The Instigator
TOMlive
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
84 Points

blowing the moon landing hoax wide open 4th time

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: 11/23/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,909 times Debate No: 10216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (14)

 

TOMlive

Pro

this is the fourth time i have posted this debate, no one will accept.

Motives

Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War. Also think about it, JFK, RFK, Malcom X, and MLK were all assassinated that decade, people were getting pissed, they needed to distract them.

Ok lets start this, first off let me say i have LOTS of reasons and facts to prove the moon landing was faked, but im going to give you guys my best argument in round one.

I can and i will show you footage of Apollo faking part of their mission, for nearly an hour.

You see apollo 11 had to get a shot of the earth from far away to give the illusion of being half way to the moon. So what they have ingeniously done is shut off all the lights in the space station. Keep in mind they were orbiting about 150 miles out from the earth, well under the deadly radiation from the van uys radiation belt. There was a small circular window in the back of the station. Since they shut off all the lights the inside of the station was pitch black out out of the window you could see part of the earth. BUT it is not the earth from 130,000 miles as the federal government would have you believe. It only looked like that because the window was round giving you the illusion that they were far out in space, filling the window with the camera, as they would have had too to show that shot. They are actually in the back of the station, and if you were to look through the window you would see the full earth. You probably think i am lying but here is thee footage right here, showing all the astronauts faking this. Why would they be faking ANY part of their mission. And lastly the could not have been on the moon the next night like they said they were when they were clearly within a couple hundred miles within earth's orbit.

The bottom line is no human can pass the Van Uys radiation belt that cover the earth about 250 miles out. And if you really think we've been to the moon since, then show me the footage. Well quite simply you can look all day but you wont find it.

there is the footage up top please take the time to watch it.

Oh an btw neil armstrong has only given two on camera interviews his whole life, both times under extreme stress. Simply, he is tired of lying.

heres something else a little disturbing
Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program

In a television program about the hoax theory, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a coverup.

Ted Freeman (T-38 crash, 1964)
Elliott See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident, 1966)
Virgil "Gus" Grissom (supposedly an outspoken critic of the Space Program) (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Ed White (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
Ed Givens (car accident, 1967)
C. C. Williams (T-38 accident, October 1967)
X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed in November 1967 during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles).
Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash in December 1967, shortly after reporting for duty to that (later cancelled) program.
NASA worker Thomas Baron Train crash, 1967 shortly after making accusations before Congress about the cause of the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired. Ruled as suicide.
Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San Francisco, interviewed the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington about the 'moon rocks'. Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon? Jacobs asked - the geologist did not respond, only laughed. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days.
Lee Gelvani claims to have almost convinced James Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani referred to as an "informant", to confess about a cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to contact Kaysing about it; however he died of a heart attack in 1991, before any such telephone call occurred.
Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. Moreover, if there was a coverup (that the Apollo 11 and subsequent landings were faked), the coverup would logically have occurred in 1969 and subsequent years - yet all of the deaths listed above occurred in 1967 or earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org.........
Puck

Con

Let us open this with a few statements.

To be considered evidence, there must be evidence. To be considered good evidence it must be detailed. There is no point in listing a large number of 'reasons' if not extrapolated and left unexplained. To do otherwise is to play the old creationist tactic of Gish Gallop: list as many claims as possible, hope that there is not enough space to refute them all, claim those not refuted are therefore proof of the claim.

Videos in general and specifically for debates such as these, where claims are often in list form and numerous, do not constitute fair evidence. Fair in the meaning, I am expected to refute multiple 10 minute videos in a debate that has a character limit format. I will deal with the first video, that's easy, any more constitute as laziness at best, abuse of the format at worse. If you have no evidence other than you-tube videos, then start researching.

Case in point on the nature of evidence: the Van Allen radiation belt: A common claim (and one made here despite the name, a hint in itself as to the nature of the source of the claim) demands that astronauts cannot safely pass through this belt.

To be evidence, requires more than a claim, more than a hypothesis. It needs to be supported by evidence, otherwise it exists and remains purely as a hypothesis, a statement, devoid from the facts of necessity that would support it. To claim an astronaut could not safely pass through requires one to know the physics of biology and radiation. The physics of radiation. The nature of the supposed time spent in the belt, the trajectory through it, the nature of the belt itself and so on.

See the claim, astronauts cannot pass through the belt, relies on the assumption that they cannot, circular, deficient and not evidence. This is something you need to consider for all your claims. Is it a claim, or is it evidence. If it is evidence is it good evidence or conjecture. Is the claim supported by what you tell us, or are you just telling us about the claim. To be evidence of a hoax, you must present us with *evidence* not a list of claims. Those who claim the conspiracy cannot ignore the nature of being a scientist to support their position. If their position is true, or any claims are true, the science of the truth will be abundant.

==

"I can and i will show you footage of Apollo faking part of their mission, for nearly an hour."

The video in question is an excerpt from the film: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.

The video, the film maker and the claims of the video are refuted here:

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

You post a video, I post a link. Seems fair. ;)

==

"The bottom line is no human can pass the Van Uys [Allen] radiation belt that cover the earth about 250 miles out."

So here we refer back to my opening spiel on the nature of evidence. That is a claim, not evidence.
So provide some evidence for the claim. :) INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS INTERCEPT ALL ASTRONAUTS SO THEY CAN NOT HAVE MADE A TRIP TO THE MOON. That is also a claim, and at present, on equal standing with yours. Evidence, not claims is what we are after. If you can't find the evidence I'll provide the refutation to it anyway in the final round. :)

==

"Oh an btw neil armstrong has only given two on camera interviews his whole life, both times under extreme stress.
Simply, he is tired of lying."

Does conjecture count as evidence? No. Is the number of interviews done, a causal link to the claim? No.
This is not evidence, it is a claim. Why does video count as important as non video?
In fact he does do interviews, a preference for not doing them on film is just that, a preference. I don't like public speaking either and if I was him, I doubt I'd prefer to hold interviews with those of your position as well. :)

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov... << An interview. That's 1.

http://www.amazon.com... << A book containing an interview. That's 2.

http://www.astronomyforum.net... << Convention talk, live audience. That's 3.

And so on.

==

"In a television program about the hoax theory, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a coverup."

"Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. Moreover, if there was a coverup (that the Apollo 11 and subsequent landings were faked), the coverup would logically have occurred in 1969 and subsequent years - yet all of the deaths listed above occurred in 1967 or earlier."

Check what you quote and where from maybe? :)

==

"The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War."

Again is this evidence or a claim? It is a claim. Does it have evidence? No. Does it have conjecture? Yes. Is that evidence? No.

Does it hold merit even as conjecture? Let us have a look.

The Decision to Go to the Moon:
President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 Speech
http://history.nasa.gov...

The U.S. enters Vietnam conflict in ... 1965

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

So we have a clear discrepancy here for the start of the program as a distraction. Planning was a requirement for the missions of course and occurred much earlier than the start of the war.

The last Apollo missions we scrapped in 1970.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The exit of U.S. soldiers from Vietnam began in 1973.

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

The Apollo missions as a distraction from the Vietnam war does not match up with the dates of both. As conjecture it fails.

==

Let us be having that evidence then.
Debate Round No. 1
TOMlive

Pro

Ok first I realize what i have said are claims... yes (good claims at that :). But hey this is a three round debate, maybe i'll sight my resources in this round, maybe i wont. Also, I am not playing any "creationist games" with you, and yes bro, there is a sufficient amount of space to try and debunk the claims I am making, I am not using a tactic, ha, if anything you are.

Ehhh anyway, all that stuff about.. Van allen radiation belt, or key deaths, and the attitudes of the astronauts... I don't even need to talk about or prove (I will) these claims.

I want the talk about the smoking gun....

<<"I am expected to refute multiple 10 minute videos in a debate that has a character limit format. I will deal with the first video, that's easy, any more constitute as laziness at best, abuse of the format at worse. If you have no evidence other than you-tube videos, then start researching".>>

Uh ok... only gave ya one video. Did you even watch that video? I doubt it, i looked at your link.

This link you provide, is very easy to debunk.

Basically what this link says, is that it was not an astronauts arm, it was a windows edge.
The link even goes as far to show you "actual" pictures of the window, that was able to catch a shot of the earth from "130,000 miles out." as neil armstrong claims in my video.

Here is the picture of the window the link claims is in the space craft.
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

Ladies and gentlemen, please do not be fooled by this.. low trick. That is absolutely 100% not the real window.
The real window is shown on 8:20 in my video. When the light is turned on and you see, undisputedly , the real window, which is a small round window, not a big square window like you link shows. Who do you see in the picture? Our moon boy Big bad Buzz Aldrin.

Hahaha clever clever these people are, but low.... may reason prevail!

This video that I have provided was never meant to see our eyes. Because it establishes conclusively, the astronauts faking their mission and lying. "We got the window completely filled up with the camera." Says Mr. Neil Armstrong.
OH? do ya? Thats strange because when you turned on the lights we saw how far you really were from the window.

The fake crescent.. It was inserted, we all saw it on my video if you took the time to watch it. They first show the earth without one, then inserted one.

Your link lied, My video shows them faking their mission in broad daylight.

Nuff said
Puck

Con

"Ok first I realize what i have said are claims... yes (good claims at that :)."

Claims are neutral, it's the evaluation of evidence relating to them that constitutes them as being good or bad. No evidence =/= a good claim.

"But hey this is a three round debate, maybe i'll sight my resources in this round, maybe i wont. Also, I am not playing any "creationist games" with you, and yes bro, there is a sufficient amount of space to try and debunk the claims I am making, I am not using a tactic, ha, if anything you are."

I only responded to your chosen method: list of claims without evidence. It's not my fault if you share qualities with some creationists. ;)

"Ehhh anyway, all that stuff about.. Van allen radiation belt, or key deaths, and the attitudes of the astronauts... I don't even need to talk about or prove (I will) these claims."

If you don't wish to pursue, I'm sure the readers will understand. :) I will eagerly await this evidence however.

"Uh ok... only gave ya one video. Did you even watch that video? I doubt it, i looked at your link."

Yup, watched the video..

"Ladies and gentlemen, please do not be fooled by this.. low trick. That is absolutely 100% not the real window."
"When the light is turned on and you see, undisputedly , the real window, which is a small round window, not a big square window like you link shows."

http://www.nasm.si.edu...

Command module. Check the windows.

Compare to: http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org...

From my link:

"The capsule Window reveals the truth, no cut out, no transparency."

This is the series from your 8:20.

"There shots are taken duing the live broadcast, shortly after the crew tell Houston they have moved the camera back from the Window. The light to the left in the images is the interior spotlight. We can compare the Earth's location in the window, by comparing it with the light's position in the bottom image. Again we can see the Earth blocked by the window frame"

The supposed 'slip up' showing the earth.

http://img340.imageshack.us...

The earth appearing in a bedroom, eep!

http://www.nhghosts.com...

Scary stuff. No? Of course not, because it's an artifact of light reflecting off a mirroring surface. Notice it also holds that 'behind the window' quality due to it being a reflection.

The link also disputes the requirements for a 'fake' cutout. See the cloud formations, issues with recession, maintaining a low orbit. :)

Refer to R1 for the dubious editor and the link to what was dubiously edited.
Debate Round No. 2
TOMlive

Pro

Hmn... I see

1. You tell our readers to compare this command module in your Nasm.si.edu link,
to your first link.

Ok thats all good and what not. Now readers please compare the window in his link, to the window of the command module that the actual astronauts were really in. 8:20 on my video.

Need i even say more? Your link is lying bottom line! I don't understand why i even had to say this a second time, i thought you would acknowledge that, not defend it. You keep accusing me of some sort of technique, but again, it is you using the technique if anything.

Lolz

<<"There shots are taken du[r]ing the live broadcast, shortly after the crew tell Houston they have moved the camera back from the Window. The light to the left in the images is the interior spotlight.We can compare the Earth's location in the window, by comparing it with the light's position in the bottom image. Again we can see the Earth blocked by the window frame">>

The left light in the left in the images is the interior spotlight you say. That light is used to see the camera controls. but not cast light on the spacecrafts walls. Actually if you start the video at 8:15 you can see him holding this light. This helps us esablishe that they were NOT fillinf up the window with the camera as you and Neil state.

"We can compare the Earth's location in the window, by comparing it with the light's position in the bottom image."

Compare the earths location? with what? You can see were the earth is, through the window. NOTICE, notice my friends, how bright the light is shining through that perfectly round window. That is not the light from the earth 130,000 miles out, that is the earth from a couple hundred miles out.

"again we can see the earth blocked by the window frame".... No sir, what you see is the bright earth light through a small circular window, not a big square window, it is being blocked by nothing except Buzz for a moment.

I hereby make this part of my argument UN-DISPUTABLE.

They were faking their mission, and lying. And here is the footage of it right up top.

here's a good link for the Van Allen thing.
http://www.bigmantra.com...

I am going to rest my case here. Hopefully no biased opinions will show in the voting (yea right). Anyway have a good thanksgiving, and don't be fooled :)

p.s. i will believe that we went to the moon if you can show me the footage, besides apollo 11.

good luck you wont find it
Puck

Con

"Ok thats all good and what not. Now readers please compare the window in his link, to the window of the command module that the actual astronauts were really in. 8:20 on my video."

Maybe I should ask if you have watched it. :P

8:20:
http://img256.imageshack.us...

Nope, nothing to write about there.

8:32 has the clearest window shot.

http://img222.imageshack.us...

Clear evidence of omg it's a different window? Not at all.

http://cache4.asset-cache.net...

Since you wondered about a small round window.

http://www.billzilla.org...

"Actually if you start the video at 8:15 you can see him holding this light. This helps us esablishe that they were NOT
fillinf up the window with the camera as you and Neil state."

No *you* see *a* light source, clearly there are others other than a camera given the light rises before you see the camera itself. If it's not that specific light there are of course others - the module clearly wouldn't of been designed without interior lights. :P

"Compare the earths location? with what? You can see were the earth is, through the window. NOTICE, notice my friends, how bright the light is shining through that perfectly round window. That is not the light from the earth 130,000 miles out, that is the earth from a couple hundred miles out."

Bright light indeed. Perfectly round? Good luck from that quality of footage, seems adequate given the module design. I wasn't aware the Earth reflected so much brightness. Compare:

http://img177.imageshack.us...

to

http://www.nhghosts.com...

to

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

and

http://chamorrobible.org...

Sure the Earth is blue, it doesn't generate nearly as much bright reflective quality as your smoking gun however.

"No sir, what you see is the bright earth light through a small circular window, not a big square window, it is being blocked by nothing except Buzz for a moment."

See above, and various module shots.

"Link"

I see the notorious Sibrel's name again. You still failed to answer why he would doctor evidence of the supposed hoax.

Let's have a look then.

Professional opinion list in favour for the hoax:

Hoax specialists
Our Mr Sibrel
A lone self confirmed conspiracy theorist self proclaimed physicist (he apparently forgot to graduate from a University).

Apparently you still don't read your sources, since it includes a list of refutations at the bottom. Remember if the evidence, physics, science, was on your side, you'd find copious amounts of support for it in the literature. Instead you are left with a hack list of conspirators. Conspirators without any of the required 100s or 1000s of individuals needed to propagate it in support.

However no fear, NASA does the math for you! spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf

And here are some more: http://www.wwheaton.com...

"p.s. i will believe that we went to the moon if you can show me the footage, besides apollo 11.

good luck you wont find it"

Apollo 14 footage added.

==

:)
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TOmlive, Explain why, if the spacecraft is traveling at 16,000 mph 200 miles above the surface, the view of the surface does not change. This is categorically impossible. End of theory.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
8:31 k
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
probably some reflection of some interior light? What? I really hope you joking

please. put your biased opinions aside for a moment.

stop my video at 8:34

if you still believe that the bright white light shining through the small round window is "some reflection of an interior light" then o have no idea what is wrong with you, probably sick denial.

i proved his link lied but none of you even acknowledged that
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TOmlive, Probably a reflection of some interior light. Why would anyone care? The scene is not moving relative to the spacecraft, so that ends theory that the vehicle was in low earth orbit.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Thanks, all. :)
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
It is not up to us to disprove your pet theory, it is up to you to prove it. You still haven't done that.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
ok so what is that light coming through the window and were did it come from if it was not the earth?
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
If the spacecraft were in low earth orbit, the ground would be rushing by fast enough to notice in even a few seconds.

In low earth orbit, the spacecraft is moving at about 17,000 mph and completes an orbit in about ninety minutes. The spacecraft is about 100 or 200 miles above the surface, and moves over the surface with relative velocity of 16,000 mph. (The earth is rotating at about 1000 mph on the surface at the equator.) 16,000 mph is roughly 4.5 miles per second.

The hoax theory is that the camera is actually looking at a small spot on the surface defined by a window. I don't know the exact geometry, but the spacecraft is not very big and the windows are small, so suppose the camera was eight feet from an eight inch window. It would then see a spot on the ground about 10 or 15 miles in diameter. The view would then change completely in about 3 to 4 seconds. The view in the NASA video is the same over many times that, so it is not possible that the spacecraft was in low earth orbit as claimed by hoax advocates.

None of these calculation are above the level of high school geometry, so a consulting sophomore can verify them.
Posted by TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
simply not true but when they turn on th lights and you seee the bright earth shining in, dummy
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
TOMlive,

Your video and reasoning fails on its face, even before Con made his first argument.

"BUT it is not the earth from 130,000 miles as the federal government would have you believe. It only looked like that because the window was round giving you the illusion that they were far out in space, filling the window with the camera, as they would have had too to show that shot."

The above is simply not true and is visually obvious to anybody who has seen pictures of the earth at low earth orbit.

There is simply no way you can take a round cutout of a picture like this:
http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov...

And end up with a picture like this:
http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov...

There is no way this experiment: http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov... can be carried out in atmosphere and have the same results.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
TOMlivePuckTied
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 TOMlive 7 years ago
TOMlive
TOMlivePuckTied
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 RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TOMlivePuckTied
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 brittwaller 7 years ago
brittwaller
TOMlivePuckTied
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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
TOMlivePuckTied
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 Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
TOMlivePuckTied
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 LuisMiguelLuna 7 years ago
LuisMiguelLuna
TOMlivePuckTied
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 Apologician 7 years ago
Apologician
TOMlivePuckTied
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 LB628 7 years ago
LB628
TOMlivePuckTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
TOMlivePuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06