The Instigator
abard124
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
infam0us
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points

The teaching of creationism in public schools in the US is justifiable

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 10 votes the winner is...
abard124
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,566 times Debate No: 11542
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (10)

 

abard124

Con

I will allow my opponent to start, but first I want to go over a few definitions.

Creationism [1]- A doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

Public school [1]- A free tax-supported school controlled by a local governmental authority.

My opponent may begin the debate!

[1]m-w.com
infam0us

Pro

I affirm the resolution that teaching creationism in schools is justifiable. I do NOT support indoctrination of beliefs, however. If con tries to accuse me, please keep it in mind when voting on conduct. Worth noting, I'm a fairly strong atheist.

Thesis: Since public schools already teach the Big Bang and evolution, it is only fair to present the idea of creationism as well.

C1. Creationism is a theory like any other theory and there is no reason to avoid teaching it. Nothing can be completely proven outside of the premise, "I think, therefore I am." Anything that goes beyond that must be accepted and it is up to the individual to decide what is acceptable past that.

C2. When staying clear of indoctrination, biased interpretations, falsities, extreme irrelevance and extremely inappropriate subject matter, it is justifiable to teach just about any theory. There is no real harm in teaching anything unless the instructor is asking their students to accept it as fact or teaching it as fact. Teachers should cover microevolution and macroevolution, the Big Bang, creationism, etc.

That is all I will say for now. I believe the burden of proof mostly lies with con, showing us why it is not justifiable to teach creationism when considering most Americans believe in it [1]. I do not mean to commit an ad populum but being that it is a common belief already, there should be no reason why it isn't justifiable to teach it in schools.

Sources

1. http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Con

Thank you for responding so quickly!

To begin, your thesis, while technically a valid point, does not quite fit within the parameters of this debate. The reason I say that is that we're not debating evolution. If the choice is to present both or neither, I would not hesitate to say neither. However, even if we were debating evolution, evolution is scientific and creationism is not.

"Creationism is a theory like any other theory and there is no reason to avoid teaching it."
I would like to respectfully disagree with that point, and to explain why, I will defer to Merriam-Webster. In the context of Evolution, a theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. While creationism does explain a phenomenon, it is not really plausible or scientifically acceptable. While you could argue that some find it to be plausible, it is rejected by nearly all scientists, especially those in relevant fields. Even in 1987, just .15% of American earth and life scientists believed creationism to be true [1]. since 99.85% of scientists do not believe creationism to be true, then we can say that it is the scientific consensus that it's not true. When teaching something as science, it's generally a bad idea to teach something that essentially all related scientists believe to be false.

"There is no real harm in teaching anything unless the instructor is asking their students to accept it as fact or teaching it as fact."
But it is being taught as fact, and it would be exceedingly difficult not to.

"When staying clear of indoctrination, biased interpretations, falsities, extreme irrelevance and extremely inappropriate subject matter, it is justifiable to teach just about any theory."
Are you familiar with Bobby Henderson or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? In a nutshell, Mr. Henderson was unhappy with the Kansas school board's decision to require schools to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, so he wrote a letter. This letter can be found here [2], but it basically says that there are multiple theories of intelligent design, and he is concerned that the students will only be hearing the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, and therefore Henderson was worried that they won't learn other viewpoints, such as his own (satirical) belief that life was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He explains that it technically has equal validity as the Judeo-Christian perspective, so it needs to be taught just as much as the other view. For the record, the Kansas school board ultimately decided to not teach evolution or creation.

"I believe the burden of proof mostly lies with con, showing us why it is not justifiable to teach creationism when considering most Americans believe in it."
While a plurality of Americans do believe in creation, I would like to repeat the point that virtually all scientists reject creation as a legitimate theory, and that's what matters. To push that idea a little further, think about this. If you wanted to know what the best technique is to brush your teeth, would you be better off taking a poll of all your neighbors, or going to a few dentist's offices and asking them? Of course you would get a better answer from dentists. It's the same idea with creationism. You could ask a bunch of random Americans who have probably never studied the matter, or you could talk to those who have studied it extensively. Of course you're going to get a more reliable result from the scientists, and their voice is extremely consistent, and they say that creationism is not a viable scientific theory. You, being an atheist, should understand that point quite well.

I am looking forward to your response!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.venganza.org...
infam0us

Pro

"To begin, your thesis, while technically a valid point, does not quite fit within the parameters of this debate. The reason I say that is that we're not debating evolution."

- Clearly, but I am not attempting to debate evolution. I used evolution as a means to justify why creationism should be taught in my thesis and there isn't anything irrelevant about it. I am not debating the teaching of evolution, just building upon that.

"In the context of Evolution, a theory is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. While creationism does explain a phenomenon, it is not really plausible or scientifically acceptable."

- I already semi-addressed this. Anything outside of "I think, therefore I am," is technically accepted. That's right, even things bordering on fact like gravity are accepted and not completely proven. Of course, there's nothing wrong with accepting these theories as fact because almost everyone else does without even thinking about it. Con states that nearly all scientists reject creationism but we cannot exclude it from our education just because of that. The Gallup poll shows the audience how people think on this issue. Clearly, creationism is still relevant and many people believe in it. Con says I could attempt to argue that "some" believe in it but it is far more than "some." Referring back to the chart, a whopping 44% believe that God created man in present form compared to a 14% believing that God had no part in the process.

"If you wanted to know what the best technique is to brush your teeth, would you be better off taking a poll of all your neighbors, or going to a few dentist's offices and asking them? Of course you would get a better answer from dentists. It's the same idea with creationism. You could ask a bunch of random Americans who have probably never studied the matter, or you could talk to those who have studied it extensively."

- This is true but it's not a proper analogy. We can test the effectiveness of different tooth brushing techniques in an experiment while we cannot truly test the validity of creationism nor evolution. Furthermore, brushing one's teeth is far less trivial and objective than personal belief. There is less variation in the way one brushes their teeth compared to how one personally believes.

"Are you familiar with Bobby Henderson or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?"

- See "extreme irrelevance."

"While a plurality of Americans do believe in creation, I would like to repeat the point that virtually all scientists reject creation as a legitimate theory, and that's what matters."

- But we're not teaching scientists, are we? It wouldn't hurt to cover the scientifically accepted theory and the popularly accepted theory because it gives students a bigger range to juxtapose when it comes to establishing their own beliefs.

"When teaching something as science, it's generally a bad idea to teach something that essentially all related scientists believe to be false."

- I see what you're saying but the resolution is about justification. Scientists find evolution to be correct, schools teach it, it is justified. People find creationism to be correct... follow where I'm going? Going back to what I just said, it doesn't hurt to provide a large spectrum to think across. In fact, all that does is help because it will probably make young minds more flexible.

I conclude my rebuttal for this round. I'd like to thank con for the quick, well-organized response.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Con

"I used evolution as a means to justify why creationism should be taught in my thesis and there isn't anything irrelevant about it."
I see what you're saying, but I still feel like it's not really a valid argument for this debate because this debate only regards creationism. Evolution will no doubt come up, but it is not a central point.

"That's right, even things bordering on fact like gravity are accepted and not completely proven."
That's a really existential viewpoint that is bordering on nonsensical. 2 2 = 4 every time. That is a provable fact. If you have two objects and then you get two more objects, there will be four objects. If you take sodium and react it with chlorine, it will produce Sodium Chloride. Now, I will agree that theories can't be proven, but they can be accepted. Like you mentioned, technically gravity can't be proven, but we all know it's true.

"Con states that nearly all scientists reject creationism but we cannot exclude it from our education just because of that."
Actually, we can and should. It would be hard to find a scientists that believe in a geocentric universe, but that used to be what people believed, and I'm sure you can still find people who believe it. Also, I'm sure there are people who reject the atomic theory, so should they teach that in schools. No doubt you've heard of the "Faith healers." They believe that we should not use medicine to heal ourselves and just pray instead. Should they teach that in health class? People believe it, even though scientists reject it. The idea that we should teach something even though scientists reject is is ludicrous at best.

"Referring back to the chart, a whopping 44% believe that God created man in present form compared to a 14% believing that God had no part in the process."
So, you take a poll of doctors, and they unanimously tell you that it's bad to smoke. Then you talk to random people on the street, many of whom are smokers. Who is going to give you a better response? The doctors, of course. They know what's good for your health. Honestly, I'm sure that, of those 44% of Americans, very few of them have an advanced degree in life or earth science. So, do you really think that it's appropriate to teach something that only a negligible number of experts accept? That's crazy, whether or not 44% of non-experts believe in it.

"We can test the effectiveness of different tooth brushing techniques in an experiment while we cannot truly test the validity of creationism nor evolution."
There is a ton of empirical evidence supporting evolution, and there is next to none supporting creationism. We can't unequivocally prove one or the other, but we can, and did, get really close to it.

"See "extreme irrelevance.""
It's actually not irrelevant at all. If you happened to read my argument, which, evidently, you did not, you would know that he was arguing exactly the same thing, and he made an excellent point. Please try again, and read the whole thing.

"But we're not teaching scientists, are we?"
But we're teaching people science. Since, arguably, the main point of school (and definitely a major point) is to equip future generations with the ability to find jobs, so technically, yes, we are teaching scientists.

"People find creationism to be correct... follow where I'm going?"
Yes and no. I understand what you're trying to say, but the reality is that we have really strong scientific theories that virtually every scientist agrees with. Why would we teach students what scientists reject?

"Going back to what I just said, it doesn't hurt to provide a large spectrum to think across. In fact, all that does is help because it will probably make young minds more flexible."
Yes, let's. And while we're at it, we need to also open their minds to the views of the Flat Earth society, Faith healers, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazis because it would open their mind. Now, I'm not trying to equate creationists with Nazism, but the point is, while open-mindedness should be encouraged, there are many views which should not be encouraged. The scientific evidence that we were all created by a divine being is about the same as the scientific evidence that Jews are inherently evil (I happen to be Jewish myself, and I'm only evil sometimes). Now, I understand that this argument could be interpreted as far-fetched, so I'd just like to quickly sum up the heart of it. We can encourage open-mindedness, but if something is universally rejected by experts, you can't justify teaching it at school.

Essentially every life and earth scientist in the US rejects creationism as a scientific theory. In science class, they teach the scientific consensus, not what a plurality of society believes. Teaching creationism can no more be justified than teaching about a geocentric universe. Science is not an opinion. One can choose to reject science, because, as the bible states, humans have free will. One can believe what they want, but in science class, they teach science, and science has shown a resounding rejection of creationism. If the student chooses to reject what s/he learns in science class, that is their prerogative.

I would like to thank my opponent for a most excellent debate, and I am looking forward to his final argument. However, he has attempted to justify the teaching of creationism in schools, but he has failed. This is not because he did a bad job debating, on the contrary, he was excellent, but it's just not possible to justify the teaching of creationism in schools. Therefore, vote CON. Thank you.
infam0us

Pro

"I see what you're saying, but I still feel like it's not really a valid argument for this debate because this debate only regards creationism. Evolution will no doubt come up, but it is not a central point."

- I haven't made it a central point but the two concepts are completely related. They are the two most popular and most commonly accepted theories (despite scientists hating creationism) about how humans got here at this point in time. You can't deny that so you can't drop my argument. Therefore, it's only justifiable to also teach creationism because even highly merited scientists can't completely validate evolution and cannot completely debunk creationism. Besides, teaching it alongside evolution has no down sides if done within guidelines (refer to my C2). It's just presenting the other side of the spectrum which I've been saying will be a good thing.

"That's a really existential viewpoint that is bordering on nonsensical. 2 2 = 4 every time. That is a provable fact. If you have two objects and then you get two more objects, there will be four objects. If you take sodium and react it with chlorine, it will produce Sodium Chloride. Now, I will agree that theories can't be proven, but they can be accepted. Like you mentioned, technically gravity can't be proven, but we all know it's true."

- You misinterpreted my argument. There is a huge difference between facts, logic and theories. Theories cannot be proven. Sure, I concede that we all "know" gravity is true but that's not really a controversial subject. You don't hear about debates where someone is attempting to deny its existence. Creationism and theism, however... you hear a lot about someone supporting one or the other, usually due to their religion. Besides, we have no control over gravity so it's not like there's much we could do against it. Creationism and evolution are heavily determined by personal belief so there will be a lot subjective values thrown in. I said that earlier and it's an important part of this debate. Con concedes the debate when he admits that theories can't be proven, only accepted. I will talk more about this in my conclusion paragraph.

"Actually, we can and should. It would be hard to find a scientists that believe in a geocentric universe, but that used to be what people believed, and I'm sure you can still find people who believe it. Also, I'm sure there are people who reject the atomic theory, so should they teach that in schools. No doubt you've heard of the "Faith healers." They believe that we should not use medicine to heal ourselves and just pray instead. Should they teach that in health class? People believe it, even though scientists reject it. The idea that we should teach something even though scientists reject is is ludicrous at best."

- Testing the probability of healing through faith is completely possible. It can be set up and ran as an experiment to see if it's more effective than using medicine. As for the geocentric universe, we already know this isn't true. It's a FACT that the earth is spherical. Facts are not debatable and the people who choose to believe against facts are nonsensical. You've already conceded that theories can't be proven so your analogy is invalid because this whole paragraph centers on fact and testable, tangible things.

"So, you take a poll of doctors, and they unanimously tell you that it's bad to smoke. Then you talk to random people on the street, many of whom are smokers. Who is going to give you a better response? The doctors, of course. They know what's good for your health. Honestly, I'm sure that, of those 44% of Americans, very few of them have an advanced degree in life or earth science. So, do you really think that it's appropriate to teach something that only a negligible number of experts accept? That's crazy, whether or not 44% of non-experts believe in it."

- Technically, we can't prove that smoking directly causes anything bad. Doctors just say that it puts you at a higher risk for certain diseases. This is also testable and has been demonstrated many times. I'm sure we've all seen smoking statistics that show a normal person's chance for getting lung cancer compared to a smoker's chances. Creationism is still relevant due the amount of people that believe in it and it's only fitting to teach it alongside evolution.

"There is a ton of empirical evidence supporting evolution, and there is next to none supporting creationism. We can't unequivocally prove one or the other, but we can, and did, get really close to it."

- If there's so much, how come you didn't post any? We did get close to it? Link? Source? I'll have to drop this point and I kindly have to ask the voters to drop it as well because it's an empty argument.

"It's actually not irrelevant at all. If you happened to read my argument, which, evidently, you did not, you would know that he was arguing exactly the same thing, and he made an excellent point. Please try again, and read the whole thing."

- My argue of relevance for creationism was based off the statistics that 44% of people completely accept it. How many people do you think seriously accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Please, you're kidding yourself. It's completely irrelevant.

"But we're teaching people science. Since, arguably, the main point of school (and definitely a major point) is to equip future generations with the ability to find jobs, so technically, yes, we are teaching scientists."

- That doesn't make sense. 44% completely accept creationism and I doubt they are all unemployed. Not all jobs revolve around science, either. Teaching students both evolution and creationism doesn't harm them for the future.

"Yes and no. I understand what you're trying to say, but the reality is that we have really strong scientific theories that virtually every scientist agrees with. Why would we teach students what scientists reject?"

- I've explained this numerous times already.

"Yes, let's. And while we're at it, we need to also open their minds to the views of the Flat Earth society, Faith healers, Skinheads, and Neo-Nazis because it would open their mind. Now, I'm not trying to equate creationists with Nazism, but the point is, while open-mindedness should be encouraged, there are many views which should not be encouraged. The scientific evidence that we were all created by a divine being is about the same as the scientific evidence that Jews are inherently evil (I happen to be Jewish myself, and I'm only evil sometimes). Now, I understand that this argument could be interpreted as far-fetched, so I'd just like to quickly sum up the heart of it. We can encourage open-mindedness, but if something is universally rejected by experts, you can't justify teaching it at school."

- Nazism, faith-healing, and skinhead philosophies are undoubtedly harmful to teach. Nazism basically caused World War 2, faith-healing can be proved ineffective, and skinhead philosophies involve racism. Teaching creationism isn't harmful. It is justified because 44% of people completely agree with it and I've already justified the scientists v. people part of it.

"Teaching creationism can no more be justified than teaching about a geocentric universe."

- This was negated earlier.

"One can believe what they want, but in science class, they teach science, and science has shown a resounding rejection of creationism. If the student chooses to reject what s/he learns in science class, that is their prerogative."

- Exactly, so they can reject creationism if they want but plenty of people support it. Science can be swayed in numerous ways and people have found ways to argue against evolution [1].

Conclusion: I have refuted the con arguments and shown why teaching creationism is completely justifiable. Thank you for reading, vote pro.

Sources

1. http://emporium.turnpike.net...
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
this debate wasn't about the legality of it but whether or not it was justified.
Posted by Bible-Defender 6 years ago
Bible-Defender
Teachers already have the right to teach creationism in the classroom if they choose, legally.

The Supreme Court, when it struck down the Fair Treatment ACT stated that "The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not ALREADY possess, to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life."

Thus, with Supreme Court authority, Justice Brennan affirms a right which teachers "already possess." Ironically, it was the enemy of creation science, Justice Brennan, who authorized "the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life."
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
yeah, nvm.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
infam0us, from what you're saying I assume that you do not understand the pursose of Pastafarianism, it was to show that there is no version of creationism that is any better than another. Saying that because a lot of people believe something is commonly referredto as the logical fallacy of Appeal to Majority.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
Hey, take it out on Webster, it's his definition...

And from a Jewish (and atheist) perspective, I would take offense if the teacher said, "I'm sure most of you think of the christian viewpoint..."

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
@korashk - creationism could easily be taught as a concept. the teacher could just say, "i'm sure most of you think of the christian viewpoint..." and then go on to explain that POV and a few other common ones.
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
you can believe anything you want, it doesn't make it any less right or any more wrong. the flying spaghetti monster isn't an established religion - there aren't people out there seriously following it. there'd be no reason to teach that spin on it because it isn't as relevant.

the most fatal mistake i made in this debate was agreeing with your definition of creationism.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
Voters, ignore this, it's just for fun...

"If there's so much, how come you didn't post any? We did get close to it? Link? Source? I'll have to drop this point and I kindly have to ask the voters to drop it as well because it's an empty argument."
I agree, drop it. The reason I didn't verify the evolution claim was because we weren't debating the validity of evolution. I could give you a ton of evidence if you wanted it, though...

"My argue of relevance for creationism was based off the statistics that 44% of people completely accept it. How many people do you think seriously accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Please, you're kidding yourself. It's completely irrelevant."
No, people don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, but the point is that they could. That is exactly what Henderson was arguing for.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence" (Henderson).
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
There were also his points that there is no plausible way to objectively teach creationism because of the thousands of different versions with the Pastafarian point, which you simply declared invalid and never addressed, and his completely true claim that creationism is not a theory as science clarifies the term.
Posted by infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
all con said was, "since scientists don't believe in it, it shouldn't be taught." i mean, to be completely honest, i felt i had much more compelling arguments and stronger groundwork than con.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SirColton 6 years ago
SirColton
abard124infam0usTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by gabe17 6 years ago
gabe17
abard124infam0usTied
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 pewpewpew 6 years ago
pewpewpew
abard124infam0usTied
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 MeganLoaskia 6 years ago
MeganLoaskia
abard124infam0usTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by hauki20 6 years ago
hauki20
abard124infam0usTied
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:24 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
abard124infam0usTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by belle 6 years ago
belle
abard124infam0usTied
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 abard124 6 years ago
abard124
abard124infam0usTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Korashk 6 years ago
Korashk
abard124infam0usTied
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 infam0us 6 years ago
infam0us
abard124infam0usTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05