The Instigator
Alex
Pro (for)
Winning
104 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
91 Points

Abortion is wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 30 votes the winner is...
Alex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,754 times Debate No: 6943
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (30)

 

Alex

Pro

I am here, not only to state my opinion that abortion is wrong, but to also see the other side of the situation.

God creates us all, with a unique personality and mind, and with a role to play in this world. Taking that chance from an individual is wrong. Abortion is murder, if you do not want your baby, or are scared, there are plenty of alternatives to killing it.

One of the best, there are couples out there that cannot have a baby of their own and then there are people who are killing their own, not only is that wrong, but it is selfish.

I am looking forward to this debate, and I thank the opponent who will accept this.
Tatarize

Con

There is no God and forcing women into situations which are both dangerous and unnecessary is clearly and obviously immoral.

Abortion is neither murder nor simply a matter of dealing with a baby. In many cases it can lead to serious issues and death, such as the cases of ectopic pregnancy where rather than attach in the uterus the embryo attaches in the fallopian tube or elsewhere. Without aborting the pregnancy the woman would surely die.

---

Further, your religion holds that aborted pregnancies make the souls go straight to heaven. Why would anybody want to force existence on an innocent being if a quick death prior to sin could allow one to take the fast track to heaven?

I ask that you first prove your religion is true and that God exists, then prove that it's not absurd, then prove that it doesn't actually result in better outcomes via abortion than not.

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have been aborted and go straight to heaven rather than live in this fallen world and risk sin and potentially hell?
Debate Round No. 1
Alex

Pro

My opponent argues "There is no God" and asks that i "prove my religion" Well, this is not what the debate is about so i will not use one of my rounds to prove there is a God as that would take much of my argument space. if you'd like, you can prove that there is no god but it is irrelevant to the subject.

My opponent states "There is no God and forcing women into situations which are both dangerous and unnecessary is clearly and obviously immoral." No one is forcing them to do anything, they need to realize that with their actions come consequences, and having an abortion is just a quick and wrong way of "dealing with a baby" and it is irresponsible.

There are cases where woman who are raped, or have a condition where they are in danger, where it is acceptable, but which should be prescribed by a doctor in those scenarios. But we are talking about the subject as a whole, not just about those special circumstances.

I believe that it shouldn't be used as an alternative to birth control for those who do not want to take the proper precautions when having sex. Woman who just decide not to take those precautions should not have an easy way out, they need to take responsibility for their actions.

My opponent also states that "Abortion is neither murder nor simply a matter of dealing with a baby" Both which are Balderdash. Aborting a baby is ending a human life, or not giving it a chance for that matter, which is murder. Also, woman who get pregnant because they don't take precautions, and end up getting an abortion is in fact "dealing with a baby" therefore that argument is ineffective.

One of my opponents other points was "Further, your religion holds that aborted pregnancies make the souls go straight to heaven. Why would anybody want to force existence on an innocent being if a quick death prior to sin could allow one to take the fast track to heaven?"

That is indeed an interesting point, but who are we to make that decision for them? People should be able to make that decision for themselves after a lifetime of influences, teachings, and opinions. Not just cut them off before they are born.

And for your point "Seriously, wouldn't you rather have been aborted and go straight to heaven rather than live in this fallen world and risk sin and potentially hell?"

I would rather have been born, live my life and believe what i choose to believe as my access to heaven.

My opponent hardly proves his point, aside from his small point on those special occasions, which i have stated an answer for above. I look forward to actually hearing an argument.
Tatarize

Con

This debate is not about God, and it is certainly your prerogative to argue whatever you want. However, because your entire argument rested on that premise and I've pointed out that that premise is baseless or at the very least unproven, you need to be better to widen your range of arguments rather than relying upon mythology which you don't care to prove. As is, you're entire argument is baseless.

To outlaw abortion is to force women into birthing. It converts women with a choice about their body into women without a choice about their bodies and forced birth. Outlawing abortion should not be done or condemned on the grounds that women are evil and need to be punished. This is sexist and rather absurd.

For some women who are too young to go through the emotional and physical turmoil and commitment needed to carry a pregnancy to term it may very well be that it is the responsible thing to do.

My opponent then somehow accepts conditions. How fickle are his commitments? Murder is wrong and abortion is murder, but if your father was a rapist then murdering you is perfectly acceptable? And there are matters of degree when it comes to risk woman, however, in every case it is much more dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term than to not.

Aborting a pregnancy causes an small clump of cells to not become a larger clump of cells. This has nothing to do with babies.

My opponent supposes that he would prefer to be born, however what if he's wrong, or sins or loses his faith earlier on and according to his theology goes to hell. What if the mother is an atheist and raises her child to be an atheist? Wouldn't it be better to let the ensouled little clump of cells go to heaven rather than hell?

---

Your position on abortion comes from a sexist and fairly odd position. You wish to violate medical sovereignty and deny woman a choice about their bodies. Forcing them to endure a significantly large medical risk and emotional and physical stress because they are irresponsible and got knocked up and brought it on themselves. "Those sluts! They need comeuppance and forcing them to have a kid is exactly what they should be forced into." -- Your entire argument is childish and naive, and it's a good thing that men have nothing to do with pregnancy.

Pregnancy is a very personal thing and termination should not be taken lightly, but asking to take away that choice because of some misogynistic nonsense is beyond the pale. We are discussing embryos and early stage fetuses which lack every aspect of facet of why we value human life. The reason you argue for souls and must make this argument is because under no unbiased understanding of why we care should we place that clump of cells above the women we are forcing to endure a massive undertaking.
Debate Round No. 2
Alex

Pro

My opponent says "There is no God". Pay close attention to the noun "God"

Definition of "God" with a capital G states: The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." -Dictionary.com

My opponent uses that term in his first argument, therefore showing that he does in fact believe there is a God.

He then says "Murder is wrong and abortion is murder, but if your father was a rapist then murdering you is perfectly acceptable?"

Right there, he openly admitted that murder is wrong and abortion is murder. When he used that phrase, he did not quote nor reference the phrase from my argument, therefore showing his opinion on the matter, which right there taking away the whole base of his argument.

He then questions my constancy to my argument by saying that my "conditions are fickle" That is incorrect, saying that my beliefs can have no acceptations is balderdash and ignorant.

"Aborting a pregnancy causes an small clump of cells to not become a larger clump of cells. This has nothing to do with babies."

Now, abortions have some requirements, that you cannot have one after the third month, but; those cells have already become a fetus by the second month. If you look at the definition of a fetus it states this:
"
The young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.: -Dictionary.com

That states that, again by the end of the second month the fetus is in "recognizable form of its kind" So how can what you say about "This has nothing to do with babies" be true? Those "clumps of cells" are rapidly growing and developing the baby, so how can it have nothing to do with them?

If you'd like, i can bring up a point from a non christian standpoint. Ask a biologist when life first starts. And they will tell you that, life starts as soon as the sperm meets the egg. Because the definition of life is, anything that can grow.

Laws in the united states, because of how our government is set up, the laws of the unites states are made in favor of the majority of the people, and studies show that over half of our population is against abortion.

I seemed to notice, that my opponent has more than once, asked my opinion. Not only is this not arguing his point but asking my opinion is irrelevant.

I have not yet heard why abortion is wrong, except for that it "converts woman with a choice about their bodies into woman without a choice about their bodies and forced into birth"

Which actually kind of made me chuckle. Woman are not forced to get pregnant either, except in the special rape cases which i have stated a solution to in the second round.
Tatarize

Con

>>My opponent says "There is no God". ...therefore showing that he does in fact believe there is a God.

If one were to compose examples of twisted logic, this would be Exhibit A. Whether I believe in God is besides the point. Even if I did, the argument would stand on it's merits. Your only argument is based on religious convictions. If your religion is false religion your arguments crumble. I am declaring in no uncertain terms that your religion is false religion. Without shoring up the foundation of your argument, you lose.

>>He then says "Murder is wrong and abortion is murder, but if your father was a rapist then murdering you is perfectly acceptable?"
>>Right there, he openly admitted that murder is wrong and abortion is murder. When he used that phrase, he did not quote nor reference the phrase from my argument, therefore showing his opinion on the matter, which right there taking away the whole base of his argument.

I was MOCKING you!

You somehow oppose abortion because it's murder but think it's okay in the case of rape. One may only assume that you support the murdering of innocent people who's parent was a rapist. There's no other way to jigger that opinion. Your believes must clearly be fickle if you want to murder people because of who their parents are. However, you establish below that you allow for a rape exception because in that case it isn't okay to punish women for getting pregnant. In the end, your position is shallow, misogynistic, and immoral.

You wish to cast aside medical decisions made by somebody about their body because of silly mythology. There are issues and problems and shades of gray. However, nothing you propose actually should permit us to make the leap you are asking. You say that women are slutty and should be punished with carrying children to term. They need consequences. I think that treating children like a consequence or a punishment is beyond the pale.

Moreover, your argument doesn't follow. We should punish women with children (except for those who were raped because that's not their fault for being slutty) because after a few months you can kind of make out a head and a tail within the two inch long growth. Humans reason and work to their own ends, entertain and love, and at that level they simply don't do that.

Oh, and by the way, I've asked biologists when life first starts, they say 3 billion years ago. There's no dead stage in conception. The sperm and the ovum are both alive and living cells and nothing about combining genetic material makes something dead. It's alive from before conception, during conception, and after. It's exactly as alive as those skin cells I scratched off when I scratched my arm just now.

We aren't discussing laws, we are discussing whether abortion is wrong and you've given no good arguments on that front as of yet. Some 20% of the population opposes all abortions on all grounds. Trying to make an argument from that statistic is simply invoking the fallacy of numbers. US Laws and majority (even those which are really striking minorities) are not arguments that something is wrong.

---

The argument I am advancing is simple, so lets make sure it's put out there in a simple way.

It is absolutely wrong to force women to undergo unnecessary risks because you're a misogynist or because of unsubstantiated religious claims. It is the right of every person to make medical choices about their bodies.
Debate Round No. 3
Alex

Pro

As a start my last round, I'm going to share some facts which I should have shared in the first round so I apologize.

According to www.cirtl.org a whopping 95% of all the 4000 DAILY abortions are done for birth control reasons, as in a girl just "accidental got pregnant" and did not want to take the responsibility for it. Those are some gruesome facts, 4000 children a day are losing their opportunity's at life, 3800 of those just because a woman accidentally got pregnant.

Since 4000 babies die each day this means that 1.5 million die each year, 1 baby every 20 seconds and since 1973 approximately 50 million babies have been aborted; that is close to 7 times the amount of deaths in WWI. And remember 95% of these abortions were for "birth control reasons."

Those are sickening facts to even try and comprehend.

I Would also like to share some of the stops on the time line.

21 days after conception the heart is pumping blood throughout the body.
30 days after conception she has a brain that has multiplied ten thousand times.
42 days after conception her skeleton has formed and her brain controls movement of muscles and organs
9 weeks after conception she will wrap her fingers around an object. Her fingernails are forming and she is sucking her thumb.
By 11 weeks, she makes a wide variety of facial expressions and even smiles.

There you have it, abortion clinics will allow a fetus that is already sucking his/her thumb, and smiling to be killed. That seems kind of sickening to me.

I do not know how you can not consider it murder when he/she is already smiling and showing other expressions of emotion.

As much as a hate to do it, I'm going to slightly contradict one of my earlier "exceptions" Rape does not justify abortions. It is not the babies fault that the mother got raped, there are plenty of pro life organizations our there that will help you put the baby in good hands. There goes your argument.

I would like to bring up one of your passages.

"One may only assume that you support the murdering of innocent people who's parent was a rapist."

Assuming is ignorant. I never displayed any sense of supporting the murdering of innocent people who's parent was a rapist, but rather showing sympathy for young girls who are in a unfortunate circumstance. Believe me, I think those woman who do go through and have the baby are some of today's heroes. I would and never did mention the act of myself supporting the killing of a rape baby.

I would like to share one of the methods doctors use in the act of an abortion.

One of the big ways that an abortion procedure is done, is by sticking a tube into a mother's womb and then slowly sucking the baby out, piece by piece, into a container on the opposite end of the tube. The reason the media and everyone else sugar coats abortion is because they don't want to admit how sick and twisted they are.

My opponent argues that outlawing abortion is taking away the will of the woman. However he is not taking into consideration that abortion is taking away the will to live of another individual who will now not get the chance of life because a woman does not want to take responsibility for her actions, and will not go through a struggle, so that one can live.

Now, since you keep bringing up God and the Bible, so will I.

In Romans chapter 8 verse 28 God tells us that all things work together for good. For those who love God and are called according to our purpose
And-
Jeremiah 29 verse 11 and 12 "for I know the plans I have for you says the lord that they are good and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. "

Why would anyone want to take away that future and that hope from individuals just because some woman do not want to go through that struggle that is birth.

I would also like to look at the other side of the glass. You have only mentioned the struggle that woman go through when they are pregnant. You have not bothered to mention the struggle and the haunt that woman must endure the rest of their lives from having an abortion, as apposed to sticking out through the pregnancy you can feel a sense of accomplishment and righteousness and be happy for what you have fought through.

My opponent states "They need consequences. I think that treating children like a consequence or a punishment is beyond the pale." But what really is "beyond the pale" is allowing any woman who walks into a clinic with 400 bucks to get an abortion, just because she prefers not to have it as opposed to giving birth and having the satisfaction, the love, the memories and the connection of a newborn child.

He keeps stating the danger of woman giving birth, lets take a look at the statistics.

According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, (CDC) maternal deaths occurred at a rate of seven or eight per 100,000
live births every year from 1992 to 2006. The CDC also said half of all such deaths are
preventable.

And yet 4000 abortions happen ever day in the US.

This is a topic of morality not legality, this whole time you have put words in my mouth, I have not suggested that we take the rights away from woman, or make the procedure illegal, I am saying it is wrong, especially on the basis that you may or may not make it through the child birth. As my above data shows, the survival rate of pregnancy is extremely high.

What is absolutely wrong, is taking away the opportunity and the hope for individuals. Woman's rights do not justify the killing of thousands of fetuses every day because they don't want to finish what they started.
Besides, giving birth is not an unnecessary risk, it is necessary to ensure the survival of the human race.

I'd like to thank those that support my side of the debate, and I want to recognize some of the real hero's in our community. Those that, even after a rape case that are willing to go through and have the baby, so that that baby can experience life, are the true heroes, sacrificing something of themselves so that another may have life. I would also like to show appreciation, even just for the woman who weren't being careful but still go through and have the baby. No matter how this debate turns out, if I win or lose, I want to show my appreciation for those individuals with that kind of a heart.

Thank you for the debate.
Tatarize

Con

Why women make the choice doesn't make abortion wrong. It's still their choice. You are arguing against birth control because women are "irresponsible" by your reckoning. Also, we aren't dealing with babies, we're dealing with at most fetuses. And we aren't dealing with living, breathing, loving, thinking, people... we're dealing with fetuses with barely lizard brain formations. They are no more humans than cows (in fact, cows would have signficantly more brain matter and actually have neocortexes. These aren't remotely sickening facts to comprehend. They aren't people.

The comparisons between thumbsucking and smiling to being a real person with thoughts and feelings is simply wrong. Much the same as the Schiavo where people swore up and down that she was looking at them and smiling and laughing and when they checked, she was blind and completely brain dead. You are confusing general expressions with emotions. It's developing but a still a long ways off from being a person.

I'm glad that you understand your previous position was contradictory. If you're punishing women with children because they are irresponsible and don't want to go through a stressful and unnecessary forced birth, you had best punish them with giving birth to their rapists' children too. However, ultimately your position has no bearing on the argument at hand. I was pointing out that your position was inconsistent. Since you based your argument partially on misogyny and partially on the supposition that a fetus is a person (when it isn't by any standard), you had a little 'splaining to do.

Going further into the obvious reducto ad absurdum, I used is pointless as you've now changed your position because of my logic. By your logic, you would be punishing children based on their fathers if you provided an exception for rape. In misogyny world, you can't make any allowances for the evil victimization of women to spare them from being further punished by forcing them to have children.

DnX abortions are typical late term procedures. Most are currently done with a few pills early on.

Outlawing abortion (which isn't strictly the topic but close enough) would take away the rights of the woman, changing her from a thinking feeling, real person into a forced incubator with all the serious medical, emotional, and physical risks associated with it. Fetuses don't have wills, they have an attachment to a uterine wall. Clearly the woman simply doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions... like getting raped (which you no longer provide an exception for).

I pointed out that your arguments are based on the Bible, and thus baseless unless properly established. Bringing up more Bible quotes seems a little bit silly, don't you think?

The vast majority of women are not haunted from having an abortion.

The death rate of women is 7-8 per 100,000 births. So you are going to force women who were raped or who want to make choices about their risks and their bodies to take a 7-8 in 100,000 chance of dying. Because if the chance you survive if I force you to swallow a golf ball might be high, that could allow me to do it.

---

It is absolutely wrong to force women to undergo unnecessary risks because you're a misogynist or because of unsubstantiated religious claims. It is the right of every person to make medical choices about their bodies.

My opponent changed his opinion about rape exceptions and now rather than endorsing a contradictory stance thinks that women should be forced to have children because they "don't want to finish what they started" and "don't want to take responsibility".

Forcing women to do something which is not in their best interests because of misogyny is wrong. Forcing women to do something which is not in their best interests because of religious ideas like souls is wrong. Forcing women to do something which is not in their best interests because of tortured and nonsensical logic about developmental biology is wrong. Forcing women is wrong.

In San Salvador, if a woman comes in showing any signs of perhaps having had a back-alley abortion because she was raped and her father would kill her is hand cuffed to the bed. She is treated like a crime scene. If convicted she can spend decades in prison. Legal abortion is a moral good. It isn't something we want and we'd prefer other options be available and they are, but the ramifications of condemning women and forcing women and dictating by decree what they can and can't do is true evil. When dealing with a fetus we aren't dealing with a baby or a person. We're dealing with, at best, the potential. Just as we toss away embryos from fertility clinics we find the same moral concerns for undeveloped embryos. They aren't people.

You want to force women into unspeakable hardship, blame them for it, punish them for it, and hate them for it... you'd need grounds more relative than an impersonal clump of cells.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
My premises are sane. There's no need to back up reasonable claims that I'd happily back up.
Posted by CiceroThomas 5 years ago
CiceroThomas
i never said your position wasn't reasonable i said that if one unproven premise is insufficient to base an argument then so is another. if you want to call him on the existence of God then go ahead... but it is hypocritical to do so with backing up your own premises.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
"i don't see why there are so many demands that PRO prove that God exists without expecting the same of CON. shouldn't both sides demonstrate the justification for their premises?

PRO used God as his premise and i agree that it was an insufficiently established premise but CON also used an unproven premise on the basis of individual rights, medical sovereignty etc."

And suddenly you do see why my position is entirely reasonable and his should perhaps have more support. However, the largest difference between the two positions is that I called him on his. He could have objected to my supposition to the existence of basic ethics and I would have defended it because it isn't baseless. However, since his argument largely relied on the existence of God and I called him on that point, then his argument effectively crumbles.

"my point is that in presenting an argument if one side must justify its premises then so should the other."

But, my position is on very solid ground. His was made up by goat sacrificing primitives. If you do see that they are statements of different quality and that he was called on his and nobody would bother to object to mine (and I could back them up if asked to) and yet you think they both require equal amounts of exposition?

There are very good reasons he's being asked to prove the existence of God and I'm not having clamoring demands to justify basic ethics.
Posted by CiceroThomas 5 years ago
CiceroThomas
"My argument was tangentially related to ethical considerations (that I could back up with half a dozen moral theories on the spot)."

my point exactly. i didn't claim that you had no basis... simply that such a basis has not been established in the course of the debate. i wasn't criticizing you or your argument so much as comments that critique the use of an unproven god as premise without requiring that moral and ethical principles be justified also.

i expect you could back up your ethical premises and i would imagine far more succinctly and concretely than could PRO back up his. my point is that in presenting an argument if one side must justify its premises then so should the other.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
I'm not trying to invoke the fallacy of numbers. My point is far easier than that. If you hear a voice and have no evidence either way is "somebody there" to be equally considered with "ghost of Elvis" is there?

http://partiallyclips.com...

With "no evidence either way" there's still a sort of parsimony consideration to be made. His entire argument was premised on the existence of God. My argument was tangentially related to ethical considerations (that I could back up with half a dozen moral theories on the spot).
Posted by CiceroThomas 5 years ago
CiceroThomas
truth isn't determined by a majority vote. regardless of whether more people consider the claim true than untrue is irrelevant... unless you would say the religious majority in the world constitutes reasonable proof of God.

again i say i don't actually disagree with your moral opinion that people have rights to control their body and health... i simply believe that in a debate on whether something is moral or not the participants should establish premises and justification for their moral propositions... or alternatively at least acknowledge their unproven nature. i believe that using God as such a premise should be subject to the same scrutiny.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Well you seem to be of the thought that God claims without evidence are on par with moral judgments I didn't bother to wax on about.

Do my moral judgments which are largely amiable to everybody actually start off as "no more proven" than "god" or should we perhaps hold the two to different standards because the former is pretty clear and the latter is rather batty?
Posted by CiceroThomas 5 years ago
CiceroThomas
how do you mean: "on equal footing?"

though i agree that murdering kittens is bad it remains a moral, philosophical judgement that in debate should either a) be justified or b) accepted as unproven and undebated premise.
Posted by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
Really? If I told you that magical fairies built ships which crumpled and imploded into the eight planets and that torturing and murdering kittens is bad. You would honestly suggest that the former and latter are on equal footing?
Posted by CiceroThomas 5 years ago
CiceroThomas
i agree with your premise tatarize. im just saying that its no more proven than god is... it is after all a moral and philosophical principle.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 5 years ago
Tatarize
AlexTatarizeTied
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 ournamestoolong 5 years ago
ournamestoolong
AlexTatarizeTied
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 Lunar_Daze 5 years ago
Lunar_Daze
AlexTatarizeTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 5 years ago
resolutionsmasher
AlexTatarizeTied
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 Alex 5 years ago
Alex
AlexTatarizeTied
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 18freckles 5 years ago
18freckles
AlexTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by peace-maker 5 years ago
peace-maker
AlexTatarizeTied
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 girlforgod21 5 years ago
girlforgod21
AlexTatarizeTied
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 jjmd280 5 years ago
jjmd280
AlexTatarizeTied
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 saamanthagrl 5 years ago
saamanthagrl
AlexTatarizeTied
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