The Instigator
Pricetag
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
GaryBacon
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

The notion that free will does not exist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,515 times Debate No: 2201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (22)

 

Pricetag

Pro

Is not "choice" (free will) fatalism at its purest? Is it not evident a posteriori that all actions of will are determinable retroactively (meaning that after the action is done, it can be objectively known the choice that was made)? To insist that will may be determinable retroactively, but indeterminable before the choice was made is to insist that there has to be some spontaneous element of will that occurs without precedent causes (meaning it occurred ex nihilo). But, if this spontaneous element is to truly be spontaneous, it must be random. In this sense, if one argues for an indeterminable free will, one is insisting that some element of will must be spontaneous and absolutely random. It is in this particular case that Ockham's razor becomes most useful, in that the simpler presumption (that will is determinable) is the most favorable. The argument for indeterminable free will takes far too many presumptions to be considered more valid than determinable will. Spontaneity and randomness is absolutely unverifiable, while causality is very much verifiable (and, in fact, is the very basis for verifiability). My argument is not logically perfect and does not argue with certainty, but is absolutely reasonably sound (certainty is rarely, if ever, stumbled upon).

And it should be said that the appearance of "choice" is not a valid argument for "free will". It could also be argued that "choice" is simply an act of determinable causality, and that all "choices" are made from necessity and will, and one would be much more reasonable to choose this assumption being that it is more verifiable. Arguing for "choice" as a valid argument for "free will" is much like arguing that -any- event is evidence for the spontaneity and non-causality of the event (while it could be argued that, conversely, the event is evidence for causality and this is both demonstrable and verifiable).

So, indeed, if "free will" is determinable, will must be bounded to causality. It is in this situation that I insist upon "will as bounded by will", will being the thoughts and decisions made, and will being all of the causes that triggered the phenomena of the will. Will may also be thoughts themselves, meaning that causality can also exist within the mind, but all of these internalized causes must also have been caused by external material causes (as such, stimuli from the senses, or even chemicals such as cocaine or dopamine). It is in this case, I argue, that the will is a complex multitude of causes and effects that function together much like a spider web.
GaryBacon

Con

This is a well thought out and well-constructed argument. As an existentialist, however, I am inclined to disagree.

Although it is evident that a choice was made after an action of will, it is by no means clear a priori what that choice will be. I understand your arguments and follow your logic. Your main claim is that if all of the precusors that lead to one choice over another could (even hypothetically) be determined to arrive at the proper conclusion as to what choice will be made, then man truly has no free will. On this, I actually concur. If it is theoretically possible to predict all of our choices a priori, then choice is nothing more than an illusion.

But I assert that predicting all acts of will before they take place is not only physically, but also theoretically impossible. As you rightly point out, such impossibility of prediction and indeterminable free will would only be possible by the means of something spontaneous and random. This is precisely where we differ. I believe in this random element that allows for free will.

Causality flows only one way. There is a cause and then an effect. Performing an analysis of the act of will after it has occurred changes nothing with regards to determinism. Saying that you know which choice was made after it has occurred does not mean that you would know this choice before it occurred. Such post hoc analyses are known to be fallacies.

So now that I have established that I will not use such arguments (that you have pre-empted) as "I appear to choose, and therefore I do," I will get to the heart of the matter. Your claim was "Spontaneity and randomness is absolutely unverifiable, while causality is very much verifiable (and, in fact, is the basis for verifiability)." This is where the problem lies. Randomness IS verifiable.

There are tests to determine whether or not a series of numbers is random. Random number generators can be programmed (though these are only truly random when an additional program is added to delete the programs memory of the preceding given values).

To this you may claim that random number generating programs are not installed in humans. A series of numbers on a computer, after all, does not show the true randomness of human choice. And so this missing random element that allows for free will should come from another source. For that source, I must turn to the realm of quantum physics.

In quantum physics, there are many experiments that are done that have actually verified randomness. The phenomenon that shows this best is that of superposition. Superposition is a state in which a sub-atomic particle is actually in two states at once. Of course these notions in quantum physics contrast greatly with our daily experiences, but they have been verified time and again through experimentation. Now in superposition, the particle can be in two states (such as spin up and spin down) or even travel two different paths (such as go through both slot A and slot B in a double slit experiment). Now what happens with superposition is that after the particle in such a state is observed, it suddenly "chooses" one state over the other. This "choice" is completely and totally random. There is no way to predict which state the particle will choose (even hypothetically). In fact, the laws of quantum physics state that this act of decoherence (decoherence is the act of leaving a state of superposition) can never be predicted. There are many other experiments done such as creating two particles where one will be spin up and one spin down that both start in a state of superposition and then decohere. But this is not a debate on quantum physics, so I will make my point.

Man is comprised of various cells which are in turn made up of molecules which are made up of atoms, et cetera. At the most reductionistic breakdown, we are comprised of a large number of quantum particles. Since these quantum particles have been shown time and again to exert truly random behavior, humans do in fact have that random factor that allows for free will. So when you claimed that there must be a random factor for us to have free will, my answer to you is "There is!"
Debate Round No. 1
Pricetag

Pro

You claim that randomness is verifiable you said:

"There are tests to determine whether or not a series of numbers is random. Random number generators can be programmed (though these are only truly random when an additional program is added to delete the programs memory of the preceding given values)."

As to there being tests I don't think there are; however, I know that there are no programs that are truly random. There are programs that have such long chains of patterns that they are for effect random, but truly random they are not.

"In quantum physics, there are many experiments that are done that have actually verified randomness. The phenomenon that shows this best is that of superposition...Now in superposition, the particle can be in two states (such as spin up and spin down) or even travel two different paths (such as go through both slot A and slot B in a double slit experiment). Now what happens with superposition is that after the particle in such a state is observed, it suddenly "chooses" one state over the other. This "choice" is completely and totally random. There is no way to predict which state the particle will choose (even hypothetically). In fact, the laws of quantum physics state that this act of decoherence (decoherence is the act of leaving a state of superposition) can never be predicted. There are many other experiments done such as creating two particles where one will be spin up and one spin down that both start in a state of superposition and then decohere."

Firstly I would like to state that our work on quantum physics is far from complete and is probably one of the least explored areas of science. I would really be surprised if after we find out more about quantum physics the best we can come up with is "randomness". There are alternate theories that supply a reason as to why this "superposition" occurs. One is that the universe constantly splits.

"Man is comprised of various cells which are in turn made up of molecules which are made up of atoms, et cetera. At the most reductionistic breakdown, we are comprised of a large number of quantum particles. Since these quantum particles have been shown time and again to exert truly random behavior, humans do in fact have that random factor that allows for free will. So when you claimed that there must be a random factor for us to have free will, my answer to you is 'There is!'"

Fine, let's suppose that on that level this is "random". Then why is it that on our level, everything the eye can see, is obviously a direct participant of cause and effect? There is nothing that defies this on our level. Therefore, why would you think that humans would be able to defy this inevitability. We cannot, whether quantum particles can be "random" does not defy the fact that we as humans cannot.
GaryBacon

Con

You first start out stating that you don't think there are tests to determine if a set of numbers is random. I will refer you to the diehard tests, and here is a link describing the various tests:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In response to my quantum physics example, you first claim that it is far from complete. This is true. In many of the experiments, scientists are still trying to figure out the hows and whys of certain things. But even the ones still searching for answers believe in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is because of this principle that one can never find out everything, and therefore can never (even hypothetically) determine all events, including the choices people make, before they occur.

The alternate theories explaining quantum phenomena are things I don't wish to explore. I will only let it be known that I agree with about half of quantum physics and then reject the other half. At the point where no more experiments are done and crazy splitting universes and the Copenhagen theory come into play is the point where they lose me. But my problems with these pseudo-scientific explanations does not belong here in this debate.

You last point shows the difference between the macroscopic world and the quantum world. I do agree that on this larger scale, quantum physics does not apply. One of the explanations for this is found in information theory. But this does not mean that we must reject free will.

Firstly, I will just mention that there is more randomness than superposition. As another example, electrons move around in a random motion in an atom. The position and momentum cannot be determined simultaneously, and when describing the location of the electron, scientists can only encompass a certain area where the electron is likely to be found. This area is called the electron cloud.

Now we come to your macroscopic world which does operate differently from the quantum world. Choice, free will, randomness and other such things are concepts. As such they are not tangible. Therefore, nothing can be said of their size. It is simply not possible to claim that will power and choices must follow the physical laws of the macroscopic world. There is no basis for this and nothing that states that quantum theories cannot just as easily claim the realm of will.

Furthermore, it is highly impractical to reject the notion of free will. For if free will disappears, then culpability will vanish as well. For how can a criminal possibly be sent to jail if he was FORCED to commit the crime? After all, without free will all actions including the act of crime would be forced. How can anyone ever discipline a child? If the child did something wrong, it would not be his or her fault. There was no free will and such actions were pre-determined.

In short, not only is free will possible, it is also practical. We cannot live without such a notion. People must take responsibility for themselves. We have already shrugged off too many responsibilities as a society. The various lawsuits for ridiculous claims shows this. People sue fast food restaurants for causing them to gain weight, drunks sue bartenders for serving them drinks (i.e. doing their job), and a lady can sue McDonald's because she was clumsy and spilled hot coffee on her crotch. These things occurring now are bad enough. I don't want to live in the world where no one has any responsibility for their actions. The notion of free will must be retained.

EXISTENTIALISTS OF THE WORLD UNITE!
Debate Round No. 2
Pricetag

Pro

You point to the tests that look at the "randomness" of a set of numbers. This implies that they are not truly random but close enough. I see it this way because as I have already stated it is not possible to generate a truly random set of numbers. Casino slot machines use very long patterns that for all intense purposes work as random but truly are not; therefore, you can't test something for it's randomness if it's not really random to begin with. They use what is called a Random Number Generator. "A random number generator (often abbreviated as RNG) is a computational or physical device designed to generate a sequence of numbers or symbols that lack any pattern, i.e. appear random. Computer-based systems for random number generation are widely used, but often fall short of this goal" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). They may appear random but they are not.

You said regarding quantum physics:

"In response to my quantum physics example, you first claim that it is far from complete. This is true. In many of the experiments, scientists are still trying to figure out the hows and whys of certain things. But even the ones still searching for answers believe in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It is because of this principle that one can never find out everything, and therefore can never (even hypothetically) determine all events, including the choices people make, before they occur.

The alternate theories explaining quantum phenomena are things I don't wish to explore. I will only let it be known that I agree with about half of quantum physics and then reject the other half. At the point where no more experiments are done and crazy splitting universes and the Copenhagen theory come into play is the point where they lose me. But my problems with these pseudo-scientific explanations does not belong here in this debate."

Regardless you admit that there is little or no certainty in this area of science. You say that the splitting universes, the Copenhagen Interpretation etc. are pseudo-sciences. But was not the idea that the earth was round was thought at the time a pseudo-science, that the earth revolves around the sun a pseudo-science? This is an area of science to where we have little or no certainty, unlike Newtonian physics where we have much certainty and verifiability. Therefore, I believe that Newtonian physics with its laws of determinism trumps these silly notions of superposition and other randomness that are not at all verifiable in the scientific world. They are assumptions and guesses to new discoveries and should be taken as nothing greater.

You said:

"Firstly, I will just mention that there is more randomness than superposition. As another example, electrons move around in a random motion in an atom. The position and momentum cannot be determined simultaneously, and when describing the location of the electron, scientists can only encompass a certain area where the electron is likely to be found. This area is called the electron cloud."

Again this is an area that we have a lot of trouble with. There is a reason that the model for an atom has changed so many times over the years and the true model of an atom is still unknown and uncertain. It is a very hard area to be certain with. There is no verifiable randomness here as there is no verifiable randomness in the quantum world, there is only uncertainty. However, in the places that we do know, that we can verify, we see that determinism reigns supreme of all laws and is in fact the test that we use for scientific experimentation. Determinism is everywhere and is verifiable, randomness has never been verified.

You said:

"Now we come to your macroscopic world which does operate differently from the quantum world. Choice, free will, randomness and other such things are concepts. As such they are not tangible. Therefore, nothing can be said of their size. It is simply not possible to claim that will power and choices must follow the physical laws of the macroscopic world. There is no basis for this and nothing that states that quantum theories cannot just as easily claim the realm of will."

Quantum theories are riddled with uncertainty and faults. However, I will demonstrate how the physical laws of the macroscopic world do follow determinism. Here we will look at a teenager. He is given a "choice" to study for a big test or go out with his friends drinking and partying. If he is a big partier or had developed through past experiences an addiction to alcohol, he will obviously go partying. If he is a good student because of the lessons instilled upon him by his parents he will probably stay home and study. However, since life is never so cut and dry let's look at some other scenarios. He is a big partier but is doing poorly in school and knows he will be grounded if he doesn't do good on the test. What will he choose? My point is simply this. All of your past experiences, all of your values, all of your physical wants and needs, all of your social wants and needs, all of your genetic predispositions are sectioned off in your brain as pro and as con and will battle each other for which side you will be pushed towards. You have no such thing as "choice", choice is the culmination of all of those aforementioned causes battling each other to sway your decision this way or that. Your mind is simply a computer mathematically deciding which way it perceives will make it the most happy. That is why I say determinism guides your "choices" because it is the culmination of every DNA strand and every second of your life up until that moment that decides your choice.

"Furthermore, it is highly impractical to reject the notion of free will. For if free will disappears, then culpability will vanish as well. For how can a criminal possibly be sent to jail if he was FORCED to commit the crime? After all, without free will all actions including the act of crime would be forced. How can anyone ever discipline a child? If the child did something wrong, it would not be his or her fault. There was no free will and such actions were pre-determined."

You are right in that it negates personal responsibility, but that does not mean that you couldn't keep rule of law or discipline your children. The justification for your actions that this philosophy would create works retroactively. Example, you murder someone, you are justified. I throw you in prison for said murder, I am also justified, the same for any other crime or misbehaving. Everything stays the same. This theory would only change our perception on how to carry out rehabilitation. This theory would show that what is more important and more sorely needed is to show criminals why they are a certain way and fix those faults that society deems necessary to fix. Psychiatry works much the same way and is more effective than punishment in fixing criminals. I'm not saying that we shouldn't still have prisons and just punishment, as fear of retribution is a big cause that would weigh on the mind of any potential wrongdoer. However, I am saying that it is more important to fix criminals than to punish them. You spoke too hastily on this subject, once you think it through this philosophy will cause no such anarchy and is much more practical in rehabilitating criminals or mischievous children than our methods do now.

My argument is that there is no verifiable randomness and that this theory makes much more sense in view of how our minds work than we currently perceive. Think it through and vote with reason. Good day to all.
GaryBacon

Con

Starting with a brief overview, the claim you make is that if all events can be determined with physical law, then free will does not exist. On this point we both agree. The difference arises when we question the existence of something indeterminable and random which would allow the presence of free will. I claim that such things do exist, while you claim they do not.

In the case of a series of random numbers, you claim that they are not truly random. In most cases, this is true. But hypothetically, a random series could be generated. The random number generators that are created have some memory to correct themselves if the string of numbers is not random according to the machine. This, of course, eliminates true randomness. However, if there are a million or so computers not connected to each other in any way, and each one generates a single number with a random number generator, then I believe a random set could be created.

I also mentioned the randomness that exists in quantum physics. You rightly point out that our work in this field is far from complete. But to say "that there is little or no certainty in this area of science" is an understatement. Quantum physics has been around for years. It began with Einstein's quantum theory of light, and by the 1920's quantum mechanics abandoned the causality of traditional physics. Since that time, we have performed many experiments and came to some conclusions that are inconsistent with Newtonian physics, but consistent with experimental results. The most important of these is known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This principle states that both the position and momentum of a particle cannot be determined. One of the two can be determined, but never both. Even in the other explanations for the weird quantum effects observed, uncertainty still remains in ALL of the interpretations.

This principle is so widely accepted in the field of science that it would be unjust to classify it as a "silly notion" simply because the quantum world operates differently from the macroscopic world in which Newtonian physics takes precedence. I would also like to mention that although the work in quantum physics is not yet complete, we do have data and empirical evidence that has been continually gathered for more than three quarters of a century. To ignore this vast amount of data in order to conclude that all events can be pre-determined is not logical.

My classification of some of the newer interpretations as pseudo-science is not really in the realm of this debate. However, I will briefly mention that there is a huge difference between these interpretations and the things you mentioned (the Earth being round, Earth revolving around the Sun). This difference is that even when such notions were rejected (and the Earth being round was never rejected by all) there was still EVIDENCE for such claims. Evidence is what separates science from pseudo-science. In that same vein, we have plenty of evidence from experimentation to support the ideas of quantum theory. They may seem crazy and illogical, but experiment after experiment continually confirms these notions that the quantum world behaves differently. Acknowledging all of this evidence, it is hard to classify the ideas as "assumptions and guesses to new discoveries." They are verified and have predictive power.

I agree that the physical laws of the macroscopic world follow determinism. But choices cannot be defined as macroscopic or microscopic. You give an example of a teenager and make it fairly cut and dry (with some minor variables thrown in). By this example you wish to show that all choices are guided by determinism. However, I tend to disagree.

In the field of Cognitive Psychology there have been numerous studies done on decision making. In trying to determine the choices people would make, all efforts have failed. Time and time again, it has been shown that the values of a single individual fluctuate from one moment to the next. Predictability becomes impossible. There are many tests done on this and if you wish to look them up you may refer to the following studies in this area: (Fishoff, B. (1991) Value elicitation: Is there anything in there? AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 46, 835-847. Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1992) Behavioral decision research. ANNUAL REVIEW OF PSYCHOLOGY, 43, 87-131. Slovic, P. (1990) Choice. (found in Osherson & Smith)AN INVITATION TO COGNITIVE SCIENCE: THINKING (pp. 89-116))

I stated in the previous argument that rejecting free will is also impractical. The point being that if everyone is basically "forced" to execute the actions they do, then they cannot be held accountable. On this point you concede that it does eliminate responsibility, but state that it will not change anything. Perhaps this view you have makes sense when you state that our conviction of criminals and us imposing jail sentences on them would also be considered "forced" and so we would feel no guilt. The part of this argument that doesn't jive comes when you state that this new perception would change the way in which we rehabilitate criminals.

You state "This theory would show that what is more important and more solely needed is to show criminals why they are a certain way and fix those faults that society deems necessary to fix. Psychiatry works much the same way and is more effective than punishment in fixing criminals."

The problem I have is that this seems contrary to your view of determinism. If some method we have is able to "fix" a criminal or change a criminal's behavior, then the choices we make and the lives that we lead are not as written in stone as you claim. The very admission that a criminal may change their behavior with help shows that you yourself don't fully believe in this idea you put forth. In fact, stating that we would have the option to actually change the way we deal with criminals also shows choice. And finally, asking the voters to think this debate through and vote with reason shows some lack of faith in your idea. According to you, all of the voters actions are already pre-determined.

We are not bound to Newtonian physics in regards to the decisions we make. Will power is intangible, and as such it cannot be said to follow the strict laws of cause and effect. Psychologists have not been able to predict all of the choices we make, and quantum physics shows us that even the tangible physical world is not always bound by determinism. Free will can and does exist. The pre-existing factors you mention may make one choice more likely than another, but it can never be written in stone.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
Mmm, that was rather fun to read. Interesting, fun, and almost impossible as far as I can tell to weigh the merits. Personal bias is for Pricetag since I don't actually believe in the existence of free will, but the quantum physics argument seems quite convincing.
Posted by Pricetag 8 years ago
Pricetag
Thank you very much. I likewise enjoyed this debate. I'm afraid that I was not able to get my point across effectively enough, I guess the voters will decide that. However, I applaud you for very logical and respectful points. If you would ever like to debate anything again I'd be more than happy to take the challenge.
Posted by GaryBacon 8 years ago
GaryBacon
This was a well-fought debate Pricetag. It is still new and the voting is far from over, so the results can go either way. But regardless of the result, I predict it will be a close call.

In every round you followed through with logical consistency, and therefore this debate was enjoyable. In other debates, I've had to deal with people misquoting me or spouting out illogical and irrelevant points. You have done none of these things, and I appreciate it. Great debate!!
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Excellent debate. Well-argued, GaryBacon.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Off_the_Wall.Paul 5 years ago
Off_the_Wall.Paul
PricetagGaryBaconTied
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 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 7 years ago
GaryBacon
PricetagGaryBaconTied
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 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by obama0805 8 years ago
obama0805
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by obama0806 8 years ago
obama0806
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
PricetagGaryBaconTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03