The Instigator
bcaldwell100
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Stashu18
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Abortion: right or wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,310 times Debate No: 972
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (11)

 

bcaldwell100

Con

OK, so I guess I'm starting. For those of you who aren't aware, Stashu18 commented on a debate of mine, and basically started a case against me. Since my current opponent is a no- show, I decided to debate stashu18. So, part of this post is going to be responses to her comment.
I'll start with the framework we should be working under and go on to the debate!
OK, so first of all this really is a question of legality. You are asking whether or not abortion is right or wrong, the only concrete way to determine what is right or wrong anywhere, are the laws created in that society. Since we're both American I hope I can use U.S law. If we decide to go with an entirely morality based debate, there is no paradigm by which to determine whose arguments, or system of morality is more important. In short the debate becomes a contest to dish out sob stories to entice public empathy, an inferior way to intellectually discuss a topic. If you still disagree, I'll place in some moral balances as well.
First, starting with the classification of abortion as murder. I personally think a fetus should be valued as something at least similar to a human life. This is because the competency of western medicine is at he point, that doctors can basically guarantee you, from the moment of conception, that they can deliver your child. So my rationale for why a fetus is valuable, is because the fetus WILL be a life.
My opponent said this:
"the way you classify Murder is all wrong its not that the being will attain life or even that it has life but if its to be considered human and attained life and has had it taken from it. and since there is no way to tell if a small clump of cells is going to be human or just another failed pregnancy 100% you can not classify that fetus and or embryo as human until it is out of the mother and alive. Otherwise every time i go hunting and kill something it would be considered murder and i should be incarcerated for it. So your whole its murder theory is wrong for that reason because murder is defined as taking a human life and a fetus and or embryo has not yet been classified as human life."
OK, I obviously haven't been clear enough. 1) As far as the definition of murder goes, we don't even have to call killing a fetus murder. If you really want to get into technicalities, this debate will get very boring. This is what I am referring to, there is a being that has a high chance of becoming a full fledged human life, when an abortion is done, there is now a being with no chance of becoming a human life. This means that, just like murder, one less life, is or will be, in this world. Call it what you will.
2) Even if a fetus is not directly classified as a human life, it is certainly valuable. The fact that it WILL be human makes it a being of value, even if not equal to the value of a full human life. Therefore, "fetus- killing" is a detrimental action. To engage in a detrimental action, one must have sufficient enough reason to. I argue, that contraceptive reasons to not supersede the negative impact of "fetus- killing".
3) Your argument about hunting, really has no effect on abortion, because you give no link or importance of an animal's life.
OK, so I'll just summarize my stance really quickly. a fetus is a valuable being, therefore, killing it is a bad thing to do. However, as with any less preferable action, if one has sufficient enough reason to do it, they can. I argue that any reason that the pro can come up with is either not good enough, or should be the exception to any law banning abortion for legally accepted reasons. I will address these more specifically when they are presented.
Here's the rest of my opponents arguments:
"Next onto the consenting argument that if a woman consents to sex she consents to a possible baby that is just a very wrong thing to even consider and then to only blame woman for it is also a very very distasteful way to approach this because then it represents woman as unequal to men and in our society my friend we are all equal under the law so as you have said if woman have to have the baby it is only right that the biological fathers of those babies should be put through the same experience and that is where we reach our problem we as men cannot do that but we can donate our sperm which is our part of the whole baby making process so i feel if men can simply discard what could potentially be a human life at will why not woman as well. The way you have put it its the robbing of life whether it has been attained or not that is the backbone of your argument and if this is what you hold true to then men can no longer masturbate and woman must be either having a child or being impregnated because if they aren't they are killing a possible life. Also just so i know i have made a good point ill toss in the fact our planet is over populated and it is in our best interest to have as few children as possible."
OK, so first the inequality argument. It is true that men cannot experience childbirth, that is a fact of nature. However, I do not think we should simply hold women culpable for the action of sex, it takes 2 to tango. Men are already held responsible for childcare if the child is born. Now, the same process could be applied to when a child is conceived. The father could be found and proven through genetic testing, and forced to pay for the medical bills or provide some sort of compensation. But, women will still suffer more for the birth than the men, short of physically punishing the man, I cannot help that. It does not mean, however that the law placed on abortion is unequal. I am only advocating for a law that bans contraceptive abortion. The law can easily say that neither men nor women can have abortions and it is equal. There are plenty of laws that seem unequal in application, but do not violate equality.
Next, I'd like to address the attempt to equate masturbation to abortion. OK, if a man was to masturbate, that sperm has 0% chance of becoming a human life. If a woman could somehow fire out unfertilized eggs, those eggs have 0% chance of becoming a life. If two people were to have sex, each sperm would have a one in several thousand chance of becoming a life. The sperm that fertilizes the egg, now has a very good chance of becoming a human life, this combination is called a fetus. That is the difference between masturbation and abortion. But I've always wondered what you'd do if your opponent said that you were right and we shouldn't be allowed to masturbate.
Lately, the argument that we should kill off people because the world is too overpopulated is a horrible thing to say. I mean I respect it as an extreme last resort, but I really think you'd lose voters if that's what you are reduced to. To combat this, I'll say that we should stop treating various lethal diseases to stop overpopulation. It would be cost-saving, and we would only be killing people who have had some life already, and will only doe slowly anyway. I know it is horrible, but I say it is less horrible than killing off fetuses for the cause.
"i have to say it leave your religions at home on this topic because the church should have no influence over law making"
I whole heartedly agree with you. I hate it when people who bring religion into a logical or legal discussion. I will never use it, I hope you won't either.
Stashu18

Pro

Sir im glad you will leave religion out of this it makes me very happy and i promise being agnostic shall hold no baring with me on this topic!
Now on to you attempting to tear apart my argument that i posted against yours earlier one i have to tell you that you changed some words around in your definition of murder to make yourself seem slightly better on the issue i say good job and i will not rewrite what you have said with out your consent second of all I am a Male so you addressing me as her is very rude and distasteful if you had even glanced at my profile you would have seen i am a man but now that i have gotten past the few parts of your introduction to our topic that bugged me i shall move on with the debate.
Murder is defined as and i quote "is the unlawful killing of a human person with malice". So i am afraid i got technical there but it had to be done so as of right now no one can consider abortion murder why because as of right now it is not unlawful so i would thank you to stop using that as such a strong point in your case when in actuality it has no place. Instead of bickering over whether the embryo which it is called until it has shown defined signs of being a human is in fact a human life because it is up to each person to decide when they think it is a human life.
Now onto to the next point you say we should have a law that holds exceptions and i full heartedly agree with that i do not believe a woman should be able to abort the child after the first four weeks because the embryo has transformed into a fetus even though its extremely underdeveloped it still has human qualities to limit abortion only to a select few is also unequal its like saying your family is not entitled to your pension in the army because you were not forced to go but choose to on your own accord and i am not saying abortion is right by any means all im saying is give woman the choice so that the child's life along with the parents lives are not destroyed why bring another life into the world if all its going to receive is neglect malnutrition and resentment from its parents to me that is saving the child's life. and about my comment on hunting if you would have included your whole statement i feel people would have understood why i put it in but seeing the limited character count i understand why you did not.
now on to the overpopulation issue you say people with terminal illness should just be left where they drop and we should not help them if are planet is over populated you use the thought that it is costly and hurts the economy and its better to let them die then to not allow a possible life
first off it does not hurt the economy if anything it beefs it up because the people who are not left where they drop are those who can afford it the government does not pay for procedures and overly expensive medication most insurance companies don't even pay for that so i say its a good thing to help them because it may lead to a cure or new forms of medicine and it does help the economy and i believe the abortion of embryos does the same thing helps the economy and through stem cell research could save thousands of lives while keeping our population levels and a safe amount. if you just let the other people die then there is no money being pumped into new medical treatments and no new treatments will ever be discovered so i view the abortion of an embryo a much better solution than just leaving an injured man where he falls.
Now i must emphasis something and that is that i am pro choice plain and simple not necessarily pro abortion. I am for keeping abortion legal and giving woman the choice on what they do
I also think that laws should be a slight bit stricter on this such as no abortions past the first four weeks and so on but it should be open to everyone and think that is the only way to effectively put restrictions on abortion but still make the law equal for everyone.

I would like to apologize for my bad grammar and possible spelling errors and if it is overly difficult to read and i would like to thank you for including me in this debate
Debate Round No. 1
bcaldwell100

Con

Yaaaay! You accepted the challenge. First of all I apologize for any wording that might have offended you, I really didn't think to much about it. Second of all, please use more punctuation and capital letters; I got a migraine trying to read your arguments. Maybe that was a tactic, if so, bravo. Lastly, I'm glad you noticed the change in wording, your arguments forced me to reexamine my words and format them to better suit my argument. I don't think that the mere re- wording of my old case affected your arguments against it, I think my follow up explanation and argumentation did the trick.
OK first point, murder. What I went to great lengths to explain was that, even if you don't want to call abortion "murder", it is still a detrimental and less preferable action. We can call it an embryo if that is the proper term; I'm not going to look it up. It does not matter what the definition of murder is or whether or nor an embryo is a full fledged human life. The center of my argument is that you have a being with a very good chance of becoming a human life. Once you abort, you have a being with no chance of becoming a human life. If you don't want to call it murder because there is no malice involved, fine.
OK, with your point about only aborting embryos. We have both minimized our cases to the point that I think we should change the topic to "First term, contraceptive abortion: right or wrong." That way we both get what we want and we can finally move on with the debate.
In that same paragraph you give this argument: "i am not saying abortion is right by any means all im saying is give woman the choice so that the child's life along with the parents lives are not destroyed why bring another life into the world if all its going to receive is neglect malnutrition and resentment from its parents to me that is saving the child's life."
This is my rebuttal:
1) I hope your saying that abortion is right by any means, that is your side. Don't worry, I won't tax you on wording, I'll assume you didn't mean it.
2) Adoption is always an option. There are millions of parents wanting children. So the assumption that the child's life will be horrible cannot be made. You really fail to explain how the parents lives will be ruined, with or without adoption, so I really don't see an argument there.
3) The idea that you're saving the child's life by preventing it's life is a bold one. If your really do value choice, you'd value the child's right to decide if they'd rather life badly or not live at all. Personally, I can't image many domestic circumstances in which I'd kill myself.
Your next argument: "first off it does not hurt the economy if anything it beefs it up because the people who are not left where they drop are those who can afford it the government does not pay for procedures and overly expensive medication most insurance companies don't even pay for that so i say its a good thing to help them because it may lead to a cure or new forms of medicine and it does help the economy and i believe the abortion of embryos does the same thing helps the economy and through stem cell research could save thousands of lives while keeping our population levels and a safe amount. if you just let the other people die then there is no money being pumped into new medical treatments and no new treatments will ever be discovered so i view the abortion of an embryo a much better solution than just leaving an injured man where he falls."
My rebuttal:
1) I can't believe you're making the utilitarian calculus argument a main point. I have seen these voters, they will never vote either way on this argument. We're considering on how to most cost efficiently kill people!
2) I'm not saying abortion has any effect on the economy, I was simply trying to make my policy a better idea.
3) I still say that if we stopped any and all medical treatments for complex and fatal diseases, we'd save money and people would die. The only reason we do it is people would die. You see, though people pay for the treatments of these diseases, it costs money to make them, and many hospitals spend money to administer them. If all research and development towards unknown treatments were to be stopped, a huge amount of money would be saved. Here's the kicker, they have about the same chance of living as an embryo.
4) As far as abortion helping with stem cell research, stem cells are primarily drawn from unused eggs from artificial insemination, not embryos from abortions.

As far as the equality arguments, just cut and paste my previous rebuttal against this.

As you reiterate at the end, so will I. I am not opposed to choice either. I am pro- life, not anti- abortion, not anti- choice. I find the value of a human life so great, that even something with only a high potential of being one, is "sacred"(it's in quotation marks because I don't mean it in the religious sense, simply that it is really really important). This being said "embryo- killing" is a detrimental action (it is bad). If one didn't have to do it, one shouldn't. Now, as we are only addressing contraceptive abortion, I don't think that a 9 month period of discomfort followed by a day or so of pain is insufficient reason to stop a life from establishing itself on this earth. That is why abortion is wrong, that is why I should win. You have not presented sufficient negative impacts (that could not be avoided), that would justify the detrimental action of "embryo- killing".
If we could leave abortion legal and only women that had been raped or would die from birthing would use it, I'd be fine with it. But the majority of women have contraceptive reasons to abort, and that is wrong.
So basically where your standing in this round is that you need to come up with some major reason why it would be terrible if abortion was illegal. This impact must be unavoidable and worse than "embryo- killing".

I would also like to add that, though I think you are doing a fine job with this debate, many people who vote on this site read the topic and vote. I am glad we get to debate, I really am enjoying it, but we probably won't find out who won, simply if the site is more for, or against abortion. Just warning you.
Stashu18

Pro

Well said i like how you format this whole endeavor its rather interesting to see someone take a step by step approach versus screaming at me ha ha
before i continue i was wondering if you knew that America has the second worst birth rate in the industrialized world i was wondering if you knew simply because you state an embryo has an almost 100% chance of becoming a human. The only industrialized place on earth with a higher mortality rate is Latvia. I present this only to show that the embryos have a considerable less chance at life than what you make their chances out to be.
You say that i must present something worse for the mother than the embryo something that is so terrible so horrible it is pretty much unimaginable and i applaud your tactics there but the fact is giving birth itself is horrible and terrible enough you said 9 months of discomfort more like 9 months of hell with constantly being sick heat flashes society staring at you especially if your a teen not to mention the financial costs of new cloths to fit the increase of food and constant doctor visits which adds up quickly. Then you say its only a day of pain when in reality it can be up to a week from the first contraction starts which many describe as being stabbed and then there is the very major possibility of hemraging which can easily cost the mother her life in just a few minutes if the bleeding is not stopped quick enough and alot of times the exhaustion from the task leaves the mother to tired to fight for her life and she fades and i can guess your going to say that we have the medical technology to combat or even prevent that but the fact is as of right now we dont because there is still a large number of mothers dieing while giving birth in 2000 it was recorded worldwide there were more than half a million woman dieing while giving birth or shortly after and i think if any woman has even the slightest fear of dieing when giving birth and chooses to have an abortion it should be legal for her to do so because if it is not then the age of the coat hanger will rise again and many young girls will die from illegal abortions and not just one possible life will be lost but one definite life and one possible one shall be lost. Then lets say the mother survives it will take about 5 months for her organs to reposition themselves she will have to go through the financial trouble of getting even more cloths now and on top of all of it face society if say she is a single mother or even a teen mother and then going through the adoption process which can be very emotionally destructive because as a parent you would only want the best for your child the fear of them ending up somewhere abusive is all to hurtful. Also a pregnancy does not only interfere with the social life of the person but every part whether its having to take 2 months off of work or having to repeat the 11th grade it sets the person back and if they are unprepared for a pregnancy it could be devastating

Also when i said i am pro choice meaning im for giving woman the choice to have an abortion or not and i said i myself am not for abortion i was speaking the truth i personally would not want my loved one to have an abortion but what i am arguing for is the choice to keep it legal in case someone decides it is the best way to handle a pregnancy if you do not like abortion dont get one but do not force everyone especially those who disagree with you to follow your beliefs that is how many wars are started by forcing others to follow beliefs they do not believe in
Debate Round No. 2
bcaldwell100

Con

Yes, I to find it irritating to have a debater do nothing but scream in your face without a logical argument in sight. Next let me just say that I much appreciated debating you. I also wish I had set this up as a longer debate, this was your best debate yet, and I really wish we could continue these arguments.
OK, enough with the pleasantries, on to the debate!
Your argument: "America has the second worst birth rate in the industrialized world. The only industrialized place on earth with a higher mortality rate is Latvia. I present this only to show that the embryos have a considerable less chance at life than what you make their chances out to be."
Rebuttal: It is a shame that you didn't make this a bigger argument, it was a huge attack on my case. However, there are several problems with your data.
1) I presume you got this from a CNN report on infant mortality rates in the US, not fetal mortality rates. The difference being that your number shows that once a child is born and is fully human, according both of us, they have a sub- par chance of becoming adults. My data is addressing the likeliness that, once a parent decides to have a child, the likeliness it will die before being born a full fledged life,
2) According to the United States National Vital Statistics Report of 2007: "The U.S. fetal mortality rate was 6.20 per 1,000 live births". That's a .62% chance that the fetus will die before being born.
3) Unless you are suggesting that we should kill infants after they are born to prevent the financial hardships for the parents, or emotional hardships for adoption, we should discard your stats. I have the information we are looking for, and it really leans towards my argument. There is a 99.38% chance that the child inside you WILL be a full- fledged life. That's a pretty good chance if I do say so myself.
Now on to the negative impacts you try to place on birth. (negative impact = bad thing that will happen). I cannot deny that what you say may have truth to it, however, all I have to do to win is show why my negative impacts are greater than yours. So I'll really start my minimizing your impacts.
If birth is as you say "the fact is giving birth itself is horrible and terrible enough you said 9 months of discomfort more like 9 months of hell", then why do willing mothers repeatedly birth children, when they could have aborted. Look, we are both men, I can safely assume that neither of us have first hand experience in giving birth. The only thing we can look to is logical reasons why giving birth cannot be an unbearably horrible experience.
Next, there is no reason why we cannot set up programs to fund the financial burden if childbirth. That impact really is speculative and generally unusable.
I am going to leave the argument that the social integrity of the parents may be tarnished, I really don't think I'll have trouble outweighing it.
Next, the argument that mothers have a good chance of dying through childbirth. First of all, your information is worldwide, including 3rd world countries and up. Since you give no distinction between the US and the rest of the world, I have to assume that a majority of those deaths are from impoverished nations with sub- par medicine. Believe it or not, the US is one of the most medically competent nations in the world.
Next, the argument that adoption is emotionally draining, I really don't think you understand the implications of that argument. You're saying that we should kill the fetus before the mother becomes emotionally attached to it and CARES about its well being. So as long as the thing she is killing is intangible, it is okay. That's pretty sick (no offense).
Next, the argument that I shouldn't be enforcing my morality or opinion on other people through law. Look, in a democracy, that is how things work. If it is not against the Constitution, we look to voter morality to decide what the law should be. This is not an argument for abortion, but against all that is democratic and lawful.
Lastly, the argument that "the age of the coat hanger will rise again and many young girls will die" is really bad, sorry. Everything, that has ever been made illegal, is still done illegally. This is no reason to make it legal. People still engage in armed robbery, it is illegal, and they may die doing it. Yet, almost everybody feels it should be illegal. Your argument is not for abortion, it is against any and all forms of law.
So I've established that the consequences of not having an abortion are not as drastic as you claim they are. Now I will go on my little rant about why abortions should not be done contraceptives.
When you have sex and get pregnant, you now have a being inside of you that has 99.38% of becoming the most sacred thing known to man, a human life. This make the being inside of you extremely valuable. To h=turn something that has a 99.38% chance of living, into a being with 0% chance of living is a action detrimental to the moral fabric of our world. It may not be even to murder but it is a bad action. To engage in this action without proper reason is wrong. There are many reasons why women abort, my opponent has named almost every decent reason I can think of, but ultimately none of them can supersede the life of a human being to be. One abortion means that there is a 99.38% likelihood that you just stopped a child from living. That child will never take his first breath, never see his parents faces, never learn what it is like to be loved, never have a partner, never love another human being, never have children of his own to experience life themselves. That child will never see nature at its finest, never hear birds sing, never feel the sun shine on his face, never sleep out under the stars and see the vastness of the universe. This child will never contribute to the world, he will never discover a new cure, never create beautiful art, never use his mind to redevelop how the world thinks. The greatest injustice of this, this child will never be asked whether or not he wants to be stripped of his most prized possession. I am not against choice. I am pro- life AND pro- choice. I think every person ought to be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to die, this chance at choice, is called life. The only reason we have an easier time sympathizing with the parents is because we might still end up in their position. Well, ask yourselves voters, if you were in the position of the fetus, would you wish to die, so your mother will not be ridiculed? Would you wish to die, so your mother did not have to pay for new clothes? Would you wish to die, wish to give up your ENTIRE life, so your mother did not have to endure 9 months with you in her womb? She did conceive you after all, you didn't climb inside her against her will and demand to be born, no. You are there, and now you have a 99.38% chance at the most wonderful gift of all.
Voters, you decide who makes the bigger and better impact on their side. I'm giving you the choice, just like the fetus.
Stashu18

Pro

You pulled out the big guns there trying to get voters to sympathize with something that cant feel or think or even be considered more than a clump of cells which was in all honesty brilliant honestly i feel i need to give you this one but seeing that is not how i am i shall go down with my ship and express that it has been declared legal by the highest powers and they (supreme court) saw it unconstitutional to restrict this practice and i say why disagree with them my partner in this debate said he was for the choice of the unborn child and says he sees no reason why he would want to not be born but then again i dont think he suffers from depression or neglect or being abandoned by his parents in all honesty i dont know he very well might suffer from all of them but look at the number of suicides of teens who have been neglected even the number of suicides where the person who committed it was well taken care of the point im trying to make is that when the abortions we have narrowed our argument down to take place the would be child has not even developed a heart brain or a body like mine or yours so i feel the mother being the one who cares for it and thinks, breaths, eats and whos heart beats for that clump of cells if she feels that its not the right time to bring a life into the world it is her decision and no one else's simply because it is technically hers at that point in time it is a possession and that is why i should win this debate forget the sob stories and all the empathy that is being dumped on this debate that clump of cells has no way to think feel or even live with out the mothers support and is infact attached to her so it is hers to do what she wants with it it would be like my competitor saying that since its illegal for you to smash a plate of yours against the wall if you want to true not many of us would do that but its our freedom as Americans do what we will with our possessions and though it may seem heartless and destructive it is still not our place to say whether or not someone should have to go through with a birth if they dont want to as long as they make the decision before the second trimester when the the clump of cells has effectively developed into a living being.
My competitor stated at the beginning this was going to be a legal dispute and thats what it needs to come down to not whether it is morally right but whether it is constitutionally wrong for the government to tell us what we can not do with our bodies and our property and since in the constitution it states we shall have our freedoms that allow us to do what we want with our possessions which includes ourselves they have no authority to restrict abortions durring this stage of pregnancy

I give thanks to my rival for inviting me to debate this topic and i give thanks to the voters for actually reading our long arguments and finally i apologize for my horrible grammer and spelling on this one
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stashu18 9 years ago
Stashu18
we each had 3 rounds its bad planing on his part just saying
Posted by flight666 9 years ago
flight666
It really isn't fair that the pro got to pull out his best arguments when the con could not respond. That normally isn't accepted in debate. Though the pro raises a really good point.
Posted by Stashu18 9 years ago
Stashu18
Hey people when you vote could you leave comments with advice for us i would greatly appreciate that. THANKS!!!
Posted by Stashu18 9 years ago
Stashu18
Hey i tryed using what strategy i could and it seems to have worked thank for inviting me to debate
Posted by bcaldwell100 9 years ago
bcaldwell100
I really don't think you should have said that you thought I won at the beginning, that really was your best summary yet. Also, I was impressed that you made the burden connections I gave at the beginning, but I wish you had brought them up sooner so I could actually rebut them. As it is, your rebuttal brings up a new part of the debate that I have almost no previous arguments in.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Caldwell wanted this to remain in the legal framework, but failed to prove the illegality of abortion in America- which we all know is legal to some degree in every state.
Posted by Stashu18 9 years ago
Stashu18
you know i wasnt going to go the lock direction but now that you mention it why not haha
Posted by bcaldwell100 9 years ago
bcaldwell100
well then i highly suggest ypu fix it people will get angry at you for it i wouldnt get angry but its a cold cruel world online lol do you really think without any pauses youre like john locke
Posted by Stashu18 9 years ago
Stashu18
not really lol im just really really bad at grammer haha i type as i think and i usually think with out stopping to put in a comma or period so sorry
Posted by bcaldwell100 9 years ago
bcaldwell100
Yes, please Stashu18 figure out how to fix your formatting issues. I get headaches trying to read with no periods, commas, or capital letters. I'm sure you have a good excuse though.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by thomas1 9 years ago
thomas1
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
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 GovernmentSpies 9 years ago
GovernmentSpies
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
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 hark 9 years ago
hark
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
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 TheMasterBrask 9 years ago
TheMasterBrask
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
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 righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
bcaldwell100Stashu18Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30