The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Con (against)
Losing
44 Points

The universe was probably created by an Intelligent Designer.

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: 3/14/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,107 times Debate No: 3252
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (22)

 

Kleptin

Pro

I would like to restrict the challengers to those who do not know me very well.

I'll keep my initial argument short.

The structure of the universe as we know it is highly ordered and complex. The level of organization in the universe and the factors that allow us to exist in our present shape and form could not have simply come about by pure randomness.

I find that I must conclude, there is a guiding force in the universe that acts towards a specific end. We know this force as "nature". However, there must also have been an intelligence at the source, carrying out this end using the natural forces we study.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

The word "universe" is defined, in essence, as everything in existence. Everything. In order for something which designed the universe to exist, it would have to design itself, which is impossible as it's existence cannot predate it's design unless it is possible for something of enough complexity to design it to exist without being designed, which your argument denies in assigning design to a necessary condition of complexity. In other words, contradiction...

Beyond that, our universe contains quadrillions of stars. Many of which we don't know much about. Of the ones we do know about, none are apparently capable of supporting life except one in our system. One of nine in our system. The rest, with the possible exception of Mars, support no life. But they are nevertheless very complex. A designer with the goal of life in mind would not commit such a grievous sin against it's purpose as to waste it's time. Unless you are talking about another end for your annoying impish universal intelligence?

On another level, your argument that it "must be" designed because it is complex, quite simply, does not follow from any logic. Just because a designer would make something complex does not mean that something complex has to be designed, to think it does is affirming the antecedent. Nothing about the quality of random chance has been demonstrated to limit itself to simple outcomes, indeed, quantum physics relies on random chance and yet is highly complex. Poker is complex precisely because there is so much random chance involved, with so many different factors, and it makes it harder to design a strategy to beat it. Indeed, the more complex it gets, the less likely something is to be designed, because for one thing it gets harder to rack up the kind of intelligence necessary to design it, and for another much of the complexity out there is either useless or even counter to any possible design. Why would a designer leave comets lying about to knock into it's creation? Why would a designer make murderers? Does it like murderers? Then why would it make police? Too much conflict for any smart designer, and too much complexity for a stupid one. Either way it doesn't compute.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

"The word "universe" is defined, in essence, as everything in existence. Everything."

Not necessarily. The universe can be defined as mass and energy. The attribute of intelligence and will can very much be something beyond mass and energy. In addition, I am referring to the universe as we understand it now. Thus, it is also possible that this Intelligent Designer could have existed in a way we cannot attribute to our understanding of this universe. Remember that I also touched upon the design of natural forces and what we study as physics as a product of this design.

"In order for something which designed the universe to exist, it would have to design itself, which is impossible as it's existence cannot predate it's design unless it is possible for something of enough complexity to design it to exist without being designed, which your argument denies in assigning design to a necessary condition of complexity. In other words, contradiction..."

Or a flawed premise on your part. The intelligent force need not exist within time, or does it need to continue to exist after the creation of this universe. If we associate the beginning of time with the beginning of the universe, we can then say that this intelligent force exists outside of time, designed the universe, and continues to exist outside time since it is not of physical substance.

Alternatively, we can also say that this being existed in an alternate state, designed the universe, and ceased existing once time and the universe came into being.

"Beyond that, our universe contains quadrillions of stars. Many of which we don't know much about. Of the ones we do know about, none are apparently capable of supporting life except one in our system. One of nine in our system. The rest, with the possible exception of Mars, support no life. But they are nevertheless very complex. A designer with the goal of life in mind would not commit such a grievous sin against it's purpose as to waste it's time. Unless you are talking about another end for your annoying impish universal intelligence?"

Recognizing the products of intelligence is different from being able to distinguish purpose. While we can adequately understand that things are more than the product of random chance, as they exhibit order and complexity, we cannot assume purpose because that assumption is tainted by our social habits. Your notion that time/energy is wasted is only connected with the assumption that this intelligent designer shares certain human characteristics. However, with the notion that this intelligent designer is (by our standards) omnipotent and exists outside the realm of time, your argument that the more "unimportant" creations are a waste is irrelevant.

"On another level, your argument that it "must be" designed because it is complex, quite simply, does not follow from any logic. Just because a designer would make something complex does not mean that something complex has to be designed, to think it does is affirming the antecedent."

That is not the logical structure of my argument. My argument is that observed complexity equates with a decreased probability of no intelligent influence. I then derive the notion that the observed complexity of the universe is so great that the probability of there being no intelligent influence is similarly low.

"Nothing about the quality of random chance has been demonstrated to limit itself to simple outcomes, indeed, quantum physics relies on random chance and yet is highly complex."

This analogy is lacking. Quantum physics OPERATES via random chance and is highly complex AS A THEORY. The corrected analogy would be the probability of a man devising the concepts of quantum physics randomly, which is absurd.

"Poker is complex precisely because there is so much random chance involved, with so many different factors, and it makes it harder to design a strategy to beat it."

Again, this analogy is lacking, it is rigged. This example illustrates the usage of intelligence to overcome factors of random chance. The complexity is derived from a goal (overcoming randomness) and not from the intrinsic nature of poker. A corrected analogy would be chess, which is a game that is observably complex. What is the probability of devising a chess strategy of random moves and win?

"Indeed, the more complex it gets, the less likely something is to be designed, because for one thing it gets harder to rack up the kind of intelligence necessary to design it, and for another much of the complexity out there is either useless or even counter to any possible design."

I don't see the logic in this rebuttal. First of all, this argument only goes to show that the intelligent designer must be of infinite intelligence. Second, the only way your argument can make sense is if you assume that the act of the intelligent designer designing the universe was somehow an act that can be reduced to probability. This is begging the question.

"Why would a designer leave comets lying about to knock into it's creation? Why would a designer make murderers? Does it like murderers? Then why would it make police? Too much conflict for any smart designer, and too much complexity for a stupid one. Either way it doesn't compute."

There are the constructs of the designer and there are constructs of man. Events of man such as murder, the relaying of justice, or even comets colliding are of no great consequence to a being of infinite intelligence that exists outside time or not at all. These are simply not issue of concern for the designer and are only important because they relate with human life.

The only point of importance is that we are able to understand and perceive intelligence and its forms and evidence of its existence in the universe.

*****************

My argument for Intelligent Design of the universe is echoed throughout the internet. The universe operates like clockwork, in recognizable patterns. Our very existence is the result of extremely specific and highly improbably if not impossible circumstances.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
Not necessarily. The universe can be defined as mass and energy. The attribute of intelligence and will can very much be something beyond mass and energy"

An example perhaps?

And are you saying space isn't part of the universe?

"
Or a flawed premise on your part. The intelligent force need not exist within time,"

Key word in the resolution: "The universe WAS probably created by an Intelligent Designer."

Was. Past tense. Implies time.

"or does it need to continue to exist after the creation of this universe."
Does it matter whether it continues to exist?

"If we associate the beginning of time with the beginning of the universe, we can then say that this intelligent force exists outside of time, designed the universe, and continues to exist outside time since it is not of physical substance.
"

How can something not physical interact with that which is? Force is defined as, strength or energy as an attribute of PHYSICAL action or movement. Nonphysical forces are a contradiction.

And you have no objection to the earlier statement that such a being would have to be complex and therefore itself designed. So, naturally, you ignored it :D.

"
Recognizing the products of intelligence is different from being able to distinguish purpose. While we can adequately understand that things are more than the product of random chance, as they exhibit order and complexity, we cannot assume purpose because that assumption is tainted by our social habits. "

"
I find that I must conclude, there is a guiding force in the universe that acts towards a specific end."

Contradiction. You either conclude teleology or you don't.

"Your notion that time/energy is wasted is only connected with the assumption that this intelligent designer shares certain human characteristics."

Intelligence is a certain human characteristic. I'd say that justifies such an assumption. Also, design implies a goal.

"However, with the notion that this intelligent designer is (by our standards) omnipotent and exists outside the realm of time, your argument that the more "unimportant" creations are a waste is irrelevant.
"

As demonstrated earlier, this resolution requires it's existence within time, besides which, why would something outside of time bother with something within it? For that matter, how could it design anything without time? In order to design something, you need a process of design, you need a starting point. That which exists in internal stasis cannot design, cannot think, cannot act, action is a function of time. In order to contain something within concepts like "design" or "intelligent" that assume time, it has to have that quality.

"
That is not the logical structure of my argument. My argument is that observed complexity equates with a decreased probability of no intelligent influence. I then derive the notion that the observed complexity of the universe is so great that the probability of there being no intelligent influence is similarly low."

But you haven't justified that premise in the slightest. What evidence do you have that observed complexity decreases probability of no intelligent influence?

"This analogy is lacking. Quantum physics OPERATES via random chance and is highly complex AS A THEORY. The corrected analogy would be the probability of a man devising the concepts of quantum physics randomly, which is absurd.
"

That would not at all be a "corrected" analogy. The universe is not just a concept, it is reality. Quantum physics itself, is, supposedly, a process in reality. The argument is not whether it's possible to think of the universe without intelligence (what your "correction" implies), only whether it is possible for it to exist.

"The complexity is derived from a goal (overcoming randomness) and not from the intrinsic nature of poker."

The goal is part of the nature of poker. Without a goal there would be no playing of poker. There might be playing-card-like objects in places, but there would not be a continously manufactured amount of 52 card sets with analogous symbols.

And whether you have a goal or not poker is complex. The complexity is the number of hands available. Chess and poler are equally "intrinsically complex".

"
I don't see the logic in this rebuttal. First of all, this argument only goes to show that the intelligent designer must be of infinite intelligence"

In which case he'd have to design an infinitely greater universe.

"Second, the only way your argument can make sense is if you assume that the act of the intelligent designer designing the universe was somehow an act that can be reduced to probability."

Huh? No, YOU assumed that, by putting in the resolution "the universe was PROBABLY created by an intelligent designer."

"This is begging the question.
"

In which case you are?

"
Events of man such as murder, the relaying of justice, or even comets colliding are of no great consequence to a being of infinite intelligence that exists outside time or not at all. These are simply not issue of concern for the designer and are only important because they relate with human life.
"
"The level of organization in the universe and the factors that allow us to exist in our present shape and form could not have simply come about by pure randomness"
If a being of "infinite intelligence" (assuming that were even possible, which frankly it's not, intelligence by definition has to have a limit or it would not be able to parse thoughts, i.e. would not be able to think, defeating the point), is not concerned with murder, justice, comets, etc.... WHAT MAKES YOU THINK IT IS CONCERNED WITH, the level of organization of the universe, the factors that allow us to exist, the universe itself, etc.? IF it isn't concerned, why bother designing? You keep changing the nature of your floating mega-pink-unicorn with every stroke so much, it doesn't stay still long enough to design a mousetrap. If you define something as infinite and then define infinite as not concerned with x because it's too small, well, guess what? Infinite means no limit, no threshold. If infinite isn't concerned with you or I, infinite isn't concerned with galaxies or quasars or the entire universe as you have defined it, because it is all nothing in the face of infinity. You have succeeded in imagining an intelligent designer that is incapable of designing or thinking or doing anything else. Congratulations.

:"
The only point of importance is that we are able to understand and perceive intelligence and its forms and evidence of its existence in the universe"

Intelligence isn't perceived. It's conceptualized. Perception is a lower-order process, by which you turn lines and colors into cars or trees or whatever. Not the process by which you use sophistral devices to imagine impossible beings.

"
My argument for Intelligent Design of the universe is echoed throughout the internet"

Argumentum ad populum.

"The universe operates like clockwork, in recognizable patterns. "

Clocks move around once every 24 hours. The universe is MUCH more variable than that. It is nothing at all like a clock. A clock has constant size, the universe (according to physicists) expands. A clock has constant rotation, I don't have a bloody clue whether the universe rotates. A clock has unity of purpose put in place by a designer who does nothing without a function- the universe has no apparent unitary purpose and a million things that don't seem to function usefully.

"Our very existence is the result of extremely specific and highly improbably if not impossible circumstances."

This is a misunderstanding of probability. There are quadrillions of stars. With all kinds of random forms and such. Even if each star has a miniscule chance of turning out this way, when you get a sample that huge, almost anything that can happen does.

Meanwhile you give us a sample of one deity- and expect everything.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

"An example perhaps?"

1. Premise: Humans have free will
2. Free will cannot exist if our mental capabilities are purely natural
3. Therefore, our mental capacities must draw on some aspect of the supernatural.

"And are you saying space isn't part of the universe?"

I didn't feel it was necessary to specify as it has nothing to do with this debate. Space alone cannot characterize a universe.

"Was. Past tense. Implies time."

Implication of time is in reference to the crea*TION* not the crea*TOR*. So while the creation of the universe did exist in time (as the very start of time) the creator can still be outside of it.

"Does it matter whether it continues to exist?"

No.

"How can something not physical interact with that which is? Force is defined as, strength or energy as an attribute of PHYSICAL action or movement. Nonphysical forces are a contradiction."

I retract the designation of the intelligent designer as a "force". It was unnecessary.

"And you have no objection to the earlier statement that such a being would have to be complex and therefore itself designed. So, naturally, you ignored it :D"

Humans recognize complexity through observation. The intelligent designer has never been observed, so any attempts to characterize it are subject to bias. The only thing we can say objectively is that the designer is intelligent. Whether or not it is complex is another issue, so we need not make assumptions about whether or not the designer was designed.

"Contradiction. You either conclude teleology or you don't."

No contradiction. My argument was that a purpose exists, but any attempts to understand the specifics of that purpose through our biased human lens would be inaccurate.

"Intelligence is a certain human characteristic. I'd say that justifies such an assumption. Also, design implies a goal."

Intelligence is a human characteristic, but not a solely human characteristic. It follows from my argument on free will that the attribute of intelligence is beyond nature.

"In order to design something, you need a process of design, you need a starting point"

Humans need to plan. The Intelligent Designer need not be subject to that flaw. The act of designing is indeed an act and does imply time. However, I argue that this design and the creation of the universe is one event and the first event, meaning, it is the origin of time.

"But you haven't justified that premise in the slightest. What evidence do you have that observed complexity decreases probability of no intelligent influence?"

We can, with accuracy, determine whether something has been influenced by human intelligence (watch in a field). By broadening our scope, we can identify when other things have been influenced by intelligence in general.

"That would not at all be a "corrected" analogy. The universe is not just a concept, it is reality. Quantum physics itself, is, supposedly, a process in reality. The argument is not whether it's possible to think of the universe without intelligence (what your "correction" implies), only whether it is possible for it to exist."

"The goal is part of the nature of poker. Without a goal there would be no playing of poker. There might be playing-card-like objects in places, but there would not be a continously manufactured amount of 52 card sets with analogous symbols."

We've both missed each other's points. You used these analogies to show that there is some connection between random chance and complexity, but I was trying to show that your analogies didn't connect the two points correctly in either case.

"In which case he'd have to design an infinitely greater universe"

By whose standards?

"Second, the only way your argument can make sense is if you assume that the act of the intelligent designer designing the universe was somehow an act that can be reduced to probability."

Huh? No, YOU assumed that, by putting in the resolution "the universe was PROBABLY created by an intelligent designer."

I see what you mean, but that's not what I was saying. Your argument operates under the premise that the probability is slim because the universe existing has a requirement, and the chance of the designer fulfilling that requirement was small. I found this to be ludicrous simply given that the universe exists o.O

"You have succeeded in imagining an intelligent designer that is incapable of designing or thinking or doing anything else. Congratulations."

That doesn't follow. I stated a few times before that the designer designed *outside* time and that the designing is a single event. The requirement to process information doesn't exist for a being of infinite intelligence existing outside time and acting once.

"Intelligence isn't perceived. It's conceptualized. Perception is a lower-order process, by which you turn lines and colors into cars or trees or whatever. Not the process by which you use sophistral devices to imagine impossible beings."

I retract the term "intelligence" in that phrase and substitute it with "complexity".

"Argumentum ad populum."

No. I wasn't using popularity to strengthen my argument, I was using it to be lazy. I meant "My argument is the same as those arguments you see floating around the internet"

"It is nothing at all like a clock"

I needed only to focus on the aspect of functionality and precision. The fact that we exist in this very form shows both.

"This is a misunderstanding of probability. There are quadrillions of stars. With all kinds of random forms and such. Even if each star has a miniscule chance of turning out this way, when you get a sample that huge, almost anything that can happen does. "

Probability stops being useful as a tool of determination after a certain point, even given a near-infinite sample set.

"Meanwhile you give us a sample of one deity- and expect everything."

That's the logical conclusion when you eliminate random chance. You must assume intelligent influence in situations where the probability is essentially 0.

***

Since I'm the instigator, this is my last round. I have addressed in what I believe to be a proper manner, each of my opponent's rebuttals. The complexity of the universe cannot be denied. That observed complexity leads to the probability of an intelligence also cannot be denied. The existence of life as we know it, and our very existence simply cannot be the product of randomness.

I know several people who cite natural selection, but we are dealing with the concept of abiogenesis, not evolution of species. There have been no conclusions despite many attempts to generate life in vitro. All experiments have fatal flaws. This shows that the level of complexity is so high and the probability of random generation is so low, we must assume outside influence.
Ragnar_Rahl

Con

"
1. Premise: Humans have free will
2. Free will cannot exist if our mental capabilities are purely natural
3. Therefore, our mental capacities must draw on some aspect of the supernatural.
"

Argument from ignorance. You do not know that free will cannot exist naturally.

"I didn't feel it was necessary to specify as it has nothing to do with this debate. Space alone cannot characterize a universe."

Yet nevertheless it has to be an element of one, or there is nowhere to put all the mass :D.

"
Implication of time is in reference to the crea*TION* not the crea*TOR*. So while the creation of the universe did exist in time (as the very start of time) the creator can still be outside of it.
"

Doesn't work, a thing that is not part of time cannot perform an action at a specific time. Assuming the thing can even exist outside of time (not demonstrably possible anyway), any action it took must be also not subject to time and therefore must occur at every time or not at all.

"
I retract the designation of the intelligent designer as a "force". It was unnecessary.
"

In which case you must also retract it having any interaction with mass whatsoever, as any such action is physical in nature.

"Humans recognize complexity through observation. The intelligent designer has never been observed, so any attempts to characterize it are subject to bias."

If we follow from that premise, your attempt to characterize it as EVEN EXISTING is mere bias. Your attempt to characterize ANYTHING ABOUT OUR ORIGIN AT ALL is no more valid than ascribing something to a potential designer, as frankly, you did not observe the origin of the universe. If we accept what you say as true, this very debate is invalid. If the debate is invalid no burden of proof can be met, and as that burden is on you...

"
No contradiction. My argument was that a purpose exists, but any attempts to understand the specifics of that purpose through our biased human lens would be inaccurate."

Existence is a specific, therefore your argument must be inaccurate if we accept it as true, which leads to a contradiction.

Plus, it doesn't matter what the specifics are when NO SET OF SPECIFICS in a purpose, can result in our universe.

"Humans need to plan. The Intelligent Designer need not be subject to that flaw. The act of designing is indeed an act and does imply time. However, I argue that this design and the creation of the universe is one event and the first event, meaning, it is the origin of time.
"

Then why didn't it happen earlier? No time constraints were in the way. (*grins at the absurdities that result when you assume origins of time.)

"We can, with accuracy, determine whether something has been influenced by human intelligence (watch in a field). By broadening our scope, we can identify when other things have been influenced by intelligence in general."

We determine the watche's design by comparing it with it's surroundings, and seeing whether those surroundings contain any such mix of compounds, heat, and other conditions that could possible give rise to it (it's not a matter of probability, either the conditions make it possible or they don't.) In a heap of natural mixed metals that due to geology had all kinds of intricate designs in metals, we wouldn't know whether the watch was designed. We haven't observed the surroundings of the universe and so the process is invalid for it.

"
By whose standards?'

By the standards that are the only ones the entity can have if the entity is infinite. Either you think something worth effort or you don't. Failure to put full effort into a thing when one is invested to it is a product of being finite, of having limits, without limits the idea of failing to fully reach your potential is absurd. If an infinite thing can design our universe, it can design better quality by virtue of being infinite. If it is motivated by our current quality enough to do what it has done, it is motivated enough to produce a greater quality, for it requires no more effort. Standards are based on the facts of one's existence and one's choice to continue it. If the fact of the existence is infinite, the standard must be perfection.

"
I see what you mean, but that's not what I was saying. Your argument operates under the premise that the probability is slim because the universe existing has a requirement, and the chance of the designer fulfilling that requirement was small. I found this to be ludicrous simply given that the universe exists o.O'
Not when the requirement can be fulfilled without the designer.

"That doesn't follow. I stated a few times before that the designer designed *outside* time and that the designing is a single event. The requirement to process information doesn't exist for a being of infinite intelligence existing outside time and acting once.
"

Which is precisely why it can't design, because design is a process, not an event, and so is intelligence. *Poof* is an event. The concepts of intelligent and design rely on time, without time they cannot be present, you need different concepts.

"
I needed only to focus on the aspect of functionality and precision. The fact that we exist in this very form shows both.
"

No it doesn't, because we aren't precise. Our lifespans change with every generation, and so do many facts of our nature, our form. Clocks don't except for external damage, and they are designed to minimize that (an infinite designer would of course design that infinitely better rather than worse :D).

Imagine a clock that suddenly shrunk when it went 24 hours, or grew, or obtained a different varnish, spontaneously.

"
Probability stops being useful as a tool of determination after a certain point, even given a near-infinite sample set. "

After what point? Infinity? We have not reached that point and cannot.

"That's the logical conclusion when you eliminate random chance. You must assume intelligent influence in situations where the probability is essentially 0."

But it isn't "essentially zero" in account with the number of stars. It is only essentially zero (more like absolutely considering the contradictions :D) when given the deity's one trial.

"That observed complexity leads to the probability of an intelligence also cannot be denied. "

I just did.

"There have been no conclusions despite many attempts to generate life in vitro. All experiments have fatal flaws. This shows that the level of complexity is so high and the probability of random generation is so low, we must assume outside influence.'

No, we mustn't, especially when it took BILLIONS OF YEARS for life to originate on earth. Every second of that in some of the chemical pools around back then was a trial. The miniscule resources of scientists and our century or so of attempts is nothing compare with that sample size.

A key fact of any lottery is someone wins once in a while, whether you've bought enough trials to be that someone or not.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
"I do not generally regard that as a good thing to do without special circumstances"

No, just bored :P
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Personally Kleptin I thought you did phenomenally in light of the goal of advocating something you do not believe. I do not generally regard that as a good thing to do without special circumstances, but I was impressed with the follow-through. Good match :D.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Hey, I tried at least. Arguing for something you don't believe in is harder than it looks.
Posted by Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
So this Intelligent Designer exists outside of time, space, and existence, we don't know who or what it is, but it can't be anything, but it is there, and it created infinity of everything? No. That's completely illogical. This is not on personal opinion, this is your argument in a nutshell.

I vote CON
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
While I have not read this debate (though probably will at some point tonight or tomorrow) I wish to input my two sense anyways. I do not think it is possible to argue intelligent design, especially Christian, on as objective of a level as one can argue against it. Intelligent design always seems to necessitate the argument of faith which from an objective standpoint is not an argument at all. Though I would interested in trying this debate.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Ugh. I guess I don't know the Creationist standpoint well enough to argue it yet x.x
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
i came up against that cap too. I found a few places to cut words.

Will have to respond tomorrow, my comp's 2 minutes from automatically logging me out.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
It's convenient for readers to know what I'm responding to, so i include quotes from my opponent. Still, I'm debating with a handicap here.
Posted by sweatycreases2 8 years ago
sweatycreases2
YOU SHOULD PARAPHRASE MORE KLEPTIN
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Guah, 8000 characters is not enough.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 kevsext 7 years ago
kevsext
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 mrbullfrog11 8 years ago
mrbullfrog11
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 Feklahr 8 years ago
Feklahr
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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 livi 8 years ago
livi
KleptinRagnar_RahlTied
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