The Instigator
shwayze
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

Barack Obama is irrational.

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
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: 4/25/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,053 times Debate No: 3798
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (101)
Votes (21)

 

shwayze

Pro

One of Barack Obama's main rallying cries is that Washington is broken, that John McCain and Hillary Clinton have been part of the problem, not the solution. But the only thing Obama will do is expand Washington's power and control like WE'VE NEVER SEEN IN OUR 200+ YEARS AS A COUNTRY (with exception to the New Deal, from the socialist democrat darling FDR). Through nationalized health care, increasing taxes, environmental protectionism, business and corporate regulation, and more bureaucracy, Obama's future plan for Washington makes no sense at all with his original claim. If Washington is the problem and we need change, expanding Washington's power and control is the exact opposite solution that we need. His stance makes no sense and is completely irrational.
Geekis_Khan

Con

Thank you for starting the debate.

My opponent's entire argument reasts on a logical fallacy.

This fallacy is that the only possible way to fix governmental problems is to limit the government. While this is certainly an option, it is not the only option, and other options are not irrational. There is no reason why creating the right programs within the government can't correct certain governmental problems.

Now, looking at my opponent's case against Obama point by point.

On health care, Obama wants to create a system where people that need health care can get it. Obama says that Washington is "broken" here, because the government fails to provide for its people.

On environmental protectionism, yeah, he wants to protect the environment. Using the government as a tool to reduce pollution isn't' in the least bit irrational. The government is "broken" here because it is inefficient in protecting the environment. Obama wants to change that.

On business regulation, we live in a time where companies outsource and here illegal immigrants a lot. Some regulation is a good thing in order to keep these companies in line so they serve Americans as best they can. The government is "broken" here because it fails to keep these companies in line.

On taxes, Obama wants to repeal certain tax cuts on the upper classes in order to pay for these programs. I realize a lot of people don't like taxes, but the money for correcting these problems has to come from somewhere. Obama has, several times, admitted that fixing these problems won't be easy, and that we'll all have to make sacrifices. This is true. If it means that you have to pay higher taxes, deal with it. It's not irrational.

As far as the bureaucracy goes, I don't' see any evidence for this. It really just seems like a straw man argument.

In order for you to accept my opponent's case, you have to accept that the only rational solution to governmental problems is libertarianism. While I do not negate the possible advantages of libertarianism, it is not the openly rational solution. There is no reason why putting certain governmental programs in place can't correct certain problems. Just because you don't think Obama's plan is the best doesn't make it irrational.
Debate Round No. 1
shwayze

Pro

"This fallacy is that the only possible way to fix governmental problems is to limit the government. While this is certainly an option, it is not the only option, and other options are not irrational. There is no reason why creating the right programs within the government can't correct certain governmental problems."

I'm not saying other options are irrational, I'm saying that Barack Obama is irrational when he says Washington is broken and is the problem. His solution is to expand Washington like we've never seen. How does his position make any sense?

"On health care, Obama wants to create a system where people that need health care can get it. Obama says that Washington is "broken" here, because the government fails to provide for its people."

Since when was it the government's responsibility to provide health care for its people? It is no where in the Constitution. Health care is not a right. And dont even get me started on the expenses of national healthcare for 300,000,000 people.

"On environmental protectionism, yeah, he wants to protect the environment. Using the government as a tool to reduce pollution isn't' in the least bit irrational. The government is "broken" here because it is inefficient in protecting the environment. Obama wants to change that."

a) global warming is a crock of sh**. b) carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Even if you believe in global warming hysteria, the percentage of pollution caused from CO2 (businesses) is minimal. Putting the environment as a priority of the economy is mentally insane. Obama wants to tax carbon emissions from the corporate and business sector which would seriously cripple and hurt our economy. It would be a complete disaster. This is the liberal agenda...ideology over common sense.

"On business regulation, we live in a time where companies outsource and here illegal immigrants a lot... The government is "broken" here because it fails to keep these companies in line."

Hmm, do you know why companies are outsourcing? MAYBE BECAUSE OF THE IDIOT CONGRESSMAN (ALMOST ENTIRELY LIBERALS AND A FEW FAKE REPUBLICANS) WHO TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. How do liberals not get it? Do you see what's happening in California? Companies are moving out of CA like wildfire because the legislature in the golden state is taxing the hell of them. Companies are moving to Nevada and Arizona, and California's economy is beginning to suffer.

"On taxes, Obama wants to repeal certain tax cuts on the upper classes in order to pay for these programs."

Where in the Constitution does it talk about wealth redistribution? This is a tactic right out of the Marxist playbook. Why are liberals so fond of socialism? Have they not learned from history?

"Obama has, several times, admitted that fixing these problems won't be easy, and that we'll all have to make sacrifices. This is true. If it means that you have to pay higher taxes, deal with it. It's not irrational."

Ya thats a brilliant idea. Let's raise taxes (at a rate we've never seen in our lives) during a time in our country where our economy is in a recession and our consumer confidence level is at a 26 year low. THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL. How does raising taxes during an economic crisis make any sense whatsoever?
Geekis_Khan

Con

Oh, and just watch the straw man burn...

"I'm not saying other options are irrational, I'm saying that Barack Obama is irrational when he says Washington is broken and is the problem. His solution is to expand Washington like we've never seen. How does his position make any sense?"

No. He's saying that Washington has problems. He's suggesting ways to fix these problems. There are multiple ways to fix these problems, and Obama's plan is one. It's not irrational. In fact, it's very rationally founded.

"Since when was it the government's responsibility to provide health care for its people? It is no where in the Constitution. Health care is not a right. And don't even get me started on the expenses of national healthcare for 300,000,000 people."

I never said it was in the Constitution. I never said it was a responsibility. I never said that it was a right. And Obama's plan is to get every American on one system, as you are claiming. He's trying to fix it so that those who need health care but can't afford it can get it.

Whether it's in the Constitution or not, the government is there because of the social contract. Therefore, it provides for it's citizens. Obama is trying to suggest a way to make the government provide for the citizenry better, whether it is required to or not. This is not irrational.

"a) global warming is a crock of sh**. b) carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Even if you believe in global warming hysteria, the percentage of pollution caused from CO2 (businesses) is minimal. Putting the environment as a priority of the economy is mentally insane. Obama wants to tax carbon emissions from the corporate and business sector which would seriously cripple and hurt our economy. It would be a complete disaster. This is the liberal agenda...ideology over common sense."

1.) I never said anything about global warming. I was talking about pollution. Whether global warming is real or fake, we should protect the environment. Whether global warming is real or fake, I like being able to breathe.

2.) On the whole CO2 thing... Evidence?

"Hmm, do you know why companies are outsourcing? MAYBE BECAUSE OF THE IDIOT CONGRESSMAN (ALMOST ENTIRELY LIBERALS AND A FEW FAKE REPUBLICANS) WHO TAX THE HELL OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR. How do liberals not get it? Do you see what's happening in California? Companies are moving out of CA like wildfire because the legislature in the golden state is taxing the hell of them. Companies are moving to Nevada and Arizona, and California's economy is beginning to suffer."

Okay, so let's stop taxing companies. Then our government will be even more broken, because it won't be able to pay for anything. Good idea.

And I guarantee you they'd still outsource with or without taxes.

"Where in the Constitution does it talk about wealth redistribution? This is a tactic right out of the Marxist playbook. Why are liberals so fond of socialism? Have they not learned from history?"

This isn't Marxism. Taxing to pay for government programs isn't Marxist. And guess waht? The government has the right, BY THE CONSTITUTUION, to tax.

"Ya thats a brilliant idea. Let's raise taxes (at a rate we've never seen in our lives) during a time in our country where our economy is in a recession and our consumer confidence level is at a 26 year low. THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL. How does raising taxes during an economic crisis make any sense whatsoever?"

Can you actually tell me the rate of taxing he's proposing to increase? Can you tell me where? Because so far you've just ranted about how much you hate taxes.

Now, look at the resolution and my opponent's original case. He's claiming that Barack is irrational because the government has problems and he's proposing to expand the government in certain areas. What my opponent fails to recognize is these expanisons are made to address these governmental problems. They're made to correct innefficiencies. This has worked in the past. Replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. The Square Deal. The New Deal.

And, as a matter of fact, these solutions are rationally founded. There is no reason why a government can't correct itself, which is what my opponent is implying. It's irrelevant as to whether you agree with Obama or not. It's irrelevant as to whether you think he's plans will work or not. What matters is that these solutions are RATIONALLY FOUNDED.
Debate Round No. 2
shwayze

Pro

"Okay, so let's stop taxing companies. Then our government will be even more broken, because it won't be able to pay for anything. Good idea."

I'm not saying stop taxing companies completely. I'm saying that the government needs to roll back the taxes on corporate America. The economy is a trickle-down effect. When corporate America can operate and grow the economy, jobs are created and prosperity blooms. It is the upper class that runs the businesses that the lower class works.

"And I guarantee you they'd still outsource with or without taxes."

Of course they're still going to outsource. Do you know how much cheaper it is to do business outside of the United States? Why do you think the private sector continues to outsource? It's because our government over-taxes and over-regulates corporate America.

"Taxing to pay for government programs isn't Marxist. And guess waht? The government has the right, BY THE CONSTITUTUION, to tax."

Again, you didnt read closely enough. I didnt say taxing was marxist. I said redistribution of wealth was and is marxism. You cannot dispute that fact.

And for taxes (from the Wall Street Journal):

"Mr. Obama has recently veered sharply left. He now proposes to solve the looming Social Security shortfall exclusively with higher taxes. …Currently, all wages below about $100,000 are subject to a 12.4% Social Security payroll tax. But all wages above that amount are not subject to the tax. Mr. Obama wants to eliminate the cap, but, in a concession to taxpayers, exempt wages between $100,000 and $200,000. …Mr. Obama's plan would keep Social Security in the black for only three additional years. Under his proposal, annual deficits would hit in 2020, instead of 2017. By the 2030s the system would still run an annual deficit exceeding $150 billion. Mr. Obama's modest improvements to Social Security's financing come at a steep cost. …The top marginal federal tax rates would effectively increase to 50.3% from 37.9%, equivalent to repealing the Bush income tax cuts almost three times over. If one accounts for behavioral responses, even the modest budgetary improvements from Mr. Obama's plan are likely to be overstated. If employers reduce wages to cover their increased payroll-tax liabilities, these wages would no longer be subject to state or federal income taxes, or Medicare taxes. A 2006 study by Harvard economist and Obama adviser Jeffrey Liebman concluded that roughly 20% of revenue increases from raising the tax cap would be offset by declining non-Social Security taxes. Assuming modest negative behavioral responses, Mr. Liebman projected an additional 30% reduction in net revenues, leaving barely half the intended revenue intact. Mr. Obama's plan would also dramatically raise incentives for tax evasion, further degrading revenue gains. Many high-earning individuals evade the Medicare payroll tax by setting up "S Corporations," paying themselves in untaxed dividends rather than taxable wages. John Edwards avoided $590,000 in Medicare taxes this way in the 1990s. …The U.S. already collects far more Social Security taxes from high earners than other countries do. Social Security taxes here are currently capped at about three times the national average wage — far above other developed countries. In Canada and France payroll taxes are levied only up to the average wage. In the United Kingdom, taxes stop at 1.15 times the average wage; in Germany and Japan at 1.5 times."

Barack Obama is a radical leftist.
Geekis_Khan

Con

First, I'd like to point out that my opponent has dropped every point but the point about taxes.

So, I will only be focusing on this in the final round, and you can assume that the CON won those points, since he obviously has no response. Right here, since he didn't flow thorugh with the other issues, I should win on a basic cost-benefit analysis. But I'll show you why he's wrong about taxes before letting you get to the vote.

"I'm not saying stop taxing companies completely. I'm saying that the government needs to roll back the taxes on corporate America. The economy is a trickle-down effect. When corporate America can operate and grow the economy, jobs are created and prosperity blooms. It is the upper class that runs the businesses that the lower class works."

Supply-side economics are no guarantee.

You also brought up that taxing more is bad because of the recession. BUt, individuals (both people and companies) tend to spend less during recessions, which only makes matters worse. So, if we get more money to the government for programs so they can SPEND THAT MONEY, it actually helps the problems of the recession. You see, the government is pretty much guaranteed to spend that money. So, it's not making the recession worse at all to tax.

"Of course they're still going to outsource. Do you know how much cheaper it is to do business outside of the United States? Why do you think the private sector continues to outsource? It's because our government over-taxes and over-regulates corporate America."

You just contradicted yourself. You said that they'd still outsource with or without taxes, and then you say taht they outsource because of taxes. Which is it?

The fact of the matter is, you're blaming outsourcing on overtaxing (when you haven't even given numbers as to this overtaxing), when they'll do it either way. Things like this are why Obama wants some regulation.

"Again, you didnt read closely enough. I didnt say taxing was marxist. I said redistribution of wealth was and is marxism. You cannot dispute that fact."

And you missed the point of my original argument. It's not a redistribution of wealth. It's taxing so we can pay for government programs. That's basic.

And I'm glad that you brought up that Wall Street Journal article, because you obviously didn't read it. It's just paraphrased. Actually, you didn't even paraphrase it, did you? No. You took the paraphrasing from Cato at Liberty, which is the blog of the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think-tank. Here's the page you got it from:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...

So... You're basically taking something out of context that a BIASED THINK TANK took out of context.

Here's the real article is:

http://online.wsj.com...

It's of course talking about his plan to deal with social security. This is my favorite part:

"His proposal would be a very large tax hike, yet it won't be enough."

It continues:

"Mr. Obama's plan fixes less than half of Social Security's long-term deficit, making further tax increases inevitable. The Policy Simulation Group's Gemini model estimates that Mr. Obama's proposal, if phased as Mr. Obama suggests, would solve only part of the problem. A 10 year phase-in, for example, would address only 43% of Social Security's 75-year shortfall. And this is assuming that Congress would save the surplus from the tax increases -- almost $600 billion over 10 years -- rather than spending it, as Congress does now."

I'll let you read the rest of it for yourself.

So, you see, the problem isn't that the taxes are messing things up, as you're trying to imply. In fact, the problem is that the taxes aren't enough! If anything, it would require more taxes!

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent only has the point of taxes left going into Round Four, and this doesn't even flow through. He used his sources out of context and wrong, when in fact they supported a point contrary to what he was trying to get across. Even if you want to accept a few of his points, even if you think that Obama isn't the right choice for president, he has, in no way, proven that Obama is irrational. You must vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
101 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 9 years ago
scissorhands7
shwayze I'm against barrack Obama,

but the idea of a flat tax is idiotic to say the least.

Care to debate me on it?
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
I'm all for helping the poor. But I dont believe it should be done by a government takeover aka socialism and welfare. If the government didnt tax everyone so much, they would have a lot more money to give to charity and to good causes, not be robbed by the government and have their money exploited by social security.

Why are you such a big government person? Do you not believe in personal responsibility? Charity trumps welfare.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
so I conclude

Indeed a vote for Barry is a vote for

- gay rights and moral relativism
- high taxes
- big guvmint
- appeasement of and surrender to terrorists, dictators and thugs
- abortion and baby killing
- prostitution , vice , and graft
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I know his reasoning, because I was there.

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.
But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women's rights or abortionists' rights. Obama's clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois' drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Defends Partial-birth Abortion
Junior U.S. Senator from Illinois

In 1999 he was the only Illinois State Senator to vote against a bill barring early release for (criminal) sex offenders.

He voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers and he voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade.

Also, in 2001, he voted "present" on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.

Just as unsettling is his voting record on abortion.

Twice, Obama voted for bills tax funding of abortion.

In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called' partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.

I know his reasoning, because I was there.

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

I know his reasoning, because I was there.

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the fede
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
If youre for Barry

thats exactly what youre for

" I'm all for baby killing and surrendering to terrorists..."

(a) He will immediately withdraw from Iraq, and surrender

he will also "talk with Ahm-a-nut-job

he will clearly show weakness to the terrorists- thats why they have OPENLY endorsed him

April 16, 2008
Hamas Endorses Obama

On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President.

(b) he clearly supports infanticide and partial birth abortion

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Defends Partial-birth Abortion
Junior U.S. Senator from Illinois

By Donna Hope, published Oct 24, 2006
Published Content: 118 Total Views: 127,286 Favorited By: 34 CPs
Contact Subscribe Add to Favorites
Rating: 4.5 of 5Currently 4.50/512345 Font Font
As transparently biased as the MSM is, it should raise flags when they ooh and ahh (24/7) over a politician, who, quite clearly, is also a Democrat with socialist views and a strong supporter of pro-abortion legislation, particularly the gruesome partial-birth abortion.

I hope that the American people are not blinded by the continual media hype, and make an opinion based on the issues instead of the smooth talking, decent looks, and over-all charm. I've been disappointed to hear even friends of mine mention that simply because Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. speaks well and looks good, that he would make the perfect leader, but when asked what they know about what he stands for, not one of them could give an answer. Apparently, to many, all it takes is appearance and performance, never mind actual accomplishments or experience.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Personally, I'm all for baby killing and surrendering to terrorists...

That's precisely what's on my agenda.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
"Taxes should be cut for everyone and everyone should pay a flat tax like 25%. Rich people shouldn't be punished because they are successful and have worked hard in life."

it sounds like Mclame does support a look at the flat tax

At least we will have a prayer with John- with Barry our government will be full speed toward socialistic paradise

the title of this is "barry is irrational"

I think that hes a rational leftist marxist- the problem is that the marxist philosophy of "Im against the system and am going to bring it down/take it over/ change it" is irrational in an of itself

leftists have proven over and over they cannot govern

look at Calfornia- we will be going bankrupt soon, mark my words

democrats are all talk - they have no idea how to actually effectively run the gargantuan government they create.

and they are cowards and appeasers to boot

it is amazing that 40 % or so of the country is stupid enough to vote for those schmucks

I suppose this clown attrition highlights the typical democrat these days

I will not be suprised if the normal blue collar types dont start running away from the democrats in drioves when they really start to look at the REAL democrat agenda

- gay rights and moral relativism
- high taxes
- big guvmint
- appeasement of and surrender to terrorists, dictators and thugs
- abortion and baby killing
- prostitution , vice , and graft

we will have to see- the TV watching foolish american culture is quite deep and vast, unfortunately

easily fooled by pretty faces and rhetoric
Posted by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
Shwayze, why so angry you ask? You gotta be f-ing kidding me? I can only put up with so much mouth puke and ignorance coming from you and solarman. You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You actually thought we had a good economy before Clinton took office. Where's your response to that? You were what, 4 years old? And you are the expert on economic issues!! HAHAHA F-ing joke you are. You make me sick.

"Rich people shouldn't be punished because they are successful and have worked hard in life."

So you must think middle class people aren't hard workers. Well F-YOU, my family was middle class and we worked hard every day. The tax system IS a disaster especially after Bush gave all his rich cronies a tax cut. Corporations pay their average CEO 280 times what the average worker makes. TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TIMES!!!! The rich keep getting richer the poor and middle class struggle. That is YOUR economics at work. And we give THESE people a tax cut!?!!? Give me a break. Average CEO salary is 9.84 million. Sorry, but I will never feel sorry for even a 30% tax rate for these people. That's still over 7.5 million take home. Cry me a f-ing river. You call yourself a 'Christian Conservative'!! I call you a Christian Hypocrite. Jesus would want to help the poor. The Bible says it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to make it to heaven. I guess that means it's impossible.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
haha why are you such an angry person attrition? just breathe for a second and relax. I'm glad Warren Buffett endorsed Obama. Good for him. Do I care? Absolutely not. The tax system in this country is a disaster. Taxes should be cut for everyone and everyone should pay a flat tax like 25%. Rich people shouldn't be punished because they are successful and have worked hard in life.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 BeatTheDevil89 9 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 cooljpk 9 years ago
cooljpk
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 Toucan_Sam 9 years ago
Toucan_Sam
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 eight-AM 9 years ago
eight-AM
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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