The Instigator
rawritsmichelle
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
68 Points

Animal Testing

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: 2/15/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,179 times Debate No: 2684
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (79)
Votes (25)

 

rawritsmichelle

Con

I strongly disagree with animal testing. Animals are living creatures, and deserve a chance to live. They cannot tell us what they want, but I am positive that they do not want to be tormented and abused for human-caused problems that modern day science could solve for us.
Kleptin

Pro

A word before we begin.

A wise Chinese philosopher once criticized a wealthy man who was staring at the fish in his pond.

"how happy they must be, to be swimming in refreshing water on such a sunny day"

How are we to know whether they are happy or not? If animals could think like humans, wouldn't it just be another normal day? Would they really be happy as opposed to emotionless? Is it right for us to pretend we can think through the minds of fish?

Humans anthropomorphize everything. We call the skies happy when they are blue, and angry when a storm is on the horizon. We apply everything we know about ourselves onto everything else. The reason why many people find it difficult to harm other animals is simply that they see humanity in things that aren't human.

This misplaced empathy can really screw up our judgment.

**************

That being said, I will now begin my argument.

No one likes animal cruelty. It seems inhumane to abuse our position as dominant species of this planet. But by whose standards? We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes. This includes other living things.

Please don't misunderstand. Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing. Animal testing provides us with many important things. Namely, medications. Sure, there are other things like dietary supplements, hormones, cosmetics, but medication is probably the most important.

Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting. But for every rabbit or rat that we inadvertently kill, hundreds of thousands of human lives could potentially be saved.

Another issue: Do non-human animals have human rights? No. This is absurd. The concept of rights is artificial in and of itself. Nature doesn't believe in fair or unfair. There is no justice in nature. Especially not in a survival-of-the-fittest, evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world.
Debate Round No. 1
rawritsmichelle

Con

"How are we to know whether they are happy or not?"

I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony.

"We evolved with a specific trait: the ability to manipulate our environment for our own purposes."

We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution.

"Do animals die? Yes. Many of them too. They often die bad deaths. Death by medication is better known as "poisoning". It's probably quite painful and tormenting."

Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals.

"Modern day science depends heavily on animal testing."

We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures.
Kleptin

Pro

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony."

Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals.

Feel free to describe it with human ideals and through a human lens all you want, but know that it does nothing to validate your argument.

"We seem to be doing a very bad job of "manipulating the environment", seeing as we are creating a hole in the ozone layer, have killed off many species, and not to mention the oh-so-delightful pollution."

That's your opinion. Have you seen our technological advancement? The fact that our life expectancy has more than doubled its natural length? There is no comparison between the human species and the next most fit species. Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species. And by the way, the extinction of other species is not a mark of negativity. Thousands of species become extinct naturally. There is nothing inherently bad about a species going extinct, other than not being able to see them in a zoo.

"Of course they die by poisoning. Animal testing will create an innumerable amount of poisons, killing even more animals."

I challenge this claim. I feel you have no evidence for it and thus, I will call it out as invalid. I also feel you have completely missed my argument and were just skimming through it and saw the word "poison". When medications have side effects, the lab animals pay the price. This allows us to refine the drug to make it safe. If anything, animal testing creates LESS poisonous substances for testing.

"We have gotten far in the field of sciences. There can be many ways to enhance our knowledge, but we could do it without torturing poor creatures."

I can label you a pink llama and it would not help this debate. Labeling them as poor creatures and labeling our treatment of them as torture does little to show that you have an unbiased and logical explanation of your belief. It gives me the impression that your personal beliefs and biases are the only thing you have to convince me of your argument.

****************************

My opponent is clearly a very caring and considerate person. However, my opponent has made absolutely no logical argument against animal testing. My opponent has refused, and thus, conceded all the points I made about animal testing being necessary to save human lives, and about animals not having rights.

I have given my reasons and I now invite my opponent to provide me with a logical argument whereby it is overwhelmingly shown that animal testing should be banned for objective reasons.
Debate Round No. 2
rawritsmichelle

Con

"I never stated that they were happy. However, with "human rights" or not, I still wouldn't say that I would enjoy being mutilated or have needles shoved into me, animal or human. It doesn't matter whether or not they aren't as intelligent. Nothing should be forced to go through that type of agony."

"Again, I bring back the example of the proverb. You simply cannot look through the eyes of another animal. Every judgment you make will be biased through the human lens. So no, you have absolutely no way to justify your claim that you would feel a certain way if you were the animal being tested. Animals may find it displeasing and seek a way to escape from their fate, but the mental anguish from tormenting humans simply cannot be assumed to be present in other animals."

Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant.

"Temporary environmental problems pale in comparison to how much we have accomplished for our species."

Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?
Kleptin

Pro

"Again, please state where I have said it will cause them mental anguish. I do not see it. I have said, however, that it would be unpleasant."

An animal cannot be tortured if it simply experiences physical pain stimulus. It must also have the intelligence and metal capacity to understand being trapped in a position where the sole purpose of the transgressor is to cause continuous, physical pain. A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured. It would simply keep trying to escape from the pain. Since escaping from a negative source is simple a biological function, and you seem to be against that, it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc. There must be ANOTHER component in play besides just causing them displeasure. This is mental anguish.

"Temporary? I don't think that these changes are 'temporary' with the ozone layer depleted all the way to the tip of South America. We have accomplished much as a species, but do we owe it all to animal testing? Of course, animal testing is there to make alterations to the many flaws of medications, but if we have managed to accomplish so much, how difficult would it be to find an alternate source of experimentation?"

Animal testing has little to nothing to do with the ozone layer. We should go back on track.

Yes. Because since we are unable to create or simulate life, we do not have an easy way to determine how certain medications will affect the organs of a body. We don't know everything about the body structure, and we don't know all the chemical pathways. Therefore, the only possibility is to make a drug based on a concept, what little we DO know, then pop it into a biological system and see if anything bad happens. That's how we made every single medication so far.

Getting rid of animal testing is severe. It would leave us with two choices:

Either stop testing medication and just sell it, or test it on humans.

Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead.

************

My opponent has once again sidestepped by request that I be provided with an argument as to WHY animal testing should be STOPPED.

All my opponent has been doing, is trying to dispel my arguments FOR animal testing, but she has not offered a single objective reason why animal testing should be stopped.

The only valid point she made was that there may be a better alternative, but I have already pointed out the the sacrifice would be dire if we did so.

If animal testing helps us greatly, why should we stop? My opponent has also not given me what I requested specifically: proof that animals have rights.

I have waited many, many rounds and my opponent has STILL not expressed an argument as to animal testing should be stopped other than "They don't want to be hurt".

I hope that in this final round, my opponent will finally make a statement.
Debate Round No. 3
rawritsmichelle

Con

I believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct.

This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out.

Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans.

I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species:

Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface).

Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans.

Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

There are many, many other disasters within the animal testing experiments, and you say:

"Either way, many, MANY humans will die or suffer terrible side effects when animals could have been used instead."

Many have died FROM animal testing.

"A rabbit for example, wouldn't feel tortured."

Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion.

"it would be wrong for us to eat plants or animals, to disinfect surfaces, to use pesticides, to destroy weeds, consume antibiotics or antiviral medications, etc."

Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped? Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain? When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce. Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings?

As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening.

Please do not go off on a tangent.

As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab.

Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you.

When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions.

You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My opponent is clearly trying to state that the superiors are meant to be living in high quality, and the less developed are in a "survival-of-the-fittest" world, and should face the fact that they will be manipulated for the more intelligent being's advantages. So clearly, those of us with any disadvantages would be picked off in this

"evolution-by-way-of-natural-selection world."

Also, my opponent has also not said any major points to be used towards animal testing except that "it helps humans" and "animals are less sophisticated", etc etc (basically promoting the existence of the human race and questioning animal rights). Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons.

I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough? Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through"

I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?
Kleptin

Pro

"believe that my opponent is insinuating that humans are much more superior to animals, if I am correct. This would mean that the psychological and physical differents would be immediately pointed out. Which means that all reactions coming from animals will not be corresponding to those of humans. I do have examples and proof of disasters due to differences between the two species:"

"Many have died FROM animal testing."

I understand your argument. You are essentially saying "Animal testing goes wrong. Sometimes, we think it works in animals, but then we accidentally kill people". The problem is, this does not show that we should ban animal testing. Banning animal testing would result in MORE human deaths because then we won't have ANY way of testing a medication or procedure. So your argument is void.

"Like you have stated before, from the chinese proverb, how could you feel sure that you know is isn't feeling tortured? Also, torture is a broad term. It could mean anything from slight physical pain to serious psychological confusion."

Scientific evidence. Rabbits do not have the mental capacity to develop the concepts we know as freedom and pain. They just experience pain. And in this sense, torture would mean both a physical and mental anguish. If your definition of torture is just slight physical pain, it would be wrong to disinfect surfaces, take antibiotics, eat any sort of meat, etc. Thus, there must be more than the physical component to accurately define torture.

"Many livestock are being killed everyday for food. Why add to the mounting number of deaths, when those in the labs can be stopped?"

Begging the question fallacy. This debate is about whether or not we should stop the deaths in the labs. Thus, it is not a valid point.

"Why cause more physical and perhaps psychological pain?"

As I have said before, the benefits we as a species get from animal testing far outweighs the harm we do to the animals we test on. You have no responded to my point about every medication on the market being the result of successful animal testing.

"When you disinfect surfaces, you do kill bacteria. Bacteria, however, are single-celled. They have no nucleus. They simply have the required elements to survive and DNA material to reproduce."

Your understanding is off. You mean to say that bacteria don't have brains. The nucleus of a single celled organism does not act as neural processing. However, this point is void. Bacteria respond to negative stimulus the same way we respond to pain. When we touch a hot stove, there are chemical signals telling us "this is bad, pull away". When bacteria encounter a destructive chemical, chemical transmitters and ion gates make it stop moving in that direction and turn around.

"Animals have so much more; they have the intelligence to feel; even if we do not know what they are feeling, what would cause behavioral differences besides feelings?"

Perhaps, but this really isn't helping your argument. You cannot show that animals feel the same way humans do, so why should we give up animal testing and the lives of so many other humans just because we feel we have an ethical duty towards animals who don't even know what ethics or morals are?

"As for destroying and eating plants, I do not believe that we are talking about plant testing or gardening.

Please do not go off on a tangent."

No tangent here. Plants and animals similarly respond to negative stimuli. Roots grow away from toxic substances, therefore, if we accept your definition, using weed killer is "torture" and should be stopped.

My point is, "torture" must have both a physical and psychological component. Yes, animals may have feelings, but they don't understand the concept of torture. If a human is being tortured, half the pain comes from knowing that they can't escape the pain. Most lab animals simply keep trying to escape the pain.

"As for the poison issue, yes, many animals do die by posions. Who's to disagree? But as the animals adapt to their surroundings, poisons must be strengthened, and have flaws altered. When this happens, the creators will wish to determine whether or not their poison is successful, thus testing it on animals. This kills animals being tested as well as those who have never set foot in a lab."

Again, you have completely missed my point. You started talking about people trying to manufacture poisons and you have proven me correct. I made the hypothesis that you were skimming through my point about medications, saw the word "poison" and began to rant on something incoherently. I was right. You still don't know what you are talking about.

I asked you to prove your point that the process of developing MEDICINE will eventually poison more and more animals. You have not done that. I was not talking about people who want to create poisons. I was talking about people who wanted to create working MEDICATIONS. Scientists developing a certain drug will test it on an animal. If it fails, they fix it, and test it on animals until they live.

Hence, more testing leads to LESS overall deaths of lab animals, because the medication will have less and less side effects and a lower fatality rate.

This completely disproves your point.

"Since you have requested proof that animals have rights, I will give it to you.

When I see a dog wag its tail in euphoria, whimper in lament, growl in frustration, or other physical signs indicating emotions, I know I can believe that animals have emotions.

You may ask me how I know, but why question this when no one questions when a human smiles or frowns?"

This argument is completely irrelevant, a non sequitor. The fact that an animal displays emotions has nothing to do with whether or not is has human rights. You have failed to prove your point and thus, my argument still stands.

"Those are two main points. There have been counter-arguments, but no other reasons."

That's the only reason I need. Animal testing is going on and removing it would do a great deal of harm to our species. You are the one proposing the change, you think we should ban it. Thus, the burden of proof falls on you to develop an argument as to why we should ban animal testing DESPITE the terrible setback it would cause for our race.

"I know that you may say that those two are enough, but why isn't an animal's pain enough?"

Non sequitor. This statement may bode well if you were a politician campaigning for the presidency, because it has a nice ring to it. But in debate, this makes absolutely no sense.

"Anywho, there have been many more sufficient reasons posted in this argument that you will hopefully read thoughtfully and thoroughly without "skimming through"

I hope I have analyzed my opponent accurately, because this seems to be his point between humans and animals. Why not apply it to those among the human race?"

You have analyzed my argument poorly and have not made a single coherent point.

---------

First and foremost, my point that animal testing is extremely beneficial to mankind has not been rebutted. Thus, we must take this as truth.

Second, my opponent FAILED to show that animals deserve human rights. She only showed that animals have emotions.

Third, my opponent is arguing that we should take measures to BAN animal testing. Thus, the burden of proof was on her to give an argument as to why we should sacrifice members of the human species for the sake of other animals. She has failed to do so.

While it is regretful that animals die in the labs to produce our medications, the fact remains that animal testing is a necessity for our survival. There is no sufficient reason why we should sacrifice our survival for another animal's since non-human animals do not have and do not deserve human rights.
Debate Round No. 4
79 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
The only possible alternative as of right now is to use stem cell technology and create human systems for the sole purpose of drug testing. That would cost millions of dollars for one test subject whereas one rabbit or one mouse barely costs $10. The fact that you find animals cute and fluffy doesn't mean that it is wrong to kill them.
Posted by AlexaT 7 years ago
AlexaT
Animal Testing is something that I am against. It is not right to test products on animals. There should be other ways to test these products that companies want to put out & sell with out having to harm animals. With the technology we have today, scientists should be able to find other ways to test products before selling them to the public. Some animals even die in the process of getting tested on. These scientists are injecting poisons into them not knowing how it is going to affect the animal. Yes that is the point of testing these products before selling them but, there should be a different way to test these products.
Posted by PryorPirate93 8 years ago
PryorPirate93
i knew one day he was gonna admit he sucked!!!!
i knew it!!!!
^-^
again....good for you dude....
leave out the details though....
thnx!!!!!
Posted by Mikegj1077 8 years ago
Mikegj1077
So the next thing your newly-converted gay person did is what? Run to suck someone's pecker? What a prize.
Posted by PryorPirate93 8 years ago
PryorPirate93
obviously....my 'opponent' saw that my way was just.....
and he too.....is now gay.....im happy to say!!!!!!
good for you dude!!!!!
XD
Posted by slammin 8 years ago
slammin
Why don't you go debate about it? Nobody really wants to read your conversation, which takes up 2 pages of comments.
Posted by PryorPirate93 8 years ago
PryorPirate93
First off you should repent kuz your a faggetyu man whore
Second off it takes an abomination to know an abonimation smart azz.....
stop bein a whore yo....
L8er
and that i guess drag queen in the pic isn't pretty just ....you might wanna question her sexuality dude.....
L8er
Posted by Mikegj1077 8 years ago
Mikegj1077
With every filthy, sperm-dripping utterance from you, I thank God I have seen the light....Does the sight of a pretty female cause your natural sexual urges to reverse themselves? For you are not what you think you are but of the devil's image. Throw off your sinful ways and repent. It's not too late. And bring your sinful friends with you so they may see the light and enter into the Kingdom of God. Repent, thou scum. REPENT NOW!
Posted by PryorPirate93 8 years ago
PryorPirate93
you sure she isn't also your cousin or in some homo club?!?!?!? So what you're the big brother that protects their little sister from the guys that like her or some kind of crap ike that......
She might possibly be okay if she wasn't as religious as you.....
Posted by Mikegj1077 8 years ago
Mikegj1077
She is my sister, and she is a lovely girl--to a normal person, of course.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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 slammin 8 years ago
slammin
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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 bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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 shrey024 8 years ago
shrey024
rawritsmichelleKleptinTied
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