on what is good and evil and where they come from, but morality either comes from God or from your own perception on what good and evil is, a evolutionary intervention. Because everything either came from God or from a slow progressive process. Something from nothing, or everything has always existed.
Puck

Con

Godsands ignores all arguments, claiming they are sophist in nature. I would like for him to be explicit in this.

"Where did the universe come from, I believe it was created by God. Why? It is impossible for nothingness to create anything, because if nothingness created the something, surely one would have to conclude that this nothingness is not nothing but indeed something. The universe being something = the universe did not come from nothingness."

Fallacy; argument from ignorance. It is also simply refuted; firstly by examining the unvoiced implicit premise; that for a thing to be true it must be known. Godsands posits that not knowing an answer (origins in this case) any reply other than a positive claim is wrong (i.e. a person can't both follow naturalistic origins and claim 'we don't know' without an implied 'natural origins is therefore wrong').

Secondly, "The universe being something = the universe did not come from nothingness." Fallacy of division. While it is an informal fallacy, we do actually have a physical model where this shows that the Universe not only can but actually should be expected to arrive from nothingness).

With a basis in the concept (and calculations) of a zero energy Universe and inflation we arrive at the conclusion that all the Universe requires to start is a tiny amount of energy (minute factor of energy to begin inflation) i.e. the Universe undergoes inflationary expansion, but without forming net energy.

Such energy would arrive in a vacuum - "nothing" i.e. via quantum fluxuations without violating the law of conservation of energy.

"The word created means, 'made from nothing'"

Incorrect. The applicable definition here is 'not by natural' or 'non-ordinary process'.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

"so in this term relating back to the prior paragraph on nothingness cannot create anything"

Fallacy of equivocation: origin =/= creation. Fallacy: suppressed correlation. Defining origins as creation denies natural origins per definition.

"that would mean there has been an infinite amount of past events prior to the present."

Incorrect. The Universe is the 'set of all things'. Time included. To speak of time before time is a contradiction in terms. As such any instance of time constitutes as 'he Universe exists' and *not* that the Universe is infinite (short of redefining infinite as 'as long as its been around').

"Light switch"

Infinite is an abstract mathematical term (unlimited) and not used in equations with operators i.e. to talk about infinity in the same sense as 1+1+1 is mathematically nonsensical.

"So before all the understood events in the past, there would be an infinity of events prior to those."

Incorrect. Let Universe start be t = 0. Let time be t. There is a shortest measurement of time (planck) and since we don't have infinite divisions of it, we don't have infinite regressions. Even if we posit that time was infinite we still don't arrive at 'infinite events' since that requires no event to actually occur (if there was any event it is now a quantifiable line towards the present) - and if no events occurs, well, we wouldn't be having this conversation either.

"Our understanding of the universe's history, given that it is so many billions of years old, should not have event happened, if the universe has always existed."

Incorrect. We have an origin, even under your model.

"One option left, I have given sufficient reasons to believe in God and that God created the universe."

Incorrect. See above.

"Conversation"

Basically renders to, 'you can not define evil in utilitarian terms and use that term to define evil in context of god'

A few of issues; "you have no arguments" is false if generalised. Utilitarian is typically a consequentialist *model* (there are variants) and not a 'I believe' i.e. there is a standard outside of 'I believe' where good and evil are applied (not objective but it's not as a gung ho a system as you make it). Lastly and most importantly, and so? You provide a very limited scenario that is only relevant to that scenario and not at all applicable to anything outside. Again it's just you showing concerns over subjectivism and is unrelated to how you framed the debate (if you want to debate subjectivists, make that a debate).

"No, that wasn't what my argument said. Have another read?"

You should just make it into a syllogism so it is at least coherent.

'I understand there are many ethical views on what is good and evil and where they come from ...'

Incorrect; a 'God model' doesn't excuse you from actually supporting your foundation. It also need not *come from* perception, short of a very limited few positions. It is distinct from 'reasoned to' and depending on the model unrelated to what the person thinks (they may accept it as true that is *not* comes from one's perception however).

Evolutionary models too are not 'all non god models'.
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

Despite me being Pro for God's existence, Punk must, to have any chance of winning in this debate FAIRLY, give sufficient reasons to BELIEVE that there is no God.

'"One option left, I have given sufficient reasons to believe in God and that God created the universe."

Incorrect. See above."'

I clearly stated that I gave sufficient evidence to BELIEVE that God exists and that He created the universe, clearly Punk is getting muddled up with sufficient knowledge. I went onto say that the universe cannot come from nothing as I don't believe nothing exists, while at the same time I believe God exists, Punk is really debating for the existence of nothing like I am concluding that God exists.

"we do actually have a physical model where this shows that the Universe not only can but actually should be expected to arrive from nothingness)."

Punk assumes widely that the universe should come from nothingness, when indeed we all know that if the universe came from nothingness, making this nothingness something, the universe as we know it wouldn't be the entire universe therefore extending my claim that either the universe is eternal or it was created by God. I am not being ignorant but rather reasonable. It seems that Punk chooses to decide when the universe begins when really logic tells another story.

"...we arrive at the conclusion that all the Universe requires to start is a tiny amount of energy..."

This has to be the largest contradiction I have seen from Punk. He assumes, again, that the universe started with something far smaller than a spark, he also calls it a conclusion which of course is absurd, as he does not even question where the energy comes from. But instead, misusing the word universe, he tries to persuade that the universe was created by a tiny piece of energy.

Con does not distinguish the differences between the word nothing and vacuum. Open space is a vacuum as no sound vibrations cannot be carried in space, and there is no gravity yet it is vital for there to be open space so that planets, stars and galaxies can exist in a ordered fashion. Nothingness on the other hand brings no order or chaos to anything, since it does not exist. If it did exist, it would be something. Open space is a vacuum, open space exists therefore so do vacuums. Therefore, where did the universe come from?

"via quantum fluxuations without violating the law of conservation of energy." Perfect example of sophistry. Could you explain this so that it does not contradict the rules of a debate?

"The Universe is the 'set of all things'. Time included." Contradiction again, in the last round this was said..."...we arrive at the conclusion that all the Universe requires to start is a tiny amount of energy..."

Motion or movement inherits time, but Punk loosely stated that the universe was caused by energy (movement) and energy inherits time yet here he says that time is included with the 'set of all things' which make up the universe. See the problem?

Light Switch:

I don't disagree with your first point, neither was I implying that it was incorrect but rather correct. If I asked you to flick the light switch forever, if you had sense you would say, "There would be no point, because I wouldn't be able to flick it forever." Why? Because you would have to be flicking it forever already. Because of the past time of me suggesting that you should flick it forever would be unfair given that time has passed where you haven't flicked the light switch.

So my point is if the universe has been in existence forever then we wouldn't exist because there would have to be a infinite amount of events prior to our existence or in the universe's as a whole. But the fact that we do exist, there hasn't been an infinite amount of events. The chances that the universe would produce us is impossible, either we would have been produced an infinite amount of times or that everything else have been produced an infinite amount of times. We can only perceive the universe through our own senses. Either us or everthing else. Solipsism?

Conversation:

Utilitarianism is one of few variations of consequentialism, yes I agree, but that just proves my point.

The fact that there are variations gives the implication that people strive to know what really is evil and good without involving God, give me good reasons to think otherwise? Why can't people settle for one version of consequentialism if neither versions involve God but instead the individual?

Again I don't understand the last part of Punk's last round?

Given that Punk is Con, he has not given any reason to believe there is no such thing as God or that He (if exists at all) didn't create the universe.

When atheists try to disprove God at the same time they are trying to disprove their own problem with evil by saying if there is a God, why is there evil. Again how do you know what evil is if at the same time you try and disprove God?
Puck

Con

Godsands ignored the request to expand on his accusation that my R1 was sophistry. Ignoring my R1 compounds the same errors in reasoning made there in this round as we will see.

"Punk [sic] must, to have any chance of winning in this debate ... "

Theism is a positive claim and I was explicit that refutation requires definition i.e. the concept 'god' must have meaning through definition. Since Godsands ignored R1 and no definition of god was presented, all that is left is to refute what is attributed *to* the concept - creation. All that is necessary to constitute as 'reasonable atheism' in this sense is simply to refute the arguments as being valid *and* necessarily contingent for the Universe to exist.

He ignored the fallacies inherent in his argument construction instead claiming: "I have given sufficient reasons to believe in God" equating it to 'this is a valid argument'. The two claims are vastly different. What Godsands considers adequate in regards to his own belief system does not make that belief logical, valid or supportive of what that belief actually is (see R1).

"clearly Punk [sic] is getting muddled up with sufficient knowledge."

Your position is to create or at least display valid argumentation. What is necessary for you to believe =/= valid argumentation. Otherwise it is equally valid for me to say - my belief is necessary and sufficient; without any presentation of argumentation. As a debate, valid argumentation is what is necessary, not, 'this is why I believe'.

"Punk [sic] is really debating for the existence of nothing."

Incorrect. Nothingness and existing are contradictory. Nothingness is defined in negative terms, as an absence and as such it can never have the trait 'exists'. That was not my argument.

"Punk [sic] assumes widely that the universe should come from nothingness."

Not at all. Based on sound mathematics, physics and *cosmology.

"when indeed we all know"

Fallacy; ad populum.

"that if the universe came from nothingness, making this nothingness something, the universe as we know it wouldn't be the entire universe ... "

Incorrect. Nothingness is a vacuum; a particle in the vacuum constitutes as the Universe if and only if it is the sole particle in existence at that time. Not that the vacuum itself is 'something'.

"It seems that Punk [sic] chooses to decide when the universe begins when really logic tells another story."

Incorrect and you have shown no valid logic or science, simply a large misunderstanding of definitions and physics.

"This has to be the largest contradiction I have seen from Punk [sic]."

A fundamental lack of knowledge is apparent here. Quantum states will produce fleeting particles *by virtue* of being a quantum state and *do not* require energy from somewhere else.

"Open space is a vacuum"

Open space is not a vacuum.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Sophistry"

Another claim of sophistry, this time masqueraded as 'I don't do physics'.
1. Quantum Flux: http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. CoE: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Contradiction ... "

Time is a component of matter the two are constituents of existing. Time by definition has always existed - otherwise we need a contradictory concept of time before time. However always existed and infinite are not necessarily the same.

"Motion or movement inherits time, but Punk [sic] loosely stated that the universe was caused by energy ... "

Space and time are coexistent (relativity). When I say human I am not required to qualify, which is cells and atoms and ...

"So my point is if the universe has been in existence forever then we wouldn't exist ... "

There is a difference between finite states occurring in infinity and finite states being descriptive of infinity. If time was infinite we can still flick a switch, we can't however count flicks to reach a concept of infinity *because the two are exclusive*. This is the point you miss and why your 'time must be finite' argument fails (irregardless of whether the conclusion is correct or not). Infinity is a mathematical term that does not use operators, meaning arguments such as 'we can't reach/count/arrive at infinity' are devoid of meaning.

"either we would have been produced an infinite amount of times"

We don't exist in a all possible realms universe nor does infinity suggest we should - hypotheticals aside.

"Solipsism?"

None of my arguments derive from solipsism.

"Why can't people settle for one version of consequentialism if neither versions involve God but instead the individual?"

Not all ideas are equal, not all atheists are consequentialists.

"Again how do you know what evil is if at the same time you try and disprove God?"

Evil is defined in terms that are *not contingent* on God existing i.e. anti God but are incompatible with attributes of God. Your idea is not how theodicies work at all.
Debate Round No. 3
72 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Arrr, Puck, you can't say to your self you are totally correct. Even with all your rational thought, to say God does not exist does nothing but evaluate what you have said. There is no conclusion. TheLword stepped in to help you however.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
lol @moroni
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Lets forget them, its a bit like talking about man kind, you don't say woman kind. It gives the impression that there is a attack on man from sexist females if you say that. It is easier to say God or gods. The word is also shorter and it solves the argument of power, the ulitimate power is dervied from God or gods, it also comes by tradition, much like Kings and queens.
Posted by yayawhatever 6 years ago
yayawhatever
grahamreiver said:
What God are you writing about? There are many Gods.

I say: dont forget the goddesses!
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
If people could get banned for voteboming, then these two would both be banned:

Voltar143

innomen
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
RFD

conduct: Con

Pro kept calling Con by his name and not to mention, he also misspelled it, into the word 'punk' no less. Also, "This has to be the largest contradiction I've seen from Punk." What a formal way to put it. Con was much more formal.

spelling/grammar: Con

Misspelling of Con's name was a careless mistake if you ask me.

arguments: Con

Pro's opening case was incredibly weak and he ended up compensating for it the entire debate.

sources: tied

good debate. i think Pro is pretty smart but needs to revise his case a bit if he intends to debate this again.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Which simply means, 'I am that I am.'
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
The Christian God Yahweh.
Posted by grahamreiver 6 years ago
grahamreiver
What God are you writing about? There are many Gods.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'Considering that only full blown atheists have voted...Yes. They probably haven't read the debate either to be strickingly honest'

Depressingly, I have to agree with you. Religious debates tend to bring out the worst in people's personal biases.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
GodSandsPuckTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
GodSandsPuckTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Madoki 6 years ago
Madoki
GodSandsPuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
GodSandsPuckTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
GodSandsPuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Moroni23 6 years ago
Moroni23
GodSandsPuckTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
GodSandsPuckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Voltar143 6 years ago
Voltar143
GodSandsPuckTied
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 innomen 6 years ago
innomen
GodSandsPuckTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
GodSandsPuckTied
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:42