The Instigator
The_Devils_Advocate
Con (against)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Pro (for)
Winning
52 Points

rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same people

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 8/19/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,294 times Debate No: 5083
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (15)

 

The_Devils_Advocate

Con

I submit that rezzealaux is not the same person as I am. I posit this because if rezzealaux was myself, then he would not challenge himself on this topic. Not only that, but if by challenging himself on this topic, it could reveal himself to be himself. If rezzealaux has two different accounts, then he would not want others to know this and therefore wouldn't challenge himself.
Rezzealaux

Pro

I affirm, that "[R]ezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same people".
(I like to capitalize the R, thanks.)

Definitions here should be pretty self-explanatory. The one thing that does need to be cleared up, however, are the last few words: "the same people". Now this could mean that we're from the same culture, or from the same country, or from the same ethnicity, but going through R1 and his terminology used, the only logical conclusion we can reach is that the resolution really meant to say "[R]ezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same people."

Please note that even though my opponent is CON, he is the one that is putting forth this statement as true (that the resolution is false). If at any point in time you feel that he has not met the burden of proof placed upon him by his claim, you automatically go PRO because my responsibility is only to show that CON is incorrect.

NOTE BEFORE THE LINE BY LINE:
I am aware that I have dissociative identity disorder (more commonly known as multiple personality disorder). I black out sometimes, and others it seems like I'm just watching myself on autopilot, doing things I don't agree with. However, I do know that I am "the original" or "the archetype", so to speak, for every other identity that is currently residing with me. As such, The_Devils_Advocate is most likely one of the separatist identities that live within the body that I generally retain command over: the way he spelled rezzealaux - without the capitalized R - shows that he dislikes my administration. Still, I shall refer to TDA as "he", as referring to both of us using "I" and "me" would be confusing for everyone reading.

"I submit that rezzealaux is not the same person as I am."
> Although we are different personalities, we still share the same body and therefore are the "same people", or rather, the same person.

"I posit this because if rezzealaux was myself, then he would not challenge himself on this topic."
> He obviously doesn't know his tendencies very well. I like putting myself up to the test of interesting and mind-boggling resolutions such as this one, and my debate history shows that I've done this in the past as well (Example 1: http://www.debate.org..., example 2: http://www.debate.org...). Since I am the archetype and he's something that branched off me, his tendencies should also be similar – hence, this debate. His point contradicts the known evidence, so it cannot be upheld as true.
> I am not claiming at I am him. Indeed, I have already stated that we are different identities. What I am claiming that Rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same person in real life – which is, the resolution.

"Not only that, but if by challenging himself on this topic, it could reveal himself to be himself. If rezzealaux has two different accounts, then he would not want others to know this and therefore wouldn't challenge himself."
> How does the revelation happen, exactly?
> And even if it did happen, why would I be afraid about revealing us? I've done it already.
> Why would I care if others knew or not? My attitude on this site has already shown that I care a lot more about what I think about myself than what others think of me (I ridicule people a lot if they deserve it; just look around the new debates section for a few minutes and you'll see me doing it), so why would it matter if other people knew about us if it meant that I got a mental orgasm in the process?

I look forward to the separatist's response.
Debate Round No. 1
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

To my esteemed Rezzealaux...I thank you for this wonderful debate and wish you the best of luck. Truly.

Let us begin with the resolution. Your understanding of what the resolution should be is correct. I apologize for the mistake. So from henceforth we shall indeed be debating "Rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same person."

I would like to point out here that even though you say that I am one of your schizophrenic personalities, this has yet to be proven. You say that because I proposed the topic than I have the burden of proof. But I am not the only one with the burden of proof. You too have one. On one side I must prove that we are not, and on the other, you must prove that we are. To only have one with a burden of proof is extremely abusive and destroys what intelligence one might recieve from a debate such as this. If I were the only one with a burden then you could speak total jibberish and still win since I hadn't met my burden. Instead...I would like to posit to the judges the possibility of voting for who upholds their burden the best. That is who they should vote for.

Now for the real meat of the argument. Your main point is that we are the same person/body, but different personalities. I would like to say that even if we were to share the same body, the fact that we have different personalities makes us different people. The definition of person ranges wildly from the actual physical entity, to the social interactions that one has, and even to the thought patterns one has. All of these make up what a person is. You meet only one of those criterion. You admit that we have different thought patterns as you say that I dislike your administration. This has significance also in my social interaction with you. So this meets two criterion on what a person is. According to this argumentation, we are two different people even though we may share the same body. Not only that, but you say that my not capitalizing your name shows my disrespect and dislike of your administration. If that were the case, then I would have continued to show my dislike by not capitalizing it. But I have changed it because I did not know there was a preference. I apologize.

Now for discussing what schizophrenia is. Schizophrenics are extremely hard to diagnose. In fact, in order to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, you must be showing symptoms for at least six months. Seeing as this is our first encounter and you say that you haven't known about me, shows that you clearly haven't been showing enough signs to be diagnosed with schizophrenia. Not only that but schizophrenics have severe depression, apathy, they may be mute for extremely long periods of time, they may become extemeley agitated meaninglessly, social withdrawal, and many others. (facts obtained from wikipedia. please don't argue legitimacy unless you absolutely must.) Let's go down the list.
1. Depression - you claim that by ridiculing people you may get a "mental orgasm." Depression is the period in which happiness is rarely found if ever.
2. Apathy - if you didn't care about anything, then you surely wouldn't have accepted this debate as it wouldn't have mattered at all to you. Apparently there is something that you value in this and therefore must not be apathetic.
3. Mute - you may not talk in real life, but I imagine that to be false. Not only that but the reason a schizophrenic becomes mute is because they don't want any social interaction. Debating someone involves social interaction.
4. Meaningless Agitation - You are an extremely calm person when debating. Looking at your past debates, you have yet to lose your cool in them. You show no signs of agitation meaningful or meaningless.
5. Social withdrawal - evenn online interaction is considered social interaction.
All of these symptoms you are failing to show. And you definitely do not meet the timeline of these symptoms. All of these show that you are not in any way schizophrenic.

Now let's discuss something that I feel will be in the next round of argumentation. You will say that we share the same body so are indeed the same person. But by making the claim that you are schizophrenic doesn't even apply here. Most often, alternate personalities in schizophrenics take on a new body posture and facial expressions. They change everything from their voice, the way they speak, the way they interact, the way they carry themselves and who they are friends with. They become different people. Often times they are polar opposites and hate the other identity. So even in schizophrenia we wouldn't be the same person.

But you aren't schizophrenic as I have already proven. So we can't even share the same body. Another argument proving my point is your usage of the english language. You say that you use "he" because it is less confusing. But from the very beginning you have talked about me in the third person. You find it natural to speak about me as a different person. Because I am. I'm a 6'6 male, brown hair and eyes, and single...ladies...;) The fact that you correct my spelling of Rezzealaux while claiming that I do that on purpose is contradictory to your purpose. If I was another identity of yours and you realized this, then you would not have corrected it as you would have known I was doing it out of dislike for you. But you correct it in order so that I may know how you want it spelled. This shows me that you know we're not the same person.
Rezzealaux

Pro

My regards to you as well. But I'm gonna win you back, The_Devils_Advocate.
After all, I am your maker.
And this is not Blade Runner.

As TDA says, "Rezzealaux and The_Devils_Advocate are the same person." is the meaning of the resolution. I was trying to say this last round, but I forgot to edit the quote and I didn't realize it until I looked over my post.

"I would like to point out here that even though you say that I am one of your schizophrenic personalities"
> Hold it right there. This is not what I claimed in my R1, nor did I give any reason to believe as such. In fact, I clearly state my position: "I am aware that I have dissociative identity disorder (more commonly known as multiple personality disorder)." Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a completely different disorder than Schizophrenia. As my opponent defines from Wikipedia, I shall define from there as well. Now, if DID and Schizophrenia were the same disorder, we would be able to find them in the same article. This is not the case, as they have two entirely different articles (DID: http://en.wikipedia.org..., Schizophrenia: http://en.wikipedia.org...). Now that we've cleared that up…

"this has yet to be proven. You say that because I proposed the topic than I have the burden of proof. But I am not the only one with the burden of proof. You too have one."
> This point that I have a burden of proof as well is true, to some extent, but not the amount that TDA says. The burden of proof I have is to show that I have DID. However, this cannot be done as I would be required to bring up a legitimate medical diagnosis, put my real name up on this site, and even then there's no real way to distinguish whether or not I am the person I claim to be nor is it possible to tell whether or not the medical form was just photoshopped. In other words, the burden of proof my opponent has placed upon me is impossible.

"To only have one with a burden of proof is extremely abusive and destroys what intelligence one might recieve from a debate such as this."
> If someone claims a UFO landed in their backyard, they have the burden of proof to show some evidence that it really was there. Passerby's and friends don't have a burden of proof to show that a UFO didn't land there, because they're not the one making claims - however if they do make claims, then they must prove what they say as well. I have the burden of proof on my arguments, TDA has the burden of proof on his arguments. However, since TDA created and put forth the resolution, he has the burden of proof from that as well, meaning that even if I lose all my points, he must still show some proof that his side is indeed correct in order to win. If such a burden of proof is abusive, abuse is irrelevant because truth overrides. Intelligence is not a matter to worry about, as we would gain it from debating about the burden of proof.
> Also, "abuse" is undefined.

"Now for the real meat of the argument. Your main point is that we are the same person/body, but different personalities. I would like to say that even if we were to share the same body, the fact that we have different personalities makes us different people. The definition of person ranges wildly from the actual physical entity, to the social interactions that one has, and even to the thought patterns one has. All of these make up what a person is. You meet only one of those criterion. You admit that we have different thought patterns as you say that I dislike your administration. This has significance also in my social interaction with you. So this meets two criterion on what a person is."
> TDA mentions three definitions: physical entity, social interactions, and thought processes. He then says that I meet only one of those criteria. The thing he doesn't realize, though, is that this already gives me the win of the entire debate. Let's look to the definitions of "noodle" – particularly, these two definitions: "a narrow strip of unleavened egg dough that has been rolled thin and dried, boiled, and served alone or in soups, casseroles, etc.; a ribbon-shaped pasta" and "a fool or simpleton". Now, if I go into the kitchen right now and get some Cup Noodles, I could call those noodles. This does not fit the second definition, but that's how definitions work – if something fit one of the criteria, it's sufficient to be called [whatever word]. Therefore, since he does not argue that we share the same body, we are therefore the same person, and therefore you vote PRO.

"Not only that, but you say that my not capitalizing your name shows my disrespect and dislike of your administration. If that were the case, then I would have continued to show my dislike by not capitalizing it. But I have changed it because I did not know there was a preference. I apologize."
> Thank you very much. Now come back to me and I'll give you cake and a hug ^w^

"Now for discussing what schizophrenia is."
> You can throw all of this out. I do not have schizophrenia, I have DID. This explains why I don't know him very well, as one of DID's symptoms is amnesia due to other personalities. That in turn would explain the blackouts I talked about in R1.
> You can throw out the next paragraph too.

"Another argument proving my point is your usage of the english language. You say that you use "he" because it is less confusing. But from the very beginning you have talked about me in the third person. You find it natural to speak about me as a different person."
> Yes, referring to TDA with words like "he" is indeed third person and indeed is less confusing. However, this "argument" is not an argument at all, as it does not show how we are not the same person.
> The "natural" part is an unbased assumption. In fact, I find it heavily devastating that I need to keep referring to TDA as a totally separate entity – I'd like for unity among all the identities that reside in this body, but my usage of language in this debate for the sake of being clear is not helping my purpose much at all.

"The fact that you correct my spelling of Rezzealaux while claiming that I do that on purpose is contradictory to your purpose. If I was another identity of yours and you realized this, then you would not have corrected it as you would have known I was doing it out of dislike for you. But you correct it in order so that I may know how you want it spelled. This shows me that you know we're not the same person."
> Knowing that TDA was doing it out of dislike for me does not mean that I will not correct his mistakes.
> My opponent claims that this shows that "[I] know that we're not the same person." This is false. All this shows is that I realize we're different identities, and that I realize that even though TDA is separatist, he is still a part of me. I still care about him <3333

Since there has been no evidence to show that TDA and I are not the same person,
And since every point he has put forth has been utterly defeated,
And since I still care about him even though he's now a separatist, (LOVE YOU :D)
You vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 2
The_Devils_Advocate

Con

To my esteemed Rezzealaux,

I appreciate your timely response to my arguments. This has been a wonderful debate, and I am glad that you accepted it. But without any further ado,(I like using that word...ado) I will begin.

I too shall begin with the argumentation on burdens as that is the way it has begun the last few rounds. You claim that you have a burden just not what I have said it is. Let's take a look at what you say your burden is, and it is here my good man that you have made your biggest mistake. You claim..."The burden of proof I have is to show that I have DID." Now realize that this is not the burden I placed upon you. The burden I specified was to show that we are the same person. Not that you have DID. So in saying that you must show you have DID but cannot do that, you say that you cannot uphold your burden. When you cannot uphold your burden then you must lose the round. Take a look at my previous statement that whoever upholds their burden the best should win. If I uphold my burden ever so slightly, then I must win as you cannot uphold the burden that you place upon yourself. But not only do you fail to meet that criteria, you fail to meet mine which is valid in itself. The resolution of a debate is the arena upon which our argumentation must fall on. The job of the affirmative is to uphold the resolution, and the job of the negative is to reject the resolution. It doesn't matter who proposed it. So Rezzealaux, you must in fact prove that we are the same person, and I must prove that we are not.

You say that if someone claims to have a UFO that has landed in their backyard the burden of proof is theirs. But if someone disagrees with them, they also have a burden of proof. That being that there is no UFO in their backyard.

And abuse is a common word that everyone knows what it means. It's contextually defined. Especially after I specify about losing what education may be lost.

Now for DID vs. Schizophrenia (that would be an interesting fight...). Many of the symptoms are the same including depression, social withdrawal, and attitudes that are opposite from the other. This comes from your own evidence. So use the same argumentation here as there, and since you didn't argue against it, it still stands.

Now let's talk about how DID works and what it takes to fix it. According to your wikipedia article, one of the most common ways to cure DID is to reunite dissociated identities. So if we are in fact the same person and you realize this, I should soon dissolve into the past. I ask voters to wait to vote and see if I continue to debate on this site. If I do that is evidence enough to support my claim and burden.

You also make another mistake. You say that you still care about me. Once again according to your article this is false. Dissociated identities of those with DID often are completely opposite and do not like each other. Just one more error you have made in your last round.

Now to clarify the argument I made about your usage of the third person regarding myself. This does in fact show how we aren't the same person. You regard me as a seperate entity to yourself. By showing difference you acknowledge difference. This is a huge argument with feminists. They will say that by showing there is a difference between male and female, it is discrimination. Feminism calls for true equality between humans, not the sexes. So by acknowledging me as something different than yourself you are acknowledging my seperate entityness (entityness?...maybe it's a word, if not then it shall be soon as I will continue to increase it's use.)

So the reasons that people should vote for me is as follows:
1. When you realize that I have continued to debate on this site, you realize that we aren't different identities of the same body as once the host realizes this, they stop being different identities.
2. My opponent recognizes my being a different entity.
3. The most important reason to vote for me today is that my opponent has failed to uphold the burden that he has placed upon himself and the burden that is naturally his from accepting this debate. When that happens, you look to the argumentation that I have provided that shows that he probably doesn't have DID, that I am not another identity of his, and that he recognizes my entityness (you didn't think it would come out twice in this debate did you?).

Thus with my arguments over, I would like to urge you to vote for the con being myself, and wish Rezzealaux the best of luck in his final argument and in his future rounds. Thank you ever so much and have a wonderful day.
Rezzealaux

Pro

Sorry, TDA.
I would put more hearts in here but I ran out of space Dx

"You claim..."The burden of proof I have is to show that I have DID." Now realize that this is not the burden I placed upon you[…]"
> Correct, this is not the burden he placed on me. This is simply how the burden of proof works: You claim X Y Z things, you need to show X Y Z things. My opponent claims two things: The resolution, and what he says in his case. The burden he did place on my is refuted by the UFO example, which I will get to momentarily.
> My opponent has the burden of proof placed on him by the resolution he presented. If he fails to meet his burden then he loses the debate – this much TDA understands. What he doesn't understand is that in this debate, there are two layers for burden of proof. The most important / FIRST level is, of course, the resolution. The burden of proof of the resolution rests solely on whoever instigated the debate. The UFO comes in here – If anyone went and started up a debate that said "A UFO landed in my backyard", then that person must show some substantial evidence in order for him/her to win the debate. The contender, or the person that takes up the challenge of the resolution, LACKS such a burden of proof, as he/she is not claiming anything – unless they make an argument that's other than burden of proof, which leads us to the next tier of burdens. The SECOND level of burden of proof is on each of the points we make. This is basic argument construction: claim, warrant, impact. "Warrant" is essentially burden of proof. With this in mind, these are the burden of proofs in this debate: FIRST LEVEL: TDA, SECOND LEVEL: TDA, Me. Even if you disagree with everything I have said in this debate whether it be my DID or anything else and think that I have met none of the burdens placed on me by the arguments I've made, if TDA does not provide you with any evidence on how we are different people, you still default vote for me because he fails to meet the resolution.
> Abuse is not a voter anymore, as we have had this nice sub-debate that was dedicated to burden of proof (Indeed, the subject that has taken up the most space of each of my past two rounds). And since burden of proof still holds true and there are no other refutations TDA makes against it, every point I've made above stands true.
> As for evidence for my DID, I already gave reasons as to why that even if I got together all my forms and scanned them in or took a picture, none of it would matter because this is the internet, where anything and everything has the probability of being photoshopped and therefore dismissed. This was dropped by TDA.

"Now for DID vs. Schizophrenia (that would be an interesting fight...). Many of the symptoms are the same including depression, social withdrawal, and attitudes that are opposite from the other. This comes from your own evidence. So use the same argumentation here as there, and since you didn't argue against it, it still stands."
> I'd like everyone to pause for a moment and notice that what TDA claimed last round as "The real meat of the debate" has now been dropped by him.
> Done? Now we'll be using the same format from the definitions refutation to take out this point. He says that "Many of the symptoms [of DID and Schizophrenia] are the same", and goes on to list some of those symptoms. The problem with this, however, is that I don't need to have all of those symptoms in order to be said to have DID. Last round I gave an example about how a Cup Noodles can be said to be filled with noodles even though it only qualifies through one of the acceptable definitions. This was dropped by TDA. So, we can use the same line of reasoning here – I don't need to have all of the symptoms that DID can cause in order to be diagnosed with DID, I only need a certain few. Those certain few that are required are not "depression, social withdrawal, [or] attitudes that are opposite from the other", as TDA would want you to believe, but rather,
"•The presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states, each with its own relatively enduring pattern of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and self.
•At least two of these identities or personality states recurrently take control of the person's behavior.
•Inability to recall important personal information that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness.
•The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., blackouts or chaotic behavior during Alcohol Intoxication) or a general medical condition (e.g., complex partial seizures). In children, the symptoms are not attributable to imaginary playmates or other fantasy play.[1] A patient history, x-rays, blood tests, and other procedures can be used to eliminate symptoms being due to traumatic brain injury, medication, sleep deprivation, or intoxicants, all of which can mimic symptoms of DID.[39]" (From Wikipedia)
Therefore even though I didn't refute TDA's argument itself, I destroyed its foundation and therefore the argument cannot "stand".

"According to your wikipedia article, one of the most common ways to cure DID is to reunite dissociated identities."
> I never claimed that we would actually merge back together. Disregard everything under this point.

"Once again according to your article this is false. Dissociated identities of those with DID often are completely opposite and do not like each other. Just one more error you have made in your last round."
> Refer to the official requirements for diagnosis and the definitions refutation I reiterated earlier.
> His loss of this point also means that I still actually care about him <333

"This does in fact show how we aren't the same person. You regard me as a seperate entity to yourself. By showing difference you acknowledge difference."
> Again, I acknowledge difference of identities, not that we are entirely different in the sense that we have different physical bodies. This refutation covers "feminism" as well.

"1. When you realize that I have continued to debate on this site, you realize that we aren't different identities of the same body as once the host realizes this, they stop being different identities."
> This is unsourced and not in the Wiki article.

"2. My opponent recognizes my being a different entity."
> This does not mean that we are different people; we are still the same person. He dropped this "main meat" last round.

"3. The most important reason to vote for me today is that my opponent has failed to uphold the burden that he has placed upon himself and the burden that is naturally his from accepting this debate. When that happens, you look to the argumentation that I have provided that shows that he probably doesn't have DID, that I am not another identity of his, and that he recognizes my entityness (you didn't think it would come out twice in this debate did you?)."
> This was explained earlier in the Burden of Proof explanation. Even if I fail everything I've attempted to prove, you still vote for me at the end of the day because my opponent fails to prove the resolution – the highest level of the burdens, and a statement which he has claimed.

So, in short:
1) We both have burdens of proof, but the resolution's burden is on TDA. He has not fulfilled this burden, and does not even attempt to do so. This destroys his attempt to win based off my supposed lack of achieving my burdens of proof, regardless of if I have actually failed or not.
2) TDA dropped "the definition of person" sub-debate, which means that as long as any one of those definitions are fulfilled, we are the same person – and one has been met; we are both within the same physical body.
3) He has not in any way shown that my DID symptoms are contradictory to my claims.
4) I still love TDA even though he's a separatist. (<33333)

Vote PRO and convince TDA to come back to me~ :D
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Well, that makes sense, Haruhi is after all fictional.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Haruhi is God.

Enough said.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"

Ragnar_Rahl
Clearly you haven't been around the internet much, we exist in large numbers. 2D > 3D"

I wasn't claiming people with your particular taste didn't exist in large numbers. Nor did I imply it. I implied, instead, that people who seek to subtly spread that taste to a wider audience(i.e. evil mastermind loli fans, as opposed to normal loli fans) do not exist in large numbers.

"Ragnar_Rahl just called Haruhi Suzumiya evil."

Wait what?

"
Plus, Haruhi is attractive, and if you don't think so I've got bad news for you."

Did I say otherwise so far (not terribly certain which one is which but...)? Of course the validity of the word "attractive" is heavily dependent on context, that is, dependent on what it attracts.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
No mic. Haven't ever needed one, though the idea is looking nicer by the day because of the games I play.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
I'll get a hold of you later tonight.

Do you have a mic?
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
I'm on AIM pretty much all the time I'm on the computer... which is pretty much all the time.

Unless I'm playing Combat Arms.

Until school comes.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
My email is just my username at gmail.com.

I sent you an email.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Yar. I got AIM. i'll give it to you through email.

post your email address here,
then send me an email requesting my SN or whatever.

>>> rokasomeeATgmail.com
Because "The following exception(s) occurred: 1. Email addresses are not allowed in your comments."
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Way to mess up my characters debate.org

Y U DO DIS?
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
D&#333;mo arigat&#333;, Mr. Roboto

Anyway

Rezzealaux, do you have AIM or any other IM service?
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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 Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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 Nox 8 years ago
Nox
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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 The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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 Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Cooperman88 8 years ago
Cooperman88
The_Devils_AdvocateRezzealauxTied
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:30