The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
78 Points
The Contender
LoveyounoHomo
Pro (for)
Losing
56 Points

There is undeniable evidence that God exists

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/14/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,059 times Debate No: 6515
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (21)

 

Tatarize

Con

My opponent is to establish there is undeniable evidence that God exists. I am intended to tear that notion down.

By God, I mean the God of one of the monotheistic Abrahamic religions.
LoveyounoHomo

Pro

I would like by thanking my opponent for putting this topic up here as I have wanted to debate something like this for quite awhile. I will be taking the Christianity religion for my example.

My opponent wants me to state undeniable evidence that god exists. God to many people has many forms. I will now bring up that the Bible preaches about a God and his son Jesus coming to this earth. We have all heard of the preaching of Jesus sometime in our lives. In fact Jesus is god in the flesh. So to say that there is evidence god Does not exist just read the bible. Jesus did many things to show he was god, such as turn water into wine, rise again after he was put to death. Others will say that Jesus being buried was a hoax. How can this be a hoax? Many men died for Christianity. Some where crucified on the cross upside-down, Others burned alive, others beheaded. This brings me to my first argument.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. How can you say this is not evidence that a God exists?

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second. Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? The brain functions differently than other organs. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, to produce feelings, to dream and plan, to take action, and relate to other people. How does one explain the human brain?

The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. If someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. What Pasteur attempted to prove centuries ago, science confirms, that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.

There is plenty of undeniable evidence that god exists. Do you think all of the people who follow Christianity are just doing it to have something to believe in? People have had accounts of talking to god all over the world. I would not call that a coincidence. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal. Thank you again and good luck
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

The Bible? What? I wanted undeniable evidence that God exists. Now, in order to establish this you need to establish that that Bible is undeniably true. That's far below undeniable... that's not even good evidence.

You offer that people were died for Christianity, but they likewise die for Islam or various other causes. Secondly the evidence for this is actually fairly sketchy. Thirdly, a number of early Christians were really quick to renounce their beliefs when the long arm of the law came knocking.

The Earth is located a specific distance from the sun, there is no classification as to what the right or wrong distance from the sun should be as there's no specific requirements for life. It's entirely possible that life could develop on planets without liquid water and simply have a vastly different biochemistry. So rather than the planet having evolved to fit us it is rather the case that we evolved to fit our planet. The majority of the temperature shift our planet undergoes is due to the seasons which has very little to do with the distance from the sun and massive amounts to do with the angle of the incoming light. Further, the amount of greenhouse effect makes a massive difference in the thermal regulation of the planet. Mars has liquid water but very little atmosphere needed to retain heat. Whereas Venus on the other hand has a thick atmosphere of CO2 causing it to be hotter than the surface of Mercury. Also, we haven't discovered that many planets outside our solar system but we have managed to already discover at least one which falls into the habitable zone around another star. Considering that there are something like 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe it shouldn't be remotely amazing to find trillions of earth like planets. Finally, even if the existence of the Earth were somehow rare or astounding that wouldn't provide a lick of evidence that it was designedly made that way.

The spinning of planets is a necessary requirement of the generation of solar systems. Case and point, all planets rotate. There is nothing astounding about this. Further, with longer and shorter periods towards the sun life would get along perfectly fine. Having 8 hour days would not be extremely problematic for us nor should 40 hours days. It simply is something else for life to adapt with.

The human brain is an astounding organ but it doesn't seem to be that much more astounding than the brains of chimps or magpies it simply differs a bit in the operation to allow for the high fidelity of information transfer across the generations. It is inaccurate to call a synapse a message but acceptable. Humans are well evolved into the cognitive niche which we have carved out. Our large brains are impressive but hardly requiring an astounding explanation. Rather than as you suppose the brain must filter out vast amounts of information, the opposite is true. In takes in very little information and confabulates the rest. We think we see a vast amount but in reality most of what we see is a hallucination of what we should expect to see if we were to actually take in that information.

Evolution, explains all of those astounding things you mentioned. Not only providing our explanation for why we are so well adapted to this planet but also how we can have such an impressive brain and how it is that we have functional tissues, blood flow, neurons, and structure. The explanation of the human brain is the same explanation as the human toe, it evolved. You claim that the human brain is different than other organs but in reality it's not. The brain is still made out of the same cells we find throughout the human body.

However, on top of this, even if there were no explanation, it wouldn't provide one jot of a reason to suppose that a God did it. You have thus far simply made comment that there is this or that really interesting thing (which evolution fully explains) and we can't explain it and so therefore God must have done it. How did you get there? How did you get from X is unexplained to X is done by God? And, if there is a path which goes from X is unexplained to X must be done by something more complex and amazing then what do you do for an X of God? SuperGod? Then what of an X for SuperGod?

There is another alternative other than random chance. There is evolution by natural selection which is an unrandom uncaused uncontrolled process for creating greater order out of lesser order. Though, again, I don't see it as an "alternative" to God because I don't even see how you got God in the running in the first place. How did you manage to get that first step from no assumption of God to assume God? But, evolution is a perfect explanation of how to get amazing amounts of useful information with simple reproduction, change, and time. You cannot calculate the chances of abiogenesis because we don't know what the most basic requirements happen to be, but we can know the gist of what is required and we have no lack of plausible ideas on the subject.

Evolution very much does ask people to discount the idea of a motivated cause or a intelligent design but the attribution of luck is completely wrong. Evolution insures that life will evolve into something and that progress will be achieved even if it doesn't happen to result in human beings. You evolution changes the odds from winning the lottery 20 weeks in a row to having 20 lotto winners exist. The odds for the former are near impossible the odds for the latter are a near certainty.

Everything you said falls into two principle objections.
1) That's explained by Evolution.
2) Even if that were unexplained it wouldn't be evidence for God, much less undeniable evidence.

I deny all your evidence and thus, by definition, it must be deniable evidence for God. You have failed to meet your burden of evidence thus far.
LoveyounoHomo

Pro

My opponent says that people die for islam or various other causes. Of course they do. Islams have a god, so if they are to die for there god then so be it. Second those christians who renounced there beliefs were obviously not followers of the god who exists today.

The earth is a certain distance from the sun for a reason. Have you ever gone anywhere near the sun? If we would push the earth closer by any means to the sun we would surely burn up. According to my opponent he states " The majority of the temperature shift our planet undergoes is due to the seasons which has ver little to do with the distance from the sun". The seasons result In the earths axis being tilted. Therefore at any given time the earth is heavily directly exposed to the rays of the sun. Seasonal weather differences are caused by orbit of the earth. Perihelion is the point in which the earth is closest to the sun in January. Aphelion is where the earth is farthest from the sun 6 months later. In temperate and polar regions seasons are made by changes of sunlight. So my opponents Theory of temperature being affected very little by the distance of the sun and light is wrong. There may be other planets that can hold life, but as of now earth is the only planet we know that holds life. Earths water is also very effective to why this planet is probably one of the most capable to live on. Earths water is special due to that it has remained liquid for so long. Other planets have frozen or even baked to not leave any hint of water.

"Certainly the distance to the sun has made it possible. A planet much farther in would receive too much energy from the sun, and a planet too far out would quickly freeze." Says Diana Valencia a Grad student from Harvard.

Also plate tectonics help carbon silicate cycle to operate over geological timescales. Plate tectonics also help water exist by regulating the temperatures of the water. Infact people say that mars is like the earth, but it is far from anything of what the earth is. You couldnt be happy at mars. It is host to methane on the surface. Venus as my opponent brought up whish has the same mass and distance from the sun has no oceans or tectonic plates, certainly not a place anyone would want to live.

The human brain is certainly way more astounding then the brain of a chimp. A human brain is like a 12 cylinder engine comparted to a 6 cylinder engine (The monkey). I have yet to see a monkey function as smart as a human. Just because there are "little things" That a monkey can do that a human can also do. Does not mean that a monkey can possibly come in correlation with a human. You certainly can not compart a human brain to a human toe either. Cut off your toe, see what happens. Cut out your brain you will surely die. Regardless of wether it is made out of same cells and such how can you just say o, evolutuon evolved these things?

My opponent also states " How did you get there" Referring to how did we get to what god has done. For 6000 thousand years, past civilizations have believed in a god. The mayans, the romans, the aztecs have all had gods. What makes this time in the world so different? We have forgotten that Gods/God has been a part of civilization since the World has started. Then by discounting this you discount proven history. Surely discounting god in todays world is not right as for 6000 years god has been a every-day part of life.

Have we stopped evolving? I do not see us evolving anymore if evolution is true. Why arent we turning back into what we started. In the beginning of this debate you mentioned that the bible is below undeniable. How so is this? When the bible is the only book that all prophecies stated in it have come true so far? Do you call that a coincidence like evolution is? Maybe so god even what people to think that evolution is real. Do you think that there could have been a god that intended evolution? Didnt he make Eve out of Adams rib, is that considered evolution also? Didnt he make Adam out of Dust, could that be considered evolution?

I look forward to the Cons argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

My opponent failed to provide *ANY* evidence that God exists. That's a far cry from being good evidence and certainly far from being undeniable evidence for God. My opponent noted a few things which science easy explained and supposes it to be unexplained and that because it's unexplained God exists. That's similar to the logic "I don't know how a microwave works, so clearly it must be run by fairies!" At the very least, even if somehow you ignored all the points I made against these arguments (note arguments aren't evidence, they are arguments) and think he made some good points. You must admit that I suitably deny such evidence and thus establish that it is deniable. By definition this proves the topic false. Con wins.

In fact, my very position as Con demands that I deny any evidence submitted by Pro and thus negate the topic. I can't lose. However, regardless of this unburdened topic I still went to considerable thought and trouble to explain why Pro's arguments fail and did them due diligence. Please take this into your consideration.

-----

Rebuttal to Round 2 Arguments.

The fact that people die for a cult leader or Islam or for Le Resistance is exactly the point. The suggestion that people only die for true things is wrong. Christianity can be false even if people died due to their belief. The same holds true for any number of false beliefs.

The Earth is a certain distance from the sun because all planets are certain distances from the sun. There's no requirement. The false idea behind this sort of Goldilocks logic is that Earth-based life, evolved on Earth so it's ideal for Earth. If Earth had larger swings in temperature or smaller, or colder, or hotter... life would have evolved differently. My hands must be designed because they fit so perfectly into my gloves!

--

"Seasonal weather differences are caused by orbit of the earth. Perihelion is the point in which the earth is closest to the sun in January. Aphelion is where the earth is farthest from the sun 6 months later."

You do know that the Southern Hemisphere has winter in July and Summer in January right? And that during the summer in the north the Earth is the farthest from the sun (the Apogee). When it's really really hot out in Virgina or California during July, the Earth is the farthest from the sun (more removed from the heat source). It has little to do with the distance and everything to do with the angle. We've discovered hundreds of other planets outside of our solarsystem. A couple within the habitable zones of other stars. If the processes to start life are simple, as seem to be the case, then we should find an okay chance that life arises on a vast number of different planets, within their specific habitable zones, in the millions of trillions of such planets likely to be found in the habitable zones of their stars. Of the heavenly bodies of this solar system we know of four that could have water, two of which we have confirmed have liquid water (Earth and Mars). Whereas other worlds like Titan have hydrocarbon rain and could support any number of alien life cycles.

Then, on top of all of this... even if the Earth were a once in a universe occurrence, it would have no bearing on whether God existed or not! Earth could be amazingly improbable and it wouldn't provide one jot of suggestion that God must exist.

Tectonic plates aren't needed for life. Mars doesn't have enough atmosphere to even briefly survive. It can't regulate its heat due to a lack of greenhouse effect (it could be made habitable with a bit of work). The core isn't molten anymore so it's largely dried up. It has very little methane and what little it has might actually be due to life existing on the planet already (there shouldn't be methane). Venus might very well have tectonic plates perhaps oceans too (not of water mind you). The point is that of just the 8 planets in our solar system, several are pretty close and one is known to support life. Other star systems have pretty good contenders, even considering the fact that we tend to only find the super-Jupiter systems.

--

The human brain isn't that much more amazing than a chimp brain. We tend to transfer information between generations but other than that the same general functions apply, take that away away and we'll pretty much be our chimpy selves. Your brain-cutting example is flawed: If you cut the brain out of a monkey they will die too. Also, regardless how amazing the human brain is, it still evolved and has no bearing on whether God exists. http://www.talkorigins.org... The theory of evolution not only allows for such functional parts to arise but explains how they formed the way they did. However, again, even if I had no explanation which gives very good details as to how such things occur, the idea that God did it, *STILL* comes out of left field.

How did you get there? You are noting some issue or problem or mystery, none of which are issues, problems, or remotely mysterious and supposing that they constitute evidence for gods. Its a total non sequitor.

--

The world didn't start 6000 years ago. The geological and radiometric evidence suggests about 4.6 billion years ago. Also, not all past civilizations have had gods. In fact, there's a couple that don't even have a creation story. Many others that simply had the ancestors or mythical creatures. The existence of such diverse creation stories strongly suggests that there's something human about confabulating a concept of origins within any group. That suggests the monotheistic religions are equally likely to suffer from this sort of confabulation and be completely explained as myth without regard to any existing God. If everybody makes up stuff, then isn't that good evidence that God is really made up stuff too?

--

We haven't stopped evolving. In fact, the latest data suggests we've evolved more in the last 10,000 years than any time in the last 100,000 years. Evolution never suggests we should turn back into anything. Simply that via reproduction, mutation, and the struggle for survival we should further adapt to fit into our niches.

--

All of the Bible's fulfilled prophecies fall into one of four categories.
1) Prophecies which are vague and unspecific and have the "truth" read into them after the fact.
2) Prophecies from one part of the book which are fulfilled in another part.
3) Prophecies which are general and occur frequently throughout history.
4) Prophecies which, when dating is considered, could have been written afterwards.

There are no specific, non-general, verifiable prophecies in the Bible. It's not a coincidence. To prove this allow me to make similar prophecies:

- I will finish round 3 of this debate.
- There shall be a winner.
- Within the comments of this debate, somebody will make a comment which simply says "The sled was named Rosebud. Rosebud was the name of the sleigh!"
- The blue man shall fill the emptiness.
- I shall this round with the word "debate."
- Barack Obama will become president next Tuesday.
- There shall be more debates on this site. There shall be winners. There will be votebomber, Christians, debaters, teenagers, and the leader board shall shift!
- LoveyounoHomo will accept my challenge to the debate "There is undeniable evidence that God exists."

The prophecies are not difficult, they seem impressive and some seem specific, others are vague, and yet they are all accurate. They all fall into the same categories as the Biblical prophecies. So, prophecies like those in the Bible cannot be good evidence. I made these up on the spot and they are just as impressive.

--

Constructing a person out of bits of another person isn't evolution, nor is making somebody out of clay. Further, even if those were considered evolution, why would that be undeniable evidence that God exists?

--

Thank you for the debate.
LoveyounoHomo

Pro

I can only go by what i believe in now. My opponent is a Atheist, it is very hard to prove or show him any undeniable evidence that god exists. To me the evidence i gave that god exists is enough, because i simply cant believe that there isnt a god. For a fact that all this was evolution or some big bang. To him my evidence is clearly not good enough, and no matter what he will deny it seeing as he is a atheist.

I am not really going to rebut my opponents points but make new ones.

My opponent many times says well "How did you get there", "where did this God come from"? Well all of it is a matter of faith. Second you say that science proves all of these things but in reality how can it. Where did the organisms come from that all of us so happily turned into? How did they get there? Your so busy worrying about well where did god come into the picture that my opponent isnt realizing i can say the same thing to him.

To me the bible itself can prove that god exists. To me that is undeniable, to an atheist it is garbage. Its simply a matter of opinion no matter what you throw out there and how you do it.

I thank my opponent for this debate. I am going to go play in the snow now =).

Vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Liquidus 5 years ago
Liquidus
I have just run upon this argument and never have I ever been so humiliated. The "Con" for this topic has no idea of the magnitude of what he speaks, likewise, the "Pro" too has no idea. I CAN prove that there IS a God, AND, I can take it a step further as to identify this God as solely a CHRISTIAN God. If any one would like to be confirmed in this seemingly impossible task, challenge me, I will entertain.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
This was a weak debate... especially on Pro's side. I'm sorry to say that when you argued "the bible is undeniable evidence to me" and then "in an atheists eyes it is garbage" you are instantaneously losing the debate. Let me convert this into a simpler language.

New debate topic: The bible is factual
Pro argument: The bible is true to me, but not to my opponent. Since my opponent is atheist, his opinion is wrong, so i'm right. Therefore, the bible is true.

Honestly, pro had the better position and even though I do believe in God, for the sake of the debate I'm voting negative not because negative convinced me, but because pro made humiliating arguments
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
k, done
Posted by ozziegirl 8 years ago
ozziegirl
I would like to debate pro for this topic. If anyone wants to start a debate like this again, challenge me and I'll argue.
Posted by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Well the underlying idea behind such things as the argument from design is the concept that work takes energy and that you can't design something as intricate and complex as the human body out of sheer happenstance. If walking you saw a rock it might be acceptable to conclude that that rock had always been there whereas seeing a watch actually needs a real explanation because the design of a watch takes real effort and work to complete. This observation is rather ubiquitous and one is hard pressed to avoid it.

Most creation stories seem more an attempt to explain first cause but explaining the order of the natural world is certainly part of it. And, in a very real way, evolution by natural selection provides the first real robust mechanism by which such complex organs could originate. Darwin in proposing evolution by natural selection, not only explained massive amounts of previously incoherent data gleamed from the natural world, but he managed to provide a real understanding of how substantive amounts of order and complex design could originate from a uncaused unguided natural process, and moreover that such order was a necessary consequence of reproduction and heredity.

In that, he quite clearly solved one of the greatest mysteries of life. He managed to answer the most fundamental question of life. In contrast, the biggest biology mysteries left are little things like the biochemistry of going from randomly assembling aminos and nucleotides to small reproductive molecules (abiogenesis).

If you contrast that with the mysteries of biology prior to Darwin you can piece out why most of the intellectuals prior to Darwin were deists and after Darwin were largely atheists. It isn't that Darwin made people people not believe in God, but in a very real sense he made it possible to not believe in God. Prior to Darwin the mysteries of life would have been insuperable. Darwin did great things for our understanding of cosmos.
Posted by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
Tatarize: "There is evolution by natural selection which is an unrandom uncaused uncontrolled process for creating greater order out of lesser order."

Order out of chaos is a common theme in so many of the world's creation myths. That's not surprising, since arranging things in a semi-comprehensible fashion and building some defense against the elements is fundamental to human survival, but I'd never made the connection to natural selection. Thanks!
Posted by LoveyounoHomo 8 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
Thanks for the debate tatarize, I am sorry for copy and pasting my first round someone already told me. I did try to keep proving my points but i am sorry. Good debate.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
As an avid fan of MythBusters, I am already quite aware of the difficulty of shooting anything more than a few inches into the water.

I should have known better than to recite a figure of speech with no basis in reality.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
I wouldn't go as far as you, Tartarize, DCB does do well with sentence structure, and so does InquireTruth (but neither are STRICT creationists) and both are very good debaters. But personally I will be looking into other, less refined debaters when their arguments do not mirror their comments. That's what tipped me off to this whole darn copypasta thing. BTW - consevativeequalsmart and fo-shizzle are no longer. Accounts were closed by Phil.

Cheaters never prosper.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"No creationist can properly compose a sentence."

Think again.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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 m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote 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 Awed 7 years ago
Awed
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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 kenochs 8 years ago
kenochs
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by PrvnMthws 8 years ago
PrvnMthws
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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 TFranklin62 8 years ago
TFranklin62
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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 resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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 v3n0m 8 years ago
v3n0m
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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 Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by heckler 8 years ago
heckler
TatarizeLoveyounoHomoTied
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