The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
philosphical
Con (against)
Losing
42 Points

Abortion is Morally Justified

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
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,339 times Debate No: 7075
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (19)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

I affirm the resolution: termination of the fetus is morally justified. I will go through a few definitions and a few simple opening arguments.

[Definition - Abortion]
http://www.medterms.com...

In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus.

=====
Argument - Fetus is not a Person
=====

By definition, murder is the intentional (first degree and second degree) killing of a human being usually with malice afterthought (meaning not an accident)[1].

I argue that a fetus is NOT a person because it is not self-aware and it's brain is not fully developed (i.e. it's personality or "personhood" has yet to form).

=====
Conclusion
=====

Stemming from that one argument, I argue that the right over abortions should be placed into the mother's hand. Since she is carrying the fetus, who in itself is not a person, she is allowed to choose whether or not to abort it.

---References---
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
philosphical

Con

Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over.
About 4,000 babies are killed everyday. No, this is not due to disease, SIDS, or even mal-nutrition. 4,000 living beings are killed everyday due to abortion. This is one of the most controversial topics in America. Many people even chose their president based on their view. But what I wonder is, how can the murder of a living being possibly be so controversial? Abortion should be considered murder, immoral, and illegal.
Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus. Abortions are most commonly performed between the sixth and twelfth week of pregnancy, where conception occurs at week two and birth occurs at week forty. Abortions are also performed routinely up to sixteen weeks and then less often into the later months of pregnancy. And what is the definition of murder? Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings.

Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being.

Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining?

Is a doctor who performs a Caesarean Section delivery creating a life where there was none before?

If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins? If there is any uncertainty, would you rather murder than not murder?

Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers?

An egg and sperm are each alive even before they've joined in fertilization. Each of your body's cells are alive, but they don't have independent legal protection.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and I hope we have a good one.

>>>Life Begins at conception, when the fetus is killed, its life is over.<<<

Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder?

>>>About 4,000 babies are killed everyday.<<<

FETUSES.

>>>How is this any different then abortion? Sure, abortion involves the killing of a fetus or an embryo, but in reality a fetus and embryo are forms of life and should be considered human beings.<<<

Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being?

>>>Many people will argue that the fetus and embryo are not considered human beings, since they have only begun to form into a human being.<<<

Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware).

>>>Should I be permitted to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger, just because I convince some people you are either not alive, or your 'quality of life' is not worth sustaining?<<<

This can be broken down into two parts:
1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there.
2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy.

>>>If you believe murder (the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong, who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?<<<

Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument.

>>>Less than 1% of abortions are performed for reasons of rape or incest. What is the driving motivation behind promoting them? Is it profit for the providers?<<<

Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics.

=====
Conclusion
=====

My opponent's primary argument relies on the premise that murder = taking life. This is simply not true. As I've stated before, killing plants is not murder and yet a plant is alive. My opponent has completely dodged my argument: abortion is morally justified because a fetus is not self-aware thus granting it personhood.
philosphical

Con

thankyou mr skeptic for this interesting debate round.

first you say "Who ever said life was the category we are basing this debate on? We kill many things that are alive, like plants. Would someone who picks a flower out from the ground, sniffs it, then throws it away be charged with murder?"

life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion. and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans.

next you say "Ridiculous statement. Not all forms of life are human beings. Is a dog a human being? Is a plant a human being?"

again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion.

next you say "Perhaps, but I did not argue this. I argue that the fetus is not a person, i.e. hasn't a fully functioning brain (until it's self-aware)."

yes i understand what you ere saying. the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive. if they have the intent to grow and live, just like anyone else, it should be considered murder to end their life. should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction?

Next you say "This can be broken down into two parts:
1. You are threatening my life by saying I'm not alive? Contradiction anyone? But also, I never used life as a criteria, so bad analogy there.
2. I never used the "quality of life" as an argument. So again, bad analogy."

1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion.
2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy.

next you say "Personhood. I doubt you have read my argument."

first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?'
second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living.
so all in all who is it really who has refused to read the others case?
no offence mr.skeptic, but i don't think accusations like that are justified with out any evidence.
so again i will say "who has the authority to decide when a human life begins?"

Next you say "Irrelevant since I never used this as part of my argument; I'm well aware of the statistics."

sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :)

Conclusion: seeing as my opponent dropped two of my arguments, it must mean he agrees with both. (silence is compliance) and i would like the voters to remember that. also remember that i have argued EVERY point of his. again i would like to remind you that we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant. plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it. MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living. so again the fetus is alive when it is concieved.
me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me.
thankyou and i look forwar for the next round
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for a speedy response, but I have to say that his argument are completely off-topic. He mixes up the words "life" and "person" so much that it seems he does not know the philosophical definition of a person. Until he can even approach cleaning up his mess (and then refuting my arguments), the vote goes to PRO.

>>>life was the category of this debate round the second the fetus was destroyed in an abortion.<<<

I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive.

>>>and are you going to compare human life to a plant? if you were to do that you could say it is alright to kill any man just as it is to kill a plant. plants are not human. we shall not compare them to humans.<<<

EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious.

>>>again were talking about human embryo's. you can take it however you like, but remember this is a debate on human abortion.<<<

*Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary.

>>>the point of this statement was to show that a fetus and embryo ARE alive. but thoughts don't always make somebody alive.<<<

I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD.

>>>should we go kill every stillborn out there because they simply have no thought reaction?<<<

...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead.

=====
The two part response
=====

>>>1. exactly your proving my point. it is a contradiction. one that should not be made, and me putting a gun to your head would be no different from an abortion. thankyou for expanding the true intent of my words. and again, life and quality of life became the issue the second the fetuses life became endagered by an abortion.<<<

If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

>>>2.you didn't use the quality of life arg. i did. good analogy.<<<

No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman.

>>>first of all you have one argument, that we have been debating this whole round. 'is the fetus a person?'
second of all i have given plenty good reasons to show a fetus is living.<<<

*facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate.

>>>sorry sir but it became relevant the second you used the resolution "abortion is morally justified, meaning you must prove it is justified in all cases. me seeing that you dropped this argument tells me that you agree with it, and that should be held on note for the voters. and i used it as part of MY arguement, so there should be some kind of obligation to refute it as i have refute any point you have made. but any ways one arguments dropped for me :)<<<

You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use.

=====
My opponent's conclusion
=====

I will go through little snippets of my opponent's argument to demonstrate the incredible "logic" he displays:

>>>we are not comparing plants to human life, because you wouldn't kill a man just because it is alright to kill a plant...plant life is not relevant to abortion. however do keep in mind that however irrelevant it seems to me, i still argued it.<<<

What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides.

>>>MY opponent has not given me any info as to when a fetus can be concieved as actually living.<<<

LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON.

>>>me telling you your life is not important because you are not a live would be a contradiction just as my opponent pointed so gratefully for me.<<<

Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason.

=====
Conclusion
=====

I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time.

VOTE PRO.
philosphical

Con

mr skeptic i am sorry you are unsatisfied with this debate. i think you are a very good opponent despite the disagreement we have in this debate. with that said i will jump into then.

first you say "I never used life as a measurement for justification in this debate. I used PERSONHOOD. To be a person is to be self-aware, thus implying one has a fully functioning brain. This is much more distinct that simply being alive."

i understood that you used personhood as a topic in your argument. and i refuted it wholeheartedly. but just beacuse i am neg i cant bring up a couple points of my own? (ones that got left untouched btw)

next -""EXACTLY. But that's what YOU DID. You said a fetus is life, abortion is killing life, so therefore abortion is wrong. Basically, you have stated that killing life is wrong. But life is a broad category. Life INCLUDES animals and plants. Unless you give a non-arbitrary reason for why humans, a form of life, should have "higher" or "more" rights than an animal or plant, your argument is fallacious.""

Humans have more rights than plants do because we are the dominant species and we ar generally more important. to us humanity is more important because we strive to live here and surivive among our fellow man daily. just like a plant does to survive everyday. to us our lives hold more value than the plants. to the plant, their lives mean more to them. I am not saying that their lifes aren't essential, but are theirs more important than ours? you could risk your life saving a human being because to you their life is important. but would you risk your life saving a plant? and the samee would go for a plant too. so again the plants life is essential, but its not of our species and less important to US than a human is.

next you say- "*Sigh* you are refuting your own argument. I said "is a dog a human being" to show how fallacious it was of you to say that killing life is bad, thus abortion is bad. You're justification is too broad, and includes non-human animals and plants. Unless you justify against eating veggies, you're argument is arbitrary."

again as i am sure you didn't understand but i will say it again. OUR life human life, is more important than a dogs is. to us. If you wanted to argue from the other angle you could say that eating anythig lving is bad, which is just ridiculous. HUMANS life is more important to us as human beings. not to the plants or the dogs. but to US.

next you say-"I NEVER USED LIVING AS A JUSTIFICATION. I USED PERSONHOOD"

I KNOW THAT!! TRUST ME YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT HARD TO READ BUDDY. considering the fact that it is your only argument. funny how i am the neg and you are putting down all my points instead of me putting yours down. (oh yeah because there was only one) again I used living as a justification so its your job as pro to show how the con is wrong and you are right. and the con job is to prove the con is right and you are wrong. but everytime you hear the word 'life' in my arguments you turn tail and run from it.. so i was hoping that maybe in this round you would finally get up and argue it. but apparently not... oh well, another argument dropped. or the same one dropped again.

Next -"...haha. A stillborn is a dead fetus via miscarriage or upon birth. You can't kill something that's dead."

no buddy a still born is not dead. a stillborn is a baby who is born without thought process. slightly lower than retardation, and a step higher than dead. nice try though.

Next-"If you agree that it's a contradiction, then it's YOUR statement that is contradiction. You can't threaten to kill something that is dead. Can you threaten a rock with it's life? Of course not, that's ridiculous."

i am a bit confused about this part. here i was arguing about life being concieved as life. I dont know where you are coming at with the whole rock issue. Again if you believe the rock is alive, it is alive. not in reality but in peoples perspectives, and this is why they kill abortion. because in their minds they want to think it is okay to have one, so they tell themselves and every one else that it is dead so they have an excuse to kill it.

Next-"No, it's a sh*tty analogy because I never used "quality of life" as an argument, and your original response was an attempted REBUTTAL of mine. Therefore, you have committed a strawman."

nice vocabulary. i am sure that will hold for voters ha ha. and although it its the cons job to refute your case, the con is still allowed to bring up points of their own. if you think its is not a good argument tell me why. argue against it.dont just blow it off like you have been doing.

Next-"*facesmash*. Just because something is living DOES NOT MEAN it's necessarily a person. Your failure to see this difference is so naive and trivial that I can't believe it's been like this the entire the debate."

ha ha i find it funny how you can get so mad over a debate. again like i said "who's life is more important, the humans or the plants?"

next you say-"You say that rape and incest account for only 1% of abortions. You then go on to say what is the "driving motivation behind promoting them", or whatever. Obviously, this would be relevant IF I WAS JUSTIFYING ABORTION because of rape and incest cases. You can't construct a rebuttal of an argument I never use."

i know you never used it kid. i did. i am supposed to prove that abortion is wrong in at least one case. which is here. and you dropped it. thanks.

My first conclusion:
you said "What is it, does life matter or not? Because you seem to say both sides."

no i have not said both sides. i have said human life is more important. for the third of fourth time now

You say "LIVING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN BEING A PERSON"

because like i said you concieve whether you want it to be a person or not. its still a potential life, therefore a human being. and living. make any excuse you want to kill it, its still a living human being.

you say "Yes, a contradiction on YOUR PART. Those who are sensible, just read that closely. Telling someone their life is not important because they AREN'T ALIVE? Their life wouldn't be important because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE. Similarly so, I NEVER USE the life reason."

aren't alive in your eyes. thats what the whole argument was about. percievement. you can sit there and find every excuse to say that it is not alive where i can say it is. it wont matter. but either it had the potential to be. it had every same course of life to take as you would have as a fetus. to take that away from the world would be just as murder.

My opponents conclusion: "I'm sorry to say, but my opponent's argument is completely illogical and filled with strawmans. He hasn't even come to the understanding that living isn't necessarily make you a person - which I have you used as a measurement of justification for abortion. My opponent seriously needs to pay attention next time."

ilogical? how? because you didnt want to argue half the points i made, and the one argument you did have you keep attacking from the same side and same angle? whose case is really filled with holes? and yes for the fifth time now i have come to the understanding that living does not mean human. human fetus = living. and if you read any of my arguments which i doubt you understood, you would realize that. And I need to pay better attention next time? lets see here (re-reads case) hmm..... (reads again) hmmmmmmm................. (asks strangers opinion) yeah i dont think so pal... contradiction big time.

ok now that this debate is over, i would like him to know that i am thankful to him for taking up this debate and giving me wholehearted responses. I have no vendetta towards him because i know this is just a debate. From what i have heard from his case i am not so sure he feels the same about me though unfortunately. but oh well.

THANKS
BYE
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
By definition, murder is the intentional (first degree and second degree) killing of a human being usually with malice afterthought (meaning not an accident)[1].

I argue that a fetus is NOT a person because it is not self-aware and it's brain is not fully developed (i.e. it's personality or "personhood" has yet to form)."

Epic fail. You have basically just admitted that abortion is murder. While a fetus may not be a person by your standards, it is undeniably a human. Strange that I only just now noticed this glaring flaw...

Anyway, my RFD:
B/A: Con.
Conduct: Con. Need I say why?
S/G: Pro. Con's arguments were fraught with errors, and quite difficult to read.
Arguments: Pro. That's sort of obvious...
Sources: Tie. No real sources were used besides the one dictionary source in the beginning.
Posted by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
what you talking about willis?
Posted by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
I don't remember anymore... Damn it =O
Posted by Tom_Tom47 8 years ago
Tom_Tom47
Well, I do suppose that the whole truth being relative may have been a bit of a stretch, so forget it
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
When did I say truth was relative?
Posted by hauki20 8 years ago
hauki20
Claim: "There is no truth."
Answer: "Is that a truth?"

Claim: "All truth is relative."
Answer: "Is that a relative truth?"
Posted by Tom_Tom47 8 years ago
Tom_Tom47
well then if truth is relative, which is what you make it seem like, how can you say to someone else is wrong in their views?
Posted by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
still?
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
No, I don't believe the results from the "mirror test" are accurate, nor do they show that "animals have consciousness". So no, it's not a problem for me.
Posted by Tom_Tom47 8 years ago
Tom_Tom47
Skeptic, you are constantly saying throughout your arguments that to be human is to be "conscience i.e. self aware" when infact many animals in the world are conscience and have displayed self-awareness. Does this mean they are human? Of course not, I don't doubt your intelligence of that, but what at least I feel qualifies something to be human is to be of the species homosapien, wouldn't you. A fetus is a homosapien regardless of whether or not it is a fetus or not.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Grape
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Da_King 7 years ago
Da_King
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 Lifeisgood 7 years ago
Lifeisgood
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 el3m3ntsk8s 8 years ago
el3m3ntsk8s
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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 alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
TheSkepticphilosphicalTied
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:40