The Instigator
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
66 Points
The Contender
Ste93
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

9-11 was not a Muslim happy-hour

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 15 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,855 times Debate No: 13603
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (55)
Votes (15)

 

m93samman

Pro

Somewhere in the abyss that is Debate.org, Ste93 made an outlandish claim, stating that 9-11 was a day of celebration for Muslims around the world because they believed the terrorists were going to heaven, and that the Muslims would be following them. I thank Ste93 for accepting this debate, and hope he will live up to the expectations I have of him for this debate.

To begin, I'm going to lay down the framework for the debate.

---Content---
o Rules
o Definitions
o Paper Toss
o Sources
---------------

o Rules

The rules are going to be simple. We are going to have, from the second half of Round 1 on, a civil debate that involves, clearly, the Islamic faith, and their beliefs on what Ste93 believes is apparent martyrdom. I have just three rules.

1) All references to the Qura'an, Hadith, or otherwise must be accurately cited.

2) No arguments from semantics should be made.

3) All the definitions I provide are not debated.

o Definitions

- Muslim: A believer in or follower of Islam [1]

- Islam: The monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Qura'an [2]

- Qura'an: The sacred writings of Islam revealed by God to the prophet Muhammad during his life at Mecca and Medina [3]

o Paper Toss

With that, I'll hand the debate over to Ste93, and look forward to an interesting debate. I got the idea of paper toss from Sports Center's program "Around the Horn", in case anyone was wondering. My opponent can and should provide the opening arguments in Round 1 so we can get started.

o Sources

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Ste93

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

I wish to redefine my opponents definition of the Qura'an: The sacred writings of Islam that were supposedly revealed by God to the prophet Muhammad during his life at Mecca and Medina (no evidence has been offered for the validity of this claim).

Firstly, I do not claim that all Muslims celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but some undoubtedly did.

I am now going to look at the motivation for this attack. Why did these people think it was ok to murder thousands of other people? I am going to argue that their faith (Islam) is responsible. I shall agrue that their faith inspired them and gave them the courage to do this. No prizes for guessing what the their last words were.

The following is taken from Soorah an-Nisaa'4:75 - "And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, illtreated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help."

And this quote from Mohammad from Al Bukhari vol. 4:196 - "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

Surah 61:4 - "Lo! Allah loveth them who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure."

Now, of course not all Muslims take a literal interpretation of the Koran (for which we should be grateful), but you can't deny that some people do. Even if it is a minority, some people read passages like these and can then justify terrorism. Muslims are promised "rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine delicious to those who drink; and rivers of clarified honey (clear and pure) therein for them is every kind of fruit; and forgiveness from their Lord." When they die, Muslims genuinely believe that they will enter this paradise (despite the lack of evidence).

Those who fight in the name of Allah are promised more in heaven than those that do not, as I hope my opponent, who has presumably read the Koran, is aware of.

It is not difficult to understand this, when we see how intolerant Islam can be. Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by Ayatollah Khomeini (who offered his own money as a reward). This occurred because Rushdie published a book - The Satanic Verses (which I recommend). The ayatollah had not read this book (indeed, he probably couldn't read). He forbade every Muslim to read it and succeeded in igniting ugly demonstrations around the book, all because someone dared to have an opinion different to his own. I hope I don't need to go into too much detail regarding the issue of the Danish cartoon scandal, to which the Muslims reacted extremely violently.

I do not think the 9/11 terrorists were inherently evil people (like Hitler and Stalin were); they genuinely believed that they were doing good in the name of Allah. To quote the Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg: "religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it we would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

A lot of people may say in defense of Islam, that these people were extremists; most Muslims do not behave like this. Indeed, but what they fail to realise is that moderate religion is a breeding ground for religious extremists. Innocent Muslims may transpire the teachings of the Koran to the next generation, who are then at liberty to act on their own interpretations. Teach someone that a book is true that claims they will be heavily rewarded for killing non-Muslims (there are many such teachings in the Koran) and you should not be surprised if they go and commit terrorist attacks: their holy book advises such behaviour.
Debate Round No. 1
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

---Content---
o Observations
o Arguments
o Conclusion
o Sources
---------------

o Observations

To begin, one of the rules laid down in the first round was that my definition was not debated. Ste93 provided an alternative definition... to which there was absolutely no outcome. But that is besides the point.

The reason I have an "observation" section is to point out how quickly abusive this debate has become. What started as the claim "It was celebrated by many Muslims as a great victory because they believe that the terrorists are going to paradise and they will be joining them too." [1] (currently page 3 of the comments) When asked to defend this claim, he threw random verses of the Qura'an out in the comments section without having a clue as to their context, but then accepted the debate. I was reluctant to challenge him expecting to have to respond to 8000 characters' worth of mistranslated and contextually-skewed verses. Instead, I got something worse. Ste93 has chosen to limit the scope of the debate ONLY to the extremist interpretations of the Qura'an that are condemned by every Muslim scholar on the planet. To quote Ste93 from this debate in particular:

"Firstly, I do not claim that all Muslims celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but some undoubtedly did."

"Now, of course not all Muslims take a literal interpretation of the Koran (for which we should be grateful), but you can't deny that some people do. Even if it is a minority, some people read passages like these and can then justify terrorism."

"I do not think the 9/11 terrorists were inherently evil people (like Hitler and Stalin were); they genuinely believed that they were doing good in the name of Allah."

What I now have to defend is the terrorist ideology as a result of my opponent, which I refuse to do. Instead, we will respond to the claims made to prove that the verses demonstrated are NOT violent, and that all terrorist interpretations are simply misunderstandings of an otherwise perfect revelation.

o Arguments

Faith is supposedly the inspiration for Muslim terrorism. When we look to the quotes my opponent has brought, we can analyze them one at a time and see how fallacious it is to simply quote the most complex book in the world.

"And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, illtreated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help.""

I'm guessing my opponent didn't even read this verse? It says, in other words, "You all must defend the oppressed people who ask for God's mercy." Literally; look at the verse. "...what is WRONG with you that you FIGHT NOT... FOR THOSE WEAK, ILLTREATED AND OPPRESSED... whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from... OPPRESSORS" (capitalization for emphasis, as I cannot bold).

Next, my opponent cites hadith. "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah." I have now learned that even Hadith is taken out of context; I thought it was just the Qura'an people defame in contextually skewed grounds. Here is the whole Hadith my opponent cited.

"Narrated Abu Huraira: When the Prophet died and Abu Bakr became his successor and some of the Arabs reverted to disbelief, 'Umar said, "O Abu Bakr! How can you fight these people although Allah's Apostle said, 'I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, 'and whoever said, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', Allah will save his property and his life from me, unless (he does something for which he receives legal punishment) justly, and his account will be with Allah?' "Abu Bakr said, "By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between prayers and Zakat as Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders). By Allah! If they refused to pay me even a kid they used to pay to Allah's Apostle, I would fight with them for withholding it." 'Umar said, "By Allah: It was nothing, but I noticed that Allah opened Abu Bakr's chest towards the decision to fight, therefore I realized that his decision was right."" [2]

This situation is referring to (as stated in the first line) after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) died, a number of people became apostates and left Islam. The conversation between Abu Bakr and Umar, both Caliphs, referred to how they should be dealt with. To those who do not know, back in the day the government was not separate from religion. So, leaving the religion is equivalent to leaving the government; in other words, treason. Treason, I hope my opponent would agree, is punishable. The problem is that this Hadith is not longer temporally relevant because we don't have a government that is connected with the religion.

The final quote my opponent provides is "Lo! Allah loveth them who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure." It is well explained here [3] Basically, it is one of the many ways in which we can fight for Allah's cause through "jihad". I'm reluctant to use this term, but I will explain it. Jihad means struggle, if I say (in Arabic) "ana am ijtahid" it means "I am struggling". There are several types of jihad, which are sometimes used in English literature to describe the plot type. Man vs. himself, Man vs. Man, etc. In this case, what we see Allah asking us to do is to unite as one in our jihad; to struggle for him, and to defend Islam as the "umma" we are all united under. I hope I have explained this well enough; if not, I will try to do so more extensively in the next round.

As regarding everything else my opponent refers to; let me define martyrdom. It is "death that is imposed because of the person's adherence of a religious faith or cause". [4] Let us not confuse this; in Islam, those who are "sha'hed" are martyrs, and they are people who died in DEFENSE of Islam or their nation. Succinctly, to be a praised martyr in Islam is to die in defense of your nation, not in an offensive terrorist plot.

o Conclusion

What we are left with is really little hope at a con ballot, pro being the only way to go for the following reasons.

1) The terrorist ideology is a false interpretation.
2) Martyrdom is not equivalent to terrorism.
3) Contextual skew and misinterpretation does not justify extremism.

My opponent has failed to uphold the burden of proof initially placed upon him, so we're left with one more round in which we can hope that this is done. With that, I'll hand the debate over to con and remind him that, as many verses as he cites, I can justify. Quoting the Qura'an hundreds of times fallaciously does not amount to an argument.

Also, I thank the readers for their time.

o Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org...

[2] http://www.muslimway.org...

[3] http://www.islamonline.net...

[4] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Ste93

Con

My opponent has suggested different meanings to the passages I quoted and stated that some of them were taken out of context. But what does it matter? You personally may interpret things this way, but that doesn't mean every Muslim should or indeed every non-Muslim. These passages could be taken as meaning kill people. If Allah condemned this type of behaviour so much, he would not have made his book so ambiguous and subject to pretty much any interpretation.

It is a fact that 19 Muslims committed the 9/11 attrocity. I ask my opponent then to offer
an explanation as to why they would do this. Also, if Islam did not exist, do you think the twin towers would still be standing.

It is also a fact that many Muslims reacted violently when a cartoon depicting Muhammad was published in a Danish newspaper. Is this not a sign of intolerance?

Also, are Al Quaeda muslims or not?

In Christianity, there are people even U.S. congressmen) who would consider a major terrorist attack, or perhaps a major natural disaster, as a god thing, as it suggests the second coming of Christ (it does not take much thought to realise how conter-productive and dangerous such an attitude can be). Similarly there were Muslims that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. Al Quaeda for a start.

My opponent (rather defensively) seems to be suggesting that Islam could never be a cause for evil in the world. I'm afraid history would disagree. Would the world be a better place if people weren't tied to ancient scriptures and dogma? I think so, it'll be interesting t see how my opponent may argue against this.
Debate Round No. 2
m93samman

Pro

Thank you for your response.

Since the debate has become extremely bland, I'm just going to respond to my opponent's criticisms, as there is nothing much left for me to do.

"My opponent has suggested different meanings to the passages I quoted and stated that some of them were taken out of context. But what does it matter? You personally may interpret things this way, but that doesn't mean every Muslim should or indeed every non-Muslim. ***These passages could be taken as meaning kill people.*** If Allah condemned this type of behaviour so much, he would not have made his book so ambiguous and subject to pretty much any interpretation."

I'd like to focus our attention on the sentence between stars. My opponent is absolutely wrong; no where does the Qura'an mean to kill people at any one point. To have such a ridiculous interpretation, one must deliberately abuse the teachings of the Qura'an by taking verses out of context or mistranslating them to come up with what is modern-day terrorism. As an example, there is a verse that is commonly cited that says "slay the non-believers wherever you find them," or something along those lines. The problem is, this verse comes from a historical event- the "non-believers" in that passage is very specifically referring to the hostile family of pagan Mecca, the time period during which Muhammad was receiving revelation. Is a nation supposed to recite verses to a violent and armed Godless people like the Meccans were, who literally had a price on Muhammad's head? No, they would fight back, and I hope my opponent would agree.

"It is a fact that 19 Muslims committed the 9/11 attrocity. I ask my opponent then to offer
an explanation as to why they would do this. Also, if Islam did not exist, do you think the twin towers would still be standing."

First, the 9-11 conspiracy theory leaves us all dubious as to whether or not the above is a fact [1]. I hope my opponent has heard of it. Even if it was the 19 "Muslims" my opponent claims it was, like I said, they aren't Muslims, and they don't follow Islamic doctrine or the teachings of the Qura'an. They are violence loving extremists who are militantly mobilized; they kill other Muslims, how does that make ANY sense? Because they're NOT Muslims.

"It is also a fact that many Muslims reacted violently when a cartoon depicting Muhammad was published in a Danish newspaper. Is this not a sign of intolerance?"

This is false. It seems my opponent didn't read enough about the event, but here is the truth behind it [2]. As a tl;dr: there is a group known as 'RevolutionMuslim' who claimed to be the violent outcry of Muslims when, in fact, not one Muslim really even cared about SouthPark's cartoon or the Danish newspaper. Meanwhile, this group was run by 2 'Muslims'; in fact, they were 2 zionist Jews pretending to be Muslim who smeared the name of Islam in America, and quite successfully if I may say so myself. At the end of the day, though, my opponent's claims are false. Islam is actually the most tolerant religion in the world that claims "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (Qur'an 2:256), read more about it here [3].

"Also, are Al Quaeda muslims or not?"

No.

"In Christianity, there are people even U.S. congressmen) who would consider a major terrorist attack, or perhaps a major natural disaster, as a god thing, as it suggests the second coming of Christ (it does not take much thought to realise how conter-productive and dangerous such an attitude can be). Similarly there were Muslims that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. Al Quaeda for a start."

I'm not sure anything mattered up until the last two sentences. My opponent claims Muslims celebrated 9-11, but has provided no evidence. Anyways, for the celebrations I found these articles to more accurately depict the situation [4] [5]. To summarize what's in the articles, "Muslims" who celebrated were the more extreme, but the large majority of the Islamic world was very sympathetic and condemned the attack.

"My opponent (rather defensively) seems to be suggesting that Islam could never be a cause for evil in the world. I'm afraid history would disagree. Would the world be a better place if people weren't tied to ancient scriptures and dogma? I think so, it'll be interesting t see how my opponent may argue against this."

I'm afraid history would disagree with my opponent. The crusades, initiated by the crumbling Byzantines, brought Western Europe over to Jerusalem to reconquer it violently from the Muslims. The tale tells that the city was knee-high in blood; the women were raped, then killed along with the children and elderly. Meanwhile, when the Muslim tactician and skilled army general known as Saladin took his position at the age of 20, he reconquered Jerusalem. He is renowned for his benevolence and tolerance [6]. Here is an important passage from the article.

//In return for an attack made by the Crusaders of the Kerak on Muslim pilgrims in 1187, Saladin moved his army to northern Palestine and defeated the much larger Crusader army in the decisive battle of Hettin (July 4, 1187). Three months after this battle, Saladin captured Jerusalem. Unlike the Christians 88 years earlier, who made Jerusalem a bloodbath, Saladin did not loot, murder or seek revenge for the Muslims. He spared the lives of 100,000 Christians and allowed Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem after its fall. In this benevolent act, Saladin was simply emulating Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet reentered his birth-city of Mecca. When Muhammad returned to Mecca with ten thousand people, he entered it without any bloodshed. He told its people with his famous words: "Go about (wherever you please), for you are set free."//

My opponent has insufficiently upheld his burden. I urge a pro ballot, and thank everyone for their time.

---Sources---

[1] http://www.911truth.org...

[2] http://www.loonwatch.com...

[3] http://www.missionislam.com...

[4] http://politics.usnews.com...

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[6] http://www.islamic-study.org...(salahu_ad-deen).htm

The above link is not working. Type in everything up to the ".org" then add "/saladin_(salahu_ad-deen).htm"
Ste93

Con

First of all, Al Qaeda are Muslims: http://en.wikipedia.org.... My opponent, being a Muslim, should know this. The fact that he has denied it shows that he is not being objective.

"no where does the Qura'an mean to kill people at any one point. To have such a ridiculous interpretation.." Why is it ‘ridiculous' to interpret "fight and slay the pagans" (Surah 9:5) as ‘fight and slay the pagans'? You may not interpret it this way, but claiming it to be ridiculous is a defensive assertion.

My opponent appears to be claiming that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy, I ask him to provide valid evidence. Note that Al Qaeda accepted responsibility. Also, read the following (wikipedia):

"Within hours of the attacks, the FBI was able to determine the names and in many cases the personal details of the suspected pilots and hijackers mohamed Atta, from Egypt, was the ringleader of the 19 hijackers and one of the pilots. Atta died in the attack along with the other hijackers, but his luggage, which did not make the connection from his Portland flight onto Flight 11, contained papers that revealed the identities of all 19 hijackers and other important clues about their plans, motives, and backgrounds. By midday, the National Security Agency had intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies.
On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt (Atta), and one from Lebanon.
The FBI investigation into the attacks, code named operation PENTTBOM, was the largest and most complex investigation in the history of the FBI, involving over 7,000 special agents. The United States government determined that al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, bore responsibility for the attacks, with the FBI stating "evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable".The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the 11 September attacks.
Author Laurie Mylroie, writing in the conservative political magazine The American Spectator in 2006, argues that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his family are the primary architects of 9/11 and similar attacks, and that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's association with Osama bin Laden is secondary and that al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the attack is after the fact and opportunistic angelo Codevilla, of the same magazine, agrees with Mylroie, comparing Osama bin Laden to Elvis Presley. In an opposing point of view, former CIA officer Robert Baer, writing in Time magazine in 2007, asserts that George W. Bush Administration's publicizing of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims of responsibility for 9/11 and numerous other acts was a mendacious attempt to claim that all of the significant actors in 9/11 had been caught."

And you claim there is no evidence that ‘this is a fact'?

"Islam is the most tolerant religion in the world." Seriously? Is that why Muslim leaders ordered the public execution of two homosexuals in Iran?

"Like many other Islamic countries, Iran enforces the religious sharia law, which allows for the execution of children, including girls aged nine or older and boys 15 and older." (wikipedia). Yes, very tolerant.

"To summarize what's in the articles, "Muslims" who celebrated were the more extreme, but the large majority of the Islamic world was very sympathetic and condemned the attack." This is exactly what I said. I did not claim that all Muslims celebrated, but that some did. You have just confirmed my entire argument.

"I'm afraid history would disagree with my opponent. The crusades, initiated by the crumbling Byzantines, brought Western Europe over to Jerusalem to reconquer it violently from the Muslims…" Just because Muslims were treated bad, does not mean that they have not acted immorally. I have already shown how many Islamic countries condone the execution of children.

I think my opponent has misunderstood my point. I claimed that some Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attacks, which he himself has demonstrated.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
LOL!!!
-Me
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
"Yarrrghhh, God hath commanded me to maketh oil prices fluctuateth!"

-Bush
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
The war is definately some kind of unjustified crusade, whether it's religious or just about the oil, it's wrong.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@bluesteel: Damn, I had no idea Bush made that claim. I thought it was because of all the bin Laden videos he received... Thanks for the insight.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@INH

It's all about narrative.

One group of Muslims in Iran celebrate 9/11; it makes the front page of the NY Times, and suddenly "Islam is at war with America."

Bush admits to starting an aggressive and unjustified war because God told him to (http://www.commondreams.org...) and yet somehow the Iraq War is not framed as a Christian crusade.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
RFD:

S&G - mostly a grammar issue on Ste93's part

Most convincing - Ste93 loses from round 1 because he accepts a BOP, that Muslims around the world celebrated 9/11, that he doesn't meet with evidence. He should have cited a few articles about Muslims who watched the attacks on TV and celebrated.

Also, Ste93 loses the well-crafted argument on m93's part that Muslims who violate the true teachings of Islam are not really Muslim. Ste's response is that they self-identify as Muslim, but this doesn't answer m93's argument.

Sources - Ste has an over-reliance on wikipedia and doesn't footnote his references to Koran/Hadith.

---------

This debate has made me curious what the world would be like if Iran and North Korea were extremist Christian nations and whether the Christian religion would be blamed for their actions. m93 seems to be convincing me that it is only a coincidence that the most extremist individuals happen to have been born into Islam. Islam happens to be in a lot of regions that are not nice to live in, creating the conditions for strife, corruption, and terrorism.

Africa happens to meet the same standard - not nice to live there. Yet Christianity takes no flak for the Christian militias that perpetuate human rights abuses. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Resistance_Army Guess it doesn't make a good story for the media because it goes against more common narratives.

I also happen to believe that I'm more likely to be murdered by a Christian for being pro-choice than by an Islamic terrorist.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
@InsertNamehere Okay. A lot of people do go nuts, I'm mostly sympathetic. There's a lot of pressure especially after 9/11. I would say the western international relations with the middle east have messed it up, that and considering the fact that most of the middle east was part of ottoman empire till 90 years ago. The middle east is like africa light. A lot of political problems.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@Chengste: I like how you only read what you want to, like a monkey foraging for flees in the hair of a bald man. You just don't see it, and I don't want to explain it to you either because of how ignorant you've demonstrated yourself to be after your debate with Mirza.
Posted by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
@m93samman

Chengste: Whether or not it was a conspiracy is beside the point of the debate.

You crack me up, did you forget your own point in the debate?
"First, the 9-11 conspiracy theory leaves us all dubious as to whether or not the above is a fact"

Then you state that the idea oc conspiracy was not part of the debate??

Wow next thing you will say is the US crashed the planes in the building, when you start to believe that I have lots of land for sale that I would be happy to sell you.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@INH: "They continuously wonder why the west hates them so much..."

really?

@governments_kill: you've earned my respect, and very quickly might I add.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
m93sammanSte93Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by LilWayneisGod 6 years ago
LilWayneisGod
m93sammanSte93Tied
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 InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
m93sammanSte93Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by nickd 6 years ago
nickd
m93sammanSte93Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
m93sammanSte93Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 6 years ago
wiseovvl
m93sammanSte93Tied
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 vickynoh 6 years ago
vickynoh
m93sammanSte93Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by ogopie 6 years ago
ogopie
m93sammanSte93Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by governments_kill 6 years ago
governments_kill
m93sammanSte93Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
m93sammanSte93Tied
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:60