The Instigator
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Double_R
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

pro should have won this debate

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
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 17989
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

truthseeker613

Pro

Pro should have won the following debate:

http://www.debate.org...

No semantics arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting I hope to have an enlightening debate.

My main argument will be based on the last argument made. See end R4a.

My argument is simple, This last argument was 100% dropped by con.

I await my opponents response.
Double_R

Con

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. I hope to fulfill his desire for an enlightening challenge, which I am confident I can provide. To avoid confusion, especially in later rounds I will refer to my opponent as just that; “my opponent”. Anytime I use the words “Pro”, or “Con” I am referring to the debate we are discussing.


My opponent states that his argument was 100% dropped as his support for the resolution. The argument he referred to was R4a. Yet I can not find any argument in R4 entitled “a”, so I am left with no argument to refute. With that said, I will now move on to my counter argument, the first point of which will further address this. I anticipate that this debate will focus heavily on the substance of the arguments for God and Judaism, but I will start with a few points about debating.


I assume that for this debate we will be discussing the question of “most convincing argument”. DDO has set out guidelines to how this is determined which asks us (the voters) to analyze 3 different aspects of the debate(1):


Organization - Which debater organized their arguments the best, creating an easily understood and readable path to follow?


This is a major factor in any debate. Substance is obviously very important, but it doesn’t matter what you say if no one can understand you. To be more convincing you must first gain the readers attention. One of the issues with Pros argument is that it was very unclear. There were very few contentions, summaries or conclusions. Paragraphs ran way to long and were not spaced leaving an additional challenge to the reader.


Organization is extremely important because it helps the reader focus their attention on understanding the argument as opposed to figuring out what the argument is. Contentions and paragraph separation for example allow the reader to better understand the context of what is being said, which is always crucial in communication. It also allows the reader to go back and analyze a point that they may feel the need to read again. In this debate Con used Pros quotes to separate ideas and make his points effectively. Pro appeared to lump his arguments together leaving the reader to have to work much harder to understand what argument is being made. This point clearly goes to Con.


Analysis - Which debater, on balance, did a better job of clearly explaining their arguments and of exposing the weakness of their opponent's arguments?


This point is highly subjective so I will use Pros quote taken straight from the debate (round 5) to illustrate my opinion:


“I apologize for all of this I am extremely frustrated at my inability to get this message across. I am trying every way I can think of. Perhaps it can only be grasped with time or age. If anyone has any specific problems please put it in the comments section and I will respond”


I think my opponents need to make this point says it all.


Refutation - Which debater critically analyzed their opponents' arguments the best and developed clear, appropriate, and understandable responses?


This is the main point I found from this debate. To understand the substance of what was said I will start Pos resolution, clarified in round 1:


I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament.”


Pro made his burden very clear. In this debate he is to provide evidence to support that God dictated the Old Testament, which of course can only be valid if there is valid evidence that God exists. Throughout this debate Pro showed what he perceived to be evidence which was all adequately refuted by Con. Thus, Pro failed to satisfy his burden and therefore Con rightfully won this debate.


I have more to say on that, but at this point I will leave it to my opponent to show which parts of my conclusion were inaccurate, so that we can keep this debate focused on the disagreements between my opponent and I.


(1) http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Pro

Rebuttal:

To clarify R4a. Refers to the 1st half (instigator) of Round 4.

Even if this was not understood, I wrote the "last argument made".

Organization:

Organization obviously goes to con.

Analysis:

My opponent shows one argument were pro expressed his frustration at not being able to get his point across, as evidence that pro failed to express his ideas clearly.

It is not evident whether the problem was pros explaining, or cons understanding. (It takes 2 to tango).

With regard to analysis and refutation, I return to my main point. The last argument, for clarity sake I will past the argument here so there can be no further misunderstandings:

R4

"...I would now like to get to some other points particularly a combination of prophesy regarding the uniqueness of the Jew with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies.
Survival of the Jew: I would like to open with a quote from mark twain in his work entitled "Concerning the Jew":
"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, and no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?"
We see from these quotes the impressive eternity of the Jew. This has been foretold in the bible Genesis 17:7, Malachi 3:6, Leviticus 5:18, Jeremiah 5:18.

For the next quotes I give credit to simpletoremember.com:
"I will insist the Hebrews have [contributed] more to civilize men than any other nation. If I was an atheist and believed in blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations ... They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their empire were but a bubble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe..."
- John Adams, Second President of the United States
(From a letter to F. A. Van der Kemp [Feb. 16, 1808] Pennsylvania Historical Society)
"If we were forced to choose just one, there would be no way to deny that Judaism is the most important intellectual development in human history."
- David Gelernter, Yale University Professor
"Some people like the Jews, and some do not. But no thoughtful man can deny the fact that they are, beyond any question, the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has appeared in the world."
- Winston Churchill - Prime Minister of Great Britain
There are more quotes but I choose these, as I am running out of space. The "Jewish light unto the nations" was foretold in Isaiah 42:6 end, ibid.60:3 geneses 12:2, 3.
Next is the correlation between fertility of the land of Israel and its inhabitation of the Jews.
Again I quote mark twain I don't have space to quote it in its entirety so the reader is encouraged to look it up "Innocent Abroad or the new pilgrim's progress", vol.2 pp.216-359. Mark Twain wrights of the desolation and unsuitability of the holy land. As we see today the land of Israel is now an agricultural land following the return of the Jews. The sources for this prophesy are Leviticus 26:32, 33 duteronamy29:21, 22 Jerimia9:10 Ezekiel33:28, 29 all predict the desolation of the land. The return is predicted in Deuteronomy 30:3-5 and its following inhabitation and fertilization in Ezekiel36:8-11. We see here the prediction and realization of the Jews miraculous return followed by the lands mysterious revitalization..."

R5:

"...b) Regarding the entire 2nd half of what I wrote in R4 (the 1st half was response), regarding accuracy of predictions made in the bible regarding the uniqueness of Jews (there may have been more I only had room for 3) my opponent did not respond at all."

Further more on the basis of this argument pro should win sources.

I now turn it over to my opponent
Double_R

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time to provide an argument from which 85% was copy and pasted from his previous debate. It would be helpful if my opponent would also take the time to explain why his argument affirms the resolution, but without a more in depth explanation I can only take the very simple position he explained earlier which appears to be: Pro should have won this debate because Con conceded (the end of) “R4a”. I will first affirm my own contentions and then move on to refuting this claim.


Who made the most convincing argument?


In the previous round I showed that when determining the most convincing argument DDO asks us to analyze 3 different aspects of the debate:


Organization: My opponent acknowledges that this point goes to Con


Refutation: I stated that Con sufficiently refuted all of Pros arguments. My opponent did not challenge this claim. Apparently the only disagreement is about the arguments that were not refuted and therefore conceded, which I will get to.


Analysis: My opponent refutes my contention here by explaining that it is not evident whether the problem is Pros explaining or Cons understanding. I showed the quote as support for my own opinion that it was Pros explaining. I will not go into explaining this in detail because I feel it is not necessary. I will however point out one thing that was very important about this quote, and inherent in many of Pros quotes from this debate:


"I apologize for all of this I am extremely frustrated at my inability to get this message across.”


“I therefore ask the reader to read and think carefully and objectively, and I will try to explain”


“I hope I have sufficiently clarified this point. I can elaborate in the next round if necessary.


Again, the question is about who made the most convincing argument. My opponent must understand that there is a certain level of psychology at work in answering this question. Even if the problem was Cons understanding, the issue for Pro is that he is taking the blame for it (in the 1st quote) and validating his own lack of ability to convince the reader with statements like this. A convincing argument is made with confidence, not hope that the reader will understand.


Based on organization, analysis, and refutation this debate is a clear victory for Con.


Conceded Argument


My opponent claims that because of the argument he posted above which was conceded, Pro should have won the debate. Let’s take a look at the conceded argument and how it affects the status of the resolution. To do that I will once again post Pros resolution:


I argue that there is evidence for the validity of Judaism. mainly that there is a god, and he dictated the old testament.”


Again, Pros burden is to show that there was evidence for the validity of Judaism, which can only be the case if there is a God. Con took the position in this debate that there is no valid evidence for Judaism because there is no valid evidence for God. Being that Con adequately refuted all of Pros other arguments, the only way these quotes would mean anything is if they could be considered evidence for God.


The reason Con did not respond to Pros arguments above was because there was absolutely no need to. What my opponent has posted are a set of quotes from various people. The oldest quote provided is from John Adams who was born in 1735. A quote from a man born 1700 years after the events of the bible allegedly took place, is in no way evidence for God.


Conclusion


Con clearly defeated Pro in every aspect of what voters are asked concerning who made the most convincing argument. The only argument my opponent has made to affirm his resolution here is that Pros argument was conceded, yet this argument had nothing to do with the resolution.

Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his conduct. I do thank him for his response.

Analysis:
my opponent focuses on pros words "my inability to explain" as evidence that it was pros lack of explaining not cons lack of understanding. I will proceed to refute the Prof:

a) POLITNESS: pro was simply being POLITE. It is a custom on ddo for members to be polite, (at least in debates).
In fact one of the points is given for conduct. It would not be very good conduct to write my opponent does not understand what I am saying. This is simply the most polite way of expressing the point that the argument was not understood.
b)Furthermore it is not uncommon in the English language to speak this way. For example " The teacher could not get the student to pay attention. Doe not necessarily mean the teacher was at fault, it could mean that the student was simply not willing to pay attention.
c)Prof that indeed pro was not taking the blame comes from the next sentence.
"Perhaps it can only be grasped with time or age." Implying that it was cons inability to grasp the concept not pros inability to explain.
d)lastly it is clear from the back and forth that con did not follow this argument by stating the opposite off what was written:

con in R4 quoting pro ( or rather misquoting pro)
" "Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions.""

What pro really wrote was: (now this is a copy past quote from R4)
"...A national experience of god by hundreds of thousands of witness ancestors..."

con clearly did not understand as he missed 2 fundamental points a) it was an experience of god not just "Judaism" .
b)It was many from the beginning never "just a few".

As far as the rest of the underlined portions they do not imply in any way that pro is at fault for being unclear.

Conceded Argument:

3 Fulfilled prophecies are indeed evidence of both god and Judaism.

You might want to argue that they weren't fulfilled or they weren't prophesied or what not.

Being that, that wasn't done. The argument stands and pro wins.

My opponent writes:

"...What my opponent has posted are a set of quotes from various people..."

Okay. I will cut and past the argument again, not the whole thing but just the introduction, please read carefully:

"...I would now like to get to some other points particularly a combination of prophesy regarding the uniqueness of the Jew with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies..."

Not just "a set of quotes". It seems that this misunderstanding is what led to my opponents next point:

"The oldest quote provided is from John Adams who was born in 1735. A quote from a man born 1700 years after the events of the bible allegedly took place, is in no way evidence for God."

The quotes as I wrote were to provide evidence that the prophesy about the future was realized.

((also the events were closer to 3000 years ago.))
Double_R

Con

In the previous round I made a case that Pro had the most convincing argument based on organization, analysis, and refutation, which is what the question is based on. Throughout this entire debate my opponent has only refuted one part of one of the three questions that make up this question as a whole. Even if I give him that (which I won’t) he still loses the “most convincing argument” points and therefore his only argument at this point as we head into the final round, is that Pro should have won because of the concessions.


Politeness

Although not necessary I will just make two quick points about this. Yes it is good to be polite, but being polite does not mean taking responsibility for being unclear. The words “my inability” do just that. There were also many other phrases in the debate that had this kind of tone, some of which I listed above. My opponent’s only rebuttal was this:

As far as the rest of the underlined portions they do not imply in any way that pro is at fault for being unclear.”

I only stated that the first quote implied Pro was unclear, the other two statements were examples of how Pro was not convincing in his arguments because he did not display any confidence in what he was saying.

Conceded Argument

"3 Fulfilled prophecies are indeed evidence of both god and Judaism.”

There are two main issues with this argument:

1.
Lack of any organization made this argument extremely difficult to understand. Even after reading it a few times I still have a hard time going back to see where the quotes end and the argument begins. Debate arguments must be clear. Pro can not make his arguments difficult to understand and then pounce on Con for not understanding what the argument was and therefore not responding.

2.
More importantly, Pro did not even make the argument my opponent claims. Pro had the burden of proof to provide valid evidence of God and Judaism. For his argument to have accomplished this he would have had to have done the following:

A) Show the quotes
B) Explain how the quotes qualify as fulfilled prophecies
C) Explain how fulfilled prophecies are evidence of God

For the first quote, the only arguments made by Pro besides the quote are as follows:

“I would now like to get to some other points particularly a combination of prophesy regarding the uniqueness of the Jew with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies…”

“…We see from these quotes the impressive eternity of the Jew. This has been foretold in the bible Genesis 17:7, Malachi 3:6, Leviticus 5:18, Jeremiah 5:18.”

In this set, Pro does not explain how his quotes are fulfilled prophecies. Simply saying “the impressive eternity of the Jew” is not an explanation. Next we have his second set of quotes:

Mark Twain wrights of the desolation and unsuitability of the holy land. As we see today the land of Israel is now an agricultural land following the return of the Jews. The sources for this prophesy are Leviticus 26:32, 33 duteronamy29:21, 22 Jerimia9:10 Ezekiel33:28, 29 all predict the desolation of the land. The return is predicted in Deuteronomy 30:3-5 and its following inhabitation and fertilization in Ezekiel36:8-11. We see here the prediction and realization of the Jews miraculous return followed by the lands mysterious revitalization..."

In this portion Pro did not even provide the quote but instead a reference for the readers as to where they can find it. Pro can not expect Con to research a quote that was never provided in order to refute it. And in neither of these examples did Pro explain how a fulfilled prophecy is evidence of God.

It is not a conceded argument if Pro did not make the argument to begin with.

Conclusion:

My opponent has clearly conceded that Con made the more convincing argument throughout the debate and only falls onto his argument that Con conceded his "prophecy" argument. But I have clearly shown how it should not have been considered a conceded argument. Victory to Con is justified.
Debate Round No. 4
truthseeker613

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and providing a most insightful debate. I have probably learned more from my opponents responses in this debate, than any other. Thank you.

Rebuttal:

"Throughout this entire debate my opponent has only refuted one part of one of the three questions that make up this question as a whole."

I take issue with this statement as I wrote a 4 point argument in the beginning of R4, (In this debate.) addressing analysis,
of these my opponent only responded to one.

Politeness:

My opponents point here is irrelevant as this was only one of 4 points that I made, the other 3 stand. (Further more if you look at point b my opponents point regarding point a is shown to be false.)

Analysis and refutation are also related to the dropped argument.

Conceded argument:

"1. Lack of any organization made this argument extremely difficult to understand."

a) the point of organization was already conceded to.

b) If con did not understand the argument he would have said as much.

2. More importantly, Pro did not even make the argument my opponent claims.

That's imposable the claim I made was a direct cut and past quote from the original debate.

"In this set, Pro does not explain how his quotes are fulfilled prophecies. Simply saying "the impressive eternity of the Jew" is not an explanation."

Being that the last line of the quote from mark twain was, " All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?". It is quite obvious how the quote shows the fulfilment of prophesy.

"In this portion Pro did not even provide the quote but instead a reference for the readers as to where they can find it. Pro can not expect Con to research a quote that was never provided in order to refute it."

Then Con would have to make the point that you just did.

"And in neither of these examples did Pro explain how a fulfilled prophecy is evidence of God."

I thought it obvious. Since con did not challenge the obvious connection. There was no need to explain.

Conclusion:

It was not bec. my opponent did not understand the evidence. If that were the case the thing to do would be to write that. But no he did not respond at all. Either bec. he had no response or bec. he simply did not read it.
Double_R

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, I am glad I could help him see few different things he had not seen before. I wish him good luck in this debate and in future ones.


Politeness


In the previous round I made a statement that my opponent had “only refuted one part of one of the three questions that make up this question as a whole”. The question I was referring too was about the most convincing argument. The three questions are organization, analysis, and refutation. The only part my opponent challenged is politeness, which is only one small part of analysis.


My opponent takes issue with the fact that I only responded to 1 of his 4 statements. The reason I responded to any of his statements on this was to be polite. Because my case on organization and refutation were not challenged they are conceded, and even if we give my opponent analysis he still loses 2 out of the 3 questions that make the most convincing argument, therefore he loses most convincing argument. I did not need to uphold my case on analysis because my main point was already sustained. However I decided to go into politeness anyway to give my opponent a tip for future debates. It does not affect my case against the resolution.


Conceded Argument


My opponent states that my claim was “imposable”. My claim was that “Pro did not make the argument my opponent claims”. I clarified in the beginning that “my opponent” is referring to Pro in this debate, and “Pro” is referring to the debate in question. The point I was making was that the arguments were never made in the first place. Copying and pasting incomplete arguments do not change the incompleteness of those arguments.


My opponent states that Mark Twain’s immortality of the Jew comments explain how the statement is a fulfilled prophecy. I suppose this could be the case if Jews were actually immortal. Since immortal means that they live forever, I guess he is saying that Jews don’t die. Since I know a couple of Jews that have died this statement appears to be false. My opponent apparently feels that an obviously false claim is a fulfilled prophecy. If there is some other meaning to this phrase my opponent or Pro never explained it.


My opponent states that Con should have made the point I did concerning the fact that Pro never provided the quote he based his argument on. Con would have been better off for pointing this out but it was not necessary. You can not convince any reasonable reader that a quote is true without providing them the quote. There is no reason for anyone to vote for Pro based on this.


My opponent states that he thought the connection between a fulfilled prophecy and evidence of God is obvious. In fact it is not. This point alone is highly debatable. Pro can not expect the reader to agree with his premises, for the premise in any debate is likely where the disagreement is.


Conclusion


As we can see this debate has boiled down to miniscule points that make little difference in who should have won the debate. My opponent conceded most of my case against why he did not make the most convincing argument, and relied mostly on his case that Con conceded Pros argument. But Pro never successfully made an argument for Con to have conceded. The instigator has the burden of proof, and in the debate in question Pro has the responsibility to draw all of the necessary connections to make his argument in order to expect a lack of refutation to be considered a concession, which he did not.


My vote justifiably goes to Con. (I am optimistic yours will too)

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
RFD:

Organization was conceded by Pro, Refutation was dropped by Pro. Given that almost all of Pro's case is "dropping a point means the other person wind," I give refutation to Con. Analysis Ill call a draw for simplicity, but at this point Con is still ahead.

The only issue is whether the 4th round argument being dropped warrants a win in original debate.

Pro doesnt even explain why the dropped argument matters (if you a drop a crappy argument it might not have any impact on the debate) until R4, while Con writes why it DOESNT matter in R3. On top of that, Con actually does a pretty good job explaining why it doesnt matter (I also had to reread you original R4 to figure out what argument you thought was so important before seeing your copy/paste).

Honestly seems like a pretty clear win for Con.

That being said, it was definitely bad form to drop the argument in the original debate. But really, a new argument in the 2nd to last round being dropped is probably not going to be the most important thing in round, especially when the argument is unclear to begin with and doesnt even come close to clearly affirming the Rez.
Posted by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
You want me to judge TWO debates at the same time???

WE NEED TO GO DEEPER
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
R4a means the 1st half of round 4.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
@Double_R

r4a
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
And then you'll just post another debate about how you should have won this debate as well, if you lose.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
I guess all members like truthseeker will just keep on posting new debates about former debates, so it all gets redundant and unproductive.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
truthseeker613Double_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: And Here I am!!!
Vote Placed by Raisor 5 years ago
Raisor
truthseeker613Double_RTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling/Grammar to Con because Pro's formatting in the original debate made my head hurt (I think thats fair if hes making me read two debates). RFD in Comments
Vote Placed by MassDebator255 5 years ago
MassDebator255
truthseeker613Double_RTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: There now you are!!!
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
truthseeker613Double_RTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to stop trolling.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
truthseeker613Double_RTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides used the same source--the original debate. However, Double_R should be congratulated for his good contention on the issues of the debate. He at least proved that a) Con did not need to address them, and his failure to was insignificant to the entire debate b) Pro never made a complete case in the first place...He also wins points for Spelling and grammar
Vote Placed by jd6089 5 years ago
jd6089
truthseeker613Double_RTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did an amazeing job. But I feel an unanswerd argument, is a conceded argument, and counts as agreeing. I see no way around that. Con made great points against the droped evidence if con of origional debate did that, he would have been right.