The Instigator
djcdjc
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Bush is the best president since 1992. Bill Clinton was a failure, and his wife Hillary will be too

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: 1/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,174 times Debate No: 1629
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (51)
Votes (20)

 

djcdjc

Pro

Clinton is the reason 9/11 happened. If Bush senior and other Republican leaders were in office through-out the 90's we would have had a better grasp on the Radical Islamic movement. Now George W. Bush had to come in and clean up the Clinton Administration's mess that is costing Americans BILLIONS of dollars for the war in Afganistan and Iraq, and we'll probably end up having to blow up Iran too. Yet the Dems want to pull out, but Bush doesn't give in to the stupid strategy the Democrats have, thus keeping America safe and secure and STABLE. The reason another 9/11 hasn't happened again is because the Bush administration has basic common sense, whereas the Democrats, or should I say--the majority of the American public are completely stupid. The war is expensive but it's not like there would be free money and gold flowing in the streets if we pulled out. See the majority of the American public doesn't approve of the war in Iraq, and many people sheepishly go along with that, and most the Democrats feed off that too.

What I have learned is the majority of the American public is dumb; if the majority of the American public wanted to jump off a bridge or drink the purple kool-aid, would that be the best thing to do? NO! Exactly, neither is pulling out of Iraq; if we pull out of Iraq, there will be more unstability in the region and Iran would probaly end up going in and invading Iraq, thus making a stronger more dangerous Iran. This is commmon sense people, yet we have professors and politicians and the media(CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Columbia University) wanting to pull out, and blaming America first. All you idiots should move to Canada or something, all it is is treason, and if it weren't for strong leaders like George Bush, we would have had several more 9/11's and our economy and freedom/democracy would be on the brink of extinction. Hillary Clinton, I mean Billary will be no better than her husband and cause the United States to become more unstable, that's why someone who supports the current strategy on the war on terror needs be lead our country for the next four years!
Tatarize

Con

Not only is Bush the worst president since 1992, Bush is the worst president since 1792 (would fall in Washington's first term). Honestly, there's a very reasonable debate that Bush is the worst president ever. Compared to the legacy left by such notable failures as Buchanan, Pierce, and Harding Bush Jr. stacks up well in a race for the bottom. I will however, go ahead and argue the primary claim because it makes my job easier.

---

Clinton is not the reason 9/11 happened. It is hard to calculate what-if scenarios but frankly I wonder what would have happened in 2001 if we had a competent president. Look back at the events over these last seven years and you can see the Bush junior for who he really is, a screw up. His failures in Iraq and Katrina are legendary. Reports as to the state of the intelligence agencies prior to 9/11 were that "the situation was flashing red" and "their hair was on fire". -- Clinton showed steadfast leadership when it came to the Millennium plot and the Bojinka plot. Clinton foiled terrorist plots and appointed terror people and listened to his advisers when they said things like a terrorist plot is being planned, and sleeper cells are in the country.

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

Clinton, would have been at war with Afghanistan where Al Qaida was based in February of 2001, after the CIA and FBI agreed that Al Qaida was responsible for the attack on the Cole.

I'm not saying that Bush let it happen on purpose or that he made it happen on purpose. I am suggesting that if you look back at how incompetent Bush actually is and toss away the rose color glasses with which he was viewed after 9/11 you actually need to ask yourself if somebody else could have done the job. If somebody else wouldn't have been on vacation while Osama bin Laden was determined to attack within the US.

Secondly, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Nothing at all. Iran also has NOTHING to do with 9/11. Clinton's mess? An unneeded war costing thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars lies firmly at the feet of Bush and the neocons who planned the invasion before 9/11. More than anything else this foolish idiotic war has destabilized the united states. It has caused our economy to sink and flounder, our respect in the world to vanish, and has caused *MORE* terrorism. We should leave as soon as possible.

"[T]he majority of the American public are completely stupid."

The majority of Americans can see the forest through the trees. They know when something is an utter disaster.

The war is expensive and we'd be spending 0 dollars on it if we weren't fighting it. Are you actually deluded into thinking that people believe we will be given the 10 billion a week the war costs in flowing gold? I'd gather they figure we simply wouldn't be spending it.

"What I have learned is the majority of the American public is dumb;"

The majority of Americans have seen the light. Not agreeing with you is not the same as ignorance. In fact, if your understanding of world affairs is any sign, I'd tend to believe you have that backwards.

When the English pulled troops out of some regions we find the violence goes down. Troops are a lightning rod for violence. Most of the insurgence are simply fighting against a local occupation and don't travel around. The longer we stay the more power the terrorist groups in the region get.

... The rest of your arguments go into insults and rants.

------------------

Bill Clinton paid down the debt.
George Bush has spent trillions on worthless wars.
Bill Clinton reformed welfare.
George Bush gave a tax cut to the rich.
Bill Clinton oversaw the largest economic expanse in the last 100 years.
George Bush squandered it.

There is little comparison. I suppose Bill Clinton did get a bit of oral sex, but far be it from me to assign that anything close to the category of "failure". After doing that well for the country... we should an office in charge of giving such perks.

Bush has been a disaster and an absolute failure.
Debate Round No. 1
djcdjc

Pro

The rhetoric you're using is full of circular arguments which make your first argument invalid for many reasons. Again, Bus was the best president since '92 because Clinton down-sized the military and failed to recognize radical Islam as a threat to America, and another reason why Clinton was terrible is because he was too busy trying to cover-up the Monica Lewinsky scandal; how can a president lead our country when he's too busy trying to find a way out of getting in trouble for getting a oral sex, and the whole time one of the key players--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was orchestrating 9/11; the 9/11 plot began in 1996, and last time I checked that was under Clinton's watch, but again is was in the oval office getting BJ's and taking to his lawyers about how he can get out of impeachment.

Clinton downsized our military too, which showed he failed to prepare America for the War on terror. And if you knew your history, the anti-American & western movement in the middle east started way back with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Christian Crusades hundreds of years ago. So it's not like Bush pissed off the middle east, they were already angry at the West way before that. Bin Laden started to hate after Saudi Arabia chose the U.S. to protect them over Al-Qaeda from Iraq, when Iraq was invading Kuwait.

But lots of terrorist attacks on the U.S. happened on Clinton's watch, such as the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, the '98 U.S. Embassy bombings, and the 2000 USS Cole attack, and Clinton unlike Bush failed to confront these terrorist groups aggressively enough, which is why the following year they were able execute 9/11.

Ever heard of the Sandy Berger scandal? Obviously not; Berger was Clinton's National Security Advisor who stole classified documents that were related to how the Clinton Administration reacted to intelligence about terrorist groups that threatened America, and Sandy stole them and destroyed them because the Clinton administration knew that since the 9/11 commission was grilling them about how they handled terror threats, and that everyone would find out that the Clinton Administration was not competent enough to confront the terrorist groups, thus allowing 9/11 to happened. And when Bush got into office in 2001 it was too late to catch up with the 9/11 plot, obviously Clinton and his staff was too incompetent to pre-pare the Bush administration with these real treats.

And it doesn't take a genius to figure that out, yet you accept the challenge to my topic and write twice as much as I did full of false rhetoric that proves that you don't know what you're talking about, KNOW YOUR FACTS BEFORE YOU COME ON DEBATE.ORG AND TRY TO WIN AN ARGUMENT. Moreover, you prove that you are part of the majority of Americans that are unbelievably dumb and think Bush is the cause for our countries failures.

You also desperately try and twist my words around by trying to make it look like I said Iraq and Iran had something to do with 9/11, which is NOT WHAT I SAID; I said we are fighting wars in the middle east and in countries like Iraq because of 9/11 and the War on Terror, and I'll spell-it-out for you since you like to twist words around, or maybe you can't comprehend information well, either way this is what I mean: 9/11 was a wake-up call for the U.S. and the West about the Radical Islamist and terrorist movement in the Middle East that is aimed primarily at the U.S. and Western Europe.

The Bush administration did what Clinton failed to do, and confront the War on Terror aggressively to help prevent more 9/11's from happening again, and last time I checked, there hasn't been an attack on U.S. soil since then--which shows that Bush is very competent and doesn't listen to dumb people who don't realize what's at stake. And what is at stake is our country, and that's why I started this debate because I care about the future of our country and I know what's at stake.

Our freedom is at stake, and it's taking a war to maintain our freedom, and wars are free--they cost lots of money, so you can't argument that Bush is carelessly spending money, because the money he's spending is helping to keep our country safe, so Americans back home can live their lives in freedom.

You made this statement:

"When the English pulled troops out of some regions we find the violence goes down. Troops are a lightning rod for violence. Most of the insurgence are simply fighting against a local occupation and don't travel around. The longer we stay the more power the terrorist groups in the region get."

Your false rhetoric tries to make it look like only the English are doing something right, so you are obviously one of those Americans who blame America first, well violence has went down--not because the English are doing something we aren't doing, but it's because the TROOP SURGE is working. We started the war in Iraq, so I'm sure the American soldiers are in the more dangerous areas in Iraq, and leave the other countries who are helping out to secure the less dangerous areas.

You're old enough to where you shouldn't be trying to desperately twist words around and use false rhetoric to make an argument. You also say "troops are a lightning rod for violence," well that's true, DO YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE OUR AGGRESSIVE AND OFFENSIVE STRATEGY IS ATTRACTING THE RADICAL TERRORISTS OVERSEAS, RATHER THAN ON U.S. SOIL. I GUESS YOU'D RATHER HAVE WAR ON U.S. SOIL AND MORE 9/11'S...THAT JUST SHOWS HOW MUCH COMMON SENSE YOU DON'T HAVE.

JUST A LITTLE F.Y.I, since the SURGE is working and violence has gone down, Iraqi citizens starting to feel better about U.S. presence in Iraq, and they are also starting to realize that the Islamic Fundamentalists are doing more harm than good.

You also said:"the longer we stay the more power the terrorist groups in the region get," HAHAHA, I like your creative use of spin and rhetoric tries to make it look like the terrorists are getting stronger since the war started in 2003, YEAH, THAT'S WHY THERE ARE OVER 200,000 DEAD, INJURED, AND ARRESTED INSURGENTS! NOT ONLY THAT BUT MANY LIKE BIN LADIN ARE HIDING IN THE MOUNTAINS. HOW IS A TERRORIST GROUP STRONGER WHEN THEY ARE IN HIDING?

And yes many soldiers and innocent civilians have died, but it's mainly from the TERRORISTS AND THIER ROAD-SIDE BOMBS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS. Last time I checked, hundreds of innocent people die every time a suicide-bomber goes off.

Now we can thank the Clinton Administration for not confronting this issue earlier and allowing them to get stronger through-out the 90's when they were in office! You're right Tatarize, there is no comparison between Bush and Clinton, because Clinton was a failure with the United States National Security, and BUSH HAS DONE A GREAT JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THE PROBLEM!
Tatarize

Con

Bush is absolutely a horrific president:

- He has been an impediment to the 9/11 panel at at every stage. Most recently the CIA was found to have withheld tapes. Bush prevented his staff from being allowed to testify before the panel or if they wanted them to testify Bush insisted it be in a closed session and not under oath. He initially wanted Kissinger to run it and needed to be pressured into it.

- Bush has taken a step backwards with regard to Global Warming, not only pulling out of Kyoto but also denying California the ability to do so on their own.

- The labor department has been the friend big business only serving to undermine labor unions.

- Bush cut funding to health and education programs. A recent example was the veto of S-chip which provided low income parents health care for their children.

- Torture. Far from being the beacon of hope for the world. We're now the guys who abduct you in the middle of the night and waterboard you until you make up something.

- Bush has completely neglected the infrastructure in order to fight his worthless little war (for no good reason) which lead to the collapse of the I35 bridge in August. Other infrastructure is in equally bad shape.

- Bush's rhetoric against Iran is eerily similar to his lies about Iraq. Last month he said that a nuclear Iran would be the start of WWIII though, he had by the time long since seen the intelligence which suggests that Iran shut down it's nuclear program in 2003.

- Bush's EPA, much like the Labor department, FEMA, Justice Department is doing very little to actually do their jobs. The number of criminal cases brought by the EPA has dropped off by more than a third.

- Bush has pushed the national debt to 9.3 trillion dollars. Clinton had paid it down. This has caused the US dollar to become less valued even reaching parity with the Canadian dollar.

- The Department of Homeland security is an utter failure. It has proved to be yet another bureaucracy on top of a bureaucracy. Even after the staggeringly poor job after Katrina, Bush has failed to get any progress on it.

- The illegal Wiretapping program to listen in on phone calls without warrants in violation of 4th amendment rights.

- Allowing No-bid contracts to Haliburton (Cheney's old company) for everything from doing everything in Iraq to cleaning up Katrina. Many of these contracts were cost plus: which is to say that even if you get overcharged and pay a few extra million, that only means you get paid more.

- Bush vetoed stem-cell research / initially stopped the research. The most promising research in recent decades promising cures for pretty much anything caused by some collection of broken cells.

- Bush nominates idiots. Horse lawyers to run FEMA, anti-homosexual bigots for surgeon general, some lady down the hall for the supreme court, worst offenders of some sector to regulate sector.

- Guantanamo Bay. The Government paid people a good chunk of money to blame somebody for something and largely arrested harmless unliked neighbors in tribal skirmishes and has kept them in prison for half a decade *WITHOUT* charges, and largely with them being innocent (though without charges that doesn't mean much).

- Katrina. Beyond the completely incompetent handling of the crisis, even after the initial crisis Bush has failed to follow through on the promises made at a photo op a week after the event standing on some rubble.

...

Wiretaps
Outing of Valerie Plame.
Lying us into a war.
Getting into this stupid war.
Stealing the 2000 election.
Running the debt to 9 trillion.
Attempting to run out the clock and stay in Iraq as long as he can.
Failed to capture Osama Bin Laden
Staunch opposition to fighting global warming.
Politicizing the Justice Department.
... Crap, I'm having a hard time remember them all there are so many. I'm sure the readers can probably add more than a few additions.

What did Clinton do:
- Got a BJ? --Good for him!

---------

And, to address your statements.

- You don't even know what a circular argument is if you think stats and facts qualify as circular.

- You seem to think that the military is simply one thing and can't be transformed. Clinton took the military from a cold war mentality of building up enough nukes to destroy the planet a couple dozen times to a working armed forces. Clinton recognized the threat of Al Qaida, and in fact during the transition period in 2000 briefed the incoming administration about the group repeatedly. Rather than respond properly, they cut funding to counterterrorism.

- Any wasted time due to Monica Lewinsky was due to the Republicans who impeached Clinton even though they had no good evidence that he had committed an impeachable offense. Honestly, they tied up the government over personal matters. If the Republicans believing lying about sex is a crime, they have a lot of explaining to do. There was ample warming in August and September that something was going on, the intelligence agencies were flashing red and rather than respond to them, Bush went on vacation.

- Clinton converted the military from a stockpile of nukes to an actual fighting force. Unless you were planning on fighting terrorists with nuclear weapons, Clinton's military revamping was absolutely required.

- There was no Al Qaida in Iraq. Saddam, for all his faults, was a secular dictator and didn't want a relationship with an extremist religious group.

- At present we have terrorist attacks every week or so in Iraq. The pentagon has stopped releasing the figures because it looks so bad. Under Bush terrorism has sky rocketed.

- The WTC attack in 1993 took place 1 month after Clinton took office. Let me get this right? An attack on the WTC 9 months after you take office is the fault of the previous administration, but an attack on the WTC 1 month after you take office is the fault of the current administration?

- How about the attacks Clinton foiled, the Millennium plot, Bojinka, etc? Clinton would have invaded Afghanistan if the FBI and CIA agreed at the time that Al Qaida was responsible for the Cole. I don't know exactly what that invasion might have uncovered or revealed but it would have been different. Had we had a president at the time focused on terrorism rather than one who in July of 2001 gave the Afgans a large amount of money rather than the invasion they deserved in Feb. 2001 (when the FBI and CIA agreed about the Cole).

- The "Sandy Berger" scandal? Yes. To prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 commission Sandy Berger took printed copies of notes from the National Archive. These notes were copies, not originals, and they originally belonged to Berger during his tenure. He mishandled copies (a computer printout) of his own notes from during his own tenure.

The official report stated "There were not any handwritten notes on the documents Mr. Berger removed from the archives. Mr. Berger did not believe there was unique information in the three documents he destroyed. Mr. Berger never made any copies of these documents." In the end, according to the report, "[Mr. Berger] substituted his sense of sensitivity instead of thinking of classification" in deciding to remove the documents.

- If some country invaded the US, I'd be an insurgent. I don't exactly see how you can properly suggest that dead insurgents make us safer, frankly it seems to just give that dead insurgent's family a reason to hate the US. The point is that they are now becoming part of terrorist groups rather than just living their life as they were prior to the invasion. I seem to recall Bin Laden accomplished a lot from a cave. Bin Laden, where is that guy again? Oh, yeah, Bush let him go.

------------------

You might as well tried to make this debate Bush isn't the worst president ever. You would do about as well.
Debate Round No. 2
djcdjc

Pro

djcdjc forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

Though my opponent has conceded, allow me to reiterate my previous notes, president Bush has been a massive failure, and we are counting the days until he's out of office (372 days, 19 hours). Although, some may object to the personal life of Bill Clinton that isn't part of being president you can't match that up with anything. Bill Clinton got a hummer from a willing adult woman so Bush's massive spending and ballooning of government is acceptable. Bill Clinton lied about sex so Bush's starting an unjustified war on lies and insistence to keep us stuck there until he's out of office costing trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives is acceptable?

Honestly, my opponents only argument was that President Clinton didn't do enough on terrorism. When in fact, he did, during the transition his administration emphasized al Qaida and the threat of terrorism. The millennium plot and Bojinka were foiled. He would have gone to war against Afghanistan in February of 2001 after the CIA and FBI agreed on the USS Cole bombing. This besides the fact that terrorism statistics have skyrocketed since the invasion of Iraq. We are getting more terrorism because of Bush, and this foolish actions will be paying dividends in bad results in the lives of our children's children.

President Clinton had a 60% approval rating for good reason (even after the hummer). President Bush has a 30% approval rating for a good reason too... he's a bad president.
Debate Round No. 3
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheGreatDebate 9 years ago
TheGreatDebate
This is why Clinton helped out with 9/11 occuring.

http://archive.newsmax.com...
Posted by TheGreatDebate 9 years ago
TheGreatDebate
Don't quote Wikipedia, it ruins your credibility because wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE, including you.
Posted by djcdjc 9 years ago
djcdjc
What's up, read and watch what I sent to the Romney campaign, I just found this on youtube a few minutes ago

I thought I'd go online and see what Anne Coulter thinks of Romney and to my surprise she completely agrees with me! Check it out, she talks about how the MEDIA IS AFFAID OF ROMENY!

*(at about 55 seconds she starts to talk about he media and Romney in the 1st link)
Posted by djcdjc 9 years ago
djcdjc
This is why Romney should be President!lol
Posted by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
What about Ron Paul? I've noticed everyone except his fanatic supporters seem to hate him, and I can't entirely discern why.
Posted by ReaganConservative 9 years ago
ReaganConservative
Rudy Giuliani needs to be our next president.
Posted by djcdjc 9 years ago
djcdjc
I was watching the Democratic debate during commercials last night, and I was about to fall a sleep. Republicans are so much better for America. Democrats want re-distrabution of wealth and class war-fare, yeah that's really going to help the economy...NOT!

If our country elects a Democrat, it would just shows how stupid the majority of the American population is.
Posted by djcdjc 9 years ago
djcdjc
what about Tom Tancredo from Colorado?
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Oh yeah NY hates Rudy

thats why he won in 2 landlsides after Dinkins the biggest disaster NY has ever seen

Duncan Hunter is the man-
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
NY hates Guiliani. Seriously pretty low approval. The more you know him the more you don't like him.

I don't think there's much chance on the Republican side. It's a race to the bottom.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
djcdjcTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alex 8 years ago
Alex
djcdjcTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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 artC 8 years ago
artC
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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 TheGreatDebate 9 years ago
TheGreatDebate
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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 chug20 9 years ago
chug20
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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 sana8829 9 years ago
sana8829
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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 GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
djcdjcTatarizeTied
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