The Instigator
Solarman1969
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Rob
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Bush Derangement Syndrome should be officially classified in the DSM for mental illness

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: 12/12/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,906 times Debate No: 335
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (13)

 

Solarman1969

Pro

BDS is so commonplace that it should be given offical designation

and treated by waterboarding the libs : )
Rob

Con

I think any reasonable person can agree that Bush is not the cause of all the world's ills; likewise, we can agree that not everything Bush does is wrong. We can even speculate that he has good intentions for much of what he does, if we are inclined to do so.

Conversely, we can also agree that many of Bush's policies have proven ineffective, and that the controversy surrounding a lot of his programs and decisions is not pure hype. It doesn't take "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to be concerned about warrantless wiretapping, our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, or the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration.

It is, in fact, perfectly possible to strongly criticize someone without resorting to hyperbole or caricaturing, even if people don't often bother to be so balanced in their criticism--on either side.

"Bush Derangement Syndrome", a joke intended to poke fun at the extreme excesses of anti-Bush sentiment, obviously refers to a certain mindset or set of beliefs, not a distinct mental illness. There's nothing unique or special about people's attitudes towards Bush in this respect; prominent politicians frequently face vilification from their critics, or idealization from their supporters.

What is perhaps noteworthy about "BDA" is that it risks trivializing the very real, relevant, substantive criticisms of Bush that are out there. It serves as a shortcut term for dismissing arguments without really considering or explicitly addressing them, and serves only to further polarize and antagonize debaters. In other words, its use promotes an anti-discussion environment. More productive would be simply pointing out when people are exaggerating or fabricating mistakes of Bush's, while conceding when their criticisms are valid; it may take more effort than resorting to cheap labels, but you will come across as much more reasonable and convincing for that effort, and may even change someone's mind on a certain point.
Debate Round No. 1
Solarman1969

Pro

Well lets look at your arguments here and then I will in great detail show the incredible derangement of the Bush haters, and their mental illness as such, and why I really beleive that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM.

this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this. they are DANGEROUS

YOUR POINTS

(1) " I think any reasonable person can agree that Bush is not the cause of all the world's ills "

Well, Gee! Thanks Rob . Thats really big of you! You dont suffer from BDS!

here I can assure you that a LARGE SEGMENT of democrats and hard core leftists DO think that Bush IS the cause of all the world ills, and the US by proxy. No question about it (some Cheney Derangement disorder as well)

And would this not come under the legitmate terms of mental illness

REF for rest of these arguments :

http://en.wikipedia.org...

DELUSIONAL DISORDER
PARNOIA
RAGEAHOLIC

YOUR NEXT POINT( 2) :

Conversely, we can also agree that many of Bush's policies have proven ineffective, and that the controversy surrounding a lot of his programs and decisions is not pure hype. It doesn't take "Bush Derangement Syndrome" to be concerned about warrantless wiretapping, our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations, or the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration.

Ok, Rob I am going to ask you to give me a list of these things, after I pick apart your vague examples here.

a) warrantless wiretapping

there has been much BS about this. The feds have an absolute right to tap communications between people in this nation and foreign hostile entities with possible terorist links WITHOUT a lengthy warrant process. period.

In order to tap YOUR phone, they need a warrant. period.

Do you NOT want the feds to try and monitor and catch terrorists?

If you dont, you are suicidal.

And furthermore, do you think the feds and police have ANY interest in monitoring regular citizens, to try to catch you doing what ? or like they have them time and resources to monitor, say , leftist agitators who genuinely hate this country, but are no real threat to commit violence?

b) our poor diplomacy and consequent alienation of many foreign nations,

This is simply a matter of opinion.

I happen to think our foreign policy right now is GREAT, BECAUSE we have has a president with morals, who has taken firm positions of strength, who hasnt wavered a bit and wont.

I will point to recent events in FRANCE, where a CONSERVATIVE was elected, Sarkozy, and the great things he just said in his state visit with our fine president. We have never been closer.

Ditto for Merkel and Germany.

And look at Pakistan- Musharraf smartly sided with us quickly, and bravely, in fighting the terrorists in his midst.

We are providing leadership to the world in the war with Islamic terrorists.

and the list goes on. so youre just wrong, but again, this is a matter of opinion.

But you certianly cant say that we havent been diplomatic with the UN and in middle east and in the rest of the world, whether or not you agree.

c) the many scandals and examples of apparent corruption and politicization under his administration.

OK, heres where you are going to have to come up with some FACTS, bud.

What scandals? the firing of 8 corrupt attorneys? Plame ? give me a break.

In another debate I brought up the very many REAL scandals and violations of the law and DEATHS involved in the Clinton administrations, that SHOULD give a democrat pause, but apparently do not, such is their LUST for POWER.

CLINTON ABUSE OF POWER THAT DEMOCRATS IGNORE

illegal contrubutions ; indictments ; people fleeing the country ; seizing of the FBI files on opponents ; hiring of secret police to intimidate; personal attorneys showing up with a gunshot to the head; commerce secretary under indictment- ditto. ; gassing and burning of 80 innocent men and women and children ; lying under oath etc etc

a link : http://members.tripod.com...

now on "polticization" Mr Bush has BENT OVER BACKWARDS to try and be nice to the democrats, who have done nothing but DEMONIZE HIM.

He never responds in kind to the vicious partisanship, and is very presidential in this regard.

NEXT POINT

"Bush Derangement Syndrome", a joke intended to poke fun at the extreme excesses of anti-Bush sentiment, obviously refers to a certain mindset or set of beliefs, not a distinct mental illness. There's nothing unique or special about people's attitudes towards Bush in this respect; prominent politicians frequently face vilification from their critics, or idealization from their supporters.

I disagree, BDS does have MANY MANY chracteristics of mental illness, is NOT a joke, and has had VERY detrimental effects on the politics in our country.

The main types of BDS is the 9/11 conspiracy theorists

#1 the 9/11 crazies - this is the main source of my argument, and I assert that these types of people clearly suffer from PARANOIA AND DELUSION.

these people are truly mentally ill and are numerous.

There is another debate on this thread where some idiot tries to logically argue that the Twin Towers were bombed by OUR government, and the PA crash, Flt 93, and the pentagon crash, Flt 11 DIDINT REALLY happen and were really frauds by OUR GOVERNMENT.

This is sick and those that fervently beleive this suffer from BDS and are mental cases who need help.

Here is an article that completely summarizes the insanity of these people

http://www.alternet.org...

Now, Rob, you sound reasonable and that you dont have BDS, but clearly you have to admit, if youre not an over the top partisan democrat that thinking 9/11 happened because , and I quote this above article, on the basic reasoning behond the 9/11 crazies.

" A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for a New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq."

now, are these people a "tiny minority" not unlike what many assert is the same with Islamists.

the reasoning goes " yes, these people are insane and whacked, but dont represent mainstream Democrats and Muslims " etc .

I dont think so.

this is a MAINSTREAM DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT that is POISONING debate,

0 % of republicans and about 30% of democrats fit this profile, which is insane, delusional, paranoid, and mentally ill.

I can point to many other examples of BDS- rooted in the notion that Bush is an evil person who is singularly responsible for all the ills of the world and who is a blood thirsty war monger that only cares out his oil buddies.

The point is that DEMOCRATS are trying to INFLAME these insane notions to try and get POLITICAL ADVANTAGE, and get more votes. they have succeeded to some degree, but now it is coming back to bite them, since Moveon.org and Codepink and the other far lefties are embarrassing them with their actions

thats why this is an important topic- these people are DANGEROUS TO THIS NATION becuase they exert great influence on the democrat party, and are causing GREAT HARM to our NATIONAL SECURITY

why do you think the democrats have had 60 votes to force defeat in Iraq?

why are they against the patriot act and all other intel gathering?

why do they constantly assault this president (and VP) and use increasingly vulgar terms to do so?

becuase of BDS, which is a virulent mental illness, which has infected the body politic

this illness needs to be properly addressed and treated.
Rob

Con

Solarman, I hope you are able to see the irony in criticizing people for being too extremist and absolutist in their distaste for Bush, while at the same time classifying a wide swathe of people who disagree with you as suffering from a mental illness. Responding to black-and-white absolutism with more black-and-white absolutism solves nothing.

Hating a politician does not make one psychotic; surely there are some politicians whom you despise as well? Have you never indulged in hyperbole in attacking some liberal you despise? Indeed, you have engaged in such on this very page. So why is it only a "mental illness" when a conservative is the target of such attacks? Psychology is not a partisan game, Solarman.

I'm not interested in getting into an in-depth point-by-point discussion of the issues with you here. If you wish to discuss them in detail, feel free to make separate debates for each of them; but it would be superfluous of me to address them here, when all I need to do is point out that "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is not a mental illness, even if it is a problem. (And if it is, it is a social one, not a psychopathological one.) We both agree that Bush's actions are neither 100% good nor 100% bad; getting into the details can only obscure that point.

Suffice to say that you lose any credibility in a nonpartisan arena like psychopathology when you make assertions like "0 % of republicans and about 30% of democrats fit this profile, which is insane, delusional, paranoid, and mentally ill." (I especially like how you qualified the "30% of democrats" with an "about", but not the "0% of republicans", which is apparently an absolute number.) Indeed, I am less worried by extreme opponents of Bush than I am by people who are willing to dismiss over 24 million functional American citizens as "insane". How would you go about combating such insanity? Round people who disagree with you up into camps, lock them away until they see the truth? Pathologizing a political position en masse is an early warning sign for fascism. I am not accusing you of this, but I am giving you this warning so you can take a step back, look at how you're merely responding to extremism with more extremism, and consider a more moderate approach to this issue that concerns you so.

Moreover, if it is indeed delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of pure villain, then it is equally delusional to exaggerate Bush to the role of hero and savior. Being a partisan reactionary with a weak, biased grasp on political realities doesn't make you crazy. But I'll agree with you that it's sadly prevalent today--albeit in both parties, not just one or the other.

The real solution to this serious, across-party-lines (not exclusively liberal) social (not psychological) problem is to seek to calmly and unpolarizingly educate and understand the other side; incessantly stereotyping and attacking people for disagreeing with you will merely worsen the problem.
Debate Round No. 2
Solarman1969

Pro

Seasons Greetings, Rob.

Of course you wont answer any of the points I bring up or why.

Altough I am a bit tongue in cheek about this argument, nonetheless, the point about the mainstream democrats descending into completely irrational foaming at the mouth rhetoric about Bush, the level of hatred for him, and the level of belief about wacky conspiracy theories re :

9/11
wiretapping and surveillance
civil liberties and habeus corpus violations

and so on clearly show a level of rage and paranoia that meets DSM stadards for several disorders I listed previously

the saddest thing about it, which always accompanies mentally ill people, is that the actual work that needs to be done in congress is not getting done, and if a very genuinely nice person like George Walker Bush can be Stalinized (see my other debate about the democrats Stalinist tactics)it is a sad state of affairs that isnt likely to improve soon

Now the question is, will the partisan democrats, who can completely over look felonies and gross viiolations of both civil liberites and the law by their own party (the Clintons) , but can try to impeach Bush over non - events like the Plame BS or firing of attorneys or the CIA doing its job

Will these clinically insane dumbocraps then just switch gears and use all the same lines and accusations against Romney, Guiliani or Thompson?

Becuase FOR SURE George W Bush is NOT on the ballot in 08, and there WILL BE another republican in the office in 09.

the DNC will of course try to tie every republican to Bush, as they have poisioned the well agsinst him among the BDS crowd, but that wont work

If they do just turn in one day from BDS to RDS or GDS, then I will have my PROOF that these people are actually insane and need treatment.

And once again, you will see in my arguments with liberals, they cannot refute any of the facts, or come up with any legit arguments, but merely try to attack ME and MY MOTIVES and generalize, which is what people with no knowledge and experience do (leftists)

Of course, Rob, Im sure you will win the popular vote with the teenagers who vote on this silly site.

Someday there will be some actual intellectuals to debate with

There are PRECIOUS FEW of them on the left,since the leftist agruments are by
their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil.

MERRY CHRISTMAS !

solarman
Rob

Con

Solarman, your attempt at critiquing the extreme left, no matter how valid it may or may not be, is entirely undermined when you simultaneously make ridiculous statements like "I really beleive [sic] that it should be classified as a mental illness in the DSM. this is NOT a joke. I am DEAD SERIOUS about this." You just make your own arguments seem ridiculous when you engage in such hyperbole. Exaggerating your criticisms to such extremes makes you seem to observers to be "foaming at the mouth"at least as much as those you critique. If you really want to convince anyone of anything at all, you would be wise to seek the "high ground" and be reasoned, moderate, balanced, and calm in your criticism, rather than responding to hate with more hate.

Let's be clear about this. Real mental illnesses are not sociologically unique. They are, at least in principle, historically and culturally universal. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is specifically about a particular 21st-century politician--George W. Bush--and that in itself, regardless of any other issue, makes it inappropriate and useless for inclusion in the DSM, regardless of the other facts of the matter. Suppose there were a lot of people in the 1st century B.C. who'd been driven to apparent "derangement" by their hatred of Julius Caesar, going to ridiculous excesses in criticizing him--would that justify including "Julius Caesar Derangement Syndrome" in the DSM? The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is not just some trivia book listing every mistaken or exaggerated belief which anyone has ever subscribed to.

All of your arguments thus far have been beside-the-point, factually questionable, logically unconnected, rambling, and full of hate ("clinically insane dumbocraps"? are you serious?), hero worship (why should it matter if Bush is a "very genuinely nice person"? most good people would make terrible presidents), and blatant partisanship ("the leftist agruments [sic] are by their very nature, non-logical and nonsensical, or just plain evil"?)--and pretty much everything _except_ even a smidgen of an attempt at the level of discipline and neutrality which even the soft sciences, like psychology, make. Your conclusions simply fail to follow from any of your premises, even ignoring how dubious many of those premises ("Stalinist tactics"? really now?) are. Your digressions, ranting, and overgeneralizations destroy your own argument much more effectively than I ever could.

That aside, I wish you a very merry Christmas as well, and a happy New Year! :)
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Solarman you realize this is a debate site right? Debate typically involves some sort of intellectual discourse. However, you seem content to simply assert you positions without any credible evidence or logic behind them. Maybe you should start up a blog so you can rant about whatever bigoted thoughts cross your mind, maybe you and Ann Coulter can watch the essentially staged toppling of Saddam's statue and masturbate. Like Coulter, you seem to exist simply to make right wingers look bad and amuse rational people.
Posted by rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Solarman you realize this is a debate site right? Debate typically involves some sort of intellectual discourse. However, you seem content to simply assert you positions without any credible evidence or logic behind them. Maybe you should start up a blog so you can rant about whatever bigoted thoughts cross your mind, maybe you and Ann Coulter can watch the essentially staged toppling of Saddam's statue and masturbate. Like Coulter, you seem to exist simply to make right wingers look bad and amuse rational people.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Boy , you really cant handle can you Lindsay

ha ha ha ha ha

I love irritating fools like you

and clsmsooth, I see you support Ron Paul- I too like some Libertarian perspectives

However, what do you think of his views on foreign policy?

and you dont like Bush, but what would a Kerry presidency have been like?

I think GWB is a very good and principled man , although I think he is a bit of a lib on immigration and spending
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
Solarman, I applaud you. Rob's responses could have never existed and you would have lost this debate. Just a shocking display of fervent political rhetoric completely clouding and distorting the debate at hand and preventing any reasonable discussion/discourse. Really something I've never seen on this site. I'm still sort of baffled actually.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
It's also absurd to suggest only "leftists" despise Bush. Bush and the neocons are Leftists themselves! "Former" Trotskyists, most of them. It just shows that solarman debates from the same simplistic "us vs. them" mentality that he alleges of liberals; the same dichotomy advanced by Bush and his neocon masters.
Posted by la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
"here I can assure you that a LARGE SEGMENT of democrats and hard core leftists DO think that Bush IS the cause of all the world ills, and the US by proxy."

hm. seeing how i am quite liberal and therefore probably know and speak to many more liberals than you, i think i am slightly better qualified than you when i say that No, you're not correct, and i have yet to meet anyone that thinks that Bush is "the cause of all the worlds ills".

thinking Bush is not fit to be president and that he has made some horrible decisions doesn't mean he is the cause of "all the worlds ills"

a ridiculous statement like that just proves to me that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
I do not like Bush at all. But I have a much different historical perspective than most people here, and while Bush's presidency has been incredibly destructive to the causes of liberty and capitalism, he in no way approaches the havoc wreaked by Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR -- whom the Left champions. "Bush is the worst president ever," sadly, is not even close to true.

I frequently vote against my own beliefs on the strength of the logic presented by debaters. Although Solarman and I have vastly different political ideologies, I agree with the premises of most of his debate theses -- but I have yet to cast a vote for him, based on his poor application of logic and reason. This debate is no exception.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
Solarman, you could not disgust me anymore if you tried. You are the most immature person on this site, regardless of age. You always lose debates to teenagers, not based on "more liberals" on this site, or "teenagers voting for teens" on this site (your argument with 'independentprogressive') but because you come up with these ridiculous notions and don't use facts to back them. You make extreme statements that barely make sense (classifying "BDS" as a "mental illness"...come on, seriously). You LOSE IN DEBATES because you CAN'T DEBATE. You lack education.
You lack skill.
You lack tact.
You lack class.
You lack common knowledge.
You lack discernment. (If you don't know what this means, go to your trusty site Wikipedia....hahaha JOKE because this is NOT a trusty site!)
You lack pretty much every qualification to be on this website.

You might be a grown man, but there are more qualifications than age to winning a debate. Try picking a bone with someone over a matter that makes sense. Calling Bush Derangement Syndrome a Mental Illness, and comparing being LIBERAL to being a COMMUNIST/MARXIST is beyond me.

You're repulsive. Everytime I read a comment from you, if I'm not laughing, I'm curled over the toilet.

Beyond anything, I pity you for your lack of knowledge and your ATTEMPT to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Were you raped by a donkey, by chance? Because you hold a terrible grudge. I'm very liberal, but have many conservative friends, and don't judge anybody based on political preference. You're a joke! GROW UP!
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
If Solarman seriously thinks the DSM-IV needs ONE MORE MENTAL ILLNESS in there, he's wrong. The book is about 8 inches thick and filled with mental illnesses that most lay people don't even know exist.

To say that people who don't fancy George W. Bush, regardless of political stance, have a mental disorder just makes you look like YOU HAVE A MENTAL DISORDER, SOLARMAN.

There is never going to be a classified mental illness about people who don't like George W. Bush. If it really were to be recognized, it wouldn't be in 100 years when Bush has been buried for a long time and people don't care about him anymore.

If a single person votes for Solarman, they are not voting based on WHO WOULD WIN THE DEBATE. Listen to what this man is saying--that a personal preference should be MEDICALLY RECOGNIZED AS A MENTAL DISORDER.

I think Solarman is surely the only one who believes that.

That would be like me saying "If you don't like Barack Obama, you are mentally challenged."

The difference is I would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS go to that extreme, because though I am opinionated, unlike Solarman, I am not radical. Solarman and people who think like him are more of a threat to the nation than George Bush himself! And that says a lot coming from me, because according to Solarman's ridiculous theory, I have "BDS" Bush Derangement Syndrome....

.....Solarman, get an education, then come back and try to make a real debate for ONCE on this website.
Posted by albachteng 9 years ago
albachteng
ah, but before 9/11 we hadn't been attacked for over sixty years, (pearl harbor) and wire tapping was considered illegal for all that time. but i'm not interested in arguing with you. to what do you owe this long dry spell?

don't call me kid please.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Solarman1969RobTied
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 ccdem 9 years ago
ccdem
Solarman1969RobTied
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 lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
Solarman1969RobTied
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 Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Solarman1969RobTied
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 Curtispov11 9 years ago
Curtispov11
Solarman1969RobTied
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 rwebberc 9 years ago
rwebberc
Solarman1969RobTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Solarman1969RobTied
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 killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
Solarman1969RobTied
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 la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
Solarman1969RobTied
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 RDJORD 9 years ago
RDJORD
Solarman1969RobTied
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