The Instigator
Emflo
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
leet4A1
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

evolution\big bang

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 4/15/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,316 times Debate No: 7856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (8)

 

Emflo

Con

Science leads to God

In my opinion many scientist are too proud to say creationism is a possibility. The ones that do are pushed out, Many scientist are made to accept evolution, to even be in the field of science.

I have to big questions for Evolution

The big bang, now scientifically if you hear a small bang there is going to be a reason why you heard it, it dosen�t just happen someone or something made it. Now how should it be any different for a big bang. I have not found any logical way this could occur, without an outside force. I think the big bang is a okay idea, but should not be considerd science.

Second, sure, we see small or mini evolution this dog is white, this dog has spots, if you want to call that evolution. Or even the butterfly example, were all the white moths were wiped out and the black ones were left, but that's not evolution that's just the disappearance of the white ones and the black ones were there before, so it really wasn't related to evolution at all.

Maybe there is a little back up for micro evolution, but the first sign of life, there is no explanation. Now there was a test done by Miller who created an environment of the early earth, and ran electricity through it. Out came amino acids the building blocks for cells. Many people bought it, put it in school text books and called it science, but when we dig down deeper we find it well, "....it was interesting historically, but not terribly relevant to how life actually developed."

Miller Did not use the environment, that scientist later calculated, but used ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, they used things they knew would provide a positive out come. The earth was filled with nitrogen and carbon dioxide, gases that won�t react. This is what scientist have later discovered.

Not only does that make the test no longer valid, as scientist dig deeper, they find it even more complex, amino acids are just the building blocks, and need to be put together by chance, for the whole evolution theory to survive.

I am now discussing the jump from nonliving to living. The diffrence between a nonliving and a living thing, is that living things must do three things, process energy, store information, and replicate. Darwin thought, a single celled organism would be rather simple, well much more simpler then scientist later found out about single celled organisms.

Now for a one celled organism to come from, "warm little ponds", has such an extremly small chance, so small no one can even be close to wrap their head around the number, that it is easier to say it can not happen at all. Even giving more and more time, does not take away that fact that it is practicaly imposible, and that is science.

Many scientist have moved on from random chance, to chemical affinity, self ordering tendencies, seeding from space, vents in the ocean, and life from clay, all theories that have little or no back up. Scientist are just hanging on to evolution by a thread, the ones who know this much, just believe there must be another way, while others have found there is no way to explain with out God in the picture.

I have to say, I am glad for those that read this and are trying to find the truth, because I find so many people, who just don't want to discuss it, "make them mad". Thank you

If this was found interesting I sugest digging deeper in a book called The case for faith, authored by Lee Strobel about a man who asks difficult questions on some of the hardest issues of Christianity.

I�m just like any of you, you can be my friend even if we don't agree. but please don't stop searching till you find the truth. Don't end with gaps. :)
leet4A1

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for posting this debate. To clarify, we are debating the theories of evolution AND the big bang, with my opponent attempting to disprove them and me attempting to support them.
Seeing as she has provided a number of arguments in her first round, I suggest we eschew the 'burden of proof' business and just say we both carry equal burden.

I will first rebut my opponent's arguments:

CON:
"The big bang, now scientifically if you hear a small bang there is going to be a reason why you heard it, it dosen�t just happen someone or something made it. Now how should it be any different for a big bang. I have not found any logical way this could occur, without an outside force. I think the big bang is a okay idea, but should not be considerd science."

REBUTTAL:
My opponent's argument here (her only one against the Big Bang) seems to be that everything has an external cause, and so the Universe must also. This infinite regress must stop at some stage, so why not with a singularity approximately 14 billion years ago, which is where all available evidence leads?
Time, as a dimension, is a property of this Universe, so asking what came 'before' this Universe existed is like asking the classic chestnut 'what is north of the northpole?' If my opponent is asserting that the Universe must have been created consciously, I must ask who created the creator. Either we accept that the Universe spontaneously began to expand from a singularity, or that a much more complex 'creator' did. If my opponent wishes to have this 'everything has a cause' argument, it needs to work both ways.

CON:
"Second, sure, we see small or mini evolution this dog is white, this dog has spots, if you want to call that evolution. Or even the butterfly example, were all the white moths were wiped out and the black ones were left, but that's not evolution that's just the disappearance of the white ones and the black ones were there before, so it really wasn't related to evolution at all."

REBUTTAL:
My opponent has brought up the old micro vs. macroevolution argument, which is just wrong. Microevolution leads to macroevolution, the only difference being time and scale. This argument, generally used by creationists, admits that variation occurs within species, and that natural selection and other mechanisms may act upon the variations. They just don't admit that speciation (macro-evolution) occurs. This is, again, just plain wrong. We have witnessed the speciation of domestic sheep into a different species, so that they may no longer reproduce with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they decended. We have also brought upon speciation in a group of fruit flies, so that after several generations two isolated groups are no longer sexually compatible. These are just two of many examples of observed speciation, and if my opponent is still not convinced I will provide more. [1]

The entire remainder of my opponent's arguments are regarding abiogenesis, the theory of how life came from non-life. Interesting though this topic is, it is outside the scope of this debate and has no relevance.[2] Scientists have no workable theories for abiogenesis, but there is no doubt that once life has begun, evolution will take over.

I will now provide some evidence for the Big Bang:

1. The Big Bang theory arose from an observation made by a man named Edwin Hubble. He found, through rigorous experiment, that all matter in the Universe is receding away from Earth, and indeed that space itself is expanding. He also found that the velocity of galaxies moving away from us can be calculated by a simple formula, the so-called Hubble law. That relationship is: v = H.d
where v = velocity of galaxy, H = Hubble constant, d = the galaxy's distance from Earth.

The Hubble law suggests that at a finite time in the past, all matter in the Universe was in one place, the so-called singularity I alluded to earlier, and has expanded to the size it is today. To find an approximate time for the beginning of the expansion, the Big Bang, we do some simple maths:

t = d/v
so, t = d/H.d
t = 1/H
t = 1.4 x 10^10 years

Thus, using the Hubble law, we can estimate the Universe to be 14 billion years old, which is a figure that has been verified by measurements based on temperature fluctuation is the cosmic microwave background, the correlation function of galaxies, and a number of other methods. [3][4]

I'll leave my round here, thanks again to my opponent, I hope for a hard-fought debate.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] - Freedman, R.A., Young, H.D. 2004, University Physics, 11th Edition, Addison Wesley, San Fransisco
Debate Round No. 1
Emflo

Con

First REBUTTAL:
"My opponent's argument here (her only one against the Big Bang) seems to be that everything has an external cause, and so the Universe must also. This infinite regress must stop at some stage, so why not with a singularity approximately 14 billion years ago, which is where all available evidence leads?
Time, as a dimension, is a property of this Universe, so asking what came 'before' this Universe existed is like asking the classic chestnut 'what is north of the north pole?' If my opponent is asserting that the Universe must have been created consciously, I must ask who created the creator. Either we accept that the Universe spontaneously began to expand from a singularity, or that a much more complex 'creator' did. If my opponent wishes to have this 'everything has a cause' argument, it needs to work both ways."

Response
about evidence, It is all a point of view, and no not all the evidence points to the big bang, the evidence that doesn't is discarded. Because now a days the big bang is the only accepted theory, so all the things that can be some way used to support the big bang as you say 14 billion years ago will be used.

Time is a big thing and evolutionist think if they stretch the time to billions of years thing will appear out of nothing. Well I am asking what started the big bang, and there is no answer, so I was right you can�t answer it.

No one created the creator, because he always was. But the earth wasn�t always existing, so therefor it had to be created.

Second rebuttal
"This is, again, just plain wrong. We have witnessed the speculation of domestic sheep into a different species, so that they may no longer reproduce with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they descended. We have also brought upon speculation in a group of fruit flies, so that after several generations two isolated groups are no longer sexually compatible."

Response
Okay, I do not see what you are getting at. Are you trying to prove evolution occurs, because sheep no longer able to reproduce, as well as fruit flies. I would not consider that evolution. If you are trying to say thatputting two animals of the same genes together and matching their offspring generation after generation, the DNA becomes less complex. Please explain your self.

Third
"The entire remainder of my opponent's arguments are regarding abiogenesis, the theory of how life came from non-life. Interesting though this topic is, it is outside the scope of this debate and has no relevance.[2] Scientists have no workable theories for abiogenesis, but there is no doubt that once life has begun, evolution will take over."

Response
This is very much in the debate and very important, if evolution can not explain how life first began, why believe it, God did it, and If nothing else then God making it because it can not be explained otherwise, why can�t God make everything he is God. God doesn't need evolution he didn't create it man did. and I am arguing with it. And You can�t explain it. Sure you can say hey look at where the world is now and all is evolved, but never forget evolution is a theory, and if it cant back itself, why try to make it? I agree with the last sentence, just in another light, after God created his creation, then changes willoccur, the offspring will not always look the same as the parents. If you want to call that evolution.

Fourth
You explained how they calculated how long ago it was, from the explanation movement of the universe. That's very nice of you, but doesn�t explain what started it, which was my question.

There were once people that thought the world was flat from what they saw, there are people that think the world is expanding from a big bang, okay, back it up.

Thanks for responding, I am not here to make you angry, just want to let you rethink what you believe.
leet4A1

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for a thorough rebuttal.

"about evidence, It is all a point of view, and no not all the evidence points to the big bang, the evidence that doesn't is discarded. Because now a days the big bang is the only accepted theory, so all the things that can be some way used to support the big bang as you say 14 billion years ago will be used."

I ask that you please provide any evidence or knowledge we have of the Universe which refutes Big Bang theory. I'd be very interested to hear it.
You also seem to have ignored the simple mathematics I provided which shows that the Universe must have expanded from a singularity circa 14 billion years ago. The constant I used, H, is an experimentally verified figure, and the maths doesn't lie. This isn't a case of scientists presuming the Universe's age then interpreting evidence accordingly; it is the exact opposite. We have amassed a large quantity of cosmological knowledge, all of which points to a singularity around 14 billion years ago.
--------
"Time is a big thing and evolutionist think if they stretch the time to billions of years thing will appear out of nothing. Well I am asking what started the big bang, and there is no answer, so I was right you can't answer it."
"No one created the creator, because he always was. But the earth wasn't always existing, so therefor it had to be created."

Firstly, we are not talking about the Earth, we are talking about the Universe. More specifically, we are talking about the singularity from which the Universe expanded at the Big Bang. Secondly, this argument of yours, the so-called cosmological argument, is entirely unconvincing and illogical. You say God always was, I say the singularity always was. You say God didn't need a cause, I say the Big Bang didn't need a cause. Occam's Razor suggests that if we must assign one or the other to have always existed, it should be the far less compex singularity.
---------
"Okay, I do not see what you are getting at. Are you trying to prove evolution occurs, because sheep no longer able to reproduce, as well as fruit flies. I would not consider that evolution. If you are trying to say thatputting two animals of the same genes together and matching their offspring generation after generation, the DNA becomes less complex. Please explain your self."

I'm sorry, I was obviously wrong in my assumption that somebody so fervently against the theory of evolution would actually have taken the time to understand it. You mentioned 'microevolution' (i.e. evolution within a species) in your first round, and you conceded that there is indeed evidence for it. What you didn't say, though it's assumed you meant, is that there is no evidence for 'macroevolution' (i.e. species evolving into another), which is just wrong.

Definition: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." [1]

The examples I gave, of the sheep and the fruit flies, are examples of speciation. [2] This is observable, repeatable evidence for evolution, which is what I was getting at last round. Once again, I can find many more examples of observed speciation if you're still not convinced, or better yet have a read of the links at the bottom of this page.
--------
"if evolution can not explain how life first began, why believe it,"

For two reasons:
1. Because how life began has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurs.
2. The overwhelming amount of evidence, and overwhelming lack of counter-evidence. The evidence mounts every day. [3][4][5][6]
--------
"God did it, and If nothing else then God making it because it can not be explained otherwise, why can�t God make everything he is God. God doesn't need evolution he didn't create it man did."

You're correct that how life first arose can not be conclusively said at this stage, but that's not to say it's unexplainable. You're going to have to provide some evidence for God or it is at best an over-complicated hypothesis, as it raises more questions than answers. If God does exist and did create life, all evidence suggests that he does indeed need evolution.
--------
"There were once people that thought the world was flat from what they saw, there are people that think the world is expanding from a big bang, okay, back it up."

Right, and those people were soon shown to be wrong using the scientific method. There were also once people who believed the Magic Rainbow Serpent died to form the Murray River, who thought the Earth rested on a tortoises back, who thought that 6000 years ago God created the Earth in 6 days. Unfortunately for anybody who still believes any of these myths, science has continually and convincingly shown none of them to be anything like the truth.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] - http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4] - http://www.nature.com...
[5] - http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[6] - http://txtwriter.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Emflo

Con

Some other evidence, you can look up.
But Try this the big bang is said to have started from a dot, or blob. And was spinning and spinning when finally it exploded.

Wouldn�t that mean all stars and planets would be spinning the same way.

There are a lot more, please dont hold back to search things against what you think, and open your mind.

With this math, do all the stars move at the same rate? and even though the speed was calculated now, it could change later. Or how are you certain of the speed and direction, what is there wassomething wrong with its calculations.

The big bang needs a cause, it started at one point, God always was, but the universe want always, therefore, must have an explanation of starting. Secondly, by you saying there is no need for a cause reinforces that there has been no logical explanation, created to back it up, therefor making it a belief instead of science because of its lack of evidence.

With the flys, being unable to mate with the other group, were they able to mate with normal, flys who weren't forced into this unearthly condition?

"if evolution can not explain how life first began, why believe it,"

For two reasons:
1. Because how life began has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurs.
2. The overwhelming amount of evidence, and overwhelming lack of counter-evidence. The evidence mounts every day. [3][4][5][6]

objection

I agree there is evidence, and i believe a small amount of evolution has taken place called micoevolution. But if evolution can not support how life first started, then what did start life? and in what form, I believe humans were made humans, with meaning, and and many changes have happened form then till now.

God does not need evolution. God has done such wonderful this for his people, and they try to explain how it never happened. They can do all the explaining they want, and all thearguments they want, teach their explanation in schools, fight over it and maybe kill over it, but the truth is the truth, God created the earth, and all that live in it no matter what you say.

But even the demons fear God and shutter at his name.

I have meet many people who have had healing from God.
A man told he has a couple months to live, from doctors is now living years after.
A man risen from the dead
all the miracles Jesus did in his time, he did to show there is a God.
leet4A1

Pro

"But Try this the big bang is said to have started from a dot, or blob. And was spinning and spinning when finally it exploded.

Wouldn�t that mean all stars and planets would be spinning the same way."

No, this is absurd. I've never heard that the singularity was spinning when it expanded at the Big Bang, and even if it was, galaxy, stellar and planet formation is such a complicated process that what happened at the Big Bang has no bearing whatsoever.
---------
"With this math, do all the stars move at the same rate? and even though the speed was calculated now, it could change later. Or how are you certain of the speed and direction, what is there wassomething wrong with its calculations."

Your argument has really reduced to 'What if Hubble was wrong'? For this argument to be used, it would be necessary for my opponent to find such disproof and provide evidence, or else disprove it herself. She has clearly not done this.
Besides which, the Hubble constant has been verified to a very accurate tolerance, and the maths doesn't lie.
----------
"The big bang needs a cause, it started at one point, God always was, but the universe want always, therefore, must have an explanation of starting. Secondly, by you saying there is no need for a cause reinforces that there has been no logical explanation, created to back it up, therefor making it a belief instead of science because of its lack of evidence."

This is a repeat of my opponent's Cosmological-type argument, and I've dealt with this is previous rounds. If God always was, why couldn't the singularity always have been? If either God or the singularity were to be without a creator, Occam's Razor would suggest it would be the far less complicated singularity.
----------
"With the flys, being unable to mate with the other group, were they able to mate with normal, flys who weren't forced into this unearthly condition?"

You honestly think a group of reputable scientists didn't take things like this into account? They didn't create this experiment to trick you into thinking there's no God, this isn't some conspiracy. The article I linked to on speciation says that these results have been repeated time and time again. The lesson here is that speciation occurs, and therefore evolution occurs.
-----------
"I agree there is evidence, and i believe a small amount of evolution has taken place called micoevolution. But if evolution can not support how life first started, then what did start life? and in what form, I believe humans were made humans, with meaning, and and many changes have happened form then till now."

First, you can stop using micro and macroevolution, as they are all encompassed under the title evolution. As I've shown above, there is solid, repeatable evidence for both, so please stop pretending there's a difference.
Second, abiogenesis =/= evolution. I have dealt with this is previous rounds.
-----------
"I have meet many people who have had healing from God."

I don't believe them and I don't believe you. Sorry. Also, this has nothing to do with the resolution.

"A man told he has a couple months to live, from doctors is now living years after."

Happens all the time. Nothing out of the ordinary at all. Also, this has nothing to do with the resolution.

"A man risen from the dead"
"all the miracles Jesus did in his time, he did to show there is a God"

I don't partake in this particular myth. Also, this has nothing to do with the resolution.
------------
Voters, I have provided several good pieces of evidence to show that the Universe began circa 14 billion years ago with a Big Bang. My opponent has failed to counter this evidence, merely asking 'what if they're wrong'?
My opponent has also conceded that microevolution occurs, and has failed to rebut my evidence of speciation. My opponent's constant reference to abiogenesis clearly has no bearing on this debate. If my opponent wishes to take this path, I would suggest her next debate be called Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution.

I thank my opponent for the debate. Vote PRO
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
@girlforgod21:

Haha owned.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"Evolution is a theory"

Learn the difference between a scientific defintion of theory and a colloquial usage of theory.

"who even said on his death bed that "it was just a theory".

That Darwin recanted evolution on his deathbed is quite simply false.

"Besides, who really wants to believe that we came from an animal that flings their poop everywhere? "

Perhaps you are referring to Chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor of. We are not evolved from.

"Plus, how do you explain the human eyelid?"

The plica semilunaris is small fold of tissue on the inside of the eye. It is the remnant of the nictitating membrane which is present in other animals such as birds, fishes and reptiles. It is rare in mammals - cats have them, take a careful look. The eyelid is a vestigal remnant of this.

"An eye cannot exist without an eyelid"

Incorrect. Variations of the eye exist without one. Our reptilian and fish ancestors had the basis of them them as part of differential development of the eye, which explains why mammalian species do.

"Eyelashes cannot exist without an eyelid, which there is no need for without and eye, which cannot exist without an eyelid. Therefore, intelligent design makes much more sense than evolution"

Eye >> membrane >> mammals > eyelid + hair > eyelashes. You are thinking backwards in your development using the end product as the standard.

"If evolution takes so much time to actually occur, then the eyelid and eye would not have been created at the same time. It just makes no sense."

No. Eye development begins, membrane development for eye, mammals develop, use for membrane diminises, membrane retracts = eyelid + lashes. We don't need eyelashes. Evolution isn't foreward planning and set out to design them.
Posted by girlforgod21 7 years ago
girlforgod21
McBain - It isn't like talking to a brick wall. A lot of creationists are thoughtful and responsive, and ask great questions, some that even stump evolutionists so badly that they never answer the question -- that's because evolution isn't real. Evolution is a theory thought up by Darwin, who even said on his death bed that "it was just a theory". Sure, there is "survival of the fittest" but that has nothing to do with evolving, it has to do with two creatures being different. They didn't necessarily come from the same being. Besides, who really wants to believe that we came from an animal that flings their poop everywhere? Plus, how do you explain the human eyelid? An eye cannot exist without an eyelid - but without an eye, there is no need for an eyelid. Along those lines, eyelashes. Eyelashes cannot exist without an eyelid, which there is no need for without and eye, which cannot exist without an eyelid. Therefore, intelligent design makes much more sense than evolution, meaning it would all have gotten there at once, for specific purposes. If evolution takes so much time to actually occur, then the eyelid and eye would not have been created at the same time. It just makes no sense.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
I love arguing against creationists. It's like talking to a brick wall.
Posted by leet4A1 7 years ago
leet4A1
Oh, and Emflo, can I please ask that you don't vote for yourself? I don't have a phone and therefore can't vote.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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 Molokoplus 7 years ago
Molokoplus
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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 Lazy 7 years ago
Lazy
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by girlforgod21 7 years ago
girlforgod21
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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 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 ToastOfDestiny 7 years ago
ToastOfDestiny
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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 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 Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
Emfloleet4A1Tied
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:07