The Instigator
Aerogant
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
distraff
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

There Is No Such Thing As "Human", As It's All Subatomic Particles.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
distraff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 675 times Debate No: 60060
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Aerogant

Pro

Rules: There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a more philosophical approach, rather than a political approach, (by using these terms, or their synonymous forms, you have thus forfeited this discussion), as this debate still can go ways in, but will not do well in answering itself. It deals with something that is on a grand level, which can only be figured out so much before you start realizing that you have to look for more pieces before you continue on locating the correlations between the universal paradigms (e.g bees behaving like electrons), therefore it would be best to discuss this on a powerful level of analysis, instead of a petty level of answer-ability.

Argument 1: When a crowd of people are invoked with fear, causing them to break apart from the crowd to seek safety, they break away exactly like gas molecules. Evidence that humans are based on subatomic particles found on a micro level, which animate the macro level.

Argument 2: Happiness is not special or sacred to the human experience; it can be obtained by simply biting into a piece of chocolate. The reason why it feels special and sacred, is because we, as human beings, are not only consuming these chemicals; we are experiencing ourselves through these chemicals. To say that, the human experience is not "of" life - it's "in" life. To say that, the human experience is nothing on the macro level, without the activity of the micro level, as the top of a skyscraper is nothing without the bottom thereof.

Argument 3: The neurons in our brain store energy within the same design as matter that's observed throughout the Universe. Simply research "neurons and space matter".

Argument 4: Our emotions react similarly to how a volcano, a sea or a storm reacts. The calmness and the chaos interchange according to the circumstances. This is to say that human emotion is based on Newton's Laws of Physics. It's also based on relativity, focus and allocation. This is to say, the human eye is a baffling similarity to that of a camera - this is to allude to the idea that man is able to create inventions based entirely on experiencing the grand design alone and recreating it through this conscious threshold which does not acknowledge itself recreating the Universe's functions, (e.g computers, vehicles, machines).

Argument 5: The Universe portrays a subtle evolutionary pattern which can be observed by analyzing how life got from Point A, to Point X. First there was matter; this matter then became bacteria; the bacteria then became form, like water; then this water created fungi; then fungi created plant; then plant created oxygen for fish, animal and Man. There is also the scientific fact that there are four stages to the human heart's chamber development: 1, resemblance of a fish heart 2, resemblance of a frog heart 3, resemblance of a turtle heart 4, the human heart. This is evidence that our human heart is based on the evolution of sea creatures.

Argument 6: Further evidence that our emotions are based entirely on proton, electron and neutron behavior, is that electrons can be "irritated" - when they do, they behave like humans do when they become "irritated".

Argument 7: The human consciousness has always been one of the greatest mysteries in life to those that take life literally, even though ideas, experiences and the imagination are anything but literal. However, it's not complex any longer when you understand the Universe's ways in how it created self-similarity by design. Consciousness flows, reflects and can be distorted and cleared like water. I can prove that this is plausible, by demonstrating how our dreams; which create other realities, experiences and profound ideas; which came to geniuses like Tesla and Einstein; are consisted of chemicals that contain 99% water, called serotonin; which is converted into melatonin. I also can further prove this, by demonstrating that every drop of water on this planet is older than the planet itself - this is to say that life came from water, thrives off of water and cannot be anything without water. One more thing to consider: water is the most flexible element in the entire Universe. You can see what happens to the planets when they do not have enough water, as the planets are in order from solid/hot to gas/cold, thus there's many ways to understand how the Universe behaves by simply using the planets as guidelines.

Argument 8: Speaking of planets, the planets are in a pattern that will blow your mind - alone, they look like they are just floating in space, orbiting the sun silently; however when observed by someone with a keen eye, they can see that the planets are based on a ripple effect, as the planets near the sun are closest to each other, while the planets farthest from the sun tend to have great distances between each planet. Like this: O-O--O---O------O------------------O---------------------------------------O------------------------and so on.

Argument 9: The colors emitted by the Universe are more than colors, they are the personality of the Universe. Humans would not have personality, if the Universe did not have personality itself. The ranges of these colors can be scientifically cross-referenced to different waves of sound, from radio waves to gamma waves which are based on five wave patterns in order from active to sub-active: Gamma, Beta, Alpha, Theta and Delta. The colors, of which these colors are emitted as, are actually based on characteristics or stages of the Universe like this: red (survival), orange (taking a stand), yellow (balance), green (love), light blue (communication), dark blue (intuition) and purple (the bond between man and the Universe). One end of the human spectrum is anger - the other end is ascension.

Argument 10: The colors I spoke of earlier are produced within the core of both, the human body and the planet body. The human eye cannot see them, so you have to use infrared vision in order to do so. Have you noticed how colors do not paint the whole Universe? It's because colors are formed individually per each object of the Universe - the apple is not red because it contains red hues; it's red because it contains every other hue, except red, so the apple absorbs the red hue.

Argument 11: The photo receptors in our eyes were formed before stars, billions of years ago, to capture our experiences today.

Argument 12: The male genitalia behaves much like how a volcano behaves - the female genitalia behaves much like how the soil behaves. The human body and the planet body spreads its seeds in a way that's magnificently similar.

Argument 13: The human's genitalia and their facial organs are interconnected, hence why the nose and the eyes are able to do what they do because of erectile tissue, which is what allows our sensual organs to do what they do. When you cry, when you think about it at least, it does feel like an orgasm. The nipples do not contain erectile tissue, however.

Argument 14: The entire human body's design has many things to consider: 1) It contains the shape of a turtle when on all fours; the shape of a clam while bending down while standing up, closing the space between the stomach and the legs. 2) The eyes and nails are based on properties that originated from the sea, which can be observed by analyzing the pearl of a clam - the pearl turns yellow, when it is falls to a disease - so do the eyes and nails. 3) The lungs have a root-like design. 4) The finger nails and the base of the finger are shaped like young mushrooms - you have to simply find the right mushroom family to see the similarity, as not all mushrooms will fit this analysis. 5) The man's genitalia has the shape of a heart on the back-end of its base, and shares the design of the brain and the brain's stem. 6) The woman's genitalia has the shape of a galaxy which is creating new life; however you have to have a very keen eye to figure this one out, as the design is within the spiral form, not the entire spiral form. It would just be easier to simply go back to the volcano and soil analogy instead. If you really want to test your brain capacity, then I'll give you a tandem to work with: the human genitalia on a cosmic level, is the star which explodes - the female genitalia on a cosmic level, is the black hole which creates.

Argument 15: The clouds in the sky are very similar to how ideas form inside our head. Ideas and clouds are both electrically modified. Both can become cloudy, rainy and stormy. Sometimes there are many ideas in our head - very few - or none, just like clouds in the sky. Ideas, like clouds, are full of so many possibilities, that they are based entirely on perception.

Argument 16: The human mind contains a consciousness (projected) and a subconscious (projector). The surface of the sea is like the consciousness; below the surface is like the subconscious; light, normal and easy to relate to for the consciousness; dark, heavy, too creepy to relate to for most with the subconscious.

Argument 17: The jellyfish can conduct electricity through its tools, just like a human can conduct electricity by shuffling their feet. This is evidence that not only is there more sea creatures influencing human design; the jelly fish is representing the shape of having legs and hands, with a dome as a head.

Argument 18: Life is always changing, with no name or identity. So is Man, as much as they like to convince themselves otherwise to compensate for their fear towards the truth behind all existence. As much as it's always changing, there are cycles within these changes that do not change, the same goes for human experiences.

Argument 19: The human eye contains the center of a black hole and emits lights that are not visible to the human eye, which blind people that incorporate sonar vision use to capture objects around them without sight, because we still can see without our eyes - it's just without a picture.
distraff

Con

Argument 1:
We are both composed of particles and human. These two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Argument 2:
Our particles are arranged in such a way as to make us human with complex parts such as ears, eyes, heart, etc.

Argument 3:
We are highly intelligent and are capable of novel ideas and actions. We have made discoveries about the universe. We have built machines that can take us to the moon. Any arrangement of particles could not do this.

Argument 4:
We are sentient and self-aware. Particles in any arrangement cannot see, think, feel, and wonder about their existence. Consciousness is a property of particles which is just dead matter. Consciousness is either an emergent property of particles when they are arranged properly, or the result of a soul.

Counter-argument 1:
One can draw analogies of our parts and actions to things in the universe, but our actions are done while conscious and intelligent while those in the universe are done from natural processes. Broad analogies does not mean sameness. Some elements of human processes elsewhere does not mean we are not human and unique as a whole.

Counter-argument 2:
Our emotions and minds may be based on matter and physical laws, but they are still capable of producing consciousness and high intelligence.
Debate Round No. 1
Aerogant

Pro

Counter-Argument 1: No, because you're either particles - or still particles, just they are called "human" for whatever distinctive purpose there is to distinguish one thing from another - to distinguish something is not to define something, therefore calling particles human, animal, plant, or whatever does not remove the grand picture behind the notion of which they are still particles beneath the appearance they have given.

Counter-Argument 2: They don't make us human - they are particles which created something that we call human. Us calling it something does not have any effect on the thing in itself.

Counter-Argument 3: "We" are not; the particles "Are". The Universe planned our existence billions of years ago before the birth of stars, by creating photo receptors; they are what allow us to observe this world today. There's no "human" - just like there's no "ghost", "faerie", "boogeyman" or "alien". It's all particles - these distinctions rip us away from the oneness we have as a relationship with the Universe.

Counter-Counter-Argument 1: Being conscious is merely the water of our bodily system reflecting upon the world via the eyes of this Universe - we are experiencing the experiencing Universe; we are not experiencing anything more than what the Universe is. It's not "our" experience; it's the Universe's experience, hence why everything that "we" are, was premeditated before the birth of stars. Being intelligent is still based on observation and analysis - these are not high-grade elements of the brain, hence why tyrants, serial killers and psychopaths are highly analytic.

Counter-Counter-Argument 2: They are merely cosmic sponges that soak up already existing information throughout the Universe, then managing that information via an already built-in system of reaction and assessment. There's nothing "human" - it's all particles in the end. There's no "I", "me" or "what is", because this Universe isn't finished - it's an unfinished design - so are we. When someone asks me how to answer "Who am I?", I tell them specifically: "I Am Everything (The Unfinished Design); I Am Nothing (Being The Unfinished Design).
distraff

Con

We need to go over what language is and what words are there for. A word is a sound we use to describe a set of ideas and objects in the world. A society can choose whatever sounds it wants, or define what collection of objects these sounds represent, but the important thing is that a consensus is reached. Without consensus we are in a tower of babylon situation.

So when you say there is no such thing as "human" you seem to be saying that humans, the physical things represented by the word "human", do not exist. The title is very poorly worded. The justification is that we are just subatomic particles anyway, and your constant attempts to relate human things to things in nature indicates to me you are claiming that humans are not distinct.

However we are distinct. Our human collections of particles have distinct traits from other collection. The fact that we are made out of the same general stuff as the rest of the universe doesn't mean our stuff can't be arranged differently making us unique and distinct.

Counter-Argument 1: No, because you're either particles - or still particles, just they are called "human" for whatever distinctive purpose there is to distinguish one thing from another - to distinguish something is not to define something,

Actually, to distinguish something is a way to define it. We make words to represent different distinguishable things to have a linguistic distinguishment between these physically distinguishable things.

We make a word for you, a word for me, because you and I are different and we need words to linguistically represent each of us. Since humans are different from other things because we do have unique traits (unique arrangements of particles), it is proper to have a word to represent us, and there is certainly such a thing as human.

therefore calling particles human, animal, plant, or whatever does not remove the grand picture behind the notion of which they are still particles beneath the appearance they have given.

I agree, we are all still collections of particles. But the human collection is different from the dynamite collection, and the overall structure has different properties. So we are physically distinct.

Counter-Argument 2: They don't make us human - they are particles which created something that we call human. Us calling it something does not have any effect on the thing in itself.

They do make us human. Since these particles have traits that make humans distinct among ourselves from other groups of particles, they do make us human. We have defined the word human to mean these collections so they are human.

Counter-Argument 3: "We" are not; the particles "Are".

You are only looking at the parts but not looking at how they work together. Our particles are, and so are we. We are the collection of particles. We have sentience so we have personal identities. We are not just objects.

The Universe planned our existence billions of years ago before the birth of stars, by creating photo receptors; they are what allow us to observe this world today.

You are assuming the universe is sentient. Provide arguments to support this. Where is the evidence that the universe created photo receptors before the stars formed?

Being conscious is merely the water of our bodily system reflecting upon the world via the eyes of this Universe

Actually we have no idea how consciousness happens. All we know is that we are. There is no evidence that water has the ability to reflect on anything. There is also no evidence that we are using "the eyes of the universe." What are the "eyes of the universe" anyway? Are you assuming the universe is sentient again?

we are experiencing the experiencing Universe;

No evidence the universe can experience...

we are not experiencing anything more than what the Universe is. It's not "our" experience; it's the Universe's experience, hence why everything that "we" are, was premeditated before the birth of stars.

That is just a claim backed with nothing. There is no evidence the universe experiences anything.

Being intelligent is still based on observation and analysis - these are not high-grade elements of the brain, hence why tyrants, serial killers and psychopaths are highly analytic.

Analysis is a high-grade element. Einstein discovered that space-time can be bent by matter. This analysis by him (the collection of particles that is Einstein) is something not every collection of particles can do. Observation is high-grade and the process of eyes working with the brain is highly complex. The fact that we are conscious of this process and analyze it means we are much more than just a camera.

Counter-Counter-Argument 2: They are merely cosmic sponges that soak up already existing information throughout the Universe, then managing that information via an already built-in system of reaction and assessment. There's nothing "human" - it's all particles in the end.

You are describing a computer. A computer collects information and uses pre-existing functions to do computations on the data, and take actions depending on the data. The problem is that computers are not sentient and are not actually thinking, they are just following pre-defined physical patterns in their circuits. We however are sentient and can actually experience our thinking, change it, and can even add novel computations to ourselves. We are like sentient computers that can write novel code for ourselves while personally experiencing all this. Such a thing is completely beyond even our best computers.

If our thinking and analysis was completely out of our control and is controlled by particles in our brains, then how can we determine what we think and change ourselves? The truth is that either our consciousness is either external to our particles or an emergent property of certain structures in our brain. So we can control ourselves because we are our particles. So yes, thinking happens because of reactions in the brains by physical brain structures. But we are these structures and the emergent sentience from these structures so we are also in control of our thinking.

If consciousness is not an emergent property, it either does not exist, or is external. If it is external, my opponent is wrong and we are not just particles. Consciousness does exist and is proven from your personal experience.
Debate Round No. 2
Aerogant

Pro

I never have issues with communication on my side, as I understand everyone to a grand level - if you cannot understand me, it's not because of how I say what I say; it's what I say - you can't fathom the knowledge I bare, so your brain is in the dark wondering what it can do to face the darkness, but like most brains, it does not look into itself, thus why you blame me for your own lack of ability to comprehend such simple explanations of the Universe, as you do not understand how to wake up your inner genius.

I'm quite sure what I said is as specific as it gets. You just don't understand the specifics, so you want specifics when they are right there - you just can't see how specific it is. It's like a professional player telling you how the game is on a professional level, but what they say doesn't make any sense, so you ask them to be specific, without realizing that you're the one that lacks specificity. I have genius friends, they understand me fine because they understand this world fine - you do not understand me because you do not understand this world. This is your problem for allowing yourself to think you were free to slack on your knowledge, while I have spent my entire life learning and breaking down everything in hopes of one day that all this ignorance, negligence and arrogance will cease to the words that I speak once and for all, as I am the Universe translator.

Distinction of what? We are an experience - that's it. Nothing else to it. We experience - there's this blanket of nothingness that separates us from the Universe, everything in between is where we draw onto this nothingness with our speculations and conjectures. You are either the misunderstood Universe, or the Universe - there's no "human". That's all the "human" is, misunderstood; undefined; a mystery; a question, like a cosmic chameleon of the stars. Everything that we "are", is nothing because we exist in an unfinished design as unfinished projects - we are still evolving and learning outside of our individual experience that is really the Universe experiencing itself, as we are the Universe, hence why oneness is even plausible.

I ask you what is "human", you'll just refer to the same misunderstanding over and over again. You need to start accepting that there is no "human" - it's a cosmic mirage created by us wanting to own all of this, as we lack self-humility and the ability to be comfortable with watching ourselves fall apart into pieces like we should be because you can't put a puzzle together when the puzzle has not been finished yet.

Our experiences and ideas are not even ours. It comes from the Universe. We just interpret our ideas and experiences poorly as we're ignorant and transient compared to the temporal spacial tapestry which encompasses us.

I know consciousness through and through. Water reflects, so does consciousness. Water has proven that it can create picture and surreal worlds, as the chemicals that bathe our spinal cord and our brain create those dreams we have at night during our slumber. You do not, hence why you continue to argue pointless things I already know about. I am many steps ahead of you in ontological weaving; respect that, and start asking questions, rather than acting like you can answer over someone that has far more experience than you do.

All "human" is, can only be because of the Universe. Subatomic particles can be irritated and tickled, therefore you're wrong - the Universe can feel, thus experience. Everything we do, say and think is based on the Universe's design, hence why computers, cars, planes, telephones, so on, are cross-referential to the way the Universe behaves - none of these inventions would exist; none of our emotions and feelings would exist, if the Universe did not behave this way. Get your priorities straight, because you are discussing with a genius; I broke everything down, not you. I have the answer, not you.

I like how you ignored the part where I have mentioned that we are only able to observe today as we do because of the photo receptors located within our eyes, were formed billions of years ago before stars. If that's not evidence that the Universe planned human life after creates everything before it to specifically sustain human life - or more accurately, the Universe experiencing itself, then you are behind the most basic of knowledge.

No, there's a reason why the wise manage to communicate with the Universe - we are the Universe. No if's, and's or buts. All inventions that stand today through the minds of geniuses, were given to these geniuses via dreams and daydreams - not the genius, themselves. An honest genius will realize that they are nothing - the brain they processed and diligently pieced together over the years is truly the only reason why they are a genius. Most of the wisest of words that people say did nit come from the person, hence why it enlightens them as much as it enlightens everyone else.

Humans are multi-faceted creatures living in an multi-faceted reality. We are not computers; we contain aspects of one, just like we contain aspects of everything else. I am the water; the fire; the wind; the electricity; I am all that is. When I am angry, I am the volcano; when I cry, I am the ocean; when I sing, I am the air; when I fight, I am the fire. Everything that we "are", can only be defined by taking that and applying to the Universe's own behavior. There's nothing we can "be" - as we are "nothing and everything". You cannot define the unfinished design - the Universe and Us share this principle. We are not "human"; we are the holy trinity of fire, water and electricity throughout a system of subatomic faculties that all conglomerate so the Universe can evolve by experiencing itself. That is to say that we have no control over anything of our body - we only have control over the information that comes to us without our consent, that's it. Thus we are experiencing the Universe experiencing itself so it can evolve further - we are not experiencing our "self", as there is no "self" - there's a collective consciousness of information that does not have any relevance to our ability to make up things like owning land, owning ourselves, so on - it's like a piece of hair, we own it when it's attached; disown it when it's no longer attached. That's how it all genuinely works - you do not understand this, probably still won't understand it after this, which is why you should keep asking questions because I am the teacher here, not you.
distraff

Con

I never have issues with communication on my side, as I understand everyone to a grand level - if you cannot understand me, it's not because of how I say what I say; it's what I say - you can't fathom the knowledge I bare...[rambles on for couple paragraphs]


Poor conduct. Tries to paint me as less intelligent.

We are an experience - that's it. Nothing else to it.


Unsupported claim.

We experience - there's this blanket of nothingness that separates us from the Universe, everything in between is where we draw onto this nothingness with our speculations and conjectures.


Unsupported claim.

You are either the misunderstood Universe, or the Universe


I do not understand this argument.

Everything that we "are", is nothing because we exist in an unfinished design as unfinished projects - we are still evolving and learning outside of our individual experience


Just because something is unfinished does not mean everything it is, is nothing. An unfinished cookie is definitely still an unfinished cookie. It is certainly not nothing.

individual experience that is really the Universe experiencing itself, as we are the Universe, hence why oneness is even plausible.


Unsupported claim from the last round.

Our experiences and ideas are not even ours. It comes from the Universe. We just interpret our ideas and experiences poorly as we're ignorant and transient compared to the temporal spacial tapestry which encompasses us.


Unsupported claim.

I know consciousness through and through. Water reflects, so does consciousness. Water has proven that it can create picture and surreal worlds, as the chemicals that bathe our spinal cord and our brain create those dreams we have at night during our slumber.


Nice poetry but still unsupported.

the Universe can feel, thus experience


Unsupported claim.

I like how you ignored the part where I have mentioned that we are only able to observe today as we do because of the photo receptors located within our eyes, were formed billions of years ago before stars. If that's not evidence that the Universe planned human life after creates everything before it to specifically sustain human life - or more accurately, the Universe experiencing itself, then you are behind the most basic of knowledge.


We are able to observe because of photo receptors, but there is no evidence they were formed billions of years ago. Unsupported.

No, there's a reason why the wise manage to communicate with the Universe - we are the Universe. No if's, and's or buts. All inventions that stand today through the minds of geniuses, were given to these geniuses via dreams and daydreams - not the genius, themselves.


Unsupported.

We are not "human"; we are the holy trinity of fire, water and electricity throughout a system of subatomic faculties that all conglomerate so the Universe can evolve by experiencing itself.


We are both human and made out of particles. You have no evidence the universe can evolve or experience itself.
Debate Round No. 3
Aerogant

Pro

What you don't get is, that what you call "nice poetry" is the genius you are unable to comprehend because it's far beyond your current state of thinking. It's how the brain deflects what it does not understand - it makes things seem small, in spite of it being grand. The wise are wise, because they learned this and escaped from this illusion to accept their self-humility.

You are ignorant - I'm not going to support anything that hasn't been taught to anyone or thought by anyone, as my entire brain has expanded beyond every man on this planet. You know why? I did not stop at wisdom - I did not stop at being humble - I mutated myself into this juxtaposition between holism and nihilism; Monster & Man. These are my genius ideas that are based on my research and my aggregated assessment based on my diligent analysis and all the things I sacrificed to come to these conclusions, just so an idiot like you can come onto this site and ask me to support it, when I have given you everything you need, just so you can call it poetry and miss the entire point that what you're doing is the result of your brain proving to me that you know nothing and I know more than you, as I truly self-disciplined myself to no end throughout these years of killing myself over and over again, while you never die once, which is why you're still ignorant, chemically imbalanced and causing me a lot of pain and frustration with your stupid lack of questioning and your political need for an answer that will never exist until you stop living for an answer - we are questions; this Universe is unfinished; we are unfinished; this Universe is a question. To want an answer in a cosmic slate that can destroy itself and recreate itself over and over again, is the pinnacle of your own idiocy, hence why you want "proof" when it's all around your negligent experience.
distraff

Con

None of my arguments have been addressed. Vote for me.
Debate Round No. 4
Aerogant

Pro

You called my arguments poetry. Therefore the BOP is on you, bloody insect.
distraff

Con

I wish we could have gotten more out of the second half of this debate. I ask for your vote.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
I know what all of it means. The problem is not the words I use - the problem is the great level of ability I have in using them. It's like the word "life"; most people see it as being an animal that eats, poops, pees, thinks, works, has sex and dies - then there are few that take this notion and bring it to such a grand level that such words of wisdom only bring shame to those that hadn't dared to think beyond their tiny box of living.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
You're just tossing those terms around like free candy. Do you actually know what metaphysical means?
Posted by Aerogant 3 years ago
Aerogant
No, it's war between the literal and the metaphysical. The Universe was not always physical, but metaphysical, therefore all people that are literal lose every philosophical debate fundamentally.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
AlexanderOc
This isn't a philosophical debate. It's a definition war.
You define the terms you get the answer.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 3 years ago
KhalifV
AerogantdistraffTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does not understand what a debate is and failed the in fulfilling the BoP. Pro tries to connect dots, that are not there
Vote Placed by saboosa 3 years ago
saboosa
AerogantdistraffTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more conceivable arguments and Pro did not rebut them
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
AerogantdistraffTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ad hom