The Instigator
Jlconservative
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
Randomknowledge
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Animal Testing

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,275 times Debate No: 2030
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (17)

 

Jlconservative

Pro

Its pretty basic

Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Animal research has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities
Randomknowledge

Con

Hello, jlconservative and as Kenicks is a friend of mine, I love the opportunity to debate you. There will be no politics in this debate, I assure you. First I bring your attention to the very first line you wrote: "Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist." I agree, some amazing things have been discovered using animal testing. Some amazing things have been discovered without animal testing, and actually if you look at the numbers, more has been discovered without animals then with. Think about penicillin, radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in copernicus' time. Animals were around, and it couldve been tested on them, but the bottom line was it wasnt neccesary. I have a dog, and all the dog people out there shiver at the prospect of their animal, their best friend, being tested for chanel no. 5. The point that I am trying to make is that no matter how much we create new drugs and test out new things, animals will always be there. We will not use them, however, because there is so much technology it is unnecesary. We are moving into an age of technology, and moving out of an age of animal testing.
Debate Round No. 1
Jlconservative

Pro

haha

Ok, well lets take a look at your claims,
1. "and actually if you look at the numbers, more has been discovered without animals then with" wow ok well I am not certain why this has anything to do with thy we should not test on animals, making a statement like this is sort of irrelevant and naive, in that sense we should stop oceanic exploration because we have discovered more things in space.. dose not quite make sense.

2. "Think about penicillin, radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in copernicus' time. Animals were around, and it couldve been tested on them, but the bottom line was it wasnt neccesary."

haha well first of all according to webmaster,Encyclopedia,Webster, and Bud Wolfons MD. Penicillin was tested on lab mice and sheep so that was something you either research and found the wrong answer or you just have no clue what your saying, personally I vote for the latter.

3."Radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation in Copernicus time"

wow.... I'm sorry I thought this was almost to stupid to quote, first of all radioactivity and the theories involving the earths rotation have absolutely nothing to do with animal testing, the actual fact that you think that is some sort of ground to stand on is amusing, these theories did not and could not have been tested by using animals whatsoever.

4. "I have a dog, and all the dog people out there shiver at the prospect of their animal, their best friend, being tested for chanel no. 5."

well..wow again, first of all you make it sound like the government breaks into houses takes little Annie's pet puppy and brings it to the mad scientists layers were he performs evil experiments on it....again this was a pretty foolish and naive claim.. according to RDS incorporated:

"More than 80 out of every 100 animals used in research are mice, rats and other rodents. Less than one in every 200 research animals is a cat or a dog."
Dogs, because of the size and similarity of their organs, are important for the development of new surgical techniques and for the study of the heart, lungs and blood vessels. Cats are important in the study of hearing and brain function. The use of both cats and dogs is subject to particular controls which require that they are specially bred for research. Stray cats and dogs or lost pets are not used for research in Britain.

5. "The point that I am trying to make is that no matter how much we create new drugs and test out new things, animals will always be there. We will not use them, however, because there is so much technology it is unnecesary. We are moving into an age of technology, and moving out of an age of animal testing."

Ok well...I am either not dumb enough to understand what point your trying to make or I just cannot understand you. So I will just make a point on why it is necessary to use animal testing.

Those who would seek to abolish animal research often claim that the use of animals in biomedical research is unnecessary because information can be obtained by alternative methods, such as test tubes and computers.

What is often not realised is that scientists have strong ethical, economic and legal obligations to use animals in research only when absolutely necessary. A lot of effort goes into trying to reduce the numbers of animals used, and trying to develop new methods to replace animals. As a result, the number of laboratory animals used annually in the UK has almost halved in the last 20 years.

Non-animal methods - tissue culture, computer modelling, studies of patients and populations - are very widely used. In fact, only about ten pence in every pound spent on medical research goes on animal studies. The word alternatives, often used to describe these non-animal methods, can lead to confusion because these methods are generally used alongside animal studies, not instead of them. All these techniques have their place, and it is rarely possible to substitute one for another.

There are stages in any research programme when it is not enough to know how individual molecules, cells or tissues behave. The living body is much more than just a collection of these parts, and we need to understand how they interact, how they are controlled. There are ethical limits to the experiments that we can do using people, so the only alternative is to use the most suitable animal to study a particular disease or biological function.

As science progresses, it may be possible to reduce the numbers of animals used in some areas. In other areas, the numbers of animals may increase. For instance, new and better animal models may be developed. It is now possible to breed animals with exactly the same genetic faults that cause some human diseases. So mice with cystic fibrosis, for example, have the symptoms as children with cystic fibrosis. These mice are the ideal way to test gene therapy, which may offer a medical breakthrough for the disease.

Just as it is necessary to use animals in the study of normal body functions or the study of disease mechanisms, it is also necessary at the later stage of developing and testing treatments. It is unethical and illegal to expose patients to new medicines without being confident that they are likely to benefit and not be seriously harmed. Treatments must, therefore, be tested first in animals to establish their probable effectiveness and safety. They are then tested on human volunteers. The process is not perfect but testing in whole animals is by far the best way to protect people. Animal tests ensure that obviously toxic substances are not given to human beings and that doctors in charge of the human volunteer studies are made aware of possible serious side effects.

For example, it is difficult to even imagine what range of test tube techniques or the complexity of computer systems would be necessary to mimic the amazing events that occur during the development and birth of a new baby. With present day technology, and even in the foreseeable future, this is simply not possible. By contrast, appropriate whole animal tests can detect potentially harmful effects of new treatments on foetal development and other events during pregnancy. Thus another thalidomide disaster is most unlikely.

No one wants to use animals unnecessarily or to cause them unnecessary suffering. The guiding principles in animal research today are called the three Rs:

* Refinement, to make sure animals suffer as little as possible
* Reduction, to minimise the number of animals used
* Replacement, to replace animal procedures with non- animal techniques wherever possible.

Randomknowledge just a hint, get some facts in don't try and sneak lies or false information by me.
Randomknowledge

Con

Hello jlconservative. I agree that animal testing is helpful, I just debated for the sake of debating. You obviously have your facts straight and I will only present facts this time. I will also give you the links to the websites.

1. Ten Fast Facts about Animal Testing

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products.
Sufficient existing safety data, as well as in vitro (test tube) alternatives make animal testing for cosmetics and household products unnecessary.
Because mice and rats are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the actual number of animals used in product testing is unreported and unknown. It has been estimated that as many as 100 million mice are used in U.S. laboratories every year.
Common animal tests currently used for cosmetics and household products include the Draize eye irritancy test, oral toxicity tests, and skin irritancy tests.
Animals used in testing are most usually purchased from specialized breeding facilities. However, they may also be taken from the wild or acquired from animal shelters (through a practice known as "pound seizure").
Animals used in product testing most commonly include guinea pigs, rabbits, mice, rats, and dogs. Animal subjects can also include cats, ferrets, birds, and nonhuman primates, to name a few.
Claims about animal testing on packaging and labels of cosmetics and household products are not regulated. Statements such as "not tested on animals" or "cruelty-free" can be deceptive, and require further inquiry.
Shop with confidence and compassion by only purchasing products from companies approved by the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) — the Leaping Bunny program. This is the only international standard that ensures that both products and ingredients did not involve new animal testing.
Animal testing can occur anywhere within the manufacturing process, including final (or finished) products, ingredient suppliers, associated manufacturers, and contract testing laboratories.
Animal testing for cosmetics has been banned in a number of European Union (EU) countries and a complete EU-wide ban is on the way.

All of this data is from http://www.api4animals.org...

I have more data about the actual animals used.

The Animal Welfare Act requires laboratories to report the number of animals used in experiments, but it does not cover mice, rats, and birds (used in some 80 to 95 percent of all experiments). Because these animals are not covered by the act, they remain uncounted, and we can only guess at how many actually suffer and die each year.

Many household products and cosmetics companies still pump their products into animals' stomachs, rub them onto their skin, squirt them into their eyes, or force animals to inhale them as aerosol sprays. Charities such as the March of Dimes use donations from private citizens to fund experiments on animals, and the FDA requires all drugs to be tested on animals. However, animals differ from humans significantly, making animal drug tests unreliable and dangerous. New research methods, such as computer models, cell cultures, and human studies are more accurate, less expensive, and much more humane.

that is directly from the PETA website, and I suggest reading the Animal Welfare act. I was only using a "personal in the moment" reference when I mentioned my dog. That was uncalled for and most animals that are used are nto covered by the animal welfare act.
Debate Round No. 2
Jlconservative

Pro

Randomknowledge just wanted to say don't take anything personal as far as I can tell your a polite and courteous individual.

Now lets get started, I see you brought some facts to the table instead of your previous opinionated babel. However I am afraid that this still does not cut it and I could tell by the very beginning:

"The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission do not require animal testing for cosmetics or household products."

This debate was not about how animal testing is not necessary for "cosmetics or household products." This debate is a more broad approach should we use animal testing in general, more specifically medication.

In my final argument I will list several myths about animal testing and produce the true and genuine facts about this controversial topic.

Myth: Research on animals is not relevant to people because animals are different from people. People and animals suffer from different illnesses.

Fact:All mammals are descended from common ancestors, and one result of this is that humans are biologically very similar to other mammals. All mammals, including humans, have the same organs - heart, lungs, kidneys, liver etc - performing the same functions and controlled by the same mechanisms, via the blood stream and nervous system. Of course there are minor differences, but these are far outweighed by the remarkable similarities. The differences can give important clues about diseases and how they might be treated - for instance, if we knew why the mouse with muscular dystrophy suffers less muscle wasting than human patients, this might lead to a treatment for this debilitating and fatal disorder.

Vitamins and hormones identified by animal experiments were found to have similar functions in people. The following animal hormones have all been used successfully in human patients:

* insulin from the pancreas of pigs or cows
* thyrotropin from cows' pituitaries
* calcitonin from the parathyroid gland of salmon
* adrenocorticotrophic hormone from pituitaries of farm animals
* oxytocin and vasopressin from pig posterior pituitary glands

Such similarities mean that studies in animals have led to the medicines which have transformed the treatment of many diseases during this century. The similarities also explain why many veterinary medicines are the same as those used for human patients: examples include antibiotics, pain killers and tranquilisers. Over one third of the veterinary medicines that are used to treat animals are the same as, or very similar to, those used to treat human patients.

Most human diseases exist in at least one other species. Illnesses such as cancer, heart failure, asthma, rabies and malaria are suffered by many species and can be treated in much the same way. A list of some 350 animal diseases with a human counterpart has been compiled by the veterinarian Charles Cornelius1 who considers that the study of animal diseases with a view to providing treatment for the human counterpart is "a neglected medical resource". This issue is also well-covered in an easily obtained source, ie the section on "Animal Disease" in Encyclopaedia Britannica. This contains an abbreviated list of 100 diseases common to animals and man and states: "... it is likely that, for every known human disease, an identical or similar disease exists in at least one other species".

Myth: Animal research has not made any contribution to medical progress.
Fact:The discovery of insulin in the 1920s by Banting and Best in Canada is a good example of the contribution of animal research to medical progress. Their key finding was that injections of an extract of pancreatic cells, which contained the hormone insulin, relieved the symptoms of diabetes in dogs. Insulin was soon found to be highly effective in people, and, as a result, many millions of diabetics are alive and well today. Diabetic dogs have also benefited from insulin treatment.

Each decade since the discovery of insulin has seen the introduction of new kinds of treatments for many diseases. During the 1930s and '40s, sulphonamides and antibiotics were developed to treat bacterial infections, vaccines were introduced to control viral infections, and surgery advanced with modern anaesthetics and the heart-lung machine. Kidney transplants, hip replacement surgery and drugs to control high blood pressure and mental illnesses followed in the '50s and afterwards. New treatments of leukaemia, asthma and ulcers appeared in the '60s and '70s. Drugs which delay the development of AIDS and other diseases caused by viruses, and improved drugs to prevent the rejection of transplants were developed in the '80s and '90s. That each of these and the many other advances were critically dependent on animal experiments is a historical fact.

Given continued research using animals, we can expect further advances in the treatment of diseases such as cancer, cystic fibrosis and crippling joint disease. It is very difficult to see how we could make such medical advances without animal research.

MYTH:Many pointless, unnecessary animal experiments are carried out
FACT Unnecessary animal experiments are very unlikely in the U.S.A for the following reasons:

* The strict controls on animal research, in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, do not allow animals to be used to obtain information that is obtainable by other means.
* Research using animals is very expensive because the animals are costly to buy or breed, to house, and to care for, and the work itself is slow and labour intensive.
* Funds for biomedical research are limited, so each research proposal is rigorously assessed by panels of experts. Trivial, irrelevant or repetitive work will not attract funding.

MYTH:Most research animals are cats, dogs or monkeys.
FACT:More than 80 out of every 100 animals used in research are mice, rats and other rodents. Less than one in every 200 research animals is a cat or a dog.

Dogs, because of the size and similarity of their organs, are important for the development of new surgical techniques and for the study of the heart, lungs and blood vessels. Cats are important in the study of hearing and brain function. The use of both cats and dogs is subject to particular controls which require that they are specially bred for research. Stray cats and dogs or lost pets are not used for research in Britain.

Some people believe that monkeys and apes (primates) are used in great numbers, but they represent less than one in every 600 research animals. Primates are needed for research into very serious conditions such as AIDS and Alzheimer's disease (senile dementia).

MYTH:Laboratory animals suffer great pain and distress.
FACT:Most experiments do not cause significant pain or distress, since they involve only mild procedures such as a single injection, taking a small blood sample, or a change of diet. In most of the remainder, anaesthetics or pain-killing drugs are used to prevent discomfort. In the very few experiments which could cause significant discomfort and for which the use of anaesthetics is not appropriate, every precaution is taken to minimise distress. All experiments must be approved by Home Office Inspectors, who are doctors and vets with the knowledge and experience to weigh any distress involved in an experiment against the potential benefit for science and for humanity.

The fact is animal testing does more for us in the field of medication than most people realize, some are blinded by lies,stupidity,myths, and influences into believing that animal testing is rooms of monkeys and puppies waiting to be worked on by doctor Frankenstein, or cages of innocent mice being slaughtered daily for useless tests. The facts are the tests are relevant,perfectly moral and necessary, and it has,is and will save lives, we are the dominate species because of our brains, lets use them.
Randomknowledge

Con

This has become quite a long argument, jlconservative, and I applaud you for your passion toward the subject. I want to make it clear right now to anyone reading this that this was a debate I was challenged to, and I am merely debating for the sake of debating. That said, I wish to bring up more information, just for the sake of presenting more information.

As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers-is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money. You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted.

This is referring to the Animal Welfare act, a document passed that OBVIOUSLY doesn't cover rats, birds, mice and other small animals.

Here is some more

Animal experimentation is a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by massive public funding and involving a complex web of corporate, government, and university laboratories, cage and food manufacturers, and animal breeders, dealers, and transporters. The industry and its people profit because animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited.

Obviously this comes from a highly opinionated and not very detailed source, but it still presents quite accurate information.

There have been numerous testimonies from the actual "experimenters", per say, and they say Its A OK because the animals are not like us. Bull. The animals that have organs MUCH SIMILAR TO OURS, like monkeys and dogs, are still used for animal testing. Now I see how this can be beneficial to organ testing and what not but, seriously.

I also direct your attention to http://www.defra.gov.uk..., a website listing all of the animal welfare acts and Animal Regulations in the U.S. and UK.
Another great website is http://www.hsus.org...

If you don't want to go through the trouble of visiting and critiquing these websites, then I might add some here.

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) spells out the minimum standards of care and treatment required for certain animals used in research, bred for commercial sale, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the agency responsible for establishing these minimum standards of care and enforcing them through inspections.

Originally enacted in 1966, the AWA initially regulated only the acquisition and handling of animals by dealers. It was amended in 1970 to include the care of animals in research institutions. However, birds, rats, and mice bred for research were excluded from regulatory oversight. Subsequently, an amendment was passed as part of the 2002 Farm Bill (the USDA later issued the regulations in 2004) to explicitly exclude virtually all birds, rats, and mice bred for research. These species account for approximately 85% of all animals used in laboratories.

The Animal Welfare Act also requires that any institution conducting research on USDA-regulated species have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which oversees and provides final approval of experiments. This committee must ensure that any pain and distress caused by experiments be minimized, and that investigators consider any alternatives that are available to them (including non-animal alternatives).

Standards regarding amount of space, feeding, bedding, exercise, and transportation are written according to species. The standards are broken into three subsections under Part 3 of the USDA regulations, namely Facilities and Operating Standards, Animal Health and Husbandry Standards, and Transportation Standards.

that is a passage describing the Animal Welfare Act

The Guides stated goal is "to promote the humane care of animals used in biomedical and behavioral research, teaching and testing; the basic objective is to provide information that will enhance animal well-being, the quality of biomedical research, and advancement of biologic knowledge that is relevant to humans or animals." The Guide sets forth standards for animal care in areas such as pain and analgesia use, veterinary care, and behavioral management.

That was a passage describing the public health service policy. It protects and promotes humane care of animals.

I also recommend going to http://www.stopanimaltests.com...

of which I am sure you have been. There is an excellently descriptive video hosted by the actor, James Cromwell, made by PETA. It shows examples of the horrible things done to animals in research labs and the way they are treated.

I will disprove some common myths as well.
Myth: There are only a few animal rights organizations and they're not worth joining.

Fact:There are hundreds of AR-related organizations scattered around the
globe. In addition, there are many vegetarian and vegan groups.

Visit http://animal-rights.com... for a list of organizations longer than they can post.

Myth: Animal Rights is something minuscule that I shouldn't worry about.

Fact: Many famous people have supported animal rights, and I have a few quotes to support it.

The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withheld from them but by the hand of tyranny.
Jeremy Bentham (philosopher)

Life is life--whether in a cat, or dog or man. There is no difference
there between a cat or a man. The idea of difference is a human
conception for man's own advantage...
Sri Aurobindo (poet and philosopher)

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all
evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still
savages.
Thomas Edison (inventor)

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of
animals as they now look on the murder of men.
Leonardo Da Vinci (artist and scientist)

Myth: Arent animal rights hypocritical, because you don't give rights to plants and insects?

Fact: This is an argument frequently used against animal right activists and the like.
The general hypocrisy argument appears in many forms. A typical form
is as follows: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a cow but not for a plant;
therefore, cows cannot have rights."

We then begin to assess the rights of an insect verses the rights of a cow. Hmm. Big difference.

I am near to running out of characters, and I want to leave readers with a quote to tie up my argument.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
I will vote on this at a later time after I read through the entire debate.
Posted by Randomknowledge 9 years ago
Randomknowledge
Please dont vote because of length. Both my opponent and I had lengthy responses. Thank you and please read the entire thing. I am sure my opponent would concur.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wooferalot101 8 years ago
wooferalot101
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 eyeleapy 9 years ago
eyeleapy
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 cliffsofdover 9 years ago
cliffsofdover
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 towinistosucced 9 years ago
towinistosucced
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 mynameisjonas 9 years ago
mynameisjonas
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 yahoodeler 9 years ago
yahoodeler
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 workersaregoinghome 9 years ago
workersaregoinghome
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 dlehdgus 9 years ago
dlehdgus
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 tranbo 9 years ago
tranbo
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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 Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
JlconservativeRandomknowledgeTied
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