The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
Patrick_Henry
Con (against)
Winning
94 Points

The scientific community as a whole has lost it's credibility with the gloabal warming THEORY

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,502 times Debate No: 2480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (29)

 

sadolite

Pro

I find it literly imposible to belive anything that comes out of the scientific community on any subject anymore, let alone the gloabal warming THEORY. That's right it's a theory not fact. Yet I am innudated on daily bases from every news media outlet that it is a proven fact. The scientific method is very clear when it comes to making a theory fact.
Any scientist with any credibility would not be searching or conducting any experiments to find out if gloabal warming was being caused by man. to do that you would have to eliminate every possible effect that mother nature might have in the equation, I.E the effect that the sun has when it goes thruogh its 11 year cycle of sun spots, volcanic eruptions that spue more polution into the air in one day than all the polution during the entire industrial revolution, etc. I could go on and on.
A real scientist tries to diprove a theory with every possible sinario that might chage the the results of the person putting forth the theory. If the results stay the same then and only then when every single scientist in the world comes up with the same results will it be considered as fact. Oh by the way the phrase "A consensous among scientist" has no place in the vocabulary of scientist who follow the scientific method, they would laugh you right out of the room.
The leaders of all the scientific communities better step up and explain thier complete silence on the absolute destruction of their credibility by politicians and news media.
Patrick_Henry

Con

First, I'm going to ask you to define the "scientific community." It's a little vague.

Do you mean all scientists? Or any published material that makes it into a peer reviewed journal, or do you just mean the occasional, and often misunderstood research that makes it through the millstone of the American media, full of folks who are used to making generalizations, taking information out of context, and making broad assumptions without sources or research?

Second, if we're to have a conversation about science, the scientific method, or flaws and misunderstood facts I need you to refrain from the word, "Believe."

I'm not saying that beliefs are bad, it's just there is no "method of belief" which is allowed to challenge beliefs that that or wrong or outdated with a series of experiments. Not to mention the word "belief" is usually used to counter the word "fact." The phrase, "I believe your facts are wrong" is not logically possible. A fact is just that, fact. It's information, its statistics, it's data, and it's details.

I can't argue with a belief, and in this case I won't. If your next argument relies on belief again, I'm going to quit while I'm ahead instead of wasting my time.

Third; which area of the physical or applied sciences do you hold your Philosophical Doctorate in? And absent that, what scientific training have you had to justify your opinion that creditable scientists should not research the Earth's Climate? (I've changed your belief to opinion so that I can continue to assume you'll be able to change your position if you realize that it's wrong, since beliefs by the very definition cannot be wrong.)

For your own benefit, scientific research means "collecting data", if someone is "researching global warming" - which most scientists will refer to as "global climate change" - it means that they are collecting data on atmosphere conditions, and other physical observations that have nothing to do with the hypothesis the data is applied to. It's just data, and it's just fact. The data that is used to support the theories behind global climate change is the exact same data that would have to be used to dismiss it.

If you have decided that there is no creditability within the scientific community, why do you give me examples provided by scientists of other things that can alter the physical conditions of the Earth? Why is the scientist who has noticed a sunspot trend suddenly more creditable than the scientist that has noticed that the oceans are warmer and carbon levels are higher than they've ever been in the human era?

To give you an example of the data involved, we can gain accurate knowledge of carbon levels in the atmosphere going back more than 100,000 to 200,000 years depending on the ice core sample used. Reliable data for tracking sunspots based off of observation goes back less than a century. There is less data on sun spots than on the atmosphere and it might be a bit too soon to assume that the link is as significant as you would like it to be.

Some interesting information about the sun is that it will be getting warmer for the next four or five billion years, and at some point it will actually cool, expand into a gas giant, and destroy might remain of the planet earth in four or five billion years. Your sunspot cycle might just be a misinterpretation of other facts about the sun. The sun's radiation also doesn't have to be absorbed by every object that it strikes. For instance, a white object reflects light and a dark object absorbs it. A white sheet of ice over the pole reflects a large amount of the sun's radiation, while deep ocean absorbs it. I won't go into the feed back cycle, because I'm not attempting to prove or support global warming.

Have you ever been in a room full of scientists?

I have been several times, and they don't actually laugh anyone out of the room for using the word "consensus", in fact you'd be surprised how often someone uses the scientific method correctly yet still proposes an idea that is for lack of a better word, insane. I watched a physicist lecture on the idea that recorded history is largely fictional, and a conspiracy because there is a pattern of reigns of leaders, and certain political events, which when applied to a logarithmic graph indicates that it is simple the same time line occurring over and over again, and therefore someone must have instituted this pattern purposefully for some dark purpose. However, his research was very scientifically sound.

The scientists and historians in the room actually didn't laugh at all. They all were very uncomfortable. That's what happens when someone presents something that makes other people think that they are insane. There's no laughter, just awkward and uncomfortable glances.

Now I want to explain something to you which I suspect no one ever has. There is a lot that we as a society do not know and do not understand. There is a lot about global climate change that we do not know and do not understand. Most scientists will tell you this before they even bother explaining what we do know and do understand.

At no point in our recorded history, or in the geological history that we can utilize for data has anything like what is happening now happened. This is a very scary thing because it's all new. The "feed back loop" that I spoke of earlier was something that was realized relatively recently that no one had ever thought of. If you actually spent time with scientists, you would know how much this scares them. Climate projections are in many cases simply their best guess.

Things could get very, very, very bad. Especially because a common misunderstanding is arrived at from the original name, "Global Warming", that things just get warmer. Global Climate Change actually just causes disability and inconsistency in weather patterns. So, suddenly you have thaws in the middle of January for seven years straight, when there's never been thaws in January in successive years for the last two hundred years. And those thaws are then followed by deep freezes where the temperatures drops 50 degrees in a day and a half.

I will repeat, most experts consider it very scary. The funny thing about a scary situation, is that many folks develop a deep sense of denial rather than deal with the notion that very scary things are going on.

You are a product of this denial. You have chosen to disbelieve in science, yet you choose to agree with scientific information that helps to support your belief that everything is fine, and that this is all some silly thing created by politicians, the media, and naive scientists.

Well, I honestly hope you're right. Because it'd be great to have a good laugh over all of this, and be able to breathe a sigh of relief rather than trying to figure out what we might have to do with tens of millions of refugees fleeing the coasts, or a complete break down in infrastructure.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Yes you are quite the debater. But it seams you have just proven my point. First, what's up with all the symantics and hair splitting with the word "belife". I think anyone who is reading this discussion pretty much understands the context in which it is being used. It's not about religion.
My argument is that I am being asked to "belive" without any further debate or any further research or study that global warming is caused by man and that is all there is to it, period. And if I so much as mention a single piece of research or a single climate study that suggests other wise, I belive you used the words "I am in denial". I defy you to find a single politician or news media outlet that would say gloabl warming may not be caused by man. If you do let me know who it is so I can get another point of view on the subject.
Second, why do I have to be an accredited scientists to even discuss the issue, again proving my point "Im to stupid to understand the scientific method" You may ask who is asking or should I say making me belive that global warming is caused by man? All of the politicians in federal Government who want to use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes and cripple american business with endless regulations. Don't you know that american corporations are evil and all the want to do is rape the land.
I have 2 children and they are both being taught that global warming is caused by man and that the SUV that I take them to school in is causing it. My daughter asked me why I dont ride a bike to work after I drop her of at school so I can help save the planet. Agian for the puposes of debate, Where is the scientific commuity or where are the scientists if you prefer not chastising these scools for teaching theory as fact or the the polititions who state it as fact I shall quote Al Gore, the guru of the global warming issue, "Global warming is caused by man and no further debate is needed the case is closed"
Sounds like the true words of a scientis wouldn't you say? In my "oppinion" the global warming theory and every thing about it has do do with lowering my standard of living while the priviledged few get to keep theirs.
As you stated data is data facts are facts but why am I being told that if I don't change the way I live right now, the entire human race is going to drown under 100 feet of ocean in twenty to fifty years based on as you stated "At best a guess based on random and ever changing data"
Scientists who are involved with the study of climate change are letting people who are not scientists speak for them and letting them interpret their data and they are not setting the record strait. That is why they, the scientific community or scientists are losing their credibility with me in geometric proportion in my "oppinion" Debates are always about oppinion arn't they? If you belive global warming is caused by man fine. But don't make me ride my bike to work and lower my standard of living bcause you want sombodys guess on climate change to be true. You lower your Standard of living, I won't based on a bunch of inconclusive data and guesses.
Patrick_Henry

Con

First, please define what you mean by the scientific community.

Second, the semantics of belief have nothing to do with religion. Beliefs do not have to be based on data, or even grounded in reality. Thats why belief walks hand in hand with mythology or religion because they're very complimentary. Belief also walks hand in hand with ignorance, and is one of the leading oppositions to science. The relatively famous quote, "God does not place dice with the universe." From Albert Einstein was not actually about his religious views, it was his way of denouncing the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics because he didn't like the idea that as a particle travels from point A to point B, it takes every imaginable path, but appears to travel in a straight line. He rejected this notion based off of belief rather than pay heeds to the merits of the data and the conclusion, which earned Richard Feynman and Freeman Dyson their noble prize. And from the looks of it Einstein was 100% wrong just because he didn't like the notion.

I asked you to refrain from belief because it has little or nothing to do with whether or not the scientific community is creditable.

Third, the question about your scientific training has nothing to do with whether or not you can discuss scientific findings, in fact most scientists are in the business of education and love when their research is discussed by individuals, but often become deeply frustrated when the fine points of their conclusions are glossed over. You have alleged that no scientist should be studying global climate change because you think the media is doing a poor job of reporting the findings.

I allege that you should actually go and pick up some peer reviewed articles about global warming that are produced by scientists before you claim that they're all worthless because the media misunderstands their findings. An easy way to begin which won't require a heavy background in science is a website that covered an artic expedition that was exploring some of the effects of global climate change. http://www.globalwarming101.com... My cousin is one of the leading contributors to the site, and is working on her Ph.D. in curriculum development regarding global climate change so that scientific information can be better presented to your daughter in her classroom. An effectively useful part of this website is the top ten global climate change myths. Each one links to a small explanation. Many of the points you made in your opening argument can be found there. http://www.globalwarming101.com...

Part of the reason why I want to be able to separate this debate from belief, is because I want you to have an improved understanding of global climate change by the end of the fourth round. I don't just want to present a better argument about why the scientific community hasn't lost creditability, but show you that they are in fact creditable.

I'm defying you. http://en.wikipedia.org...

I actually think that Senator Inhofe's capabilities of denial ought to be praised. I'm actually a little envious of him because while I spend my time dwelling on solutions, Inhofe spends his time believing (Key word) that there isn't a problem.

Taxes already a pretty high, but the money is being spent poorly. About 35 or 36% of the 2008 federal spending is going to go towards paying interest on the National Debt. We're making no effort to reduce the debt, and each year we increase the debt and thereby increase the percentage of our budget that goes towards the interest. The discretionary budget which makes up a little less than a third of all of the federal spending is basically the budget that gets voted on. More than fifty percent of that budget goes towards the Pentagon, and a lot of it is invested in programs intended to fight the soviets, or really just flushed down the toilet in an effort to create defenses for threats we do not have to worry about.

We could modernize our infrastructure, invest in all sorts of new technologies, and plan for the future if we were just willing to stop spending our nations money on things that are not important.

Global climate change can be fought without raising your taxes, it's just a matter of priority. Right now our government would rather invest in building new submarines than finding an alternative fuels.

Al Gore is probably correct. Believe it or not, this debate has been going on for about forty years and the side that is trying to claim that rising carbon levels have nothing to do with fossil fuel usage has been soundly defeated in the scientific community. The issue gets politicized by people like Senator Inhofe who refuse to accept the facts based off of their beliefs. The skeptics to global climate change haven't really produced anything in the last decade that uses the data to disprove the conclusions that global climate change is happening, and that people are related. In fact, they've started attacking the data and the scientists rather than the findings.

At this point in time, the scientists without creditability denounce global climate change.

Your argument is a product of those attacks. The terrible thing is that I know who is right, and in a couple of decades there will be no denying it but by then the point will be pretty moot because the effects will be pretty devastating.

By the way, I never made this statement; "At best a guess based on random and ever changing data" Maybe someone on FOX NEWS did? Historical data doesn't change, it does get updated with new data and since time keeps passing, there's always going to be changing data.

I had dinner with an author who used to explain that the resources of our planet were like a bank account with a million dollars in it. You could live pretty comfortably off of the interest that it presented, and if you lived frugally the account could grow. However, if you wanted to splurge a bit you could spend a bit more than the interest, and probably be fine. But, if you started spending a hundred thousand dollars a year or two hundred thousand dollars a year, eventually the bank account would spend to zero.

The Earth represents a lot of resources. The oil and coal that we often use were plants tens of millions of years ago. Those resources have effectively been stored by the properties of nature and now we're using them at a pretty alarming rate. This ecologist basically explained that at current human consumption rates, we'd basically need 4 or 5 planets to sustain our usage. We have exactly 1 planet.

I don't know how to say this politely, but your daughter is right. Your SUV is contributing to global climate change, and I'll go a bit further and suggest that its contributing to the possible collapse of our economy, government, and maybe even our civilization.

The catch is it's not just your SUV. It's everybody's SUV. It's everybody's lifestyle in this country and this planet. Yes, there are things you can do to reduce your impact - buying a more efficient car, or biking to work, but in the grand scheme of things that won't make a difference. Your kids have been told that it does make a difference in school because a lot of educators like to give kids hope.

We're going to face a lot of challenges in the future, environmentally, economically, socially, and politically. The root of all of these problems is our fundamental reliance on fossil fuels. We must change as a society, or we will be forced to change by the conditions we will face. One of those changes can be controlled, the other is much more brutal.

Scientists don't lack creditability, your government lacks vision and foresight. We are in this together, and our futures are both at stake. Denying global climate change is unproductive for our future.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

I guess the debate is over and I win. In your opinion the question of global warming being caused by man is closed done deal no more debte and you don't want here or discuss any other data other than what supports your "BELIFE" that global warming is caused by man. Why else would you suggest there are things that I can do to reduce my impact on global warming.
Patrick_Henry

Con

You still haven't defined what you mean by "the scientific community."

You also haven't provided any data for me to consider. The external links I provided you with are full of data, and references to the research, including this statement written by a scientist.

" There is no longer any doubt in the scientific community that global warming is happening and that human beings are responsible for the majority of it. The reason doubt persists in communities around the world is because a few energy companies have been spending millions of dollars funding think tanks that publish skewed information and disinformation about global warming. They have been intentionally and deliberately confusing the public in order to stall action. They use terms such as "junk science" to disparage rigorous, peer-reviewed, university-funded climate science. The term "junk science" was originally coined by corporate attorneys, according to Sheldon Rampton, director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which has been monitoring public relations and corporate law for almost two decades. At the same time, they call "sound science" any research or findings that suggest that human activity has no effect whatsoever on the environment. It doesn't matter if this "sound science" is criticized by every major academic science organization or goes against consensus, as long as it gives the industries that funded it a blank check to do whatever they want. And in all honesty, theirs is a story than many of us would like to believe – the amount of personal sacrifice and lifestyle change that is being called for to halt global warming seems immense and daunting. But not all energy companies have been so reticent to change. When the public gathers to discuss global warming, some energy companies bring their lawyers and spin doctors. Others bring their research and development teams. British Petroleum, which changed its name last year to Beyond Petroleum, has so far spent $8 billion on research and development of renewable energy. There is no future in fossil fuels – and it is incumbent upon energy companies, if they want to be industry leaders, to participate in building the world's energy future.

For more information on how ExxonMobil has been fueling global warming controversy and confusing the public, click here for a report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in January 2007. This comprehensive paper details their investigation of the company's funding of industry front groups, support of non-peer-reviewed science, and powerful influence on public policy. "

In a debate, usually it's good to address a person's statements.

Though I'm starting to get the impression that you actually need to believe that Global Climate Change isn't happening. That's why I asked you to refrain from "belief." in the first place.

Though it might have been more constructive for me to ask you to spell it correctly rather than refrain from it's use.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
I was right then and now I have been vidicated. The scientific community has absolutly no credibilty on the study of the climate or any of it's predictions. All without exceotion have been proven false except that the planet has warmed slightly and no more or no less or as fast or as slow as it has in the past.
Posted by sweatycreases 9 years ago
sweatycreases
hey sadolite. you are so right. i mean, global warming is retarded. now lets talk more about this to each other in a language that confuses scientists which only the smart people like us can understand. baaaaa baaaaa baaaaa baaa baba baba, baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Posted by eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
Funny stuff, funny stuff. sadolite, great sense of humor. Patrick, the time is still counting down in our debate
Posted by Patrick_Henry 9 years ago
Patrick_Henry
Sure. Go ahead and open the debate again.

For both of our sanities, maybe we start the opening round by separating our arguments into numbered paragraphs, and perhaps providing references to our sources.

Google is hardly the test of time. It's not a peer reviewed journal, it's an internet search engine. Look up the name of any vegetable, and you will likely be able to find a pornographic site. This does not mean that cucumbers are wildly considered by vegetarians to be pornographic.

I understood your argument, which is why I was curious about your scientific back ground. It'd let me know how much I needed to explain.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Another lnk for ya! copy and paste this.....

Why has "global warming" become such a passionate subject?

or if you like you can find hundreds and hundreds of scientific desputes against global warmig by thousands scientists.

Just type "dsputes against global warming"

Again my argument is not about global warming it is about the credibility of the scientific community on global warming for not clarifying both sides of the issue
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Sounding like Peewee Herman Id' like to say "I'm sorry so sorry!" I didn't create a link that would work. Try typing
"Digital Journal - 17200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming"
This should give my side of the arrgument a little more stength. Again I'd like to revisit this debate and we can link each other to death.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
What you posted isn't a link. I tried pasting it directly and looking it up in google, but I couldn't find anything. Besides, patrick henry argued it a lot better than I ever could. I say you have a redo with him and have him post other links in addition to the ones he put up before. You could post your own links there as well, provided they actually work. I'd look forward to reading both of your links, but from everything i've read from your side of the debate, the scientists that lack credibility are the ones that reject global warming, just like what patrick henry said in one of this rounds. Even so, I'd still like to read your stuff.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
I'd like to reopen this debate. And provide you with endless links from the internet that say the exact opposite of my opponents links. Take the IPCC for example. see link

www.digitaljournal.com/article

let me know if you want to reopen te debate I'll check the comments daily. Thanks for your consideration.
Posted by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
Mindjob expressed it correctly, the problem is that people have a need to belief that global warming doesn't exist and they won't listen to anything else.

Excellent job patrick henry.
Posted by mindjob 9 years ago
mindjob
Sadolite, are you sure you're talking to me, or to yourself? One of the many reasons why I voted for patrick henry is because he offered up a plethora of information for everyone to look up his side and decide for themselves. You obviously never bothered clicking on his links because your mind is sadly made up. Even if you did click on them, you would be trying to disprove the data instead of being open-minded enough to read and absorb. People like you remind me of the hear/see/speak no evil monkeys, because there will never be enough data for you to prove that global warming exists and that we are causing it. You'd rather bury your head in the sand to get away from the specter of global warming so you can continue living your life exactly as it is and damn the consequences.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
sadolitePatrick_HenryTied
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