The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

To reopen debate about credibility of scientific community with Patrick Henry

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,740 times Debate No: 2559
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (12)

 

sadolite

Pro

First let me say Patrick Henry kicked my butt in that last debate. It was my first attempt and my rookie status shined brightly. I have learned a lot from that debate. The worst of it all is that I didn't even get the topic of the debate right.
Patrick is absolutely right that the scientific community is well and in tact and has no credibility problems. I can accept most or even all of the data and research collected by scientists with regard to climate change.
Now let me see if I can get the topic of the debate right, "I find it literally impossible to believe anything the news media, politicians or environmental activists say about global warming"
I only ask one thing of you Patrick if you choose to debate me or anyone else if you don't, not to refer to my evidence as "JUNK SCIENCE". You stated that "PEER REVIEWED" data, research and scientists were the most credible sources for the topic of global warming. All of my evidence will be from "PEER REVIEWED" scientists or "PEER REVIEWED" scientific reports.

Cover up #1 not reported or barely reported by all major news outlets

copy and paste this,"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists" This will take you to the link. It is a U.S. Senate report on data collected from peer reviewed scientists many of whom were or still are members of the IPCC

I'm going to start with just one of many examples of cover ups or deceptions by the news media, politicians and environmental activists in my opening statement so I can get a feel for the tactics you or anyone else may use to debunk or disprove my evidence and respond accordingly
Tatarize

Con

Having read your previous debate and this one thus far, I'm fairly certain you've been mislead. You have been lead to believe there are major objections to the basic idea of global warming and statements as to the effects and predictions thereof are thusly biased. This is incorrect.

No scientist has, within a peer reviewed context, shown any mechanisms natural or otherwise which could be capable of explaining the current warming trend we are seeing today. Heat-island effect, Earth's dynamic motion, sun spot effects, nor any of the other suggested causes has fleshed out a dynamic understanding of the temperature rise we are seeing today. In the 1950s due to our understanding of the well understood chemical and physical properties of gases it was realized that a large amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere would cause the planet to heat up due to the green house effect. This has been well known for a long period of time and the predictions are coming true as shown by the current heating trend (which is far worse than the initial predictions suggested). We are discovering new mechanisms for how and why glacial ice melts at the rate it does. How increased heat helps feed hurricanes and storms. And we are predicting heating trends which to date have be significantly underestimate of what we are witnessing today.

I do wonder which step you doubt:
1) CO2 are a greenhouse gas. This is confirmed by physics.
2) We are releasing massive amounts of CO2.
3) From 1 and 2, we predict CO2 will cause warming.
4) There is a warming trend which fits with this prediction.

There is a remarkable amount of evidence behind Global Warming. To suggest that it is indeed accurate does not detract from scientists credibility. A review of the actual evidence in favor of Global Warming shows that it's remarkably robust and scientists are right to believe it.

Most politicians, new media, and environmental activists get their evidence, data, and predictions from the scientists in question. When I say that Global Warming is indeed occurring, I can clearly cite a vast number of scientific papers to this regard.

As for the claims of junk science, I cannot speak to others but I do not use it as a pejorative. However, the arguments you cited are, in fact junk science. Calling something Junk Science isn't saying that they are wrong, or that they are attempting to mislead, or that they are lying. Junk science simply makes premature causal claims without sufficient evidence. It's a little bit of science and making leaps which the data doesn't allow. Junk science isn't plainly false, rather it's a conclusion without due diligence.

It may be true that there are cycles of sun spots every X number of years and that these sun spots could in fact lead to some increased heating. However the conclusion that it has lead to the current heating trend we are seeing today is unsupported. There's certainly some science to sunspots. And you can have that science peer reviewed and found to suffice. However, the jump from sun spots to an explanation of the climate shift we've been witnessing would have to stretch itself to become tenuous.

Yes, there are some people who disagree. As far as the 400 disagreeing scientists I refer you to similar efforts by creationists against evolution (AiG has a couple hundred names of medical doctors/dentists/teachers), or similar responses such as project Steve (800+ scientists named Steve who support the teaching of evolution).

The references to authority are moot. Do they have any peer reviewed mechanism which explains the warming trend we are seeing? Are they exposing some great underlying mistake made by the very basic math and physics which suggests that due to the greenhouse effect we should be seeing this warming?
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Welcome to the debate Tatarize.

I don't want to debate you on single pieces of research, they are meaning less when argued on a one by on basis. Again I don't dispute nor do I want to dispute data true or false. Like I said any single piece of data or research is meaningless on its own.
What I am getting at is the complete exclusion of and silencing of peer reviewed scientists who have studied all the available data not just bits and pieces that fit some computer modal to make it work. I run a C.N.C. machine and from the experience I have with computers they never do what you don't tell them to do, only what you tell them to do. But I digress sorry I got off topic.
You are trying to convince me that what I see hear and read in all the major news media is all true. The first thing you did is automatically dismiss my first piece of evidence and call it junk science, Hey Patrick so much for the credibility of peer review evidence, I tried. Now I really don't now what to believe anymore.
Anyway here's my second piece of "PEER REVIEWED JUNK SCIENCE" evidence

copy and paste this: "Digital Journal - 17200 Scientists Dispute Global Warming"

This will take you to the link.

The first page on this link has some very disparaging things to say about the IPCC which is a source used by Patrick in our last debate. If you scroll down to the very bottom of that page you will find another link above a big orange box that says "VOTE IT UP" the link is: oism.org I tried to separate the two links but if you type oism.org you will have to search their whole site to find the evidence I want you to read. So go to the first link to get to the second and you won't waste any time searching
The second link is a petition from 17,200 Scientists who dispute what is being told to me by you, the news media, politicians and environmental activists.
Fortunately there is a complete list provided for you of every single scientists name on that petition. I'll give you extra time to call them all and ask about their credentials and why they dispute that global warming is caused by man.
This petition has never been nor will it ever be reported by all the major news outlets. As an added bonus feature it also has a peer reviewed report you can look at that explains why 17200 scientists signed this petition It's chalked full of juicy data to help support my claim and theirs
Tatarize

Con

People are fairly moot as far as science is concerned. What matters is the science at hand not the mockingly silly lists of people for or against.

1) CO2 are a greenhouse gas.
2) We are releasing massive amounts of CO2.
3) From 1 and 2, we predict CO2 will cause warming.
4) There is a warming trend which fits with this prediction.

Which statement is false? Which is suspect? Which is mistaken?

http://www.globalwarming101.com...
http://www.realclimate.org...

Do you have any objections? Entire systems? No sense fighting over different facts here and there? But, you haven't pointed out anything wrong? Other than some denialists but, that's true of a number of very scientific theories. There are flat-earthers, creationists... I've heard more than a few people deny Einstein's relativity. There are some geocentists today who believe that all the stars rotate around the planet. There's some more classy junk science as well. Did you know that fingerprinting works 100% of the time? Nature is all nice and kind? There are poisonous toxins in everything and they just build up in your body? Vaccines clearly cause autism. Silver you removed with a 9-volt battery in your shed can cure cancer.

There's nothing to argue based on people believing things. People believe silly things. What does the evidence say? Overwhelmingly scientists and moreover climate scientists agree that global warming is actually happening and present massive amounts of evidence to this effect. There's some quibbling about the effects of global warming, the rates, the secondary factors, but nothing about the basic core claims.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We are releasing massive amounts of CO2. A greenhouse effect would cause warming. We are seeing warming in line with the expected trend.

It isn't just the last few years where you could walk around in shorts in New York during certain days in January that scientists came out with the theory of global warming. We've had the basic facts since the 50s.

Also, if you ever want a silver bullet: Venus. The atmosphere is mostly CO2 and the surface temp is higher than that of Mercury.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

Man oh man I have been living in denial. Not about man causing global warming but the most basic of all things ever studied by man. I have found irrefutable evidence that the earth is "FLAT!!" That will be my next debate topic because there is considerable evidence to prove it!! Thanks for mentioning Flat earthers to me. Tatarize, if you are convinced that the earth is round, you are living in complete denial.
Do you find that last paragraph absolutely condescending and insulting to your intelligence? I hope you do. You know why. Because every piece of evidence that I would give you will automatically be dismissed by you with out so much as even trying to provide some kind of information as to why it is flawed. You send me to links where it's already a forgone conclusion that global warming is caused by man. There are absolutely no comparisons of data and research interpretations that explain why one interpretation of the data is better than the other. Thus far you are doing a very poor job of convincing me that global warming is caused by man, and I think I speak for most other deniers in this world. You don't want to "prove" to me that global warming is caused by man, you want to "convince" me that global warming is caused by man at any cost no matter how flawed, inconclusive or false the available data and research interpretations may or may not be. That is what the news media, politicians and political activists are doing right now in my opinion. I could convince you of just about anything if I fed you enough misleading information had enough people lie for me and not allow any of my information to be disputed in an open forum by anyone.
On to the first sentence of your rebuttal in the last round. HMMMM, I wonder--------- No, I won't comment on it, I'll let the viewers and voters do that.
Is Co2 a green house gas? Well of course it is, all gases are green house gasses if you open the door and let all the rest of them come in. We all live on a planet, not in a green house that is being monitored to allow only Co2 in.
We are releasing "Massive amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere. Compared to what? The total number of green house gasses? Water vapor represents 95% of all green house gasses. I checked on that figure and could not find a single piece of evidence to suggest otherwise. If you factor in all the other forms of gasses that the planet produces, it's quite minuscule.
From 1 and 2 we predict Co2 will cause warming. Whose we? Don't include me in that prediction. I wouldn't bet my farm on that prediction. Considering the prediction rate for scientists, who make long term predictions on climate change, being an absolute 0 success rate to date, I wouldn't bet your farm on it.
Temperatures have risen and fallen for millions of years. Make a computer model that only allows Co2 to be the green house gas and omit water vapor from the computer model algorithm and wahla, you have a long term computer model predicting long term global warming. Add water vapor to the equation and you will be in for a big surprise.
The first link you provided me with has an article about an ice pack that has a crack in it. O.K. there's a crack in it, so what. It proves nothing. Ice packs have been cracking for millions of years, that's what they do. I checked to see if ice packs have cracked before and could find no evidence to suggest other wise. The rest of the site is geared towards children and how to educate them on what they can do to save the planet. That must explain the 101 title. This site has already made it a forgone conclusion that man is the cause of global warming and does nothing to convince me otherwise. Thirdly, the man who is responsible for this site is an arctic explorer and environmental activist who gets his funding from the IPCC . I gave you a chance to explain away all of the remarks made about the IPCC's credibility problems but I'm guessing you don't even know what I'm talking about because you didn't even bother to read the link I gave you about the IPCC. The IPCC is going to become a big thorn in your side and your argument as I continue, because it is the primary source for all data and research that is reported to the public about global warming.
The second site was a good site to conduct research from and gave some very convincing arguments.
As I read through it and visited the many other links, the IPCC is the mentioned hundreds of times in all of the reports. But what really put the icing on the cake was a link that took me to computer modals and how they are used and the controls that are used to generate long term global warming predictions. The vast majority of computer modals used by the IPCC are modals that omit water vapor from their computer modal research. Why would anyone run a computer modal on climate change and leave out the one gas that represents 95% of all the green house gasses? The IPCC knowing and purposely leave out data and research that would suggest that man has little or nothing to do with global warming.
Co2 is not the only gas that is emitted when fossil fuels are burned as you would lead us to believe in your argument. New improvements in technology and new data in the past couple of years have required researchers to abandon all of the previous computer modals that are still being used as evidence by the IPCC.

A final closing excerpt:

NASA administrator Michael Griffin continues to draw the ire of preeminent climate scientists inside and outside of NASA, as well as members of Congress, after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.
In an interview broadcast yesterday on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" program, Griffin was asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep whether he is concerned about global warming
"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
Tatarize

Con

My job isn't to convince you of the sound science behind global warming. I could do just about as well convincing creationists that evolution isn't a plot to destroy their religion. My job is to point out that the scientific community is correct to support the best theory that fits their evidence. That when the media reports on these scientists and their predictions they are not losing their credibility. You don't believe in global warming. Well, that doesn't mean you're right.

In essence your argument is thus, I don't believe in X. All the well-reasoned scientists, Nobel Laureates, accurate models, fifty year old predictions, basic scientific understandings which support X are therefore wrong and therefore being wrong, they lose their credibility. -- I'm sorry, no. Your entire argument is contingent on you being right.

In fact, the possibility that you are wrong, suffices to negate your argument. So could you be wrong?

--- "I could convince you of just about anything if I fed you enough misleading information had enough people lie for me..."

You couldn't be convinced of anything by being given misleading information? I'm happy to point out where you've been mislead if that helps. Numbers of people believing other things (your last list by the way was of many people who argued that the IPCC didn't go far enough). Why sunspots don't explain global warming. Comparing the difference in heat output vs. the heat retention we are seeing today.

Even if by some fluke, you were right, and the majority of climate scientists were absolutely dead wrong... there's still good reasons why they should have believed themselves right (the massive amounts of evidence). In science being wrong is perfectly fine, so long as wrong is where a good argument and the evidence lead you and you're willing to change your mind when contrary evidence comes to light.

--

You suggest that a good scientific understanding of global warming and the real effect it has on the planet is roughly equal to believing the earth is flat. My point was that the number of people who believe something is a moot point. It's the core claim behind the fallacy of numbers. My point was that the people you referenced don't matter.

It doesn't matter who believes what; where is the evidence? What does the evidence support?

If you don't see how exactly evidence works to support a proposition then you are lost. I don't believe the earth is roughly spherical because I'm told to believe that by websites with a forgone conclusion, but rather I find it a compelling proposition on all angles.

* The moon, sun, other planets are spherical it shouldn't be hard to believe that the Earth might also be spherical.

** Likewise, the planet Venus, our so called sister planet has an atmosphere primarily composed of CO2 and the surface temp is hot enough to melt lead and hotter than the surface temp of Mercury (more than twice as close to the sun as Venus) due to global warming.

* I understand that due to the forces of gravity pulling towards a center point that given enough mass things shall, due to basic physics, become spheres.

** Likewise, the basic physics of the greenhouse effect are such that chemicals like CO2, water vapor, CH4, will trap heat.

* I understand that ships sailing off will disappear under the horizon due to the curvature of the Earth.

** Likewise, I see that the predictions of scientists since the 50s are coming to fruition as the ice caps are melting, the Northwest Passage is ice-free in summer and through much of winter. All the temperate zones are shifting north and for the last half a decade every year we've beat the record for the hottest year on record.

The reasons why one interpretation of the data is better than another is because that interpretation explains more. The way we improve our theories is by finding things which are not explained and incorporating the new data into a new theory. We understand that Darwinian evolution is better than Lamarckian evolution because it explains things better. We understand that Einsteinian physics is better than Newtonian because it explains things better.

We understand that global warming is a better explanation of the current warming trend than grasping at random straws of "sun spots", or "heat island effects", or lists of individuals who may not fully agree.

Next, you don't understand science, as I can tell from your "rebuttal":

-- "all gases are green house gasses if you open the door and let all the rest of them come in."

-- "We all live on a planet, not in a green house that is being monitored to allow only Co2 in."

You seem to believe that greenhouse gases are gases used in greenhouses. That is the most misguided thing I've heard in a long time.

Greenhouse gases are gases which cause the greenhouse effect which retains heat like greenhouses retain heat. For example, even in places far too cold to grow warmer climate plants, they can be grown in a greenhouse. This is because with very little work, you can retain the heat which would otherwise disperse. Well, there are some gases which have the same effect on the entire planet, roughly turning Earth (or Venus) into a massive greenhouse. Rather than radiate the excess heat back into space it remains on Earth longer and causes the climate to, on the whole, be warmer.

Greenhouse gases are a bit like a blanket. They keep the heat a bit longer and it warms up the planet. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are releasing massive amounts of it into the atmosphere. We've given the planet a blanket and it's getting hotter than it should. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. It's always been there. If we had no greenhouse effect at all we'd freeze during the night without the ability to retain our heat. A wet heat is certainly worse than a dry heat (for more than just greenhouse reasons) and water vapor is a greenhouse gas. However, it comes and goes as humidity. It's a regular part of our environment and has been for millions of years and human activity doesn't change it. The CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere hasn't always been there, and with the increased heat retention we're going to have increased water vapor, compounding the effect of adding massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Further, the computer models do take water vapor into account.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

* CO2 isn't the only chemical released when things are burnt. However, the connection between CO2 levels and increased heat are well established. Further, CO2 is almost a product of burning carbon. And is being released in massive quantities.

* Models are switched out because the newer ones are more accurate not because the previous ones were completely wrong. We need to explain the warming better than we are currently explaining it. That's nuance not the core of the argument. So far we've underestimated global warming at every turn.

--

I personally liked Stephen Colbert's response to Griffin in his "The Word" segment.

"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have" -- Because whose to say the island nation of Micronesia wants their country above sea level.

"I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings." -- Because clearly the energy companies asked prior to dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere causing the global warming. Who is this massive list of signatories to the Kyoto protocol to demand we avoid radically changing the climate?

The actual science is clear, Global warming is a reality. Bush-appointed blowhards do not change this, not when they head up NASA nor when they say stupid things.
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Stop making comments, this absurd debate is long over.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
CO2 is the only gas we are pumping massive amounts into the atmosphere of. Declaring it plantfood would be a little less silly if we weren't deforesting most of the world.

Scientists have predicted upswings and downswings but to think that any prediction is identical is nothing less than absurd. Particulates actually do lower temp and if you are pumping them into the atmosphere it will lower temp, just as pumping greenhouse gases will raise the temp.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
Have we gotten into harms at all? It's like 10 degrees here right now, and I could sure go for some global warming!
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
You people that make comments that would contradict Tat don't seam to realize that he is right you are wrong and that's final!!
Posted by Novan_Leon 9 years ago
Novan_Leon
Tartarize...

1) Nonsense, scientists have predicted upswings and downswings in climate since they realized such changes occured
2) Show me your sources that explains how much CO2 is human caused vs. how much is natural
3) Source?
4) Show me your sources that explain how much CO2 is required to cause X amount of temperature rise
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
CO2 is the only gas that STUPID liberals can try to impose TAXATION ON

that is the ONLY ISSUE AT HAND

CO2 is PLANT FOOD

Tartar sauce is simply a liberal sycophant
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
1) Nothing apparently this sharp, and none of them were predicted prior to them happening.
2) We know how much humans are adding to the environment and how much there was before. 30% more in a short period of time and that's about as much as we put up there.
3) We know how much CO2 is being added and what the atmospheric concentration is, the difference is probably somewhere else or other natural fluxes.
4) CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the models show that the amount we're adding is going to cause the temp to rise. The basic physics shows that the two are accurately linked.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
ALL gases absorb Infrared radiation

this is a simple fact

N2, O2 and the other MAJOR components are MUCH more important than CO2

Do you propose taxing them as well. fool idiot dumborap socilaist moron?

DUH!
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
A broke clock is right twice a day.
Posted by sadolite 9 years ago
sadolite
Hey people, Sodolite and Tatarize are the same person
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
sadoliteTatarizeTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadoliteTatarizeTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
sadoliteTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteTatarizeTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadoliteTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jamcke 8 years ago
Jamcke
sadoliteTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
sadoliteTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
sadoliteTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
sadoliteTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03