The Instigator
wolfgangxx
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
mattrodstrom
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is good reason to believe in the, inherent, Intellectual superiority of the Mongoloid 'Race'

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
wolfgangxx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,190 times Debate No: 11757
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (4)

 

wolfgangxx

Pro

First of all let me state that the resolution was suggested by con in the forum and while i think it is a very apt resolution I have a slight problem with the quotation marks around the word: race. I suspect this issue of is race real or is it just a social construct will become a point of contention in the debate, however i might just be reading too much into it - i will let con enlighten the readers and I as to what he meant by the quotation marks.

By saying inherent I mean to say that genetically mongoloids are at a advantage, intellectually, to other races - i suspect the two that will come up the most will be black and whites.

I am starting this debate hoping that by the end i will no longer hold this assertion as there is nothing so good for the mind as being proved wrong. And as i can't vote since i am unable to confirm my identity ( they can't seem to send texts to the UK) i ask con to refrain from voting for himself.

I will let con put forward his arguments first, may the best debater win =]
mattrodstrom

Con

Firstly I'd like to say that I too am looking forward to this debate; and while I'm not hoping I'll be proved wrong, I do hope to learn something from this debate, and if it's that "Mongoloids" are, in fact, intellectually superior, So Be It. :)

Now to clarify my having put quotations around the word "race" I was doing so not because I am looking to deny that racial groups exist, or make it any kind of a point of contention in the debate, but because naming such race groups is generally considered a subjective and somewhat arbitrary practice, and I wouldn't want to suggest that there is, in fact, such clear distinctions to be observed.

I understand what you mean by "Mongoloid Race" and am not looking to play semantics, or force you to explain "race" more than "such and such" group of people who have supposedly had more contact among themselves than with others in the past few thousand years or so, resulting in generally identifiable similarity amongst the group when compared with other peoples.

That being said, I think the last thing I shall say in this first round is that I am not looking to prove "Mongoloids" intellectually inferior, nor am I looking to prove any "races" to be (inherently) intellectually "equal". I think that there's too many social factors at play, and not enough relevant physiological information, to have opinions on such things.

Oh, and my actual final statement is that I too cannot vote (I don't have a cell phone), so you don't have to worry about me tipping the scales.

And, Here's to a good debate! :)
Debate Round No. 1
wolfgangxx

Pro

I thank my opponent for his speedy response.

CON: I understand what you mean by the "Mongoloid Race"

Well just so the readers know as well, when I talk about the "Mongoloid Race" I am talking about East-Asians and the Chinese, Japanese and Korean in particular (since they are the most well known countries of eastern Asia and because there is a lot of data from these countries for both my opponent and I to use). It does not matter where exactly they are situated be in Sydney or Shanghai.

But without further ado i'd like to tackle CON's two arguments:

1.
CON: naming such race groups is generally considered a subjective and somewhat arbitrary practice […] I wouldn't want to suggest that there is, in fact, such clear distinctions to be observed.

I would beg to differ, in the 2004 Stanford Study [1] 3,636 individuals of varying ethnicity from 15 different locations in Taiwan and America were asked to state their self-identified race. Microsatellite markers taken from these individuals produced four major clusters after genetic cluster analysis:

__________A____B___C____D
Caucasian_1348_ 0___0____1
African____3____0___1305_0
Hispanic___1____0___0____411
Chinese___0____407_0____0
Japanese__0____160_0____0
Other_____1____2___0____9

As you can see only 5 individuals identified wrongly (0.14%) – a tiny fraction, most likely of mixed race parentage but that is mere guesswork on my part; more importantly, in the context of this debate, not a single self identified Chinese or Japanese identified wrongly - further affirming that race, is something where quite "clear distinctions [are] to be observed." Excluding, ofcourse children of mixed racial ancestry where it would be absurd to expect them to fall into a distinct racial group – but we are debating mongoloids and not children of mixed racial ancestry. So unless you have contrary proof you must admit that there are quite "clear distinctions in race" and that race is not "subjective".

2.
CON: there's too many social factors at play, and not enough relevant physiological information, to have opinions on such things.

I agree social factors are an issue and it is a plausible hypothesis that east asian parents push their children to achieve academically and that is why they do well. However if we to take away these "social factors" and replaced them with other ones (adoption studies) yet the race IQ hierarchy (Mongoloids at the top end) still persisted then we would know that genetics plays a major role in IQ determination. This has been done with Korean children and white adoptive families [2] and the results are below:

Country__Age___N*___Average IQ
Belgium__6-14__19___110
USA_____6-14__112__107

* N is the number of participants

As you can see from the table their IQs were not detrimentally effected by this - if anything their IQs were bettered (the average east-asian(mongoloid) IQ is 104, the adopted children in the USA averaged 107 and the adopted children in Belgium averaged 110) I, personally, put this down to better nutrition as the average of 104 included results from china and while china is not a third world country by any means it simply cannot compare with nutritional standards in the developed west. Also, as you can see from the link [2] the IQ of 110 is actually for verbal IQ but performance IQ is much higher at 123.5 and the mean IQ is actually 118.7, so if anything I am depressing the scores. And ofcourse an IQ of 118.7, 110 or even 107 is above the average white IQ of 100 which is what you would expect if it was all down to social factors.

In short, I have proven that all of CON's points in round one are incorrect.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com...

I would now like to offer some evidence of Mongoloids/(East Asians)'s intellectual superiority (for those who don't only doubt the genetic inherentness of the IQ gap but also the IQ gap itself) measured both in terms of SAT scores and IQ scores

1. The bell curve of IQ for East Asians is situated more to the right (meaning higher average IQ) than whites and blacks.

http://www.udel.edu...

2. They have the highest graduation rates of all the races: http://www.highbeam.com...

3. Research from about 620 studies confirm the IQ hierarchy - Mongoloids, Caucasoids, Negroids (if you have the time please watch Philippe Rushton's whole talk as he explains this issue more eloquently than I could ever hope to )

4. Asians average 1623, whites 1345 and africans 1276 in SAT scores.
http://www.usatoday.com...

5. There is even talk of reverse discrimination by US's top universities to keep asians out as on average an asian needs an extra of "140 points" more than their white counterparts to get into the same course at the same university

http://www.neatorama.com...
http://hanopolis.com...

Ah, the word limit is almost upon me and as I want to give CON a chance to make fresh arguments rather than just attempting to refute all mine I will leave it here for the time being. In summary there is a real IQ gap between Mongoloids and other races that favours the mongoloids and this IQ gap is at least partly genetic.
mattrodstrom

Con

Given the nature of my position in this debate; that I'm rejecting your assertion of the existence of an inherent intellectual hierarchy without making an assertion of my own; it would seem that my role is mostly one of attempting to tear down your arguments, and explain why I don't think they're sound.
I apologize for monopolizing the fun, but that's what it seems the debate requires
---

First to address your responses to my "arguments"

1. On the topic of the identification of "Race Groups"
Again I do not wish to make this is an important aspect of our debate; and, I did not make an "argument" on the matter in my first round, as you said I did. This is what I said:

"Now to clarify my having put quotations around the word "race" I was doing so not because I am looking to deny that racial groups exist, or make it any kind of a point of contention in the debate, but because naming such race groups is generally considered a subjective and somewhat arbitrary practice, and I wouldn't want to suggest that there is, in fact, such clear distinctions to be observed."
I concede the point that various "race" groups are physically disntinguishable, be it by direct appearance, or by particular genetic clusters which happen to have more frequency over one particular "race" than another.

2. I would first say that your presentation of the information for your argument here appears to be rather poor, such that I'm having difficulty understanding what your information is, or how it's particularly relevant and being that the actual article (which contains that table you present) is off limits to me. I'd appreciate it if you could make it clearer what the study's method and results were, and how that supports your case, and/or also try to provide a working link to the actual study such that I can analyze it.

I garnered from your presentation that some Koreans were adopted into some white families in Belgium and in The U.S. and that these adopted Koreans generally well on IQ tests. I fail to see how this shows Koreans as being intellectually superior.

Also you asserted that the adopted Korean subjects scores were higher than the average White score of 100 (which
was not in the abstract which you linked to). This I suppose is supposed to be evidence of Korean's being demonstrably more intelligent than whites.

In reality all this would show (if you did substantiate your claim about the average white IQ score) is that Koreans adopted into white families apparently do better on IQ tests. There are many plausible explanations for this apparent trend which do not deal with the inherent characteristics of "races".

It could very well be that those "White" families in America and Belgium who sought to not only adopt children, but sought to adopt "Mongoloid" children, were more well off than the average "white" family group. The In fact it seems rather apparent to me that poor whites are more racist than fairly well off ones, and so it would make sense that those whites who do decide to adopt an Asian kid are more likely to be relatively well off compared to average whites. Also, being that adoption is, by it's nature, a fairly long and well thought out process I think we can assume that those people who adopt children are probably at least a little more likely to have the means available to Rear them well then those people who have their own children; a good portion of which were probably "accidents".

If those Korean kids were adopted into better than average white households; as I think I showed is likely the case; then it would make perfect sense that they end up getting a better than average IQ on this basis alone. This here New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com...; cites a study in which this reinforcing relationship between the affluency of the adopting household and the adopted child's intelligence is illustrated clearly.

Here is a relevant exerpt: "The average I.Q. of children from well-to-do parents who were placed with families from the same social stratum was 119.6. But when such infants were adopted by poor families, their average I.Q. was 107.5 — 12 points lower. The same holds true for children born into impoverished families: youngsters adopted by parents of similarly modest means had average I.Q.'s of 92.4, while the I.Q.'s of those placed with well-off parents averaged 103.6. These studies confirm that environment matters — the only, and crucial, difference between these children is the lives they have led. "

Again, those who adopt are likely to have a greater chance of being more financially prepared to provide for children, than those who do not, and if whites seek to adopt Asian Babe's they are likely, on average, less racist, AND more well educated then and financially secure than average white people. As the NYT article points out, the financial security of the family, and their education level, can very much affect the resulting intelligence of the adopted child. So I hope you could agree that, in this light, concluding that the Korean children WERE "inherently" more intelligent than the average white child, rather than just raised in a more financially sound and intellectually stimulating environment, is a rather large leap to take and ignores other VERY plausible reasons.

Now to address your new points.

1."The bell curve of IQ for East Asians is situated more to the right (meaning higher average IQ) than whites and blacks." http://www.udel.edu...

This document you link to has no information whatsoever on any study that was ever done. It does assert that the IQ for East Asians is ahead of the curve, but doesn't back it up.

It's not that I don't believe that the author, and the signatories to her work, have found that to be the case, it's that I'd like to know how they found that to be the case:
Which "East Asians"? The one's residing in the U.S.A. (which may, in general, have all sorts of relevant social advantages, and quirks, for one reason or another)
The one's in China? Korea? Japan? Where? Perhaps "East Asians" all throughout the world?
Your source doesn't provide any such answers. It just offers a bare assertion with no actual material for analysis.

How can I argue with an unsupported assertion?

2. "They have the highest graduation rates of all the races: http://www.highbeam.com...... "

And yet you also said this:
"I agree social factors are an issue and it is a plausible hypothesis that east asian parents push their children to achieve academically and that is why they do well."
earlier that post when saying that you can control (as you'd presumably need to) for the mentioned factors in the adoption study you mentioned.

You were right to think such things need be controlled for, for they VERY plausibly would affect things like graduation rates.

For example: Which East Asians come to America the industrious ones or the lazy ones? The ones who will push their kids or the one's who wont? Further East Asians are more than just biologically similar, they are culturally similar too. The Confucian tradition prizes education, and prizes fulfilling what society and your family expects of you. Also East Asians have long had a tradition of meritocracy. One can easily see how Cultural factors are likely at play in the graduation rates of East Asians.

Could it be that inherent intellectual superiority is also at play?...
Perhaps, but given the OBVIOUS social factors which could easily explain this phenomenon this example also cannot be taken as Evidence of inherent difference.

3. I too could link to some dude talking about things with no studies cited, no analysis on my part, and no real argument. This video is not evidence. Why don't you cite one of those "160 studies" and come up with some argument rather than link to this dude.

4. Same as 2

5. Quite irrelevant
Debate Round No. 2
wolfgangxx

Pro

It does indeed seem I have the burden of proof.

Before I start I'd like to thank CON for conceding that races do infact exist as we will no longer have to use up our word limits debating that point.

-------------------
Rebuttal
-------------------

1.CON said: "I wouldn't want to suggest that there is, in fact, such clear distinctions to be observed." I proved there were clear distinctions. He conceded the point.

2.
"try to provide a working link"

As for my link it does work and the abstract in the link clearly states that the adopted Korean children's mean IQ is 118.7. The very fact that it has been published shows that it has passed through a rigorous peer review process and that there is no call to question the facts in the abstract any more than there is for me to question the stats in CON's NY times article. Infact, since the article written in the NY times has not been peer reviewed it is more likely to be inaccurate or misrepresent information than the paper I linked to.

"average White score of 100 (which was not in the abstract which you linked to)[…] (if you did substantiate your claim about the average white IQ score) "

CON seems to be in some doubt about whether 100 (by design, the average score) is infact the average IQ for whites (the race that designed the IQ test). Here are some links.
http://www.rlynn.co.uk...
http://www.vnnforum.com...
http://www.lrainc.com...
http://www.lrainc.com...

I quote from the second link:

Italy IQ 102
Germany IQ 102
Netherlands IQ 102
Austria IQ 102
Sweden IQ 101
United Kingdom IQ 100
Belgium IQ 100
Spain IQ 99
Iceland IQ 98
Poland IQ 99
Australia IQ 98
France IQ 98
Norway IQ 98
___________________
Avg. 100 IQ

"Again, those who adopt are likely to have a greater chance of being more financially prepared to provide for children, than those who do not, and if whites seek to adopt Asian Babe's they are likely, on average, less racist, AND more well educated then and financially secure than average white people."

Since there is a longer history of prejudice against blacks than against east-asians in the US, it is then logical that parents who would adopt a black child would be more open-minded, less-racist, and better educated than the average parent who adopts an east-asian child or a white child. From this one would expect (if there was no genetic hierarchy) that black adopted children would do the best in IQ tests out of all the three main races since they would have the environmental advantage – but this is not the case. These black adopted children actually do worse than their white and east-asian counterparts, once again showing that there is an underlying genetic hierarchy. In the Minnesota study black children who were adopted by well-off white parents scored an average of 87 in IQ tests when they were 17. If it were all down to the environment then one would have expected the results to be at least close to the Korean results if not better.

http://psychology.wikia.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Now to CON's rebuttals.

1.
"[PRO says] East Asians is ahead of the curve, but doesn't back it up"

You have not objected to the fact that East-Asians do better on SAT tests compared to their white counterparts yet SAT tests correlate positively with IQ scores showing that just as Asians have a higher average SAT score they also have a higher IQ score.

Some links affirming the positive correlation:
http://www.scienceblog.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"It's not that I don't believe that the author, and the signatories to her work, have found that to be the case, it's that I'd like to know how they found that to be the case: Which "East Asians"? The one's residing in the U.S.A. (which may, in general, have all sorts of relevant social advantages, and quirks, for one reason or another)The one's in China? Korea? Japan? Where? Perhaps "East Asians" all throughout the world?Your source doesn't provide any such answers"

http://psychology.uwo.ca...

On p245 there is the following table (To save space I have cut out everything except the IQ scores and the sample size but please have a look yourself if you want the whole table):

____________HongKong___Japan___Britain____South Africa
Sample Size__118_________110____239_______350
IQ score_____113_________110____100_______67

As you can see, it is not only East-Asians in the western world that score higher on average in IQ tests but East-Asians throughout the world.

2. "Which East Asians come to America the industrious ones or the lazy ones?"

Ignoring the fact that East-Asians (especially the chinese) first came en masse to America as slaves, you could make the same argument for Mexicans crossing the Mexican border. Who would make the effort to get across the border, the industrious ones or the lazy ones? Yet Mexicans, unlike east-asians, are not over-represented in Ivy league schools so as the reader can see it is not merely a question of "industry".

3. "I too could link to some dude talking".

I'm sorry but a professor who collaborates with Harvard and has either worked or graduated from the University of Toronto, Western Ontario, York, London, Oxford and London School of Economics giving an hour long lecture, is not "some dude".

4. See 2.

5. I was merely highlighting the fact that even Universities accept the IQ difference and attempts to normalize their student intake accordingly by using "positive discrimination".

To summarise, I have once again proved all CON's assertions to be inaccurate and have shown that mongoloids (east-asians) are indeed at an inherent intellectual advantage compared to other races.

I urge CON to accept that there is a difference in IQ as most if not all researchers in the field agree there is, and instead debate me on the cause of this which is the real point of contention between researchers. I do not wish to waste another 4,5 thousand words on something that is already accepted as true but only dedicate one thousand words to the point of real contention.
mattrodstrom

Con

sorry, very busy at the moment. Will post rebuttals next round.

And I suggest that all potential voters give Wolfgang the conduct point for my lack of participation in this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wolfgangxx

Pro

I regret to see that CON did not participate in the last round but I am sure it was due to circumstances beyond his control. So that whatever it was CON was busy with is over or at least under-control I have waited until the end of the third day to post my argument so that CON will have had 6 days in all to deal with whatever it was and type up his rebuttals.

I extend all my previous arguments and will not put forward any new ones this round so that CON is still able to rebut all my arguments while staying within the word limit.
mattrodstrom

Con

mattrodstrom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
wolfgangxx

Pro

Regrettably, CON has forfeited once again.

I am slightly unhappy with this as unless CON was given no prior warning of his final, he should have been able to work out that rounds 4 and 5 will be during his exams and therefore should have not accepted the challenge.

On the question of my sources, let me say that while my opponent has relied solely on news paper articles; I have used evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals for the my main points (the adoption studies and most of the IQ figures) and used news paper articles for things such as SAT scores which are less controversial and did not, in my opinion, need much proving.

The youtube video of Professor J. Philippe Rushton was merely for readers who wished to have a more in depth look at the subject and I did not quote anything from it other than that there were many papers showing that there was an IQ difference (I quoted once such paper in the next round and also copied a table from it)

To reiterate my arguments: there have been numerous studies confirming that there is an IQ/intelligence hierarchy and this fact is generally accepted in the scientific community. However, what scientific researchers do not agree on is whether this IQ difference is 100% environment or if it has a genetic factor to it as well. (Please remember that all I have to do is to prove that there is a 1% genetic factor and i'll have proven that some races are at a - inherent - intellectual advantage.)

To prove that this IQ gap is not entirely down to environment I have quoted many trans-racial adoption studies involving blacks and mongloids. These have shown that even when adopted into white families the mongoloids still score higher than average on the IQ test (around 108); my opponent, at this point, said that the adopting families are obviously well-off if they can afford to adopt and and that wealth is negatively correlated to racism so these Korean children will have an environmental advantage. I responded that if this were the case then black children who were adopted by white parents must have even bigger of an environmental advantage since there is a longer history of racism towards blacks so they should score at least as well as the Koreans - however they do not, and what is more they actually score BELOW the national average (around 87) showing that environment cannot account for everything.

For these reasons I urge the PRO vote.

Thankyou for your time.
mattrodstrom

Con

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by feverish 4 years ago
feverish
<<in response to feverish's claims: they are exaggerated and misleading; if you were to look at the content of the links you will find that some people support his position while others do not - a situation typical in the scientific community.>>

Half of the text of his wiki page is serious criticism of his methods and conclusions. I don't think the same can be said of many respectable scientists.

<>

That is A definition of racism not THE definition.

Different dictionaries define words different ways. http://www.google.co.uk...

When I say racism, I mean "the belief that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races".

Rushton clearly believes this, so he is a racist. If you do too, then so are you.

<<prejudice is: "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." The vast majority of the evidence points to the beliefs held by J. Rushton so he is not prejudiced and therefore not racist.>>

Your own definition says discrimination OR prejudice, so even though a lot of definitions do include it, you can't just confine the definition of racism to the semantic parameters of the word prejudice.

I can't prove that Rushton's beliefs, however well researched, come from a basis of prejudice but it would not surprise me one bit.
Posted by feverish 4 years ago
feverish
<>

If the best vid you could find of this guy speaking was when he was paid and filmed by a group like them then it should probably tell you something.

<>

This made me lol.
Posted by wolfgangxx 4 years ago
wolfgangxx
@ Puck part 2

"The African average is 100 - that is the entire point of IQ scores - that an average is set at 100 and will always be 100"
"You can't take the Chinese test scores and use the Irish norms tables - that makes the test invalid. Irish norms are normed on that population"

This question of whether pouplations can use tests already normed for OTHER pupolations seems to be a major point of contention between us Puck. Please excuse me for still questioning this as I do not have much knowledge in this field and want to probe all the, what I see as, weaknesses in this theory before I consider accepting it.

What if the chinese were to sit exactly the same test as the Irish but AFTER they had normed it to the irish average? In the same way as we sit an IQ test that is already normed could not these chinese/ east-asian particpitants take IQ tests that are already normed to the IQs of another population? Why would this be invalid? In the same way that you could compare the IQ of say a certain highschool class to the national average surely you should be able to do what I am suggesting, but on a larger scale.

If you could also provide me with a few links supporting your statements it would be much appreciated.
Posted by wolfgangxx 4 years ago
wolfgangxx
@ Puck. Sorry for not replying as for a while I was paranoid that Matt was going to use your arguments but now i've realised that I should welcome all arguments against my point of view as that is the only way to advancing and making waterproof my views of the world. If Matt wins because he uses some future argument of yours which proves to be irrefutable then so be it as losing is nothing beside being able to discard a false belief.

All that being sad I am still convinced I am right :P

" 'But i would just need east-asian children with adoptive white parents to score at about the east asian average of about 108 (Using the BRITISH norm, puck - so its not nonsensical :P)'
You aren't testing race there, you are testing environment. Quite a large confound.You aren't testing race there, you are testing environment. Quite a large confound."

I would be testing enviroment if I was not comparing these results to the ones attained by children in east asia. Using the results from the Korean study I have proven that east-asian children brought up AWAY from all east-asian enviromental influences still score at the average east-asian score or above. The variables in this "experiment" to use a crude term are the enviroment and I have shown that enviroment does not play that major a role. If it was solely enviroment one would have expected these east-asian children's IQs to have fallen to the european average of 100.

"Taking Asian children raised in Western countries is not a control for environment either"
Please expand on how it would not be a suitable control. Also note that all the adopted children having a higher than average IQ is unlikely since it would be quite the coincidence (not to mention there are two cases at least of this having been done).

"The African average is 100 - that is the entire point of IQ scores - that an average is set at 100 and will always be 100"
Posted by wolfgangxx 4 years ago
wolfgangxx
A doctor may speak*
Posted by wolfgangxx 4 years ago
wolfgangxx
Seems as if i'm debating 3 people at once here.... ¬¬ But i suppose it's more about the debating than anything else - we're all here for "intellectual stimulation" are we not?

Anyways in response to feverish's claims: they are exaggerated and misleading; if you were to look at the content of the links you will find that some people support his position while others do not - a situation typical in the scientific community.

As for the allegation of "racism" I would like to direct you to the definition of racism: "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." prejudice is: "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." The vast majority of the evidence points to the beliefs held by J. Rushton so he is not prejudiced and therefore not racist.

A doctor speak to a room full of lunatics but that does not make him mad; Rushton spoke at American Renaissance but that does not make him racist.

As for the merde, who knows? I hear AM gives the speakers get a pretty larger meal before they go up, if Feverish has an insider's knowledge to the contents of Rushton's large intestines then I will not be so rash as to contradict him :P
Posted by feverish 4 years ago
feverish
lol @ Puck's hijack.

Pro's round 1 video shows a discredited racist scientist http://en.wikipedia.org... speaking to a conference held by a racist publication. http://en.wikipedia.org... Rushton is full of merde.

Pro seems like a clever and funny kid from his forum posts and I am dissapointed that he has fallen for this BS.
Posted by wolfgangxx 4 years ago
wolfgangxx
ok... but try to paraphrase? :P
Posted by mattrodstrom 4 years ago
mattrodstrom
lol, I think it would be intellectually dishonest for me to not even consider his take on things...

dontcha think?
Posted by wolfgangxx 4 years ago
wolfgangxx
*ahem* this is a debate between me and you matt ._O

Anyways if puck wants to debate me formally it is up to him, so no stealing his arguments! :P
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Yvette 4 years ago
Yvette
wolfgangxxmattrodstromTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 SukiWater 4 years ago
SukiWater
wolfgangxxmattrodstromTied
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 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 Hellsdesire55 4 years ago
Hellsdesire55
wolfgangxxmattrodstromTied
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 True2GaGa 4 years ago
True2GaGa
wolfgangxxmattrodstromTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60