The Instigator
BravesFan33
Con (against)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
zainie143
Pro (for)
Winning
56 Points

Are "old" bands really better than newer ones?

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: 12/1/2007 Category: Arts
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,730 times Debate No: 133
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (32)
Votes (25)

 

BravesFan33

Con

First of all, let's just consider "old" as Metallica and before...unless the band is still writing and releasing albums.

I find it extremely annoying just how overrated, in general, these bands are, at least sound-wise.

-Catchiness...

The purpose of the sound of a song is to be catchy, is it not? Isn't the main goal of the sound of a song to revolve around a catchy, entertaining, great-sounding chorus? Only a select few older musical groups could master this. They were great musicians...don't get me wrong. But their ability to write good sounding songs from beginning to end really wasn't all that great. Let's use Jimi Hendrix, for instance. He's probably the greatest guitarist ever...played left handed and with his teeth. But were the songs he wrote, such as "Purple Haze", all that great? Were they intense, entertaining, fast-paced, or catchy? Not really. Yeah, I guess the riff for "Purple Haze" is pretty cool. But what's more fun to listen to...Purple Haze or..."Basketcase" by Green Day? "All Along the Watchtower" or "American Idiot"? I don't find it safe to say that Hendrix's songs are better written (sound-wise) than Green Day's. The sound quality, the beat, the rhythm, the intesity, catchiness...they're simply not at Green Day's level.

How 'bout Led Zeppelin? Jimmy Page was a great guitar player, and Robert Plant was a really talented singer. But Zeppelin's songs weren't entertaining. They were slow and boring, generating no mood or intensity. Now I'm all for a song being slow if it's meant to be that way...an acoustic song, for instance. But everyone thought Zeppelin were speedy almighty rockers when really the intensity at which they played resembled that of a bedtime prayer. "Kashmir" wasn't too bad a riff, but what makes it better and awesome-er (?) than say..."Duality" by Slipknot, or "Fat Lip" by Sum 41? What makes "Iron Man" any more bada$$ a riff than "Boom" by POD? And don't get me started on "Smoke on the Water." Everyon worships the song as a god, but it's nowhere near the level of bada$$ness of an anthem such as "B.Y.O.B." by System of a Down. Oh and don't get me started on Pink Floyd. I barely even consider them musicians. The more proper label would be...mumblers...or perhaps moaning, mooing cows.

-Redundance...

I can't stress this one enough. Old bands had no or very little variety in their music. Period. Name a Zep song in which Robert Plant DOESN'T use that high-pitched moaning noise. Just one. Name a Sabbath song in which Ozzy verbalizes using something other than the pitch he uses in "Crazy Train" or "Paranoid." Name 2 Rolling Stones songs that were at different "paces" or intensity-levels from one another. You're gonna have to look really really really really really hard. Please listen to "Question!" by System of a Down. It begins with a soft, beautiful, classical acoustic guitar...but then transfers suddenly into a loud, headbanging, beast! The vocals go from low to high to deep to screaming to this to that to this all throughout the song. It's a creative, dynamic masterpiece. Listen to it.
In the older era of rock (and roll) music, bands really weren't that different from each other. There was 1 stlye and 1 style only: upbeat electric guitars with Robert Plant-type vocals. But nowadays it's though there are too many genres to count. You've got your heavy stuff, your soft stuff, your rap stuff (although rap isn't music, but instead a bunch of foolish mumbling). This shows me that these artists could write and master only one type of song, really. How creative or open minded is that? How skillful? I'm just not impressed.

-Overrated Guitarists...

The following guitarists are extremely overrated...
-Jimmy Page
-Joe Satriani
-Eric Clapton
-Tony Iommi
-Carlos Santana
-Kirk Hammet
-Angus Young
-Keith Richards

...and many more. Now listen to these guitarists, and you'll see exactly what I mean...

-Alexi Laiho (quite possibly the most talented ever, besides Hendrix)
-Willie Adler/Mark Morton
-Mick Thomson/James Root
-Ray Toro
-Mike Spreitzer/Jeff Kendrick
-Jonathan Donais/Matt Bachand

...and many more. This category is actually beside the point...because the majority of the bands I just mentioned directly above are Black/Death metal bands whose vocalists make stupid annoying hissing noises...and are actually worse bands than Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, etc. I just wanted to expose to you the raw guitar talent that's out there.

-Humor...

I think humor displays great lyrical and verbal skills, when done with sheer wit. Bands today are...without a doubt, funnier than those of yesterday.

-Lyrics...

Now this is the category I'll admit that older bands are much better in. The lyrics and messages being sent in music today, at least in general...are "kill yourself," "screw a lot of women," "kill people," "rape people," etc. etc. Older groups have much healthier and wittier lyrics than this.
There are a few exceptions, though...such as Green Day, System of a Down or Anti-Flag. They have extremely intelligent lyrics.
zainie143

Pro

Hello BravesFan33, my name is zain. You're wrong dude. I strongly believe that old band are really better than the newer ones. Who first started music between them ??..Is it the old bands or the newer ones??...Without the old bands, music can't evolved, to the newer bands...Without them newer bands will only have fewer idea to make sounds,,or music..Can newer bands like Green Day, System of a Down or Anti-Flag have a great lyrics without the older bands?????..Older bands are great!!!..Without the skills of older bands newer bands can't make good lyrics...
In lyrics and tunes... old bands are better than newer bands...the lyrics of older bands are meaningful...not like now...mostly they based it on tunes of the songs whether if they like it or not...wherein meaningful lyrics lead to great music,,, especially if it has the both of these( the meaningful lyrics and great tunes!!)....

In experience, old bands have more experience compared to the newer bands...old bands discovers the lyrics and tunes for their music...they had a hard time making songs compared to newer bands...Now a days, most of the NEW BANDS get the lyrics of the songs of the old bands and just change the tunes of it...For short just a "revival of the songs"...Is it good??...Are they great???....

Now in experience again... And some examples of older bands.."The Jimi Hendrix Experience" was a highly influential, though short-lived, English/American rock band famous for the guitar work of frontman Jimi Hendrix on songs such as "Purple Haze", "Foxy Lady", "Fire", "Hey Joe", "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)", "All Along the Watchtower", "Little Wing" and "Spanish Castle Magic".

One of the song of Jimi Hendrix was Voodoo child . . ."Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" is the last track on the third and final album by the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Electric Lady land. The song is well known for its wah-wah-soaked guitar work, with muted strings crescendoing into explosive riffs, based upon Muddy Waters' "Rollin' Stone".

"Voodoo Child" was released posthumously in 1970 as the A side on a three-track single, and reached Number 1 in the UK. Unfortunately, it was catalogued as "Voodoo Chile" (Track 2095 001), and that is the title which appears on the single and is the title referred to officially. This obviously confuses it with the 15-minute jam on the album Electric Ladyland. The B-side of the single featured two of his previous hits: "Hey Joe" and "All Along the Watchtower."

The lyrics goes like this :

Well, I stand up next to a mountain
And I chop it down with the edge of my hand
Well, I stand up next to a mountain
Chop it down with the edge of my hand
Well, I pick up all the pieces and make an island
Might even raise just a little sand
'Cause I'm a voodoo child
Lord knows I'm a voodoo child

I didn't mean to take you up all your sweet time
I'll give it right back to you one of these days
I said, I didn't mean to take you up all your sweet time
I'll give it right back to you one of these days
And if I don't meet you no more in this world
Then I'll, I'll meet you in the next one
And don't be late, don't be late
'Cause I'm a voodoo child
Lord knows I'm a voodoo child
I'm a voodoo child

this lyrics evolved..this is one of the lyrics that the newer bands had gotten ideas for their music. . JUST REMEMBER " without old bands,,music may take very hard time to be expanded to our generation" maybe without the old bands we can't have good music or songs right now!!...Old bands are really great!!..

And take a look in your statement :

"Now this is the category I'll admit that older bands are much better in. The lyrics and messages being sent in music today, at least in general...Are "kill yourself," "screw a lot of women," "kill people," "rape people," etc. . Older groups have much healthier and wittier lyrics than this."

So you have admitted that old bands are better than newer bands.
Debate Round No. 1
BravesFan33

Con

Howdy Zain.

I'm actually gonna go out of order here and address your last statement first. I admitted that old bands wrote better lyrics, in general, than newer ones...not that they were better over all. It helps to follow some form of logic/common sense when debating. Keep that in mind.

Speaking of lyrics...Jimi Hendrix wrote some good ones, of course...but I guarantee they can't come within a mile of System of a Down's poetic, symbolic, witty, satirical, genius, humorous, intelligent, hilarious lyrics. Nowhere close. By the way, you threw some Henrix lyrics up there without explaining their meaning. That makes no sense.

But anyway...here are some lyrics from the song "B.Y.O.B.", which intelligently stands for "bring your own bombs" by SOAD...

"Why do they always send the poor?!
Barbarisms by Barbaras
with pointed heels
victorious victorious kneel
for brand new spankin' deals

marching forward hypocritic
and hypnotic computers
you depend on our protection
yet you feed us lies from the tablecloth

everybody's going to the party
have a real good time
dancing in the desert blowing up the sunshine..."

But anyway, the message constructed in this ingenius song is that as a whole, human beings, overwhelmingly America, romantacize war. We're so desensitized and emotionally isolated from one another...that we're more likely to associate war with a fun, entertaining "party"...than we are to regard it as the blood-soaked, $hitty, depressing, destructive, life-destroying, living hell it is. We've been desensitized by the media and our lust for money to the point where we don't care as much for each other as we should.

And that's just one of their songs. Every song System of a Down has ever written is about society, mankind, or moral judgements...in some form or fashion. "P.L.U.C.K." is about the Armenian Genocide of 1915. "Boom!" is another anti-war anthem...which, by the way, appears on VH1's lists of "the 25 greatest protest songs of all time." "Suggestions" is about rapture. "Violent Pornography" is about the desensitizing effects of the media. "Question!" is about reincarnation and the question of after-life.

"This is the End (for you my friend)" by Anti-Flag is about American media. "Time's Up" by the Donots...is about the Bush Administration.

And this is just skimming the very tip of the iceberg of the lyrical ingenuity of what's out there nowadays, despite the crap that is also out there. Yet you say that today's lyrics aren't meaningful? Sorry to be realistic, but I'm afraid that's false.

Okay...now addressing your other points. I knew somebody would address this BS about older artists "paving the way" and "influencing" newer ones. It's a crock of Hog Sh**. Let's put this into an analogy...

Are you familiar with Barry Bonds? If not, he's the home run king of baseball. Anyway...without Barry's father, Bobby Bonds...Barry would never have existed, would never be exposed to the game of baseball, never have pushed himself to constantly be better, never have played in college, never have played in high school. Now...using your logic...I could say that Bobby Bonds is twice the player Barry ever was...simply because he existed on Earth first and taught Barry what he knew. Does that make sense? Nah. Hardly anyone has ever heard of Bobby Bonds...because he wasn't even a good pro player. He had ZERO records. His son Barry, on the other hand, is the HOME RUN KING!!! Who's the better player?

Michael Jordan probably learned a lot by watching his predecessors, Larry Bird and Pistol Pete Maravich. But who, of the 3, was the most skillful basketball player?

Mohandas Gandhi cited Henry David Thoreau as his chief influence in life. Yet who ultimately made more of a difference in the world?

Jimi Hendrix was strongly influenced by Django Reinhardt, a great jazz musician in 1910. But who had more raw skill at the guitar?

So as you can see...that portion of your argument is extremely flawed. If the preexistent could not do what the existent has managed to do, what does it matter?

Now in reference to Earthbander's comment down there...
Earthbander, you say that songs aren't just about catchiness. Well...it's about 90% of it actually. Yeah, self expression is good. But would you rather hear self expression composed of a bunch of pots and pans clinging together, grandpa snoring, a baby crying, and a dog getting into the trash simultaneously...or self expression in the form of a trained, organized band?
If you expect to express yourself without an entertaining sound, then be a writer. Poets and novelists are geniuses when it comes to self expression. They're great thinkers. But if you'd like to express youself in music, it's a lot better to do so with an entertaining sound.

But seriously guys...please listen to the songs/guitarists I've mentioned.

Oh and by the way, I hope you all don't take my aggresive comments to heart. I'm not insulting you. I just tend to catch the heat of the battle when in debates. Sorry.
zainie143

Pro

Hi bravesfan33. In debate, admitting any points that will not help you, it will be a BIG POINT for me. It's a chance for me to argue with you. I am just clarifying your statement: "Now this is the category I'll admit that older bands are much better in. The lyrics and messages being sent in music today, at least in general...Are "kill yourself," "screw a lot of women," "kill people," "rape people," etc. . Older groups have much healthier and wittier lyrics than this." That will help me. I just want you to know that this will be a big point for me! that you agree that "OLDER BANDS are much better than the NEWER bands" in the category for lyrics.We are talking in general here, not specific bands.

In lyrics, I strongly believe that Older bands are better than the newer bands. The lyrics and/or messages sent in music today, in general, Are "kill people",screw a lot of women" as you've said. In this case, Older bands have much better lyrics compared to the old ones and also you've told me that lyrics of Older bands are healthier and wittier in writing or composing lyrics. In this point, generally,Older bands are much better compared to the newer bands.(lyrics specifically)

We just don't talk to the bands of System of a Down, Green Day, Anti-flag etc.
We should also consider the other newer bands. Like "BAMBOO", "Chicosci", "secondhand Serenade", " Kamikazee", "Red Jump Suit Apparatus" , "My Chemical Romance" ,"Boys Like Girls" , "orange and Lemons", " Rivermaya","Hinder",
" Linkin Park" etc. We should talk now in general, not only other bands.

Now I will compare the songs that was made by the old bands and the newer bands.First I will start in the newer bands.

[1] Orange and Lemons is a Filipino pop rock band formed in 2003. The band name "Oranges and Lemons" was initially recommended by a former member of the group. Apparently the band was not aware at that time that the name was actually derived from a British nursery rhyme and a title of an album by the British band "XTC". So they changed it to "Orange and Lemons".

With a style of retro music combined with alternative rock, the band has become few of Pinoy Rock bands that have definitive sound that separate them from the rest of pure pop and rock. The band's main musical influences range from The Beatles and The Smiths, to The Cure and The Eraserheads. With the help of this Old bands, they made a band named Orange and Lemons.

One of the songs of Orange and Lemons was "Yakap sa Dilim" that was the SONG OF APO(which is an OLD BAND). They just revive the song again for them to be POPULAR or FAMOUS in the country because they can't produce songs rapidly and they will decline in becoming FAMOUS in the country. So, they used the song of APO, which is considered as an OLD BAND for them not to decline in becoming FAMOUS, to earn money. This is want I wanted you to know Mr.Bravesfan33, that OLD BANDS are better than NEWER bands, because of the song made by the APO the Orange and Lemons did not decline( revival of the songs of APO).

Not only "Yakap sa Dilim" but also other song from the APO that made them POPULAR such as "Tuloy na Tuloy Pa Rin Ang Pasko".

[2] Air Supply is a duo of soft rock musicians who had a succession of hits worldwide through the late 1970s and early 1980s. It consists of English guitarist and vocalist Graham Russell (born Graham Cyril Russell, 11 June 1950, Sherwood, Nottingham, England)[1] and Australian lead vocalist Russell Hitchcock (born 15 June 1949, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). Air Supply is the most commercially successful Australian group to the present time.

Air Supply is an OLD BAND, wherein their songs was also revived by other NEWER bands and not only that!, also the singers like Regine Velasquez. The song was " I don't wanna miss a thing " that was used by the singer. Not only this song but the following song was been Popular and was revived by New bands and singers as well.

THE FOLLOWING SONGS are ;

"Lost In Love"
"All Out of Love"

"Every Woman In The World"
"The One That You Love"
"Here I Am (Just When I Thought I Was Over You)"
"Sweet Dreams"
"Even The Nights Are Better"
"Young Love"
"Two Less Lonely People In The World"
"Making Love Out Of Nothing At All"

"Just As I Am"
"The Power Of Love (You Are My Lady)"
"Lonely Is The Night"
"Without You"
"Goodbye"
"Someone"

In this point, Most of the Newer Bands revived songs of the Older Bands for them to be Popular, and will not decline in becoming Popular.So it only means that OLD BANDS are better than the NEWER BANDS.

Now lets go to Old bands like "APO", "The Beatles", "The Smiths", "Metallica", "Air Supply", "fra lippo lippi", "nexus", etc.

This Old Band was very Popular, every concert of them.The seats for their concert is full!!..This only means that they were VERY POPULAR. Not only APO but also THE BEATLES, AIR SUPPLY, etc. Now a days, NEWER BANDS has only few FANS..compared to the OLD bands.

My point is that the SONGS of the OLD BANDS were good compared to the NEWER BANDS. It shows that in this category OLD BANDS are better compared to the NEWER BANDS.

Lets compare the lyrics again of the OLD BANDS and the NEWER BANDS. The LYRICS of the OLD BANDS were meaningful, often solemn(not shouting, giving the true meaning of it)and favorable to us. Not now, MOST of the NEW BANDS were shouting, they give the meaning of their songs by showing to the people the TUNES of it not the true content.Like HINDER, Slapshock, etc.

I will also clarify the work of the OLD BANDS to our songs now. Without the old bands, music can't evolved, to the newer bands. Without them newer bands will only have fewer idea to make sounds,,or music..Can newer bands like Green Day, System of a Down or Anti-Flag have a great lyrics without the older bands?.Older bands are great!.Without the skills of older bands newer bands can't make good lyrics.

And also BASKETBALL and BASEBALL is not related to this ARGUMENT. Composing songs, singing it, giving it meaning, the meaning of the songs is really different in skills of BASKETBALL and BASEBALL. I will clarify that without the ideas of the OLD BANDS in making songs, having great lyrics, tunes the NEW BANDS have a very HARD TIME making a great lyrics, tunes making songs etc.

And also skills in BASKETBALL and BASEBALL has nothing to do in comparing the making of the songs, great lyrics, tunes etc. of the OLD BANDS and the NEWER BANDS.

Please be serious in this DEBATE. Don't include the commentors, this debate is only for two of us, to know if which is better? the OLD BANDS or the NEWER BANDS. You should follow some form of logic/common sense when debating. Keep that in mind.

This was a great debate. By the way i don't wanna hurt anyone, I am just giving my ideas.THANK YOU!
Debate Round No. 2
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xOpuim 4 years ago
xOpuim
BravesFan33's reference to Ray Toro being awesome... yes. Just yes. I squealed when I saw that. But I must point out... what about Frank Iero?
Posted by number1letterA 7 years ago
number1letterA
I would like to add to this arguement that time has nothing to do with the quality in bands. Every generation has atleast one good band. So to have this arguement itself you would create the issue of quality with quantity. And Bravesfan I challenge you to an arguement if you are willing to proove that Joe Satriani is overated. He is one of the best of today.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
Bravesfan are you thinking classic rock?

if he is jaunts, that has to be 27 years old to be considered rock music.
Posted by Jaunts 9 years ago
Jaunts
This really is a quite terrible, but simple debate.

Basically 'old' music can be vaguely defined as any music created, say, 5 years before the current date.

Your argument therefore is that the sum total of musical output within the last 5 years is better than the sum total of music ever or, restricted to just rock music, the last 50 years. Now not considering the fact that the judgement of a piece of music is impossible to objectively make it's pretty clear that there's 10x as much music, overall it's going to be better.

Possibly you will say that you can't simply put the sum total of one against the other, but if you are simple going to cherry pick 5 bands from each, it's exactly the same.

Clearly, personally, the music from recent times is reaching you on a more profound level and therefore you don't see the appeal of 'old' music, but you can not then simply judge all 'old' music as bad.

Ultimately no one is going to win this debate as there is no objective answer, it's impossible to say whether a piece of music is better than. We have only consensus and vague guidelines and even then you're still at liberty to completely disagree.

I myself quite like singer songwriters from the 60s and 70s so the opening poster is clearly absolutely wrong.
Posted by Chuckles 9 years ago
Chuckles
well, the comment section is outta control. i'd like to say that there has always been shitty music and there has always been decent music. It isn't much difference young or old. yes, old influenced the new and made it what it was, but like bravesfan said, that does not make it automatically better. I try to find good music in different ways: the "catchy" music, the talented music, etc. there are bands who aren't the fastest thing since a double bass pedal, but they make music that sounds good. There are bands who are made up of virtuosos. they are amazingly talented musicians. ultimately, it comes down to preference. I like a lot of stuff, everything from Norah Jones to Behemoth (look 'em both up).

and one last thing to say before i end this huge comment:
bravesfan, in your first argument, you basically describe rock music's structure: find a catchy riff, and ride it through the song. Other music uses Narrative song structure to use riffs to introduce more riffs. both are awesome, like i said, it's all about what you prefer. sorry for the huge comment, ppl were pissing me off.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
I like the example of Queen.
If you go onto rhapsody.com and you look at bands influenced by Queen, they're some of the ones you've mentioned.

I really think bravesfan that you don't know music, you just think that you do. MCR and RHCP are not good bands, they're posers. All my chemical romance does is give emo kids a good reason to cut. i personally believe that they have one good song, teenagers. that is it. not even for th lyrics but for the music.

All you're looking at is the lyrics, but with out the music it wouldnt be a song, it would be someone saying a speech. not everyone can JUST listen to the music. most people only hear the obvious music and the words.
Posted by zainie143 9 years ago
zainie143
your all right!!!...but BANDS in this proposition SHOULD BE IN GENERAL...and remember that without OLD BANDS, NEWER BANDS will have a hard time to make SONGS...like the emo...death metal,,punk,,hardcore bands etc.

thank you to all for supporting me..
Posted by coolriser092 9 years ago
coolriser092
Exactly Aziar- LISTEN TO DAVID GILMOUR. He is a genius, musical prodigy. This debate has disregarded many key oldskool bands that have defined what rock music is today.

How do you think emos formed? From oldskool rockers!

How do u think goths formed? From oldskool rockers!

Etc.,etc.,etc.
Posted by Aziar44 9 years ago
Aziar44
Completely agree with Coolriser. You're just giving System of a Down as an example but not looking at music as a whole. Sure there may be one or two bands that have very meaningful lyrics mixed with phenomenal instrumentals today, but there were so so many more back in "the day." Also you CANNOT put down Pink Floyd, they are musical genius at its best. Listening to all of Dark Side of the Moon or Wish You Were Here takes you to a different place. Every lyric is expressive and powerful and the music itself is amazing. Synthesizers and other instruments I do not even know produce sounds unlike any other bands in their time (and perhaps now even). Listen to When the Tigers Broke Free and try not to have your eyes well up.

Oh and catchiness is absolutely not enough for a band to be great. NSYNC had catchy songs. They are not The Beatles.
Posted by coolriser092 9 years ago
coolriser092
Piss... i cant believe im hearing this. The complexity of old school bands is so much more than the new ones. This is how new songs go: intro, first verse, bridge, chorus, bridge, chorus, end.

Its so basic that it baffles me. Take the songs Queen made for example. Bohemian Rhapsody is complex not only musically, but vocally too. I have never heard anyone sing the begin inning of that song properly.

I agree some bands today have intelligent lyrics and good riffs, but if we take a step back and look at today's bands as a whole, there are too many emos and goths to ever create music pleasing to the ears.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by hprulz 6 years ago
hprulz
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 fesoj 8 years ago
fesoj
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 pirates1434 9 years ago
pirates1434
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 bigdog 9 years ago
bigdog
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 Whiskyclone 9 years ago
Whiskyclone
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 SandlasJuagas 9 years ago
SandlasJuagas
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 Jaunts 9 years ago
Jaunts
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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 Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
BravesFan33zainie143Tied
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