The Instigator
Da_King
Pro (for)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
Rob1Billion
Con (against)
Losing
24 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 11 votes the winner is...
Da_King
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,226 times Debate No: 9776
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (66)
Votes (11)

 

Da_King

Pro

This is a real debate, unlike stevos.

I will argue that abortion is wrong in all cases. You will argue that it is ok, but not ok after a certain point (late-term abortions).

This first round is just a clarification. I will begin my arguments at the second round.
Rob1Billion

Con

I am not currently accepting debates because of my recent forfeits due to time constraints, but this one isn't something that should take much researching or thought as I have done it before.

"This is a real debate, unlike stevos."

Very well...

"I will argue that abortion is wrong in all cases."

If you insist on taking the weakest possible stance, that is your choice. I would have suggested you take a position worth defending, for instance "Abortion is wrong after 3 months", or "Abortion is wrong when it is not used to save the life of the mother". You must feel very confident in your debating skill indeed, or else you think you have an ace in the hole with me. Otherwise, you are simply careless and this is going to be over before it starts. We shall see.

"You will argue that it is ok, but not ok after a certain point (late-term abortions)."

I'll negate the thesis "Abortion is wrong". I'm not going to bother retreating behind a time-limit. If I did, it would only be in my favor anyway, as it is usually much more difficult to justify abortion as the fetus develops more and more.

Again, Pro has insisted on taking the weakest possible stance on the issue. Unless he is going to try and appeal to religion to win his argument, it's hard to believe that he can show without a doubt that abortion is wrong in every single possible case without exception.
Debate Round No. 1
Da_King

Pro

I would like to take a moment to thank my opponent for accepting this debate... Thank you.

I will argue the "weakest possible stance" because I believe that life is started right at the moment of conception. therefore, in my arguments, i will try to prove that an abortion in, any situation, is immoral and wrong. So this includes the "incontinence" of human life, all the rape cases, and the case in which it would result in a death due to medical complications.

Before I begin, I will list some of the common methods for an abortion:

1) Dilation and Curettage (D&C)- the cervix is dilated with a series of instruments to allow the insertion of a curette (a looped shaped steel knife). The unborn fetus is then cut into pieces and scraped from the uterine wall.

2) Suction Curettage, or Vacuum Aspiration- the cervix is dilated as in D&C, then a tube with a very sharp edge on the tip is inserted into the uterus and connected to a strong suction apparatus, which tears the unborn fetus apart.

3) Menstrual Extraction- a very early suction abortion, often done before the pregnancy test is positive.

4) Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)- by week 12, the baby's bones are hardening and can no longer be pulled apart with suction. Abortion is now achieved by dismemberment.

5) Salt poisoning, or Saline Injection- used after 16 weeks, a long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother's abdomen into the fetus' sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby.

O.K. now onto my case. What makes a fetus turn into a human being? Is it really when it sees light for the first time, or when we can see it? Is it when it can feel, or when its heart starts beating? If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win. At the moment of conception, the fetus has all of it's DNA laid out. It already has an eye color and a unique fingernail print.

Now assuming that the fetus is human, the Deceleration of Independence would apply to it. Deceleration of Independence states this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." So me and you are given these rights that cannot be taken away. And it the fetus is human it should be protected by these rights. An because these rights are given to us by our Creator, who ever that may be, it would by immoral to take them away.

To close up my part of the round, I would encourage my opponent to take the advantange and retreat behind a "time-limit."
Rob1Billion

Con

Con starts out the round with a list of abortive methods, designed to show the barbarism which is abortion. The fetus, for the record, is sliced, diced, sucked into a tube, dismembered, and poisoned. Con's research was negligent, however, because he is being rhetorical and wanted you all to believe that these are the only practiced methods. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I think that, under further examination of the remaining techniques, the deception of his methods will be uncovered.

6) Coat hanger prodding- In this method, the weary mother, delirious from the fact that her pregnancy is causing her strife and her government won't allow an abortion, jams a metal coat hanger up into her... Whatever you call that stuff, I'm terrible with female anatomy. The fetus is impaled repeatedly until it breaks into little pieces. I'm not sure what happens next because if you couldn't already tell biology isn't my thing. After the baby falls out in pieces, the mother commonly suffers internal bleeding and infection, which can, a significant portion of the time, result in death since the infection is already well inside her torso.

7) Drugs- The mother takes back-alley drugs which are promised to kill her unwanted baby. If they don't wipe out her reproductive system entirely, they probably aren't going to do her or her fetus much good. The sky is the limit on how much harm they will both suffer.

If there are other methods, I need not go any further.

Con's problem is this: like many pro-lifers, they just don't get it. Abortion law isn't about whether or not to get an abortion. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself. It is about human rights. Law, in general, isn't about what's best. It's about what is the least worst. It's just like if my dog digs a hole in my backyard and someone steps in it and sues me. It's not my fault, I didn't dig it! The law seems unfair, but it must be that way because of the least worst situation: I could start digging hidden holes to hurt people and be legally exempt because "my dog did it". In the same sense, the least worst situation is that women go out and get back-yard abortions, after being denied service. Just like the illegal drug market thrives, the illegal abortion market would be created and thrive. Most likely it would just be some abortion drugs that are sold through the already-existent illegal drug infrastructure.

"If you can logically prove to me that human life is not started at conception, you win." Ah yes, the newbie cardinal error: thinking that they can willfully contain the debate within their pre-conceived parameters. This is the "question of humanity" argument for fetuses. It basically comes down to this: "What makes us human beings?" Con answers the question by saying life starts at conception. Fair enough, a zygote is alive... No argument there. But sperm are alive too. Is every ejaculation filled with millions of "alive" sperm that should be protected? Where are their rights? Sure, they only have half of the DNA, but does DNA really make the individual? The real difference between sperm, zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. and PEOPLE is that a person is more than the sum of their parts. If I asked you "what makes you a person?" What would you say? If I said "What gives your life meaning? "What gives you sentience?" "What separates you from apes?" I would hope your answer wouldn't be as poorly constructed as "eye color, finger-print, and DNA" as your round 2 argument implies. Instead of merely asking these questions, I will go to the next step and answer them as well. What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person. An embryo is not a person, it is a clump of cells that, if nurtured, can be a person some day. It won't be able to do it by itself. If it could, perhaps a better argument could be made. But the fact is that the mother must take responsibility for the child and raise it, or else it has no future. If the mother is unwilling to do this, there is little you can do with rhetoric to change this sad part of life.

As far as the Declaration of Independence is concerned, you have a long way to go before you make a legal argument for your case. I don't think the Framers had zygotes in mind when they wrote "All men are created equal..." Hell, they didn't even have women in mind! The Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the Constitution, and they haven't interpreted it that way yet, however you just may get your wish if some more Christians get on the court.
Debate Round No. 2
Da_King

Pro

First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such.

Now to refute my opponent's first bulky paragraph. This debate is not about the law. I am not trying to prove that the law should be changed, although I wish it was. I am trying to convince all the viewers and my opponent that abortion is morally wrong. So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate, however I would be willing to debate you that it should be illegal.

Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong. So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human. Now onto the difference between a fetus and a "human." My opponents says: "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." Rob1billion, let me ask you something. Do you think that newborns are human. Because if you do, I would like to point out that fact that newborns do not really have characteristics, just like a fetus. And if you don't think that newborns are humans, I would like to bring that more into the argument.

Now for your last paragraph. The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception. The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human.

And for a closer, Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?
Rob1Billion

Con

Before I get into rebutting Pro's points, I would like to point out that his thesis is a moral absolute, which really isn't very provable. I would put a situation in which abortion would fail to be "wrong", and if it calls to question his absolute statement then there really isn't any reason to keep debating the finer points of the argument.

1) The health of the mother is at stake. It is determined by doctors that the mother will die if the fetus is carried to term. This would cause a massive tragedy in the lives of the mother, father, and everyone these people know. The damage sustained by this group of people would be unjustifiable, as the mother could very well just adopt or try again to conceive under better consequences.

Is this "wrong"? By whose standards?

"First, I would like to point out that I am the pro, not the con. Address me a such."

I'll tell you what. If you agree to clean up your grammar and re-read your arguments before you post, I'll agree to be more thorough on how I address you.

"So that paragraph is really irrelevant to this debate..."

Fair enough, abortion is usually a legal debate but the law need not play into a strict argument about whether it is morally wrong. I won't mention law in the next two rounds.

"Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong."

No, many of us wouldn't. I can think of plenty of times when killing isn't morally wrong. Washing your hands kills thousands if not millions of germs, and there isn't anything immoral about killing them. Furthermore, killing people is justifiable in self defense.

"So my argument is that an abortion is killing a human."

It depends on the terminology used. Most pro-choicers use the word "potential human", although I prefer to call the fetus a "potential person", since its DNA is obviously human. So I will give you the ability to use that statement in this argument. My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people. Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2. This rhetorical question is designed to prompt Pro into letting us know what values make him who he is, and any of those values that have any worth whatsoever are not going to be present in the fetus at all. So, Pro, since I have faithfully answered all of your questions, please answer mine.

"Do you think that newborns are human?"

Yes. To save us all time, let's jump ahead to your real point. What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it. Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it. If the fetus is born and turns into a child, then I would argue it has achieved enough of its life that it should be helped by any and all that can help it, through foster care or what have you, but no one can compel another person to biologically raise a fetus into childhood. The newborn baby cries (demonstrating a fear of death, pleasure and pain, personality, {although this in and of itself does not encompass all of these concepts, it does at least show some evidence for them}) and interacts with others, which marks the beginning of its life as a person. If one person is suffering, another should help. If a fetus is suffering, its life is still in the hands of the mother, and I wouldn't hold any other person accountable if they chose not to assist a fetus as this opens up a slippery slope argument that is quite ridiculous: Fetus' rights. If the fetus is a person, then it has all the rights a person has. If a mother does anything that may potentially harm her fetus, even if it is one day old in the womb, then the fetus must be protected by law. This is absurd. The really absurd thing is that there would likely be people willing to push for these laws, as well, as is demonstrated by protesters holding signs of dead fetuses.

"The unfortunate fact the women or blacks had really no rights was very sad. But this was a misconception."

I can't understand your bad grammar, but you must be referring to the "All men are created equal" argument. Your next and final sentence in this paragraph is:

"The reason why I said that was to point out that humans have certain rights, and as you know, my argument is a fetus is a human."

OK, well your argument back-fired. Using the Dec of Ind to support fetus' rights was not a good idea. I would drop it now before you dig any deeper of a hole (hint-hint).

"Rob1billion, why would you not have an abortion yourself?"

My intention was not to say that would NEVER get an abortion under any circumstance, my statement was to say that my pro-choice status does not depend on me wanting to get an abortion. "I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm out shopping for abortions, or that I would ever even consider getting them myself." It is ambiguously worded, however, that one may make that assumption based on it, so I will take the blame for the miscommunication in this case. My answer to your question is that my decision to get an abortion is really irrelevant, because if I got some woman pregnant it would be her choice, not mine. If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good, and that I could create a much better environment for another potential child of mine in a better situation in some other time.
Debate Round No. 3
Da_King

Pro

Assuming that "moral absolute" means that it is either right or wrong, my thesis is a moral absolute. So, yes, if you can prove that, even under one circumstance, abortion is the morally right thing to do, you beat me.

In the medical case that you provided next, this is my response. Think of this. A terrorist gives me a gun and says, "Kill this innocent human. If you kill him, you live and he dies. If you don't kill him, he lives and you die." Now, in this situation, I would say that I would not kill him. I would not kill him because I would be killing an innocent life which is morally wrong. My example brings me back to my main point: a fetus is a human being. Therefore, does not deserve to die, and should not die at the mothers will.

"Is this "wrong"? By whose standards?"

It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator. (If you would like to have a debate on "there is a moral standard," I would love to have that debate.)

"Many of us would agree that killing is morally wrong."

My bad. I will rephrase that: "Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong."

"Now I would urge Pro to please address my question of "what makes you a person?" that I posed in round 2."

I did not see any question in round two, but I will answer it now. What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die.

"My argument will be based on the fact that a fetus is not a person, because although it has human DNA, there just isn't enough of the organism present to be able to undergo the human experience that makes us people."

To this I say: we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people. Experience does not decided a person's level of humanity. I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human.

"What's the difference between a newborn and a fetus? Well, the differences are that the mother has accepted the responsibility of taking that child into this world and raising it."

By saying this, he discredits all of his past arguments. I will quote him, "What makes me human is my humanity. What makes me sentient is my personality. What gives me worth/meaning is my interactions with other people, which builds my character. My intelligence separates me from apes, and eye color and fingerprint are not going to be on the list at all. My hobbies, likes and dislikes, errors and achievements, pain and pleasure... These things make me a person." It also discredits the whole experience. Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother.

"Children DON'T RAISE THEMSELVES, so unless the mother makes that commitment, the fetus has no right to compel others to raise it."

This debate is not about raising humans, it is about life or death. So what about orphans? By what you are saying, I can infer that you would say that an orphan has no rights.

You go onto say that newborns are human because they interact with others. Again, what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man? Is he not human? Or the one antisocial person? How about a person in a coma? The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts. Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice. They also kick.

"OK, well your argument back-fired."

I don't see it.

Finally, onto your last paragraph. "If I did decide that an abortion was in our best interests, and I chose to convince her of that, it would be after undergoing a thorough ethical analysis of the situation in which I decided that the fetus' development and birth could cause more strife than good..." There is not much to say to this. But I would hope that if this situation ever comes up, that during your "ethical analysis," you would realize that it is not up to either of you at that point.

Thank you for this debate. I know that I enjoyed it, and I really hope that I convinced you to choose, and preach, life.

By the way, Vikings are two, maybe three, times better than the Packers.
Rob1Billion

Con

Pro answers my hypothetical situation with an analogy that is barely relevant. Asking me to murder some random man with a handgun is not the same as a mother choosing to terminate her pregnancy for these reasons:

Other than the parents who are merely expecting the child, yet have not even met it, the fetus has not touched anyone's lives and established social connections which would create a void when it is lost. No one will miss it. Pro-lifers try to make to argument that the parents have created some spiritual connection or something, but the truth is they can just choose to get pregnant again. Modern technology allows you an ultrasound picture, but this isn't the same as actually interacting with it. Parents, of course, feel a loss when a pregnancy is failed, but this is nothing like the loss of an actual person. Consider the difference between if your 10 year old boy is suddenly abducted by some man in a park. Is this comparable to losing a pregnancy? Why not? The answer is that the difference between your 10 year old boy and a 10 week old fetus is that your boy is a person and the fetus is not.

Murdering the man with the handgun erases an infinitely complex human personality. The man has (potentially) a family, friends, co-workers that depend on him... He is afraid of death, as you can tell when you point the gun at him. He is capable of begging for his life, even. He is a result of years worth of human interaction, learning, and growing. He is a much more valuable entity than a bundle of cells in a womb. We may be able to see the beginnings of life in the womb by using extremely sophisticated equipment that can measure electrical activity and such, but these phenomena are not adequately explained by experts. What does an electrical current running through the fetus' brain mean? A thought? Emotion? Or is it just an electrical current that really doesn't mean anything? This type of evidence does not compare to looking at a man's terror-stricken face while you point a gun at him.

"It is wrong by the moral standard created by the Creator."

As I predicted before the debate started, Pro's argument is too weak to defend, without invoking superstition. To this I might as well reply that the Flying Spaghetti Monster says this is OK. The FSM is the Christian God's superior.

"Many of us would agree that killing innocent human life is morally wrong."

I don't. A batch of sperm is innocent human life. I say: let's not kill innocent people instead. Just because a sperm hits an egg and splits into two cells doesn't mean that that 2 celled organism now has full rights under the US Constitution and that two cells has just as much value as my life. The absurdity of this argument can only be sustained by superstition, as I previously alluded to. The only reason we are having this discussion is because science has paved the way into the womb and explained to the religious people how conception works. When you take science and then wrap it with superstition, then you only have to unwrap it again when science makes another breakthrough. Christianity is like a layer of dust that falls upon scientific achievements after science has paved a new path. This is utterly clear in cosmology, as the Pope now embraces the Big-Bang theory. Why not just cut to the chase and get rid of superstition altogether?

"What makes me human, and not an animal, is that I have a soul that will live on after I die."

No, you don't.

"we all have different experiences. So, according to him, some of us are more human than others. Also, if there isn't enough organism present, then tall and big people are more human than short and skinny people..."

Extrapolating this out of my argument is nothing short of abuse. Fetus=no experience. Person=experience. The only way to try and quantify my argument in this manner is to say that someone who is older has more value, and someone who is younger has less value (less exp vs. more exp). To this I would tend to agree. This is the subject for another debate, however. I believe that once a child is born it has full human rights - they cannot be divided, they must be either given or not given. The 40 year old can choose to give his or her life for the child, because they have learned the value of self-sacrifice, but they cannot be compelled to. The child is also a sort of property of the parents, as well. The parents' emotional attachment and hopes and dreams for the child can be "weighed in" to the child's worth, offsetting its lack of experience, talents, and emotional development. If the parents have no hopes and dreams for the child, are not emotionally attached, and are unwilling to raise the child after birth, than this can be factored into the worth of an unborn fetus and used to justify its death, assuming there is a good reason to kill it (for instance, its birth causing the death of the mother).

"I have a few examples. I newborn that dies a week after birth. Or a paralyzed, blind, deaf person. Are none of these humans? Again, experience does not decide what is human."

So what if a newborn dies a week after birth? I assume you are trying to say "what's the implication of killing a newborn?" To this I would refer you to my previous paragraph, as I have outlined supplementary values for newborns based on the parents' attachment and plans for the child. Again, the child has passed the official (legally, morally, and practically) threshold of human personhood: birth. It has achieved life, and deserves to live it. The values I put on people that fetus' lack (experience, emotion, etc) are begun immediately after birth when the doctor smacks it on the a55 and it starts crying.

People with inhibited senses lack none of my attributes. They have personality, experience, social connections, have achieved birth, feel pleasure and pain... You have no argument here.

"Plus, being human should not be dependent on a mother."

Really. Make a child without one. In fact, your 15 years old. Go out and get a job and an apartment and tell your mother you don't need her, and you never have. She'll laugh at you and send you to your room you little brat!

"So what about orphans?"

Orphans have achieved ALL of my requisites, save the hopes and dreams of the parents, perhaps. Often the parents still want the orphans to do well, but they simply cannot make it happen themselves. Orphans are nothing more than unfortunate people who started being raised but were given up on at some point. Other parents will raise them, no doubt. As full fledged BORN people, they have a certain right to compel others to help them.

"what about the blind, lame, mute, deaf man?"

Already addressed thoroughly.

"Or the one antisocial person?"

No man is an island. The antisocial person only chooses to downplay his or her social side, but meets all other requisites for personhood. Even a person on a desert island needed years of relationship with a parent to become self-sufficient.

"How about a person in a coma?"

This is a euthanasia problem, not abortion. I say if a person is born into permanent coma, their rights to life are on layaway until the parents make a call on it. If they say it lives, then they give it full human rights. Who pays the bills for the equipment is another problem.

"The difference between a fetus and a newborn is not how much it interacts."

I say it is. Among the many other differences I listed.

"Oh, and it is known that a fetus can recognize a mother's voice."

Yeah so can my computer.

"They also kick."

Donkeys kick, who cares. They aren't people.

"OK, well your argument back-fired." - "I don't see it."

The voters will, don't worry.

"By the way, Vikings..."

Yeah I think you've already lost the conduct points for this debate with your ill-placed sticks at me at the end of the rounds, although I made one as well in this round. your S&G is certainly going to fail as well...
Debate Round No. 4
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by King_da 7 years ago
King_da
I got the win because it was me, not my profile, that was debating. My account was open for the duration of the debate, that's all that matters. Your a real winner. Keep telling yourself that I voted for myself more than once.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
haha? You didn't get that win because your account got closed buddy! Why was it again that that happened? I guess the voters (your other accounts) didn't like my arguments!
Posted by King_da 7 years ago
King_da
"'OK, well your argument back-fired." - "I don't see it.'"

"The voters will, don't worry."

haha
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Birdman was cut down to size. He knew he had it coming...
Posted by King_da 7 years ago
King_da
"A far as my win % goes, my debates speak for themselves, and anyone who actually reads them would never make a statement like you just did. These guys are really good arguers on this website, and I'm proud to have the record I have given the difficulty of my resolutions and the skill of the debaters I've faced."

I especially like the part about difficult resolutions. But then I see that you are debating: "Birdman is clearly inferior to Rob1billion." Yeah, you do have awfully difficult, meaningful debates.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
that's lame.
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
Pssht want to start a lame debate? I had to jump in, I was getting 50 000 emails about lameness!
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Tulle it is lame to try and jump in the middle of two lame people trying to have a lame argument!
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
Wow you guys. Don't be lame. It's lame to argue with a lame person. So if you both think the other is lame, don't argue!
Posted by King_da 7 years ago
King_da
ok, whatever rob. i never vote bombed. just take this loss as it is.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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 Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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 philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by brady1248 7 years ago
brady1248
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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 Barcs 7 years ago
Barcs
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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 A_Fellow_Debater 7 years ago
A_Fellow_Debater
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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 Da_King 7 years ago
Da_King
Da_KingRob1BillionTied
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