The Instigator
crackofdawn
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points
The Contender
manutdredseal46
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Border Defence

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
manutdredseal46
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,289 times Debate No: 6089
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

crackofdawn

Pro

I thank you for accepting this debate in advance. I look forward to this debate and will allow you to make the first points.

I assume that we are debating whether or not there should be a border fence. If not please specify in your next argument.
manutdredseal46

Con

>I would like my respected opponent for starting this debate.

>I am going to write out my case in the traditional LD format. My opponent may do the same or just type out her arguments as he pleases. I am assuming that I have chosen the correct side of this debate.

>Angelina Jolie once said that "[She is] the kind of person who doesn't recognize borders. [She doesn't] understand why we think it is okay to keep someone within one border when they are unable to feed their family when they could be getting help somewhere else. [She doesn't] see people as different so I don't understand the idea of borders in this world." I agree with her and it is because I think freedom is essential in international affairs that I negate the resolution:

:: Negated ::

The US should have a border fence

>For clarification during this debate I would like to offer the following definition:

Freedom: the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint

>I would like to offer the following observation:

My opponent has the burden of proof to prove why we should have a border fence. If she fails to do this then CON will in this debate.

:: Value ::

>My value is freedom. Freedom is a global and national concept involving the abilities and liberty of the people. Without freedom no society functions or survives thus making freedom internationally valued. In this debate the freedom at question is whether or not individuals outside of the US should have the ability to find and maintain an occupation inside the borders of the US.

:: Value Criterion ::

>My value criterion is equality. Equality is practiced worldwide and is definitely necessary to maintain societies. I vouch for equality in this debate because I believe that all individuals, no matter what their ethnicity, background, or residency should have the same ability to find a job and maintain it in the US. To win this debate my opponent must prove that these individuals outside of the US do not deserve equality to those inside it.

:: Contention 1 ::

>My first contention is that all individuals deserve the same chances to get a job. There is no conceivable reason that an immigrant would be worth less than a person already living in the United States. This is because of the following:

1. Immigrants and citizens of the US are all people

2. No people deserve more rights than other people

Due to this logic there is no reason that the immigrant community is worth any less than the American community.

:: Contention 2 ::

>My second contention is that illegal immigrants are in need of the job opportunities that exist in the US. My opponent neglects the fact that illegal immigrants come to the US for a REASON. This reason is to survive which they believe (and they are correct) they can achieve by getting a job in the US. According to a Press Briefing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform by Joel Kaplan the economy (and job market) are "the magnet for illegal immigration." The economy and job market in Mexico are decimated so these people which we speak of are forced to travel to the US, the closest country with a decent job market.

:: Contention 3 ::

>My third contention is that a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy. An overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants which come to the US live in California and Texas (http://www.statemaster.com......). These numbers were as of the 2,000 census and are greater at the present. If these millions of immigrants in the work forces of these states were not in the US then the economy of these states would be devastated.

>I eagerly look forward to the response of my esteemed opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
crackofdawn

Pro

I thank my opponent for a good and well-outlined rebuttal.

I would like to start by posting this definition:

Illegal Alien- Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable.
This website is good for anyone wanting background information on the rules and laws regarding immigration into the U.S. (http://www.irs.gov...)

<>

Peopole outside the U.S. do have the ability to find and maintain an occupation inside the borders of the U.S. LEGALLY. It is possible for a foreign person or family to immigrate to the U.S. legally.

<>

Everyone should have equal chances. I believe in that. Why should I have to prove that everyone is equal? This is a matter of fairness and the governments responsibility to its citizens. I will go into more points over this later.

<<1. Immigrants and citizens of the US are all people

2. No people deserve more rights than other people

Due to this logic there is no reason that the immigrant community is worth any less than the American community.>>

You are correct in saying no people deserve to have more rights than others. However by letting people into the U.S. illegally they do gain more rights than others. They don't have to pay income taxes and all public services like garbage collection and education are paid for them with legal U.S. citizen tax dollars. I consider not paying taxes a privelege. So I ask my opponent why it's fair for someone to come here illegally and pay no taxes, while being supported by the taxes of legal citizens. They're not worth any less than the american community, but they are also not worth anymore.

<>

Everything you said is true. However you neglect the fact that jobs don't just pop out of thin air. A survey from 2004 says there is an unemployment rate of about 9.7% in the U.S. This is over 16 million people (http://www.thinkandask.com...). Now in 2004 it was also believed that around 20 million illegal aliens were living in the U.S. at the time. Now about 174,000 illegal immigrants were sent home a year in 2004. In 2008 that number has risen to 350,000 people (http://www.foxnews.com...). So in 2004 we had 16 million unemployed people and 20 million illegal aliens. By some basic math we can deduce that without illegal immigration we would have 4 million extra jobs. This also illustrates my next point which answers the question "Why don't we just let everyone into the country who wants too?" Well quite simply that would mean that people who have lived here all there life would lose their jobs to immigrants. This would increase the amount of employment nationally and cause many illegal immigrants to have nowhere to live. Where do you live if there is nowhere for you to go? That's how slums are created. These slums are just as bad as where the illegal immigrants came from but now it will also include legal U.S. citizens.

<http://www.statemaster.com.........). These numbers were as of the 2,000 census and are greater at the present. If these millions of immigrants in the work forces of these states were not in the US then the economy of these states would be devastated.>>

The economies of these states would not be devastated. This website has a few good pointers (http://www.progressiveu.org...). That website also says a quote that sums up my view on the economy thing quite clearly "Now, as for ruining the economy. This is because most immigrants take our jobs and send all their income back to their home country. This causes our country to lose a significant amount of money, so making it less valuable." It also goes on to state that the reason this happens is because most of the time these illegal aliens send this money back home to their families which "steals" money from the U.S. economy.

Summing up my points here are the downfalls of over immigration

1) Higher unemployment

2) Economy weakens (which causes more losses of jobs)

3) A government has a right to protect it's people before it helps others. I'm all for helping others but you have to put your own people at the top of that list.

I'm pretty sure I covered all my opponents points and look forward to his future rebuttals.
manutdredseal46

Con

>Again, I thank my esteemed opponent for this debate and for his response.

>I will now respond to my opponent's rebuttals 1 by 1 (his definition is accepted).

>Rebuttal of my value (freedom):

Many people have the ability to find jobs legally within the United States as my opponent says. He disregards the quota system, however. As can be seen from http://www.immigralaw.com... there are not unlimited opportunities to immigrate to the United States. Knowing that not all of them will be accepted, these people illegally immigrate.

>Rebuttal of my value criterion (equality):

My opponent agrees with my value criterion. By doing this in he has forfeited a major point. The entire negative or CON case in this debate is that the illegal immigrants DO NOT deserve the same treatment as the United States, and therefore should not be allowed to immigrate which would happen through border fences. Agreeing with me means that my opponent will undoubtedly contradict himself.

>Rebuttal of my first contention (individuals deserve the same chances to get a job):

My opponent jumps strait to the conclusion that I think illegal immigrants should not pat taxes. Of course they should! Even though they are not citizens, they are still obligated due to social contract to pay taxes. Though this is not the current United States system, I believe that it should be which is perfectly valid considering the hypotheticality (I am not sure if that is a word. Could be hypotheticalness?) of this debate.

>A valiant attempt by my opponent, but futile. He does some basic math:

"This is over 16 million people (http://www.thinkandask.com......). Now in 2004 it was also believed that around 20 million illegal aliens were living in the U.S. at the time. Now about 174,000 illegal immigrants were sent home a year in 2004. In 2008 that number has risen to 350,000 people (http://www.foxnews.com......). So in 2004 we had 16 million unemployed people and 20 million illegal aliens. By some basic math we can deduce that without illegal immigration we would have 4 million extra jobs."

This is sadly (for him) invalid. In reality, not ALL illegal immigrants actually HAVE jobs. Most illegal immigrants travel in families, and only one works. Therefore, my opponent's math is incorrect.

>Rebuttal of my third contention (a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy):

My opponent bases his rebuttal here on one site (http://www.progressiveu.org...). I refute the validity of this site. It is extremely biased, has no evidence at all, and last but mot certainly not least: is a blog. It is a thoroughly invalid source in basically every possible manner. My point, "a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy," still stands.

>My opponent ends his post with a short list of what he thinks the downfalls are of illegal immigration. If he wants them to mean anything in this debate, he must elaborate and put them all in paragraph form, not as a simple numbered list.

>Lastly, I thank my opponent once again for his response and eagerly await his next one.
Debate Round No. 2
crackofdawn

Pro

I thank my opponent for a well thought out rebuttal.

I will now respond to them.

<http://www.immigralaw.com...... there are not unlimited opportunities to immigrate to the United States. Knowing that not all of them will be accepted, these people illegally immigrate.>>

That is why people illegally immigrate. However, for reasons posted above and below this, that is not right.

<>

I believe in your value of criterion but not in how you're tying it to illegal immigrants. All people are not equal. I merely said that people should all have equal chances. Then I said "I will go into more points over this later". After that I said "However by letting people into the U.S. illegally they do gain more rights than others." This by default means that the immigrants gain more rights and your value of criterion is not met. Also your statement about what I have to do in this case is correct. As I already mentioned above, law-abiding and tax paying citizens deserve better treatment than those who don't. A felon does not deserve the same treatment with certain things as an ordinary citizen who doesn't break the law.

<>

I merely said that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes and if you support them then you support them not paying taxes. As in Q (you) is to P (illegal immigrants) which is to X (non-tax paying). Because Q affects P which affects X you are affecting X through P. Illegal immigrants do not pay taxes, it's great that you think they should, but that's not what happens.

<>

You're still conceding to my point. Hypothetically, let's say that what you said is true. It doesn't matter, as long as some illegal immigrants have jobs, then some legal U.S. citizens won't have them. As in Q (illegal immigrants with jobs) affects P (jobs available) which affects X (number of jobs available). So as stated before, Q affects X through P.

<http://www.progressiveu.org......). I refute the validity of this site. It is extremely biased, has no evidence at all, and last but mot certainly not least: is a blog. It is a thoroughly invalid source in basically every possible manner. My point, "a lack of illegal immigrants would devastate the US economy," still stands.>>

The site is biased. It is card-stacked information but true. However, my main reason was to use that site to sum up my opinion on illegal immigrants and the economy. My opinion doesn't have any back-up source and neither does my opponent's point (illegal immigrants leaving would devestate the economy) because neither of our scenario's has ever happened. For me it is basic math. The economy gives money to workers in paychecks and the workers put the money back into the economy by buying stocks, food, housing, etc. It also makes money off of taxing incomes. First, illegal immigrants do not pay income tax. This right there takes money away from the U.S. economy. Second, illegal immigrants will often send their money back home to their families in a different country. As in money from our economy goes to the illegal immigrants, and then to their families which then put it into their own economy's. This does not help our economy, it actually hurts it. As in P (illegal immigrants) send Q (money from U.S. economy) to X (family) who use the money in Y (their own economy). No where in this does our economy benefit, our economy actually gets hurt.

Above I mentioned "You are correct in saying no people deserve to have more rights than others. However by letting people into the U.S. illegally they do gain more rights than others. They don't have to pay income taxes and all public services like garbage collection and education are paid for them with legal U.S. citizen tax dollars. I consider not paying taxes a privelege. So I ask my opponent why it's fair for someone to come here illegally and pay no taxes, while being supported by the taxes of legal citizens."

You did nothing to refute this argument, thereby forfeiting it for that round.

Now to elaborate on my points that I had mentioned. I just meant them to sum up what I had already mentioned in the previous round. However as my opponent asked I will elaborate.

1) Higher unemployment

As I have already stated above this is simple math. Jobs do not just pop out of thin air. If we let 5 million people into the country, we have to have the number of jobs that is enough to support those people. Do 5 million jobs just pop up out of thin air? No. There are some jobs they can get that will be open but in other circumstances they will take the jobs of legal tax-paying citizens. This is not right or should it ever be.

2) Economy weakens

If our economy gives money to illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes (one way economy makes money off of us) and then sends more of that money to family back home in a different economy we lose money. The other economy gains money and we lose it.

3) Government protecting it's own people

A government's job is to protect it's own people first. This argument is simply a matter of fairness. If you're starving and cold on the streets it's not right that your government should be helping people in other countries with the same problems before you. Whose government are you if you protect other people over your own?

I lookw forward to my opponent's next response as I'm sure it will be a well-planned and organized one.
manutdredseal46

Con

>I thank my esteemed opponent, crackofdawn, for his rebuttal.

>My opponent begins with saying that the quota system is why people illegally immigrate (agreeing with me). This is quite obviously true, and his has not yet told us why the quota system is acceptable.

>My opponent is probably unaware of this so please do not penalize him: Value Criterion =/= Value of Criterion. However, it is very funny to hear someone use that terminology. Anyway, as I predicted, my opponent contradicts himself. He says that "all people are not equal." He then says that "people should have equal chances." If all people have equal chances then we value them equally. That is fundamental logic. Ergo the contradiction.

>My opponent says that should I support illegal immigrants, I must then support illegal immigrants paying taxes. This is entirely false. I can support one thing without a related thing. For example, let's say I support the Democratic Party. I am 68% Democratic. Does this mean that by supporting the Democratic Party I automatically support all of their beliefs and actions? No. Partial support is possible on Earth, where my opponent lives I cannot say...

>Next, my opponent claims that I have conceded his point. As I clearly stated "This is sadly (for him) invalid," I clearly have not conceded it. I agree with the fundamental principles of his logic but if he does his math correctly he will still find that the United States economy would be severely hurt because of the lack of illegal immigrants.

>My opponent blatantly admits that his source was biased and therefore it should not be used in any way towards your individual voting decisions. As I stated one point ago, my opponent's math is INCORRECT. My opponent must also consider one more thing when he considers the current United States workforce. While not all of the workers are Americans, can this be a good this for society? If the illegal immigrants got the job which the Americans didn't could they be better qualified, have better skills? Indeed, yes. So even if this were to hurt the unemployed population, it actually does still help the United States as a whole.

>My opponent makes the semi-accurate assertion that I did not respond to one of his points last round. I apologize for this lack of clarity, but I did defend my first contention which that statement was attacking.

---:: Opponent's Case::---

>My opponent begins his case with a mention of unemployment. My refutation of this goes back to my value and value criterion. Why don't the illegal immigrants deserve these chances to get jobs when Americans do?

>My opponent is less than half correct. Most of the money made in the United States by illegal immigrants is actually kept in the United States as the person who made their money generally wants to live with their family in the United States. Next, as previously states, the illegal immigrants do work and help the companies that they work for make a profit through products and services.

>My opponent closes his case by saying that governments should protect their own people. This is true. However, most illegal immigrants are from Mexico and the Mexican government does not offer this. This is why immigrants come to the United States.

>I await the next response of my respected opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
crackofdawn

Pro

I thank my opponent for his eloquent response.

<>

The quota system is acceptable because it helps keep unemployment lower and the economy in check. I will get into this with further points.

<>

I did not contradict myself. Just because you have equal chances as someone doesn't mean you are equal to them.

Example:

A group of children are randomly selected for an IQ test. They are each given the same test in the same environment ("ergo" equal chances) but they all score differently. In fact, one scores unusually high at 125 and another unusually low at 70. Are these two children equal? No. I'm not saying that any is a better or worse person but the simple fact of life is that people are created differently and are not equal.

<>

Partial support is possible on this earth but not in this case. You can't support just part of illegal immigration. This debate is over whether or not a stronger border fence is needed. My opponent is trying to prove it isn't by saying illegal immigration is a good thing, I'm doing the opposite. However, if he is saying he doesn't support all the things illegal immigrants do, then in effect, he's not supporting them at all. He's suppose to support how illegal immigrants do things NOW, not how they should be, but how they ARE (caps for emphasis). If he is saying not all the things they do is right then he has forfeited a major part of the argument.

<>

It was used to illustrate an opinion, in no way was it used as a reliable source for some fact.

<>

Yes in a capitalist society the better worker should get the job because this naturally helps the economy. NOT, however, with illegal immigrants. With illegal immigrants the government doesn't make money off of taxing them nor in having the money put into them pumped back into the economy. This is because many illegal immigrants send about $8 billion to their families back home in foreign countries (http://www.cairco.org...). Another after effect of the unemployment is about $15 billion in welfare and services for those who had their jobs displaced by illegal immigrants (http://www.cairco.org...).

<>

Because they end up hurting the economy by taking those jobs and they cost billions in tax payer dollars of which they have not contributed.

<>

So you do admit that some of the money goes out of the U.S., that is, more than an average family would export. Now when you add "some" times 10 million, I think that makes "a lot". This hurts the U.S. economy, and as we see now, when the economy goes down, the unemployment rate goes up.

<>

You concede to my point. The Mexican government, by the way, is getting better. However, the U.S. had to work to get where it is today, and so should other countries. We just didn't have the option to run out when the going got tough. "People" have the power to change their own government because they have the majority. When they're not the majority they're not considered the "People" anymore.

CONCLUSION:

Illegal immigration hurts the economy by exporting their money, not paying taxes, and raising unemployment (which causes tax dollars to go to the unemployed for welfare and other services).

Illegal immigration is not legal. This debate is not over whether or not illegal immigration should become legal, it's over whether or not we should try and stop it.

Illegal aliens take away jobs and oppurtunities from legal americans and gain special priveleges over other legal americans.

Vote PRO in this debate. Most people say why but when I read those writings it normally comes off snotty so I won't say why. You (the reader) have read my points in the conclusion and other parts of this debate and I hope you vote for a better border fence.

P.S. If any of you were wondering what this has to do with a border fence, I'll explain (at the risk of possibly repeating myself). CON was saying the border defence shouldn't get stronger because illegal immigration is good, and I'm saying the border fence should be stronger because illegal immigration is bad.

VOTE PRO.

Thank you and I wish CON a persuasive closing argument (as long as it's less persuasive than mine).
;b
manutdredseal46

Con

>I thank my opponent for his last response.

>My opponent starts out with (almost):

"<>

I did not contradict myself. Just because you have equal chances as someone doesn't mean you are equal to them."

If I have equal chances to yours, aren't we essentially equal? Isn't that what the Constitution means when it says "all men are created equal?" That we all get the same chances to achieve equal stance? This is indeed the case. To respond to my opponent's example, the people are treated the same afterward and receive equal chances.

>My opponent goes on to the topic of illegal immigrants and taxes. He says that I have "forfeited a major part of the argument." This is entirely false. My point was that I can support illegal immigrants existing in America while simultaneously supporting their tax-paying. All deserve the same chances, my opponent has even conceded this. Illegal immigrants, by his logic, should be allowed rights of all citizens in the US.

>Next, my opponent says that society CAN be helped by better workers. He then goes on to yet again discuss taxes. As I have already said this round, illegal immigrants SHOULD pay taxes. Enforcing this is a serious probelm in the United States, and should thus be confronted.

>"Because they end up hurting the economy by taking those jobs and they cost billions in tax payer dollars of which they have not contributed." was my opponent's next response. This is not even an answer to my question of "Why don't the illegal immigrants deserve these chances to get jobs when Americans do?" My question was one of morals and equality. My opponent's answer only addresses economics.

>To my opponent's next remark, I never said that money didn't leave the United States. Most of it, however, stays in the US. This is what my opponent is neglecting. Additionally, unemployment ALWAYS goes up when the economy goes down, this is not characteristic of illegal immigration.

>My opponent closes his rebuttal with "<>

You concede to my point. The Mexican government, by the way, is getting better. However, the U.S. had to work to get where it is today, and so should other countries. We just didn't have the option to run out when the going got tough. "People" have the power to change their own government because they have the majority. When they're not the majority they're not considered the "People" anymore."

I did not concede anything. I said that governments should protect their people. I never said that governments should not be hospitable to those from other nations. They should be more excepting, hence all of my arguments so far.

>My opponent concludes with:

"Illegal immigration hurts the economy by exporting their money, not paying taxes, and raising unemployment (which causes tax dollars to go to the unemployed for welfare and other services)."

Illegal immigration (as my opponent neglected to say) also gives a great number of people to the workforce and these workers are more qualified than unemployed Americans (in general).

"Illegal immigration is not legal. This debate is not over whether or not illegal immigration should become legal, it's over whether or not we should try and stop it."

The two are related. If "illegal" immigration was legal, then it would not need to be stopped.

"Illegal aliens take away jobs and oppurtunities from legal americans and gain special priveleges over other legal americans."

I am opposed to this. I have said this over and over. My opponent cannot hold this over me.

>To end my arguments, I want to go back to something I said in R1. I stated:

"My opponent has the burden of proof to prove why we should have a border fence. If [he] fails to do this then CON will in this debate."

AND

"To win this debate my opponent must prove that these individuals outside of the US do not deserve equality to those inside it."

Now, reader, you must ask yourself:

Has PRO proved that border fences should exist in the United States (on the border)?

Has PRO proved that individuals outside of the US do not deserve equality to those inside it?

If EITHER OR BOTH of these questions is answered with a "no," then it is necessary to vote CON. If BOTH are answered "yes," then vote PRO.

I strongly urge a vote for CON.

>I thank my opponent for debating me. I thank you, reader, for taking the time to read this. Again, I urge a vote for CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Jim92 8 years ago
Jim92
Agreed with before/after - Leaning Con, but chose tie.
Conduct - Same
Spelling/Grammar - Same
Arguments - Close, Tie. Neither swayed my standing significantly.
Sources - Tie.

A tie in my book. Neither argument convinced me.
Posted by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
agree with before/after- pro
Conduct-tie
spelling and grammar-tie
convincing arguments-pro
Most reliable srouces- i put pro considering he lives in a border state that is most affected by illegal immigration as con does not. Therefore i come to the conclusion that pro knows more of what hes talking about since hes lived the experience.
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
Anyone who has or is going to vote on this please explain why you voted. I'm not saying your wrong, I just want to know why I lost on spelling and grammar and Conduct so severely so I might do better on future debates. Thank you.
Posted by manutdredseal46 8 years ago
manutdredseal46
You, too. We'll do it again sometime.
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
You kind of danced around my rebuttals, good debate though.:P
Posted by dieguixd 8 years ago
dieguixd
ok manutdreadseal you are wrong, iif there wasnt for these illegal immigrants economy would be better, people in this country wouldnt be poor, we need a balance im agains the border because is 49 freaking billion dollars, but im against illegal immigrants so first all we have to do is end the stupid war, put national guard on border adn thats it, cause even with the huge fence they still get in
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
That's okay I figured it was just a slip of the mind.
Posted by manutdredseal46 8 years ago
manutdredseal46
Apologies for my gender reference mistake.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
crackofdawnmanutdredseal46Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Jim92 8 years ago
Jim92
crackofdawnmanutdredseal46Tied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
crackofdawnmanutdredseal46Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
crackofdawnmanutdredseal46Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
crackofdawnmanutdredseal46Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by VoodooChild 8 years ago
VoodooChild
crackofdawnmanutdredseal46Tied
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 karththegeld 8 years ago
karththegeld
crackofdawnmanutdredseal46Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03